2020 Mississippi Bird EA
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Managing Damage and Threats of Damage Caused by Birds in the State of Mississippi Prepared by United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services In Cooperation with: The Tennessee Valley Authority January 2020 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlife is an important public resource that can provide economic, recreational, emotional, and esthetic benefits to many people. However, wildlife can cause damage to agricultural resources, natural resources, property, and threaten human safety. When people experience damage caused by wildlife or when wildlife threatens to cause damage, people may seek assistance from other entities. The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) program is the lead federal agency responsible for managing conflicts between people and wildlife. Therefore, people experiencing damage or threats of damage associated with wildlife could seek assistance from WS. In Mississippi, WS has and continues to receive requests for assistance to reduce and prevent damage associated with several bird species. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental planning into federal agency actions and decision-making processes. Therefore, if WS provided assistance by conducting activities to manage damage caused by bird species, those activities would be a federal action requiring compliance with the NEPA. The NEPA requires federal agencies to have available and fully consider detailed information regarding environmental effects of federal actions and to make information regarding environmental effects available to interested persons and agencies. To comply with the NEPA, WS, in cooperation with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine whether the potential environmental effects caused by several alternative approaches to managing bird damage might be significant, requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Chapter 1 of this EA discusses the need for action and the scope of analysis associated with requests for assistance that WS receives involving several bird species in Mississippi, including requests for assistance to manage damage and threats of damage on properties owned or managed by the TVA. Chapter 2 identifies and discusses the issues that WS and the TVA identified during the scoping process for this EA and through consultation with state and federal agencies. Issues are concerns regarding potential effects that might occur from proposed activities. Federal agencies must consider such issues during the decision-making process required by the NEPA. Chapter 2 also discusses the alternative approaches that WS and the TVA developed to meet the need for action and to address the issues identified during the scoping process. Issues of concern addressed in detail include: 1) effects on target bird populations, 2) effects on non-target species, including threatened and endangered species, 3) effects of management methods on human health and safety, and 4) humaneness and animal welfare concerns of methods. Alternative approaches evaluated to meet the need for action and to address the issues include: 1) continuing the current integrated methods approach to managing damage, 2) using an integrated methods approach using only non-lethal methods, 3) addressing requests for assistance through technical assistance only, and 4) no involvement by WS. Depending on the alternative approach, several methods would be available to manage damage caused by birds in the state. Appendix B discusses the methods that WS could consider when responding to a request for assistance. Chapter 3 provides information needed for making informed decisions by comparing the environmental consequences of the four alternative approaches in comparison to determine the extent of actual or potential impacts on each of the issues. WS and the TVA will use the analyses in this EA to help inform agency decision-makers on the significance of the environmental effects, which will aid the decision- makers with determining the need to prepare an EIS or concluding the EA process with a Finding of No Significant Impact. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. iv CHAPTER 1: NEED FOR ACTION AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ................................................................................................ 2 1.3 PREPARATION OF AN EA INSTEAD OF AN EIS ..................................................................... 7 1.4 NEED FOR ACTION .................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER 2: ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH MEETING THE NEED FOR ACTION ..................................... 35 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 44 CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3.1 EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................................... 58 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES BY ISSUE ANALYZED IN DETAIL ....................... 60 3.3 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................... 156 CHAPTER 4: RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS 4.1 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND WS’ RESPONSES TO THE COMMENTS .... 157 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS, REVIEWERS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................ 159 5.2 LIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED AND REVIEWERS .......................................................... 159 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................... A-1 APPENDIX B METHODS AVAILABLE TO MANAGE BIRD DAMAGE ....................................... B-1 APPENDIX C THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT ARE FEDERALLY LISTED IN THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ................................................................................. C-1 APPENDIX D STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IN MISSISSIPPI .............. D-1 APPENDIX E ADDITIONAL TARGET BIRD SPECIES THAT WS COULD ADDRESS IN MISSISSIPPI .................................................................................................................. E-1 iii ACRONYMS AI Avian Influenza APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association BBS Breeding Bird Survey CBC Christmas Bird Count CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DNC 4,4'-dinitrocarbanilide EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register FY Fiscal Year HDP 2-hydroxy-4,6-dimethylpyrimidine HP Highly Pathogenic LD Median Lethal Dose LC Median Lethal Concentration MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MDAC Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce MDWFP Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NWRC National Wildlife Research Center PL Public Law ROD Record of Decision T&E Threatened and Endangered TVA Tennessee Valley Authority UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WS Wildlife Services iv CHAPTER 1: NEED FOR ACTION AND SCOPE OF ANALYSIS 1.1 INTRODUCTION Wildlife is an important public resource greatly valued by people. In general, people regard wildlife as providing economic, recreational, emotional, and esthetic benefits. Knowing that wildlife exists in the natural environment provides a positive benefit to many people. However, the behavior of animals may result in damage to agricultural resources, natural resources, property, and threaten human safety. Therefore, wildlife can have either positive or negative values depending on the perspectives and circumstances of individual people. Wildlife damage management is the alleviation of damage or other problems caused by or related to the behavior of wildlife and can be an integral component of wildlife management (Berryman 1991, Reidinger and Miller 2013, The Wildlife Society 2015) and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (Organ et al. 2010, Organ et al. 2012). Resolving damage caused by wildlife requires consideration of both sociological and biological carrying capacities. The wildlife acceptance capacity, or cultural carrying capacity, is the limit of human tolerance for wildlife or the maximum number of a given species that can coexist compatibly with local human populations. Biological carrying capacity is the land or habitat’s ability to support healthy populations of wildlife without degradation to the species’ health or their environment during an extended period of time (Decker and Purdy 1988). Those phenomena are especially important because they define the sensitivity