Environmental Assessment Predator
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREDATOR DAMAGE MANAGEMENT IN THE UVALDE DISTRICT OF TEXAS Prepared by: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES in cooperation with: TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE EXTENSION SERVICE OF THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM November 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................................. iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 NEED FOR ACTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................................. 19 1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS EA TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS .................................. 22 1.5 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................................... 22 1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................................... 24 1.7 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ......................................................................................................................... 28 CHAPTER 2: ISSUES AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT..................................................................................................................... 29 2.2 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH PREDATOR DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ........................ 31 2.3 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE ...................................................... 35 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................... 50 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................................................. 59 3.3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR PREDATOR DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ................ 63 3.4 ADDITIONAL STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUES ...................... 64 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................................. 68 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION BY ISSUE .................................................. 114 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS, PERSONS CONSULTED, AND REVIEWERS 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................................... 119 5.2 LIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED ........................................................................................................... 119 5.3 LIST OF REVIEWERS ............................................................................................................................... 119 APPENDIX A – LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................................. A-1 APPENDIX B – METHODS AVAILABLE FOR RESOLVING OR PREVENTING PREDATOR DAMAGE ................................................................................................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C – FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED T&E SPECIES IN THE UVALDE DISTRICT ..................... C-1 ii ACRONYMS ABC American Bird Conservancy AGL Above Ground Level AMDUCA Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act ANG Air National Guard APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Codes of Federal Regulations EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FLIR Forward Looking Infrared FY Fiscal Year GAO United States General Accounting Office GAV General Aviation IC Intracardiac IV Intravenous LPC Livestock Protection Collar MOU Memorandum of Understanding NASS National Agriculture Statistics Service NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historical Preservation Act PEP Post-exposure Prophylaxis SOP Standard Operating Procedure TASS Texas Agriculture Statistics Service TDA Texas Department of Agriculture TDSHS Texas Department of State Health Services T&E Threatened and Endangered TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department TWDMA Texas Wildlife Damage Management Association TWSP Texas Wildlife Services Program USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VTCA Vernon’s Texas Codes Annotated WS Wildlife Services iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE Wildlife is an important public resource greatly valued by people. Wildlife can have either positive or negative values depending on the perspectives and circumstances of individual people. In general, people regard wildlife as providing economic, recreational, and aesthetic 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. Animals have no intent to do harm. They utilize habitats (e.g., feed, shelter, reproduce) where they can find a niche. If their activities result in lost value of resources or threaten human safety, people often characterize this as damage. When damage exceeds or threatens to exceed an economic threshold and/or pose a threat to human safety, people often seek assistance. The threshold triggering a request for assistance is often unique to the individual person requesting assistance and many factors can influence when people request assistance (e.g., economic, social, aesthetics). Therefore, what constitutes damage is often unique to the individual person. What one individual person considers damage, another person may not consider as damage. However, the use of the term “damage” is consistently used to describe situations where the individual person has determined the losses associated with wildlife is actual damage requiring assistance (i.e., has reached an individual threshold). Many people define the term “damage” as economic losses to resources or threats to human safety; however, “damage” could also occur from a loss in the aesthetic value of property and other situations where the behavior of wildlife was no longer tolerable to an individual person. The threat of damage or loss of resources is often sufficient for people to initiate individual actions and the need for damage management could occur from specific threats to resources. Native predatory wildlife performs a vital role in a healthy ecosystem; however, predatory animals can also cause damage or pose a threat to resources, including threats to people. To address damages associated with predatory animals, Chapter 825 in Title 10 of the Texas Health and Safety Code states, “the state [of Texas] shall cooperate through The Texas A&M University System with the appropriate federal…agencies in controlling coyotes, mountain lions, bobcats…and other predatory animals…to protect livestock, food and feed supplies, crops, and ranges.” The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS)1 program is the federal agency responsible for providing federal leadership with managing conflicts with animals. Pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Texas A&M University System, through the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and the WS program have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)2 to conduct a cooperative program to alleviate damage caused by predators. In addition, the Texas Wildlife Damage Management Association (TWDMA), which consists of local cooperative groups, including county governments, private associations, and/or individuals, also signed the MOU. This document will refer to the cooperative program created by the MOU as the Texas Wildlife Services Program (TWSP). To provide efficient program support and assistance, the TWSP has divided Texas into districts for the purposes of implementing a program to manage predatory animals. The Uvalde District includes nine counties in southwest Texas (see Figure 1). The District covers approximately nine million acres (about 6% of the State). About 60% of the District is in the South Texas Plains and 40% in the Edwards Plateau ecological regions. The TWSP in the Uvalde District continues to receive requests for assistance to 1 The WS program is authorized to protect agriculture and other resources from damage caused by animals through the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 USC 426-426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 1329-331, 7 USC 426c). 2 The MOU also allows for the sharing of direct operating costs between the entities associated with providing assistance. 1 resolve or prevent damage occurring to agricultural resources, natural resources, and property, including threats to human safety, associated with Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginianus), coyotes (Canis latrans), feral/free roaming dogs (Canis familiaris), mountain lions (Felis concolor), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), hooded skunks