Final Environmental Impact Statement
FERAL SWINE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT:
A NATIONAL APPROACH
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Invasive Species Council
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
Participating Agencies: U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resource Conservation Service
(This page left intentionally blank.)
Final Environmental Impact Statement
FERAL SWINE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT:
A NATIONAL APPROACH
Type of Statement: Final Environmental Impact Statement
The 50 United States, District of Columbia, and all U.S. Territories
including American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Responsible Official: William H. Clay, Deputy Administrator
USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services
1400 Independence Avenue, SW
Room 1624 South Agriculture Building
Washington, DC 20250-3042
Information Contact: Alton Dunaway, Deputy Director Environmental Compliance
USDA, APHIS Wildlife Services
4700 River Road, Unit 87, Room 2D-07.3
Riverdale, MD, 20737–1234
(301) 851–4007
Cooperating Agencies: USDA Forest Service
201 14
th
Street, Southwest
Washington, DC 20250
Contact: Mr. John Sinclair
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
20 M St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Contact: Mr. Geoff Walsh
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 200
Fort Collins, CO 80525
Contact: Dr. Glenn Plumb
Area Covered by This
Statement:
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Invasive Species Council
1201 Eye Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20005
Contact: Mr. Phillip Andreozzi
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 725
Washington, DC 20001
Contact: Ms. Jennifer Mock Schaeffer
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
4350 North Fairfax Drive #910
Arlington, VA 22203
Contact: Mr. Dudley Hoskins
Participating Agencies: U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Dr. #611
Arlington, VA 22203
Contact: Mr. John Klavitter
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
1201 NE Lloyd Blvd., Suite 100
Portland, OR 97232
Contact: Mr. Marcus Miller
May 27, 2015
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Non-Discrimination Policy
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants
for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and
where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or
in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all
programs and/or employment activities.)
To File an Employment Complaint
If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of
the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be
found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.
To File a Program Complaint
If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination
Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office,
or call (866) 632–9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in
the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director,
Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250–9410, by fax (202) 690–7442 or
email at program.intake@usda.gov.
Persons With Disabilities
Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program
complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877–8339 or (800) 845–6136 (in Spanish).
Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by
mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille,
large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).
Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by USDA
over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product
names are mentioned to report factually on available data and to provide specific information.
This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate state
and/or federal agencies before they can be recommended.
CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish and other wildlife—if
they are not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended label
practices for the use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers.
Cover Photo: USDA APHIS Wildlife Services (D.Johnson)
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page ii
(This page left intentionally blank.)
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... XIII
CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................... 1
A.
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
B.
PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................... 1
C. FERAL SWINE IN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS TERRITORIES .................................................... 1
D. NEED FOR ACTION ..................................................................................................................... 5
1. Damage to Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 5
a. Crop Damage .................................................................................................................... 6
b. Predation on Livestock ..................................................................................................... 6
c. Disease Risk to Livestock and Potential for Impact on International Trade ..................... 6
d. Other Agriculture Damage ................................................................................................ 7
2. Damage to Natural Resources ............................................................................................... 7
a. Habitat Damage ................................................................................................................. 7
b. Impacts on Wildlife ........................................................................................................... 7
c. Water Quality Impacts ...................................................................................................... 8
3. Damage to Property .............................................................................................................. 9
a. Landscaping, Golf Courses, Gardens, and Other Structures ............................................. 9
b. Vehicle Collisions ............................................................................................................. 9
c. Conflicts with Pets ............................................................................................................ 9
4. Damage to Cultural Resources.............................................................................................. 9
a. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 9
b. Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................ 10
c. Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 10
5. Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................... 10
a. Disease Transmission ...................................................................................................... 10
b. Vehicle Collisions and Habituated/Aggressive Animals ................................................ 11
E. SCOPE OF EIS ........................................................................................................................... 11
1. Geographic Scope ............................................................................................................... 11
2. Relationship to Other Agency, Tribal, and Private Actions ............................................... 11
F. DECISIONS TO BE MADE—DECISION FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 12
G. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... 13
H.
LEAD, COOPERATING, AND PARTICIPATING AGENCY AUTHORITIES AND ROLES ..................... 14
1. USDA, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Wildlife
Services (APHIS-WS) ........................................................................................................ 14
2. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Veterinary Services (APHIS-VS) ... 15
3. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-International Services (APHIS-IS) . 15
4. USDA, Forest Service (USFS) ........................................................................................... 16
5. DOI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ........................................................................ 16
6. DOI, National Park Service (NPS) ..................................................................................... 16
7. National Invasive Species Council (NISC)......................................................................... 17
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page iv
8. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) ......................................................... 17
9. National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) ............................... 18
10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).............................................................................. 18
11. USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) ................................................ 19
12. Memoranda of Understanding .......................................................................................... 20
I. PUBLIC AND TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT ......................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................... 23
A. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 23
B.
CRITERIA FOR ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 23
C.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND THE APHIS-WS DECISION MODEL ........................................ 23
D. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................. 24
1. Alternative 1—Current APHIS Feral Swine Damage Management Program (Current
APHIS FSDM Program/No Action Alternative) ................................................................ 25
a. Collaboration and Project Identification ......................................................................... 25
b. Operations ....................................................................................................................... 25
c. Disease Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 26
d. Research .......................................................................................................................... 27
e. Outreach and Education .................................................................................................. 27
f. Disposal of Swine Removed During Damage Management Activities .......................... 28
2. Alternative 2—Integrated Feral Swine Damage Management Program (Integrated FSDM
Program/Preferred Alternative) .......................................................................................... 28
a. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 28
b. Key Program Components .............................................................................................. 29
c. Similarity with Current APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 1, No Action Alternative)
......................................................................................................................................... 31
d. Unique Aspects of Alternative 2, Integrated FSDM Program ........................................ 32
3. Alternative 3—Baseline APHIS FSDM Program............................................................... 36
a. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 36
b. Key Program Components ............................................................................................... 37
c. Similarity with Current APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 1, No Action Alternative) 38
d. Unique Aspects of Alternative 3, Baseline APHIS FSDM Program .............................. 38
4. Alternative 4—National and Strategic Local Projects Program ......................................... 40
a. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 40
b. Key Program Components .............................................................................................. 40
c. Similarity with Current APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 1, No Action Alternative)
......................................................................................................................................... 41
d. Unique Aspects of Alternative 3, National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects Program
......................................................................................................................................... 43
5. Alternative 5—Federal FSDM Grant Program ................................................................... 46
E.
DISCUSSION OF FERAL SWINE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT METHODS AVAILABLE FOR USE IN ALL
APHIS ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................ 56
1. Technical Assistance ........................................................................................................... 56
a. Education, Communication, and Outreach ..................................................................... 56
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page v
b. Regulatory Support/Advice ............................................................................................ 56
2. Surveillance......................................................................................................................... 57
a. Judas Pigs/Telemetry ...................................................................................................... 57
b. Night Vision and Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) Devices ........................................ 58
c. Camera Systems .............................................................................................................. 58
d. Aircraft Including Unmanned Aircraft ........................................................................... 58
3. Ground Shooting ................................................................................................................. 59
4. Aerial Shooting ................................................................................................................... 60
5. Tracking with Dogs............................................................................................................. 60
6. Live Capture Systems ......................................................................................................... 61
a. Cage and Corral Traps .................................................................................................... 61
b. Drop Nets ........................................................................................................................ 62
c. Snares and Cable Restraints ............................................................................................ 63
d. Foothold Traps ................................................................................................................ 64
7. Non-Lethal Methods ........................................................................................................... 64
a. Exclusion ......................................................................................................................... 65
b. Frightening Devices ........................................................................................................ 65
8. Chemical Methods .............................................................................................................. 66
a. Immobilization and Euthanasia Drugs ............................................................................ 66
b. Reproductive Inhibitors .................................................................................................. 66
c. Repellants ........................................................................................................................ 67
d. Toxicants ......................................................................................................................... 68
9. Research and Development ................................................................................................. 68
10. Non-Federal and Private Control Options ........................................................................ 69
a. Private Control Operators ............................................................................................... 69
b. Hunting ........................................................................................................................... 69
c. Removal by Certified Volunteers.................................................................................... 70
11. Disposition of Feral Swine Captured or Killed for Damage Management ....................... 70
a. On site Carcass Disposal Options ................................................................................... 71
b. Offsite Carcass Disposal Options ................................................................................... 72
F.
ALTERNATIVES AND METHODS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ..... 74
1. Alternatives Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ................................................................. 74
a. Exclusive Use of Private Industry, Volunteers, and Private Hunting ............................. 74
b. No APHIS Involvement in Feral Swine Damage Management ..................................... 75
c. Eradication of Swine from All Areas of Occurrence ...................................................... 75
d. Only Use Non-Lethal Methods to Address Feral Swine Problems ................................ 76
e. Only Use Lethal Methods to Address Feral Swine Problems ......................................... 77
f) Funding to States, Tribes and Territories with Supplemental Assistance from APHIS . 77
2. Methods Dismissed ............................................................................................................. 78
a. Bounty System ................................................................................................................ 78
b. National Legislative Changes ......................................................................................... 78
c. Diversionary Feeding ...................................................................................................... 79
d. Export Swine to Other Countries .................................................................................... 79
e. Donation to Zoos and Animal Sanctuaries ...................................................................... 79
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page vi
G. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES EXCEPT THE FEDERAL
FSDM GRANT PROGRAM ........................................................................................................ 80
1. General SOPs Used by APHIS-WS in Operational Activity .............................................. 80
2. SOPs on Program Monitoring and Compliance.................................................................. 80
3. SOPs to Minimize Harm to Non-Target Species ................................................................ 81
4. SOPs that Minimize Harm to T&E Species ........................................................................ 82
5. SOPs that Minimize the Potential for Non-purposeful Take of Eagles .............................. 83
6. SOPs on Carcass Disposal .................................................................................................. 83
7. SOPs that Minimize Risks to Human Safety ...................................................................... 84
8. SOPs that Minimize Harm to Cultural Resources .............................................................. 85
9. SOPs that Address Animal Welfare Concerns .................................................................... 86
10. SOPs that Address Coordination within States and Territories ........................................ 86
11. SOPs that Address Coordination with Tribes ................................................................... 87
12. SOPs that Address Actions Conducted on Federal Lands ................................................ 87
CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................... 89
A. FERAL SWINE .......................................................................................................................... 89
1. Origin and Morphology of Feral Swine in the United States and Territories ..................... 89
2. Population Status of Feral Swine ........................................................................................ 91
3. Behavior of Feral Swine ..................................................................................................... 94
a. Social Structure ............................................................................................................... 94
b. Use of Habitat ................................................................................................................. 95
c. Capacity for Learning ..................................................................................................... 96
d. Food Habits ..................................................................................................................... 97
4. Life History ......................................................................................................................... 98
5. Genetics............................................................................................................................... 99
B. AGRICULTURE ....................................................................................................................... 101
1. Impacts of Feral Swine on Agriculture ............................................................................. 101
a. Crop Impacts ................................................................................................................. 101
b. Livestock Impacts ......................................................................................................... 102
c. Other Agriculture Impacts............................................................................................. 109
2. Agriculture Resources Which May Be Impacted by Feral Swine Damage Management 110
a. Damage and Disease Risks ........................................................................................... 110
b. Hunting Preserves and Associated Swine Production .................................................. 110
c. Use of Pastures for Swine Production ........................................................................... 111
C.
NATURAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................... 111
1. Natural Resources Affected by Feral Swine ..................................................................... 111
a. Soils, Water and Fungi .................................................................................................. 112
b. Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 118
c. Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 121
d. Climate Change ............................................................................................................. 123
2. Resources Which May be Affected by Feral Swine Damage Management ..................... 124
a. Impacts Associated with Elimination or Reductions in Feral Swine Populations ........ 124
b. Potential Impacts of FSDM Methods ........................................................................... 126
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page vii
D. PROPERTY ............................................................................................................................. 128
1. Resources Affected by Feral Swine .................................................................................. 128
a. Landscaping, Gardens, Golf Courses, Urban Parks/Recreational Areas, Roads, Levees,
Dikes .............................................................................................................................. 128
b. Vehicle Collisions ......................................................................................................... 128
c. Pets ................................................................................................................................ 129
2. Resources Which May be Affected by Feral Swine Damage Management ..................... 129
E. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ................................................................................................ 130
1. Resources Affected by Feral Swine .................................................................................. 130
a. Historic Sites/Resources ................................................................................................ 130
b. Impacts on Native Americans, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial Values .............. 131
c. Hunting .......................................................................................................................... 132
d. Other Outdoor Activities............................................................................................... 133
e. Feral Swine Related Businesses .................................................................................... 134
f. Humaneness and Ethical Concerns ................................................................................ 134
2. Resources Which May be Affected by Feral Swine Damage Management ..................... 138
a. Historic Sites/Resources, Native Americans, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial
Values ............................................................................................................................ 138
b. Hunting ......................................................................................................................... 139
c. Other Outdoor Activities ............................................................................................... 139
d. Feral Swine Related Businesses.................................................................................... 140
e. Humaneness and Ethical Concerns ............................................................................... 140
F. HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY ............................................................................................... 140
1. Impacts of Feral Swine on Human Health and Safety ...................................................... 140
a. Vehicle Collisions ......................................................................................................... 140
b. Risk of Disease Transmission (Zoonoses) .................................................................... 141
c. Aggressive or Habituated Feral Swine .......................................................................... 145
d. Feral Swine as a Food Source ....................................................................................... 146
2. Resources Which May Be Impacted by Feral Swine Damage Management on Human
Health and Safety ............................................................................................................. 147
a. Cooperators and the Public ........................................................................................... 147
b. Operators/Employees .................................................................................................... 148
c. Feral Swine as a Food Source ....................................................................................... 149
G.
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................ 149
1. Key Federal Laws ............................................................................................................. 149
2. APHIS Regulations Regarding Transportation of Feral Swine ........................................ 154
3. Executive Orders ............................................................................................................... 154
4. State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local Laws ......................................................................... 156
CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................................. 159
A. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 159
B. ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO ACHIEVE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ............... 160
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page viii
1. Expand feral swine management programs nationwide to reduce the feral swine
populations and associated threats to agriculture, natural resources, property, animal
health, and human health. ................................................................................................. 160
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 161
b. Alternative 2: National FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) ................................ 167
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 172
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 173
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 175
2. Further develop cooperative partnerships with other pertinent federal, state, territorial,
tribal, and local agencies, and private organizations working to reduce impacts of feral
swine. ................................................................................................................................ 177
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 177
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 177
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 178
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 178
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 178
3. Expand feral swine disease monitoring to protect agriculture and human health. ........... 179
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 179
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 179
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 180
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 180
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 180
4. Develop and improve tools and methods to manage feral swine populations, predictive
models to assess feral swine population expansion and economic impacts, and risk
analyses for feral swine impacts to agriculture, animal health, and human health. ......... 181
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 181
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 182
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 183
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 183
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 183
5. Develop outreach materials and activities to educate the public about feral swine damage
and related activities to prevent or reduce damage. ......................................................... 184
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 184
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 184
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 185
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 185
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 185
6. Coordinate with Canada and Mexico to establish a collaborative plan to address the feral
swine threat along the common borders. .......................................................................... 186
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 186
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 186
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 186
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 187
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 187
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page ix
C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........................................................................................ 187
1. Impact on Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants and Critical Habitats .......... 187
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 188
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 192
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 194
d. Alternative 4: National and Strategic Local Projects ................................................... 195
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 195
2. Impact on Non-target Animals .......................................................................................... 196
a. Alternative 1: Current FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) ................................ 198
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 220
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 224
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 227
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 230
3. Impact on Soils and Water ................................................................................................ 231
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 231
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 236
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 241
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM without Baseline Funding .......................................... 241
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 242
4. Impact on Odor/Air Quality .............................................................................................. 242
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 242
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 249
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 249
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 250
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 250
5. Impact on Recreation ........................................................................................................ 250
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative ..................... 250
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 256
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 259
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 262
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 264
6. Climate Change Impacts ................................................................................................... 265
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 266
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 267
c. Alternative 3: Baseline Program .................................................................................. 268
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 268
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 269
7. Effects on Human Health and Safety ................................................................................ 269
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 269
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 279
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 280
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 281
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 281
8. Socio Cultural Effects ....................................................................................................... 282
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page x
a. Alternative 1: Current FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) ................................ 282
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 291
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 294
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 297
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 300
9. Economic Impacts ............................................................................................................. 301
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) .................... 301
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) .............................. 304
c. Alternative 3: Baseline Funding Program .................................................................... 308
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects ....................................... 311
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program .............................................................. 313
D. SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .......................................................... 315
E. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ........................................................................................ 315
F.
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ..................................... 315
G.
INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION ..................................................................... 316
H. CUMMULATIVE IMPACTS ....................................................................................................... 317
1. Threatened and Endangered Species ................................................................................ 318
2. Non-target Animals ........................................................................................................... 318
3. Water, Soils and Vegetation ............................................................................................. 320
4. Odor/Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 321
5. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 322
6. Climate Change .................................................................................................................. 323
7. Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................. 324
8. Sociocultural Resources .................................................................................................... 324
9. Economic Impacts ............................................................................................................. 326
APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................... 351
APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED........................................................................................ 355
APPENDIX C: PREPARERS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS .................................... 395
A.
APHIS PREPARERS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS .......................................................... 395
B. COOPERATING AGENCY CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS .................................................... 400
APPENDIX D: STATE AND TERRITORY INFORMATION ON FERAL SWINE
MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 403
TABLE 1: STATE AND TERRITORIAL REGULATIONS RELEVANT TO FERAL SWINE MANAGEMENT403
TABLE 2: LEGAL STATUS, MANAGEMENT PLAN INFORMATION, AND POPULATION ESTIMATES BY
STATE/TERRITORY ................................................................................................................. 415
TABLE 3: INFORMATION ON HUNTING FOR FERAL SWINE BY STATE/TERRITORY ....................... 435
APPENDIX E: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
TOOL ............................................................................................................................................. 443
APPENDIX F: MIGRATORY BIRD AND EAGLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOL.............. 467
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xi
APPENDIX G: IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR PROTECTION OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 485
APPENDIX H: FERAL SWINE CARCASS DISPOSAL AND DISPOSITION OPTIONS ....... 495
A.
FOOD USE .............................................................................................................................. 496
1. Advantages ........................................................................................................................ 496
2. Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 496
3. Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 496
B.
COMPOSTING ......................................................................................................................... 496
1. Advantages ........................................................................................................................ 496
2. Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 497
3. Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 497
C. ON-SITE BURIAL ................................................................................................................... 497
1. Advantages ........................................................................................................................ 497
2. Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 497
3. Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 498
D. LANDFILL DISPOSAL .............................................................................................................. 499
1. Advantages ........................................................................................................................ 499
2. Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 499
3. Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 499
E. INCINERATION........................................................................................................................ 499
1. Advantages ........................................................................................................................ 499
2. Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 499
3. Environmental Impacts and Conclusions .......................................................................... 500
F. CHEMICAL AND ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS ................................................................................ 500
1. Advantages ........................................................................................................................ 500
2. Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 500
3. Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 500
G. RENDERING ........................................................................................................................... 500
1. Advantages ........................................................................................................................ 500
2. Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 500
3. Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 500
H.
LEAVE ON-SITE ..................................................................................................................... 501
1. Advantages ........................................................................................................................ 501
2. Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 501
3. Environmental Impacts ..................................................................................................... 501
APPENDIX I: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ............................................................................. 503
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xii
This page left intentionally blank.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xiii
Executive Summary
Feral swine (Sus scrofa) are a harmful and destructive invasive species. Feral swine inflict
significant damage to property, agriculture (crops and livestock), native species, ecosystems, and
historic and cultural resources. They also pose a threat to the health of wildlife, domestic animals,
and humans. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS) program has been working with federal, state,
territorial and local agencies; tribes; organizations; and private individuals to address specific
localized feral swine damage problems. These actions have been successful at the local level, but
the size and range of the national feral swine population and associated damage is increasing. Cost
and complexity of damage management increase as populations increase. There is a need for a
national feral swine damage management (FSDM) program to aid federal, state, territorial, tribal,
local, and private management efforts to reduce or eliminate feral swine populations, damage, and
threats to human and animal health.
This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) reviews the environmental impacts of
alternatives to achieve the APHIS goal of reducing damage to agriculture, natural and cultural
resources; property; animal health; and human health and safety in cooperation with agency
partners, tribes, and others. The alternatives are programmatic in nature and are intended to guide
APHIS cooperation and interactions with program partners and provide a system for allocation of
project resources. Additional state, territorial, or local level analyses will be prepared, as needed,
to address local issues and needs in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
and APHIS’ implementing regulations under NEPA.
In this analysis, the term feral swine is used to refer collectively to free-ranging swine. This term
includes escaped (estray) domestic and pet swine and their descendants, Polynesian pigs, and
Eurasian wild boar and their hybrids. Terms used by other entities may include wild pig, feral pig,
wild hog, and wild boar. Until the late 1980s, feral swine populations in the continental United
States were primarily found in the southern tier of states and states on the west coast. Size and
range of the population in the mainland U.S. has increased from only a small percentage of
counties located in 17 states in 1982 to at least 41 states in 2014. The national feral swine
population is currently estimated to exceed more than 6 million individual animals. High
reproductive capacity and the ability to adapt to nearly any environment enable feral swine to
thrive wherever they are found. Recent rapid range expansion is believed to be primarily due to
humans transplanting them to new areas to increase hunting opportunities, either intentionally
through release of animals into the wild, or unintentionally through escapes from hunting
preserves.
SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS
The scope of the FEIS includes all of the United States and its Territories where feral swine exist
or may occur. This FEIS concerns only the actions of the APHIS program, carried out directly or
in conjunction with agency partners and private organizations and individuals. FSDM actions
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xiv
conducted by entities other than APHIS with funding from APHIS, as allowed under some
alternatives, would also be conducted in accordance with provisions of this analysis.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following objectives were developed to achieve the program goal of reducing feral swine
damage to agriculture, natural resources, property, animal health, and human health and safety.
All alternatives except the current program meet the objectives although the extent to which some
objectives are met varies among alternatives. Relative ability of alternatives to meet program
objectives is detailed in Chapter 4.
• Stabilize and eventually reduce the range and size of the feral swine population in the United
States and Territories in accordance with management objectives of states, territories and
tribes.
• Further develop cooperative partnerships with other pertinent federal, state, territorial, tribal,
and local agencies, and private organizations working to reduce impacts of feral swine to
agriculture, natural resources, property, animal health, and human health.
• Expand feral swine management programs nationwide to protect agriculture, natural
resources, property, animal health, and human health.
• Expand feral swine disease monitoring to protect agriculture and human health.
• Assess disease risk posed by feral swine to domestic swine production and other livestock,
and to human health.
• Develop and improve tools and methods to manage feral swine populations, including field
tests to assess the efficacy for reducing risks to agriculture, natural resources, property, animal
health, and human health.
• Develop predictive models for population expansion and economic impacts of feral swine,
along with risk analysis to agriculture, animal health, and human health.
• Develop outreach materials and activities to educate the public about feral swine damage and
related activities to prevent or reduce damage.
• Coordinate with Canada and Mexico to establish a collaborative plan to address the feral
swine threat along the common borders, including monitoring, research and operational
responses as appropriate.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS
All alternatives would be implemented in accordance with applicable Federal laws and in
cooperation with tribes, agencies, and organizations at the state and territory level. Each of the
alternatives includes use of a full range of legally available nonlethal and lethal methods for
FSDM. Nonlethal methods considered for use or recommended by APHIS include education and
outreach including advice on regulations to address feral swine damage; monitoring (e.g.,
telemetry, Judas pigs, camera systems, aircraft, and night vision or thermal sensing equipment);
exclusion; frightening devices; and repellents. Lethal methods may include shooting (from ground
and aircraft); snares; and live capture and euthanasia (via gunshot or euthanasia chemicals). Cage
and corral traps; drop nets, snares and cable restraints; and foothold traps may be used for live-
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xv
capture of swine. The injectable contraceptive, GonaCon™ was analyzed for potential inclusion in
the program if it is registered and available for use in feral swine. Toxicants and orally
administered reproductive agents are under development, but insufficient information was
available to consider them for use at this time.
Alternative 1: Current FSDM Program. In this case, the No Action Alternative refers to
APHIS FSDM actions prior to the appropriation of additional funds by Congress. It serves
as a starting point for comparison with the other alternatives and can be defined as “no
change” from the status quo. Congress has acknowledged that feral swine are a harmful
and destructive species, and that a federal response to feral swine damage is warranted.
Consequently, this No Action Alternative cannot be selected for implementation unless
Congress determines that a national FSDM program is no longer a priority.
Under the current program, APHIS-WS state programs provide technical assistance
(advice, training, loan of equipment), and, when appropriate and funding is available,
operational assistance with lethal and non-lethal FSDM. An Integrated Wildlife Damage
Management (IWDM) approach is used which incorporates the use or recommendation of a
range of nonlethal and lethal techniques, singly or in combination, to meet the needs of
each cooperator.
APHIS-WS personnel opportunistically collect biological samples from some feral swine
killed during operational control activities and from other sources (e.g., hunter-killed
animals) for disease monitoring. Research, modeling and risk assessment projects are
conducted on an array of issues related to feral swine, but are limited by available funding.
Most APHIS outreach and education efforts are conducted by personnel at the state and
territory level. Work with Canada and Mexico on FSDM has been primarily limited to
interactions between individual APHIS-WS state programs and their Canadian or Mexican
counterparts.
Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative). Under this
alternative, APHIS would serve as the lead agency in a nationally coordinated cooperative
effort with other agency partners, tribes, organizations, and local entities. In states,
territories and tribal lands where management authorities wish to eliminate feral swine
(generally areas with low or moderate feral swine populations), APHIS would form
partnerships to meet their management objectives and reduce the size and range of the U.S.
feral swine population. In states, territories and tribal lands where management authorities
have chosen to retain some feral swine for cultural or recreational purposes (usually areas
with large or well established feral swine populations); APHIS would form partnerships to
meet locally determined management objectives. These objectives may include reducing
statewide populations or eliminating swine from specific locations. Key program
components are threefold:
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xvi
1. Improved baseline operational capacity to respond including improved infrastructure
(e.g. personnel, equipment) and increased cost-share opportunities with partner
agencies, tribes and private entities.
2. National projects including strategic allocation of resources to reduce the range and
size of the national feral swine population, increased research, modeling and risk
analysis, national outreach and education program, and national coordination with
Canada and Mexico.
3. Strategic projects at the local level to address specific vulnerable areas.
Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program. The Baseline APHIS FSDM Program
(Alternative 3) is a nationally coordinated response that improves the baseline operational
capacity of APHIS-WS state programs that assist in states, territories, and tribal lands with
feral swine. This alternative directs the most resources to operational management efforts.
National projects and strategic local projects, as described for Alternative 2, are not
included. Allocations would be based on the size of the feral swine population in each state
and territory. Increased capacity of APHIS-WS state programs to respond would allow for
expanded FSDM including population management in states and territories, education,
outreach, disease monitoring and other activities that may meet national objectives.
Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects Program. This alternative
places emphasis on national projects and strategic local projects, as described for
Alternative 2. Strategic allocation of resources under this alternative would result in no
additional FSDM funding for some APHIS-WS programs serving low priority states and
territories until management objectives are achieved in high priority areas. APHIS-WS
programs in low priority states and territories could continue to assist cooperators as
currently occurs under Alternative 1.
Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program. Under this Alternative, APHIS would
distribute National APHIS FSDM Program funding to states, territories, tribes,
organizations representing native peoples, and research institutions. APHIS would not
conduct any operational FSDM, research or other activities described under Alternative 2.
The National APHIS FSDM Program Manager would administer the Federal FSDM Grant
Program to achieve the key project components described for Alternative 2. The grants
process would require more resources to administer than Alternative 2; consequently, less
overall funding would be available for all aspects of FSDM.
ENVIROMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Alternative 1: Current FSDM Program. The analysis in Chapter 4 found that the current
program, with the inclusion of standardized procedures to minimize risk, may result in the
disturbance or take of a limited number of individual non-target animals, but it would not
adversely affect any populations. State, national, and local ESA Section 7 consultations have been
completed for this program and in no case would this alternative jeopardize the continued
existence of any species. The majority of consultations have found that the program would have
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xvii
either no effect, a beneficial effect, or would not be likely to adversely affect any species.
Nationwide, adverse impacts of feral swine on non-target species are expected to increase in
accordance with increases in the feral swine population.
Use of lead ammunition can pose risks to the environment. Recreational lead ammunition use far
exceeds use by the WS program. APHIS-WS would continue to work to reduce its use of lead
ammunition for ground shooting within the constraints of availability, safety, efficacy and cost.
Most FSDM methods pose little risk to soils, vegetation, and water quality when conducted
according to program policies. Direct and indirect damages from feral swine on soils, vegetation
and water quality are reduced in project areas, but would be expected to continue to increase at the
national level along with the feral swine population.
Carcass disposal is not expected to have a substantive impact on odor or air quality because of
compliance with applicable regulations and coordination with landowners/managers. Total
estimated CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions from the APHIS –WS program including
FSDM activities are well below the Council on Environmental Quality’s suggested reference point
of 25,000 MT/year of direct emissions for detailed analysis and potential mitigation in a proposed
action.
Where feral swine are managed as a game animal, impacts are localized and coordinated with
appropriate regulatory agencies to preserve hunting opportunities. Effects on hunting
opportunities may vary depending on the management status of feral swine in the state, territory or
tribal lands, the size of the feral swine population, and how landowners/managers and natural
resource agencies choose to manage the swine in their area. Feral swine populations and hunting
opportunities have continued to grow under the current program.
The current FSDM program’s effect on aesthetics varies based on the personal values of the
individuals using resources affected by feral swine. Disturbance to recreationists from FSDM
activities is generally minor, short term, temporary and infrequent. Coordination with
landowners/managers is used to identify ways to avoid or minimize potential for impacts.
Human health and safety risks from FSDM are low for many reasons including safety policies,
training and certification, coordination and agreements with landowners and land managers,
adherence to regulations and other program SOPs, and timing and location of the use of methods to
minimize public exposure. FSDM is likely to benefit the public by reducing the potential for
zoonotic disease transmission, swine-vehicle accidents, and risks from aggressive swine.
The Current Program delivers FSDM only where requested by landowners/managers, including
tribal lands and other areas protected for special cultural or historic values. WS coordinates and
consults with the appropriate authorities to prevent adverse effects on cultural or historic resources.
Therefore this alternative does not generally have the potential to adversely affect historic
properties.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xviii
The analysis shows that the current FSDM program is both ethical and humane although
perception of the humaneness of FSDM methods varies, depending on individual philosophies and
experiences.
The current program helps to reduce economic damage caused by feral swine in limited areas, but
overall damage is increasing as the range and size of the feral swine population increases. Hunting
preserves, other hunting related business and private pest control operators that control feral swine
see some economic benefit from current feral swine populations. They are not likely to be
adversely affected by current feral swine removal rates.
Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program. Impacts on most facets of the affected environment
would be similar in nature to Alternative 1 because the methods used for FSDM would be similar.
However, the extent of impacts would increase in accordance with the increase in overall FSDM
activities. Some risk of adverse impacts may decrease if the increased research that would occur
under this alternative identifies ways to improve the efficacy, selectivity and safety risks associated
with existing FSDM methods. Expanded and new programs may require supplemented or new
consultations with regulatory agencies, such as those required for compliance with the Endangered
Species Act and National Historic Preservation Act. With implementation of appropriate
protective measures discussed in the FEIS, conclusions similar to Alternative 1 are expected.
Based on analysis of the ability of alternatives to meet management objectives, this alternative has
the greatest potential for benefits from the reduction of damage and risks to human and animal
health caused by feral swine.
Federal funding associated with this alternative would make it possible for the APHIS-WS
program to commit to only using lead-free ammunition for aerial operations under this alternative
within the constraints of availability. APHIS-WS would continue working to reduce its use of lead
ammunition for ground shooting within the constraints of availability, safety, efficacy and cost.
This should reduce environmental risks associated with use of lead ammunition.
The Integrated FSDM Program would likely raise estimated cumulative APHIS wildlife damage
management program CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions levels but cumulative impacts for
the APHIS-WS program would still be below the 25,000 MT threshold for detailed review
proposed by CEQ.
Where swine hunting is allowed but eradication is established as the state, territory or tribal
management goal, hunting opportunities are likely to be reduced directly through reductions in
swine densities and indirectly as animals become wary of control actions. Where feral swine are
managed as a game animal, hunting opportunities are not likely to be adversely affected.
Additional coordination and consultation with tribes is likely to be needed because of the increased
scope of proposed FSDM activities. Additional resources beyond the current program would be
available to assist tribes with FSDM. Expanded removals in Hawaii and other areas where feral
swine have important traditional uses would not affect public hunting because of existing SOPs to
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xix
preserve hunting opportunities on public lands, but could further reduce availability on private
lands over current FSDM program levels.
Ethics and humaneness considerations would be similar to Alternative 1. However, this alternative
includes research, outreach/education and technical assistance that could improve the selectivity
and humaneness of FSDM methods and overall need for FSDM. Consequently, some individuals
may perceive this alternative as more ethical and humane than the current program even though
more FSDM will be conducted under this alternative.
Program activities would be likely to provide long-term beneficial economic effects from
increased efficiencies in FSDM and reduced feral swine damages. Low-income landowners and
communities would receive more FSDM benefits than under the Current FSDM Program.
Businesses that supply FSDM equipment and supplies would initially benefit from increased sales
but long term program success would reduce purchases over time. Feral swine hunting businesses,
private pest control operators, and people who use feral swine for food could be negatively
affected in the long term except where feral swine are managed as a game animal. Legal fenced
hunting preserves could benefit from reduced opportunities elsewhere.
Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program. Environmental effects associated with this alternative
are expected to be similar in nature to Alternative 1 because the same methods will be used.
However, the extent of impact will be greater than Alternative 1 and slightly greater than analyzed
for Alternative 2, because the level of operational FSDM is expected to be greatest under this
alternative. SOPs and other protective measures discussed for Alternatives 1 and 2 including
compliance with applicable regulations and consultation with tribes, regulatory agencies and local
agency experts, as appropriate, will minimize risks of adverse impacts. Overall risks to the human
environment are still likely to be low. Unlike Alternative 2, there would be no increase in research
under this alternative or associated increase in potential for benefits from research improvements
to FSDM methods.
There would be more operational FSDM and associated reductions in adverse impacts of feral
swine under this alternative in the short term. However, this alternative would be less effective in
containing or reducing the national feral swine population. Consequently, the need for FSDM is
likely to persist longer than under alternatives that use a strategic national approach to contain and
reduce the feral swine population (Alternatives 2 and 4).
This alternative would have greater adverse effects on feral swine hunting opportunities than
Alternatives 1 and 2 in the short term because it allocates the most funding to operational FSDM.
Long term impacts may be less than Alternative 2 because of lower anticipated efficacy in
reducing the range and size of the national feral swine population.
Risks to human health and safety associated with specific FSDM methods would be similar in
nature to Alternative 1 but greater in extent because it would allocate the most funding to
operational FSDM. However, this alternative does not provide additional funding for research,
disease monitoring, and education programs which may improve the safety and efficacy of FSDM
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xx
efforts and better enable agencies to monitor for potential risks from zoonotic diseases in feral
swine.
This alternative would be more ethical and humane than Alternative 1 based on improved FSDM
capacity over the current program, but less than Alternatives 2 and 4 because there would be no
increase in resources for research, outreach/education and technical assistance that could improve
the selectivity and humaneness of FSDM methods and reduce the overall need for FSDM.
Economic impacts of the program would generally be similar to Alternative 2. However, under
Alternative 3 there are likely to be cost inefficiencies associated with the method for allocating
resources under this alternative including less coordination in population monitoring, delayed
response to reports of new populations, lack of projects to address special local and national needs,
the inability to adjust and increase resource allocations to accommodate the difficulties in
removing the last few feral swine in a state. These factors would increase the costs of removal
efforts over time. This alternative would also not benefit from increased research to improve
current methods and develop new techniques or improved national disease monitoring that would
occur under Alternative 2.
Crop damages alleviated would be greater than Alternative 1, and, at first, could be greater than
Alternative 2 because it allocates the most resources to operational FSDM. In the long term, this
alternative would be less effective at reducing crop damages than Alternative 2 because it would
be less effective in containing and reducing the national feral swine population. Economic impacts
on swine hunting, hunting preserves, damage management businesses and individuals who use
swine for supplemental food would be greater than the current program, but slightly lower than
Alternative 2.
Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects Program. Environmental risks
from FSDM activities would be similar in nature to Alternative 1 because the same methods will
be used. The primary difference would be in the magnitude and distribution of impacts. Areas
identified as priorities for National and strategic local projects may be temporarily subject to
increased impacts similar to Alternatives 2 and 3 because FSDM resources would be concentrated
for these areas. In low priority areas, impacts would be similar to Alternative 1, until objectives are
accomplished in high priority areas and resources are reallocated. SOPs and other protective
measures discussed for the other alternatives will minimize risks of adverse impacts. Some risk of
adverse impacts may decrease if the increased research that would occur under this alternative
identifies ways to improve the efficacy, selectivity and safety of existing FSDM methods.
Potential benefits from achieving national feral swine population management objectives would
likely be achieved more quickly for high priority areas under this alternative than under the
remaining alternatives. However, adverse impacts from feral swine may increase in some states
and territories which are low priorities for FSDM until resources are reallocated to those areas,
similar to what currently occurs under Alternative 1.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xxi
Like Alternative 2, this alternative would have a nationally coordinated research component which
could help to improve the efficacy and safety of FSDM methods. It would also increase outreach
and education efforts which could help inform the public and agencies of ways to minimize safety
risks associated with feral swine.
Not all states and territories would realize economic benefits from FSDM activities over levels
which occur under Alternative 1 during the early years of the program. New resources for FSDM
will not be allocated to low priority areas until high priority areas are cleared of swine and FSDM
resources are reallocated. Delays in improvements to FSDM actions in low priority states and
territories are likely to increase the cost and complexity of FSDM in some of these areas. Impacts
on businesses that supply FSDM equipment and supplies, feral swine hunting businesses, private
pest control operators, and people who use feral swine for food would shift over time as project
objectives are accomplished and concentrated FSDM efforts shift to new locations. However,
there would likely be economic benefits to all areas associated with increased research to improve
current methods and develop new techniques and improved national disease monitoring similar to
Alternative 2.
Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program. There would be little to no direct environmental
impacts from APHIS FSDM actions because APHIS would not conduct operational FSDM or
implement other national FSDM activities (e.g., research, disease monitoring, outreach and
education). However, grants would be issued to support program components similar to those
under Alternative 2. Increased cost of program administration and inefficiencies associated with
program delivery would reduce the operational funds for FSDM. New ESA consultations would
be necessary to implement grant programs. Grant recipients would be expected to implement
measures to minimize or avoid adverse environmental impacts similar to those that would be
implemented by APHIS, so environmental risks are expected to be similar to but slightly less in
scope than Alternative 2 because of the reduction in resources for operational FSDM. Similarly,
environmental benefits associated with FSDM would be similar to but lower in magnitude than for
Alternative 2. This alternative would not benefit from APHIS-WS operational damage
management experience or NWRC research and experience in new product development.
APHIS would be responsible for ensuring that grant recipients followed any applicable SOPs and
National Historic Preservation Act requirements. Tribes would not work directly with APHIS-WS
but partnerships among tribes and other agencies would be encouraged. Tribal governments and
Native Hawaiian organizations would be able to apply for grants to protect their own resources.
Perceptions of the humaneness and ethics of this alternative are likely to be similar to Alternative
2, with the exception some individuals may consider this alternative unacceptable because of the
reduced efficacy of the alternative and because there is some uncertainty regarding grant recipient
commitments to implementing the SOPs and other protective measures outlined for APHIS-WS
under alternatives 1-4.
Less effective and efficient elimination of feral swine would prolong damages and associated
economic losses. Many aspects of the national projects could be implemented by grant recipients,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Page xxii
but overall, the national efforts to increase efficiencies (research, education/outreach, monitoring
and international collaboration) would be reduced which would increase costs of FSDM and
reduce potential for economic benefits from effective feral swine damage management.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action
A. Introduction
Feral swine are a harmful and destructive non-native, invasive species. Their geographic range
is rapidly expanding, and their populations are increasing across the United States (U.S.)
(Waithman et al. 1999, Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012). Feral swine are also known to occur in
portions of the U.S. Territories such as American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Feral swine inflict
significant damage to property, agriculture (crops and livestock), native species and ecosystems,
and historic and cultural resources. They also pose a threat to the health of wildlife, domestic
animals, and humans. Damage and risks to animal and human health are expected to increase as
feral swine densities increase and their populations continue to expand across the country. The
difficulty in managing swine damage and associated management costs increases as swine
populations increase.
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) presents alternatives, and reviews the
environmental impacts of the alternatives for a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) national strategy to reduce and, in some areas,
eliminate the risks and damage inflicted by feral swine to agriculture, natural and cultural
resources, and human health.
This chapter provides information on the origin and nature of feral swine in the United States and
its Territories; the need for feral swine population control and damage management (FSDM); the
purpose and scope of this FEIS; decisions to be made; the goals and objectives of a FSDM
program; and the authorities and responsibilities of the lead, cooperating, and participating
agencies involved in preparation of this FEIS.
B. Purpose
The purpose of the proposed action is to develop a nationally coordinated program to reduce
feral swine damage and risks to agriculture, animal health, human health, property, and cultural
and natural resources in the United States and its Territories. APHIS seeks to achieve this goal
cooperatively and with the assistance of other agencies at the international, federal, state,
territorial, tribal, and local levels, and the cooperation of private management interests. The
national feral swine program is intended to guide APHIS interactions with program partners,
provide a system for allocation of project resources, and identify management methods which
APHIS programs may use to address feral swine damage.
C. Feral Swine in the United States and Its Territories
In this analysis, the term feral swine is used to refer collectively to free-ranging swine (Sus
scrofa), belonging to the family Suidae. This term includes escaped (estray
4
) domestic and pet
4
Estray is a term used to describe a domestic animal found wandering in an unfenced area without an owner.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 2
swine and their descendants, Polynesian pigs, and Eurasian wild boar and their hybrids (Chapter
3.B). Terms used by other entities may include wild pig, feral pig, wild hog, and wild boar.
The earliest swine introductions, to what eventually became the United States and its Territories,
occurred in Hawaii, American Samoa, CNMI, Guam, where swine arrived with early human
settlers from Southeast Asia (Larson et al. 2007, American Samoa Historic Preservation Office
2014). Christopher Columbus is believed to have brought the first European domestic swine to
North America in 1493 (West Indies). The Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto is credited with
the first recorded introduction of European domestic swine to mainland North America in
Florida in 1539 (Wood and Barrett, 1979). European settlers and explorers made subsequent
similar introductions to other portions of the United States and its Territories. Historic swine
production practices commonly involved allowing the swine to range free outside fenced
pastures and pens. Escaped animals and animals from free-ranging domestic herds formed the
basis of the feral swine population in the United States and its Territories. In the early 1890s,
Eurasian wild boar were first introduced to North America for use in fenced hunting preserves,
with subsequent introductions to fenced and unfenced areas.
Figure 1-1. Known and confirmed feral swine range in (2012) compared with historic 1982
range. (Miller and Sweeney 2013, National Feral Swine Mapping System
(http://swine.vet.uga.edu/nfsms/)).
Until the late 1980s, feral swine populations in the continental United States were primarily
found in the southern tier of states and states on the west coast. In 1982, feral swine were
thought to occur in only a small percentage of counties located in 17 states (Mayer and Brisbin
1991, Miller and Sweeney 2013, SCWDS 1982). Over the past several years, their numbers
have increased significantly. Feral swine are now known to exist in at least 38 states (Figure 1-
1) and the above-mentioned territories. Based on data from APHIS Wildlife Services’ (APHIS-
WS) National Wildlife Disease Program (NWDP), the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 3
Disease Study, and APHIS’ Veterinary Services (APHIS-VS), feral swine are now present in
approximately 40% of all counties in the United States (Figure 1-2). The national feral swine
population is currently estimated to exceed more than 6 million individual animals (Mayer
2014).
Figure 1-2. The percentage of counties in the United States with feral
swine present from 1982 to 2013 (APHIS unpublished data).
Feral swine populations have increased and expanded or a number of reasons. High reproductive
capacity and the ability to adapt to nearly any environment enable feral swine to thrive wherever
they are found. Feral swine are also a prized game animal for some hunters because of their size,
intelligence, and reputation for aggressive behavior, (e.g., wildhoghunters.com, boarmasters.com
2013; also, see Chapter 3), as well as the meat they provide. Recent rapid range expansion is
primarily due to humans transplanting them to new areas to increase hunting opportunities, either
intentionally through release of animals into the wild, or unintentionally through escapes from
hunting preserves (Waithman et al. 1999). Additionally, large-scale weather events, such as
hurricanes, can force coastal populations of feral swine to move inland (Shaw 2013).
Difference between Non-native Invasive Feral Swine and Native Collared Peccary
Feral swine addressed in this FEIS should not be confused with the native collared peccary
(Pecari tajacu, aka javelina) which may be found in portions of Texas, New Mexico, and
Arizona (Figure 1-3). Collared peccary are not involved in the same scale of conflicts as feral
swine and will not be targeted by any of the FSDM alternatives presented in this FEIS. Although
the visual appearance of the animals may appear similar, collared peccary are not pigs and
belong to a different taxonomic family (Tayassuidae) than feral swine. The collared peccary and
feral swine do not interbreed (Livia 2011).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1982 1988 2004 2009 2013
%ofAllCounties
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 4
Collared peccary have coarse salt and pepper colored fur with a band of white around the neck
that resembles a collar (Figure 1-4). Some differences between the collared peccary and feral
swine are listed in Table 1-1.
Figure 1-3. Range of collared peccary in the United States. Collared peccary,
although pig-like, are native to North America and should not be
confused with feral swine (Natureserve 2014).
Figure 1-4. Collared peccary are native to North America and should not be
confused with non-native, invasive feral swine. (NPS photo -
Cookie Ballou).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 5
Table 1-1. Differences between native collared peccary and non-native, invasive feral swine (Chart adapted from
NPS 2006).
Collared Peccary Feral Swine
Classification Family Tayassuidae Family Suidae
Origin Native to the Americas Introduced from Europe or Asia
Size 40–60 pounds In general, up to 400 pounds
Stomach Complex stomach Simple stomach
Scent Gland Dorsal Scent gland present No dorsal scent gland
Teeth 38 teeth with straight canines 44 teeth with curved canines
Toes 3 toes on hind feet 4 toes on hind feet
Tail Vestigial tail Short tail
Legs Metapodial bones 3 & 4 partially
fused
Metapodial bones 3 & 4 not fused
D. Need for Action
Feral swine can cause significant damage to agricultural and natural and cultural resources and
property, and they pose risks to human and animal health. The International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) has included feral
swine in their listing of “100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species” (Lowe et al. 2000).
In accordance with program authorities (Section H below), the APHIS-Wildlife Services (WS)
program has been working to address specific localized feral swine damage problems. Although
many of these actions have been successful at the local level, numbers of feral swine, their range,
and associated damage is increasing in many parts of the country. Cost and difficulty of damage
management increase as populations increase. There is a need for a nationally coordinated
FSDM program to aid federal, state, territorial, tribal, local, and private management efforts to
reduce damage, and threats to human and animal health from feral swine. A national strategy
may also help federal agencies, states, territories, and tribes in preventing feral swine from
spreading to areas where they do not already occur, and in effectively responding to incipient or
low populations.
This section provides a summary of the types of damage and risks to human and animal health
associated with feral swine. Detailed discussion of the impacts of feral swine is provided in
Chapter 3: Affected Environment.
1. Damage to Agriculture
Feral swine are considered a major emerging threat to American agriculture (Seward et
al. 2004). Recent data shows the proportion of U.S. counties with agricultural production
that also have feral swine present. Over the period of 1998–2013, the proportion of
counties with dairy, hog, and crop production that are affected by feral swine has
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 6
increased. While most large commercial farms have strong biosecurity measures in place
to minimize the chance of contact between feral swine and domestic herds, smaller
transitional herds may be more at risk of threats associated with feral swine. In addition
to the direct damage and disease risks discussed below, disease outbreaks, which
substantially impact interstate and international trade, would not only impact livestock
producers, but also grain producers, particularly corn and soybean farmers, transportation
industry and others.
a. Crop Damage
Feral swine damage crops through direct consumption and other behaviors, such
as rooting, trampling, and wallowing, which can destroy fields or reduce
productivity. Field crops commonly damaged by feral swine include sugar cane,
corn, grain sorghum, wheat, oats, peanuts, and rice, among others. Vegetable and
fruit crops, such as lettuce, spinach, melons, and pumpkins are also damaged
(Schley and Roper 2003, Seward et al. 2004). Rooting out seeds and trampling
seedlings impacts regeneration of forest plantations (Lipscomb 1989). Feral
swine also can reduce the vigor of larger trees, retarding growth or causing a
decline in nut crops, such as pecans and almonds (Campbell and Long 2009a).
b. Predation on Livestock
Feral swine are omnivorous. They will kill calves and lambs, and also
occasionally kill adult animals that are vulnerable while giving birth (Pavlov and
Hone 1982, Choquenot et al. 1997).
c. Disease Risk to Livestock and Potential for Impact on International Trade
Feral swine can serve as hosts for endemic diseases readily transmissible to
domestic livestock. Livestock diseases cause economic loss through morbidity,
mortality, decreased production, decreased feed efficiency, lower reproductive
success, and the costs associated with veterinary diagnostics and treatment.
Severity of impact depends on several factors, including type of disease, size of
operation, and spread before detection. Feral swine have been implicated in both
increasing the likelihood of a disease event and potentially extending a disease
event if one occurs (Meng et al. 2009). A foreign animal disease (FAD) is a
disease that is not found in the United States. These diseases may have been in
the United States at one point, but have been eradicated or have never been
present in this country. Feral swine could potentially play a role in the spread of a
FAD. Emergence of a FAD could cause substantial damage to America’s
economy. A FAD outbreak would not only negatively impact livestock producers
and trade, but also grain producers, corn and soybean farmers, energy companies,
and manufacturing jobs, among others.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 7
d. Other Agriculture Damage
Feral swine damage pasture grasses and consume, contaminate, and destroy
supplemental feed and mineral sources provided for livestock (Wigley 1995, Bach
and Conner 1997). Feral swine also damage farm facilities, such as fences, water
supplies, irrigation ditches, guzzlers (West et al. 2009), and rice field levees
(Bennett 2013).
2. Damage to Natural Resources
a. Habitat Damage
Feral swine consume large quantities of herbaceous vegetation (3–5% of their
body weight daily) and have been linked to 95% declines of understory vegetation
in some systems (Cole et al. 2012). Understory animal species (from arthropods
to mammals) decline with the absence of understory vegetation (Singer et al.
1984). Rooting, soil compaction, and wallowing influence plant community
structure, succession patterns, and nutrient cycles. Consumption of seeds, nuts,
and seedlings also reduces the potential for forest regeneration (Campbell and
Long 2009a), and may influence future over-story composition and reduce tree
diversity directly through consumption of seeds (Tolson and LaCour 2013). Sites
disturbed by rooting and wallowing are often vulnerable to erosion and
colonization by non-native invasive plant species which often prefer disturbed
sites and become established more quickly than many native plants. In some
habitats, feral swine may preferentially browse or uproot protected, sensitive,
unique, or rare plant species.
Habitat damage by feral swine can be most pronounced in wet environments
where plant communities and soils may be more sensitive to disturbance
(Engeman et al. 2003, 2004; West et al. 2009). Near waterways, this can result in
destabilization of banks. Unfortunately, these types of areas are often preferred
by feral swine. Wet soils may make it easier for feral swine to obtain some of the
foods they favor, such as the roots, tubers, and bulbs that are characteristic of
many wetland ecosystems.
Federal land management agencies, Federal agencies such as the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and state, territorial, tribal, local, and
private land management agencies and organizations continually work to preserve
and restore habitat for native species. When resources must be used to restore
sites damaged by feral swine, that money is not available for other essential
projects.
b. Impacts on Wildlife
Feral swine diets overlap with those of native wildlife, including threatened or
endangered (T&E) species, which may result in competition for important and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 8
limited natural food supplies, although documentation of competition is limited
(Mayer 2009a, Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012). Mast crops
5
are a preferred
food of feral swine and also a critical food source for many native wildlife
species. Consumption of seeds, seedlings, and other vegetation reduces
availability for native species (Campbell and Long 2009a, Mayer 2009a). Feral
swine are omnivorous and will prey on many smaller native animals and
invertebrates, including some T&E species such as insects, earthworms, voles,
shrews, turtles, amphibians, and shrub- or ground-nesting birds. Feral swine will
destroy nests and consume eggs of reptiles and ground-nesting birds, such as
alligators (Elsey et al. 2012), quail, turkey, and shorebirds (Campbell and Long
2009a). In some areas, feral swine can have adverse impacts on T&E species and
their habitats and are a factor in the continuing endangerment of multiple plant
and animal species (Waithman et al. 1999, Gurevitch and Padilla 2004, Engeman
et al. 2010). The preference of feral swine for wet environments also creates
competition for limited water resources with native wildlife during dry seasons in
generally arid environments.
Feral swine also can serve as hosts for and transmit diseases to wildlife. Some of
these diseases, such as pseudorabies and other pathogens, can be fatal to wildlife,
including T&E species (Pedersen et al. 2013). Feral swine have also been
implicated in the promotion of mosquito habitat. Mosquito habitat and increases
in mosquito populations contribute to the prevalence of avian malaria and avian
pox which impacts native birds (NPS 2013).
c. Water Quality Impacts
Soil disturbance and vegetation loss associated with trampling, wallowing, and
rooting by feral swine increases erosion and associated problems with water
contamination and siltation. Siltation and water contamination in stream reaches
and coastal areas with swine activity have contributed to declines in aquatic
organisms, including freshwater mussels and insects (West et al. 2009).
In some areas, feral swine have been implicated as the cause of elevated
waterborne bacteria levels in streams, including levels which exceeded thresholds
for the protection of human health (Kaller et al. 2007). Feral swine also serve as
vectors in the spread of bacteria and parasites in surface waters and soils
associated with agricultural production (Atwill et al. 1997, Cooley et al. 2007, Jay
et al. 2007). Use of contaminated water for irrigation of foods marketed for direct
human consumption could lead to food illness outbreaks.
5
Mast crops collectively refers to fruit of woody plants that are high in fats, carbohydrates, and protein (such as
acorns, nuts, and berries).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 9
3. Damage to Property
a. Landscaping, Golf Courses, Gardens, and Other Structures
Feral swine foraging, rooting, and wallowing can damage landscaping, golf
courses, recreational fields, cemeteries, parks, and lawns. Rooting by feral swine
also damages roadsides, dikes, and other earthen structures.
b. Vehicle Collisions
On average, adult feral swine weigh from 75–250 pounds depending on ancestry
and local environment, with individual animals weighing considerably more
(West et al. 2009). Consequently, collisions with vehicles such as motorcycles,
automobiles, and aircraft can cause substantial damage.
c. Conflicts with Pets
Other damage to property includes feral swine attacks on domestic dogs. For
example, in two separate reports, feral swine attacked domestic dogs in Tioga
County, New York, killing one dog and injuring another (USDA 2010).
Additionally, feral swine can transmit diseases, including pseudorabies, to pets.
Dogs, particularly hunting dogs, become infected with pseuorabies after coming
into contact with infected feral swine. Once a dog is infected, there is no
treatment, and death typically occurs 48–72 hours after symptoms appear (HAID
2014).
4. Damage to Sociocultural Resources
The agencies preparing this FEIS recognize that impacts on some sociocultural
resources are relative. An impact that one person perceives as negative may be
perceived as positive by another individual, or at least offset by other positive
values. (Sociocultural resources affected by feral swine are discussed in detail in
Chapter 3: Affected Environment, and are discussed briefly below.)
a. Recreation
Feral swine are not a part of native ecosystems in the United States and its
Territories and, therefore, can damage these ecosystems. Depending on the
values of the individual recreationists, the presence of feral swine (or feral swine
damage) can either negatively or positively impact the enjoyment of the
recreationists. Feral swine activities influence the distribution and abundance of
native plants and animals, generally reducing opportunities for recreationists to
view native wildlife. The destruction and irreversible degradation of cultural
resources caused by feral swine activities also reduce opportunities for the public
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 10
to enjoy these resources. Potential for adverse impacts on recreational experience
may be greatest in wilderness areas.
Feral swine can also adversely impact abundance and distribution of native
species sought by licensed hunters, trappers, and fishermen. Consequently,
although feral swine hunting has value to some individuals, the presence of feral
swine may adversely impact opportunities to hunt native species.
b. Aesthetics
Sites damaged by feral swine rooting and trampling behavior include parks,
historic sites and other locations, including private property, valued for their
aesthetic beauty and/or cultural importance. Rooting and wallowing by feral
swine causes physical damage to these sites, and adversely impacts the aesthetic
enjoyment of these locations for some individuals.
For the purpose of this analysis, aesthetic values also include existence value.
Existence value is the enjoyment that some individuals have in knowing that
something exists even though they personally may never view or experience the
resource in question. Knowledge that a valued resource is being adversely
impacted by feral swine can adversely impact existence values.
c. Cultural Resources
Cultural sites impacted by feral swine have included national historic sites, tribal
sacred sites and burial grounds, cemeteries, and archaeological sites and digs
(Native American and European origin). Feral swine cause destruction or
irreversible degradation of surface and subsurface archaeological sites, historic
structures, cultural landscapes, or ethnographic resources and traditional cultural
properties. Feral swine damage can affect the significance and integrity of
historic properties through physical disturbance to structures, vegetation, and
soils. Foraging and habitat damage by feral swine can adversely impact the
distribution and abundance of plants and animals which may be used for
traditional purposes.
5. Human Health and Safety
a. Disease Transmission
Feral swine can carry at least 30 viral and bacterial diseases, and nearly 40
parasites that may affect humans, domestic livestock, and wildlife species (Ruiz-
Fons et al. 2008, Meng et al. 2009). Feral swine can also harbor the causative
agents of important foodborne diseases (e.g., Escherichia. Coli (E. coli),
toxoplasmosis, and trichinosis). Domestic swine are important intermediate hosts
for reassortment of influenza A viruses of avian, swine, and human origin,
potentially leading to the generation of new strains of influenza (Clavijo et al.
2012).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 11
b. Vehicle Collisions and Habituated/Aggressive Animals
Feral swine collisions with vehicles and aircraft result in damage to property
(Section 3.b. above) and pose substantial risks to the safety of drivers/pilots and
passengers. Additionally, feral swine in urban and suburban areas become less
wary of human presence over time. In November of 2014, a feral swine initiated
an unprovoked attack on a woman walking her dogs in Solano County, California,
repeatedly cutting her with its tusks. This event is thought to be the first
unprovoked attack by a feral swine on a human in California. Feral swine have
aggressively approached golfers, picnickers, and others recreating in urban and
suburban parks (Colorado State University 2012, Mayer 2013). This behavior
may be particularly problematic where they have come to associate humans with
food because of feeding, improper food storage, or waste disposal. The potential
for animals to become habituated to human resources, then become aggressive
towards humans is seen in many species (e.g., bears at camp sites) may become
more of a risk for feral swine particularly if they are fed by humans, intentionally
or unintentionally.
E. Scope of EIS
This FEIS is national in scope, and analyzes the APHIS FSDM program to be carried out by
APHIS programs directly or in conjunction with other federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local
governments, and private entities. This FEIS examines the potential consequences of
implementing a range of alternatives that could be adopted as a national feral swine management
program. As a Federal Government agency subject to the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347), APHIS prepared this FEIS
in accordance with the applicable implementing and administrative regulations (40 CFR 1500–
1508; 7 CFR part 372).
1. Geographic Scope
The scope of the FEIS includes all areas in the United States and its Territories.
Currently, feral swine are known to occur in the following territories: American Samoa,
CNMI, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Management actions could also be
conducted in areas where feral swine currently do not occur to aid federal, state,
territorial, and local agencies (hereafter referred to as agency partners), tribes, private
organizations, and individuals in preventing feral swine from becoming established in
new areas.
2. Relationship to Other Agency, Tribal, and Private Actions
This FEIS concerns only the actions of the APHIS program carried out by APHIS
directly or in conjunction with agency partners and private organizations and individuals.
Under Alternative 5, APHIS could issue grants for FSDM to other entities. FSDM
implemented by APHIS partners under some alternatives with funding from APHIS
would be conducted in accordance with provisions of this analysis. However, APHIS
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 12
may allocate portions of funding for administrative overhead and monitoring to ensure
compliance with conditions of the grant program (Alternative 5). Actions by other
entities to manage feral swine damage on their own, but not with APHIS funding, are not
in any way constrained by the management decision made by APHIS based on this FEIS.
Such actions are constrained only by applicable federal, state, territorial, and tribal laws,
local ordinances, pesticide label instructions, and self-imposed constraints.
Although other agency partners, tribes, and private entities can and are conducting FSDM
on their own, several of the alternatives in this FEIS, including the preferred alternative,
involve building partnerships with these entities to address feral swine problems, and
provide national-level coordination, finances, and leadership of FSDM. Consequently,
this analysis and associated management decisions have the potential to influence future
actions by others. Several key partners have contributed to developing the FEIS, and
some cooperating and participating agencies may adopt the EIS for their own use.
Entities may use their own resources to achieve a component of the management goals
identified in a national feral swine management strategy, making it possible to allocate
Federal resources to other components of the problem. Similarly, as discussed above in
this section, actions and resource allocations resulting from this plan may make federal,
state, territorial, tribal, local, or private resources available for other feral swine
management or natural resources management actions.
F. Decisions to be Made—Decision Framework
APHIS is the lead agency in the preparation of this analysis. The primary programs within
APHIS that respond to feral swine damage and conflicts are: 1) APHIS-WS, which provides
research, advice (technical), and hands-on (operational) assistance with FSDM and disease
monitoring; 2) APHIS-VS, which works to protect and improve the health, quality, and
marketability of U.S. animals, animal products, and veterinary biologics, including providing
technical and operational assistance in the management of potential disease transmission risks
involving feral swine; and 3) APHIS - International Services (APHIS-IS) which has the authority
to work with Canada and Mexico on feral swine management to protect and promote U.S.
agricultural health (see section H below). APHIS-WS is the APHIS program with technical
expertise in management of damage by wild and feral animals. Actions in the field are the
activities most likely to have impacts on the human environment and, therefore, APHIS-WS is
the lead program within APHIS for this project.
Based on the scope of this FEIS, the decisions to be made are:
What is the best national strategy for allocating APHIS resources, and for working with
cooperators to meet FSDM program objectives?
Which of the FSDM methods are appropriate for inclusion in a national FSDM program?
What are the anticipated environmental impacts of the alternatives for APHIS’ involvement
in a nationally coordinated FSDM program?
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 13
The decision to be made based on this analysis is programmatic in nature, and will serve as the
primary guide for management of feral swine damage. The selected alternative will define the
general strategy for FSDM and specific management methods available for use at the local and
national level. When deciding on management actions in cooperation with agency partners,
tribes, and other entities, APHIS may choose to implement all or a portion of the methods
approved for use in the Record of Decision for the EIS. Additional state, territorial, or local level
NEPA analyses will be prepared, as needed, to address local issues and needs in accordance with
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and APHIS’ implementing regulations under
NEPA.
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)-National Park Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), USDA Forest Service (USFS), National Invasive Species Council (NISC),
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), and the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the
analysis. The DOI-Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) are also participating in the preparation of the analysis.
G. Goals and Objectives
APHIS’ overall goal is to reduce damage to agriculture, natural and cultural resources, property,
animal health, and human health and safety in the United States, American Samoa, CNMI,
Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands in cooperation with agency partners, tribes, and
others.
The following objectives were developed to achieve the overall goal of reducing or eliminating
feral swine damage through the alternatives discussed in this document:
Specific Objectives
Stabilized and eventually reduce the range and size of the feral swine population in the
United States in accordance with management objectives of states, territories and tribes.
Program objectives include eliminating feral swine from 2 states in the first 5 years;
continuing to eliminate feral swine from additional states, on average eliminating feral
swine from 2 states every 5 years; and stabilizing the increase in feral swine damage within
10 years of program initiation.
Further develop cooperative partnerships with other pertinent federal, state, territorial,
tribal, and local agencies, and private organizations working to reduce impacts of feral
swine to agriculture, natural and cultural resources, property, animal health, and human
health.
Expand feral swine management programs nationwide to protect agriculture, natural
resources, property, animal health, and human health.
Expand feral swine disease monitoring to protect agriculture and human health.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 14
Assess disease risk posed by feral swine to domestic swine production and other livestock,
and to human health.
Develop and improve tools and methods to manage feral swine populations, including field
tests to assess the efficacy for reducing risks to agriculture, natural and cultural resources,
property, animal health, and human health.
Develop predictive models for population expansion and economic impacts of feral swine,
along with risk analysis to agriculture, animal health, and human health.
Develop outreach materials and activities to educate the public about feral swine damage
and related activities to prevent or reduce damage.
Coordinate with Canada and Mexico to establish a collaborative plan to address the feral
swine threat along the common borders, including monitoring, research and operational
responses as appropriate.
H. Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agency Authorities and Roles
Lead Agencies
1. USDA, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service-Wildlife Services (APHIS-WS)
USDA is authorized by law to protect American agriculture and other resources from
damage associated with wildlife (Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426–
426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 1329–331, 7 U.S.C.
426c). Within the USDA, this authority has been delegated to the APHIS-WS program.
APHIS-WS’ mission, developed through its strategic planning process (USDA 1999), is:
1) “to provide leadership in wildlife damage management in the protection of America's
agricultural, industrial and natural resources, and 2) to safeguard public health and
safety.” APHIS-WS recognizes that wildlife is an important public resource greatly
valued by the American people. By its very nature, however, wildlife is a highly
dynamic and mobile resource that can cause damage to agriculture and property, pose
risks to human health and safety, and affect industrial and natural resources. APHIS-WS
conducts programs of research, technical assistance, and applied management to resolve
problems that occur when human activity and wildlife conflict.
APHIS-WS is a cooperatively funded, service-oriented program. Before any operational
wildlife damage management is conducted, a Work Initiation Document, or similar
document, must be completed by APHIS-WS and the landowner/administrator. APHIS-
WS cooperates with other federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local government entities,
educational institutions, private property owners and managers, and with appropriate land
and wildlife management agencies, as requested, with the goal of effectively and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 15
efficiently resolving wildlife damage problems in compliance with all applicable federal,
state, territorial, tribal and local laws.
2. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-Veterinary Services
(APHIS-VS)
As the nation’s veterinary authority, APHIS-VS’ vision is to improve the health,
productivity, and quality of life for animals and people, and maintain and promote the
safety and availability of animals, animal products, and veterinary biologics. The
primary authority for the APHIS-VS program is the Animal Health Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.).
The APHIS-VS program works in a variety of ways to protect and improve the health,
quality, and marketability of U.S. animals, animal products, and veterinary biologics by
(1) preventing, controlling, and/or eliminating animal diseases, and (2) monitoring and
promoting animal health and productivity. APHIS-VS contributes leadership, expertise,
infrastructure, networks, and systems to collaborate effectively with local, tribal,
territorial, state, national, and international partners on animal health issues. APHIS-VS’
comprehensive and integrated monitoring activities provide the capability to achieve
national goals for animal disease prevention, detection, and early response. APHIS-VS
has extensive experience in mitigating animal health risks and documenting feral swine
disease information for the protection of health and trade of livestock, and has
promulgated regulations in 9 CFR § 78.30 to specifically address disease in feral swine,
primarily through regulation of the interstate movement of swine (Chapter 3: Regulatory
Environment).
3. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service-International Services
(APHIS-IS)
APHIS works to protect the health and value of American agriculture and natural
resources. APHIS-IS supports this mission in an international environment by:
(1) safeguarding the health of animals, plants, and ecosystems in the United States;
(2) facilitating safe agricultural trade; (3) ensuring effective and efficient management of
internationally based programs; and (4) investing in international capacity-building
through various training programs abroad to enhance technical, administrative, and
diplomatic skills, and competencies. APHIS-IS' international mission is to protect and
promote U.S. agricultural health through internationally based animal and plant health
expertise. Feral swine occur in and are issues for Canada and Mexico, as is movement of
feral swine to and from the United States. APHIS-IS can aid in the development of
partnerships with these countries to address mutual concerns regarding feral swine
damage and the movement of feral swine.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 16
Cooperating Agencies
4. USDA, Forest Service (USFS)
USFS has the responsibility to manage the resources of National Forest System lands
(National Forests and National Grasslands) for multiple uses including timber production,
recreation, and wildlife habitat, while recognizing the state's authority to manage wildlife
populations. The USFS recognizes the importance of reducing feral swine damage on
lands and resources under its jurisdiction, as integrated with its multiple use
responsibilities. Occasionally, wildlife damage management actions may also be taken
on National Forest System lands to protect resources on adjacent properties. For these
reasons, USFS has entered into a national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
APHIS-WS to facilitate a cooperative relationship. USFS is a cooperating agency in the
preparation of this FEIS.
5. DOI, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Similar to USFS, BLM has the responsibility to manage the resources on Federal and
public lands for multiple uses, including livestock grazing, timber production, recreation,
and wildlife habitat. BLM also recognizes the role and importance of wildlife damage
management as a component of natural resources management, and has entered into a
national MOU with APHIS-WS to facilitate a cooperative relationship. BLM is a
cooperating agency in the preparation of this FEIS.
6. DOI, National Park Service (NPS)
The Organic Act of 1916 established the NPS with a mandate " ... to conserve the scenery
and the natural and historic objects and wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment
of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations." The Redwood National Park Expansion Act (Pub. L.
95–250) amended the Organic Act to state that all park management activities shall be,
"[C]onducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the National Park System
and not be exercised in derogation of the values and purposes for which these various
areas have been established, except as may have been or shall be directly and
specifically provided by Congress." As a general rule, NPS has broad authority to
manage wildlife and other natural resources within the boundaries of units in the National
Park System. NPS is directed and has authority to manage its lands and resources
(including native and non-native animals) in a manner consistent with Federal legislation,
servicewide NPS guidelines and directives, and park-specific management policies and
objectives.
As stewards of public lands, NPS protects resources through a variety of internal
programs, and strives to be an active conservation partner with other Federal agencies.
NPS currently manages 401 sites (generally referred to as "parks"), comprising over 84
million acres. These sites include national parks, national monuments, national seashores,
national historic sites, national battlefields, national historic trails, national scenic rivers,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 17
national recreational rivers, and national recreational areas. Additionally, NPS
administers the National Register and Historic Landmark, the National Natural
Landmark, and the National Heritage Areas Programs. A 2011 survey by NPS indicated
feral swine were present in at least 43 parks and 31 additional parks considered their
present imminent; concern for damage to natural and cultural resources was universal
(NPS 2014). NPS agrees that a national coordinated effort is needed to effectively
address growing problems associated with feral swine, and is a cooperating agency in the
preparation of this EIS.
7.
National Invasive Species Council (NISC)
NISC was established in 1999 by Executive Order (EO) 13112 to ensure that Federal
programs and activities to prevent and control invasive species are coordinated, effective,
and efficient. NISC is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and
Commerce. Other NISC members include the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland
Security, Treasury, Transportation, Health and Human Services, the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR), as well as the Administrators of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the U.S. Agency
for International Development. NISC provides high-level interdepartmental coordination
of Federal invasive species actions, and works with other Federal and non-Federal groups
to address invasive species issues at both the regional and national levels; this includes
assisting as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this FEIS. NISC duties are to:
Establish and facilitate an advisory committee (The Invasive Species Advisory
Committee (ISAC)), under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to provide
information and advice on invasive species issues for consideration by the Federal
Government;
Encourage planning and action at state, territory, tribal, local, regional, and
ecosystem-based level to achieve strategic goals;
Develop recommendations for international and regional cooperation;
Facilitate development of a coordinated network among Federal agencies to
document, evaluate, and monitor invasive species impacts; and
Prepare and revise National Invasive Species management plans.
8. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA)
The AFWA represents North America’s fish and wildlife agencies to advance sound,
science-based management and conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats, in the
public interest. The AFWA also provides member agencies with coordination services
on cross-cutting, as well as species-based programs which range from birds, fish habitat,
and energy development to climate change, wildlife action plans, conservation education,
leadership training, and international relations. State fish and wildlife agencies have
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 18
responsibility for the management and protection of natural resources which may be
adversely impacted by feral swine. In some states, the fish and wildlife agency may also
have responsibility for managing free-ranging feral swine, swine hunting (including
fenced hunting facilities), and other facets of feral swine management (e.g., movement
and release of swine). The AFWA is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this
FEIS.
9. National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA)
NASDA represents the state departments of agriculture in the development,
implementation, and communication of sound public policy, and programs that support
and promote the American agricultural industry while protecting consumers and the
environment. Depending on state organizational structure, state departments of
agriculture have technical expertise and regulatory responsibility for the protection of the
health of domestic swine and other domestic animals, including commercial production
of wild-type swine, swine hunting preserves, movement of swine, escaped swine, and
free-ranging feral swine. NASDA is a cooperating agency in the preparation of this
FEIS.
Consulting Agencies
10. DOI, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
The mission of FWS is: “Working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish,
wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefits of the American people.”
FWS manages the 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System of more than
561 national wildlife refuges, thousands of small wetlands, and other special management
areas. While some of FWS’ responsibilities are shared with other federal, state,
territorial, tribal, and local entities, FWS has special authorities in conserving migratory
birds, endangered species, certain marine mammals, nationally significant fisheries, and
enforcing Federal wildlife laws.
The agency enforces Federal wildlife laws, administers the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant fisheries,
conserves and restores wildlife habitat (e.g., wetlands), and helps foreign governments
with their conservation efforts in cooperation with other federal, state, territorial, tribal,
and local entities. The 2013 refuge annual performance plan lists 100 refuges in 16 states
that have feral swine issues, and identifies feral swine as one of their top 5 invasive
species in need of control. In some areas, feral swine damage wetlands and are a danger
to T&E species and their habitats. Additionally, feral swine compete with white-tailed
deer on refuges by destroying habitat and consuming mast crops (Ray, 1988), as well as
by preying on white-tailed deer fawns (Seward et al., 2004). Consequently, the FWS
refuge program has participated in the preparation of this EIS. Authorities pertaining to
the movement of feral swine on and off national wildlife refuge lands include:
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 19
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd–ee,
regulated through 50 CFR). This Act establishes the National Wildlife Refuge System,
and requires the agency, “to administer lands to provide for the conservation of fish,
wildlife, plants and their habitats and to ensure that biological integrity and diversity is
maintained.” National wildlife refuges are closed to public uses (by statute, regulation,
and authority) until specifically designated as open. Prior to opening sites for public use,
FWS must determine if the use is consistent with the purposes of the refuge and the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. This latter authority is unique to the
National Wildlife Refuge System.
Additional regulations on management of federal lands pertinent to the feral swine issue
can be found in 50 CFR:
§ 27.52 - Introduction of plants and animals. Plants and animals or their parts taken
elsewhere shall not be introduced, liberated, or placed on any national wildlife refuge
except as authorized.
§ 27.21 - General provisions. No person shall take any animal or plant on any
national wildlife refuge, except as authorized under 50 CFR 27.51 and parts 31, 32,
and 33 of this subchapter C. We [FWS] regulate the removal of plants and animals.
In addition, FWS has authority to issue refuge Special Use Permits (50 CFR part 25), and
routinely uses them to authorize permitted activities on a specific refuge. FWS can
establish conditions to a permit for public safety and resource protection. Permit
conditions are enforceable by administrative revocation and/or criminal prosecution.
Title 16 of the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371–3378) specifies that it is unlawful for any
person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife
or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law, treaty, or regulation
of the United States or in violation of any Indian tribal law, or to attempt to do so,
whether in interstate or foreign commerce. This law provides the authority to FWS to
enforce federal, state, and tribal laws, including managing the movement or injurious or
other prohibited species in interstate and foreign commerce. Violations can include
felony charges.
Under Title 18 of the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42), the injurious wildlife provisions,
importation and interstate transport of animal species determined to be injurious is
prohibited. Regulation of transport or use within a state is the responsibility of each state,
and is not regulated by an injurious wildlife listing. Movement onto or off of FWS (and
other Federal) lands with interstate transportation is prohibited. Violations can include
misdemeanor charges.
11. USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
NRCS
was originally established by Congress in 1935 as the Soil Conservation Service,
and was charged with addressing "the wastage of soil and moisture resources on farm,
grazing, and forest lands.” The mission of NRCS has expanded over time to become a
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 20
conservation leader for all natural resources, ensuring private lands are conserved,
restored, and more resilient to environmental challenges, such as climate change. To
achieve this goal, NRCS and its predecessor agencies have worked in close partnerships
with farmers and ranchers, local, state and territorial governments, and tribes and other
Federal agencies to maintain healthy and productive working landscapes.
Seventy percent of the land in the United States is privately owned, making stewardship
by private landowners absolutely critical to the health of our Nation’s environment.
NRCS works with landowners through conservation planning and assistance designed to
benefit the soil, water, air, plants, and animals that result in productive lands and
ecosystems. Feral swine damage the resources NRCS is working with partners to protect.
In some areas, NRCS receives repeat requests for habitat conservation assistance to repair
damage to locations NRCS and its partners had previously worked to conserve and/or
restore. NRCS is a participating agency in the preparation of this EIS. This EIS and
resulting Record of Decision would not affect the agreements made between the
signatory agencies. Responsibilities of signatory agencies, as applicable, are discussed
within the EIS as relates to coordination of operations on federal lands, avoidance of
conflicts with other land uses, and protecting sensitive resources.
12. Memoranda of Understanding
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) are used to define general roles and relationships
in situations where APHIS is cooperating with agencies and tribes on projects of mutual
interest. The MOUs define the type of action of interest, relevant agency authorities, and
the responsibilities of each of the participants including responsibility for compliance
with federal laws such as the NEPA. MOUs may include procedures for communication
and consultation during planning processes and during the implementation of damage
management actions. At the National level APHIS and APHIS-WS have four MOUs
relevant to feral swine management:
MOU between APHIS-WS and the USFS. This agreement documents the
cooperation between APHIS-WS and USFS to (1) identify responsibilities of the
Parties and foster a partnership for the management of indigenous and invasive
vertebrates causing damage on USFS lands; (2) establishes general guidelines to
assist field personnel in carrying out their WDM responsibilities consistent with
policies of the USFS and APHIS-WS; and (3) to strengthen the cooperative
approach to WDM on NFS lands through exchange of information and mutual
program support. This MOU specifically mentions feral swine as a species of
concern.
MOU between APHIS-WS and the BLM: This MOU (1) establishes general
guidelines to assist field personnel in carrying out their wildlife damage
management responsibilities; (2) establishes a system for exchange of information
and mutual program support; (3) reaffirms working relationships with state
governments; (4) identifies responsibilities for NEPA compliance and (5)
establishes a partnership for the management of wild vertebrates causing damage
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 21
on BLM lands in accordance with the authorities and responsibilities of the BLM
and APHIS-WS. Feral swine can cause damage on BLM lands and are among the
species which could be addressed in accordance with the provisions of this MOU.
MOU between APHIS and the FWS: This MOU was established in accordance
with EO 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds
(66 FR 3853). The MOU focuses on avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts on
migratory birds and strengthening migratory bird conservation through enhanced
collaboration between APHIS and FWS by identify and enhancing areas of
cooperation. This agreement includes a framework to guide coordination of
efforts to maximize potential benefits to migratory birds from FSDM while
minimizing the potential risks from FSDM methods.
MOU between APHIS-WS and the National Association of State Aviation
Officials, and the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration: The MOU establishes a joint cooperative relationship to reduce
the risk of wildlife hazards at airports. As noted in Sections 3.b and 3.c feral
swine can be among the animal species posing hazards to aircraft.
In addition to the national-level MOUs, the APHIS-WS program also has MOUs with tribes,
states, local units of federal agencies (e.g., a specific air force base), and private organizations.
Additional MOUs are expected to be developed between APHIS and new partner agencies if an
alternative is selected that expands APHIS activities. The MOUs involving APHIS-WS state
programs serve similar purposes as the national MOUs but the exact nature and scope of content
of the MOUs varies depending upon circumstances and need. For example, MOUs with tribes
reaffirm the special government to government relationship between the Federal government and
the tribes, establish points of contact for the respective parties, and set procedures for
communication and consultation.
I. Public and Tribal Involvement
APHIS published a Notice of Intent and Notice of Scoping on May 13, 2013 (78 FR 92:27937–
27939). The public was invited to comment on and provide ideas for the proposed national
FSDM program. A public meeting with webcast was held in Riverdale, Maryland on May 23,
2013. The meeting provided information on the proposed plan, and an opportunity for the public
to ask questions and provide information for the analysis.
Twenty-five people attended the meeting in person, and people also participated from an
additional 121 remote locations. Additional public notification and outreach was provided
through notices sent via the APHIS stakeholder registry Web site to APHIS stakeholders, an
APHIS Web site on feral swine, a notice on the WS NEPA web page; a notice on the federal e-
rulemaking portal Regulations.gov; and through outreach by cooperating and participating
agencies. The APHIS-WS program is also worked with Tuskegee University to improve
outreach and communications with low-income and minority farmers reached by the 1890’s
universities’ extension programs. APHIS received 62 letters in response to the scoping request.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 22
A summary of issues and information from the scoping letter and public meeting is provided on
the Feral Swine EIS web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife-damage/fseis.
The public was notified of the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
through announcements sent via a press release; the APHIS stakeholder registry; an APHIS Web
site on feral swine; a notice on the WS NEPA web page; direct mailings or emails to individuals,
agencies and organizations that provided contact information during the Scoping process; a
notice on the federal e-rulemaking portal Regulations.gov; and through outreach by cooperating
and participating agencies. The APHIS-WS program also worked with Tuskegee University to
improve outreach and communications with low-income and minority farmers reached by the
1890’s Universities’ extension programs. APHIS received 45 letters on the DEIS. A summary
of issues and information from the scoping letter and public meeting is provided on the Feral
Swine EIS web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife-damage/fseis.
APHIS is also committed to building strong positive relationships with tribes and including
tribes in agency decision-making processes. For tribal outreach, a Notice of Intent to prepare
this EIS, an invitation to attend a May 16, 2013 informational call for tribes, and an offer to
initiate consultation were sent to the leaders of all 565 federally recognized Native American
tribes. The tribes were also invited to participate in the May 23, 2013 public meeting and Web
cast discussed above. At least 15 tribes and/or tribal entities participated in the call.
6
Communication and consultation with the tribes is ongoing. A similar informational call and
opportunity to comment was provided to the tribes for the DEIS on January 7, 2015.
Tribal outreach has and continues to occur at the state level for all proposed activities, this
outreach includes but is not limited to invitations to tribes to participate as a partner agency in
the creation of state, territorial and local environmental analyses that include FSDM and/or
consultation with tribes on FSDM. APHIS-WS state personnel also are available to attend
meetings and provide technical assistance to tribes on FSDM issues. Additionally, no FSDM
actions would be conducted on tribal lands without the express written consent of the tribe. (See
also Chapter 4 Section C.10 for a discussion of impacts of FSDM on tribes, traditional cultures,
and ceremonial values
6
The actual number of tribal representatives participating is an estimate because some participants joined during the
call and not all participants identified themselves on the call.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction
Chapter 2 contains a detailed description of the alternatives to manage feral swine damage that
were selected for detailed evaluation in Chapter 4 of this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
In its May 13, 2013 scoping notice, APHIS proposed a nationally coordinated FSDM program.
The public comments and agency scoping process helped APHIS identify other alternatives to
evaluate in detail. Some alternatives and methods that were raised during the scoping process
were considered, but are being dismissed from detailed evaluation for reasons discussed in
Section G of this chapter. This chapter also includes descriptions of FSDM methods which
could be available to APHIS under each of the alternatives, and a list of the Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) which would be used by APHIS if conducting FSDM to reduce or prevent
adverse impacts on the human environment.
B. Criteria for Alternatives Development
Several criteria were used to help shape the alternatives and develop the range of “reasonable
alternatives,” as defined by CEQ (1981) for detailed evaluation.
The alternatives must respond to the purpose and need, specifically the project goal of
reducing feral swine damage to agriculture, natural and cultural resources, property,
animal health, and human health and safety in the United States and its Territories by
reducing or eliminating feral swine populations, in cooperation with agency partners,
tribes, private organizations, and others. Program goals and objectives are specified in
Chapter 1, Section G.
The alternatives must comply with Federal environmental regulations, be legally and
environmentally sound, and economically and logistically feasible.
The alternatives must be programmatic in nature to accommodate national level
coordination.
The alternatives must be flexible enough to facilitate collaboration with agency partners
and other cooperators, and accommodate the high levels of variation found among state,
tribal, territorial and local laws, management objectives, feral swine presence,
environmental conditions, or variations in funding levels. The alternatives must work
within existing agency partner and tribal regulatory regimes, or adapt to regulatory
changes.
C. Adaptive Management and the APHIS-WS Decision Model
APHIS-WS personnel use an adaptive management thought process for evaluating and
responding to damage complaints that is depicted by the APHIS-WS Decision Model described
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 24
Receive Request for
Assistance
Assess Problem
Evaluate Wildlife
Damage Control
Methods
Formulate Wildlife
Damage Control
Strategy
Provide Assistance
Monitor and Evaluate
Results of Control
Actions
End of Project
Figure 2-1. APHIS-WS
Decision Model
by Slate et al. (1992; Figure 2-1; WS Directive 2.201
7
). The Decision Model is not a written
documented process, but a mental problem-solving process
similar to adaptive management strategies used by all wildlife
management professionals, including those in the lead and
cooperating agencies for this EIS when addressing a wildlife
damage problem. APHIS-WS personnel assess the problem,
and evaluate the appropriateness and availability (legal and
administrative) of damage management strategies and methods
based on biological, economic, and social considerations.
Following this evaluation, methods deemed to be practical for
the situation are incorporated into a management strategy.
After this strategy has been implemented, monitoring is
conducted, and evaluation continues to assess the effectiveness
of the strategy. Management strategies are then adjusted,
modified, or discontinued, depending on the results of the
evaluation.
The APHIS-WS program applies an Integrated Wildlife
Damage Management (IWDM) approach to reduce wildlife
damage (APHIS-WS Directive 2.105). As used and
recommended by the APHIS-WS program, IWDM
encompasses the integrated application of approved methods
simultaneously or sequentially as appropriate to reduce or
prevent wildlife damage. The philosophy behind IWDM is to
implement the best combination of effective management
methods in the most cost-effective manner while minimizing
the potentially harmful effects on humans, target and non-target
species, and the environment. IWDM may incorporate cultural
practices (e.g., animal husbandry), habitat modification (e.g., exclusion), animal behavior
modification (e.g., scaring), removal of individual offending animals, local population reduction,
elimination of invasive species (e.g., feral swine) or any combination of these, depending on the
circumstances of the specific damage problem.
D. Description of Alternatives
This section contains descriptions of the alternatives that were developed for detailed analysis in
Chapter 4. The alternatives are summarized in table format in Section E. The specific
management methods that could be available for use under the alternatives are described in
Section F.
7
The APHIS-WS Program Directives can be accessed from the APHIS-WS home web page at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlifedamage
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 25
1. Alternative 1—Current APHIS Feral Swine Damage Management
Program (Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative))
The Current APHIS FSDM Program, the No Action Alternative, is a procedural NEPA
requirement (40 CFR 1502) and serves as a starting point for comparison with the other
alternatives. The No Action Alternative can be defined as “no change” from the status
quo, which is the continuation of the Current APHIS FSDM Program activities. Using
the Current APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 1) as the No Action Alternative is
consistent with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality definition for No
Action Alternative (CEQ 1981).
Congress has acknowledged that feral swine are a harmful and destructive species, and
that a federal response to feral swine damage is warranted (Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
of 2014, Public Law No. 113-76 2014). The Fiscal Year
8
2014 (FY14) USDA budget
allocates $20 million to APHIS to implement FSDM (USDA 2014c). Consequently,
some sort of increased federal FSDM program will be implemented (e.g., Alternatives 2-
5), and this No Action Alternative cannot be selected for implementation unless Congress
determines that a FSDM Program is no longer a priority. This No Action Alternative
serves as a baseline for comparison in the environmental analysis.
The Current APHIS FSDM Program, the No Action Alternative, includes the following
general components:
a. Collaboration and Project Identification
APHIS-WS state program leaders, usually APHIS-WS State Directors, enter into
cooperative partnerships in all aspects of operational FSDM when requested by
agency partners, tribes, and private entities. These FSDM projects are initiated
and funded by partner agencies, tribes, and other cooperators who have
experienced feral swine damage or are working on research pertaining to feral
swine. Cooperative partnerships may be developed to implement FSDM in
targeted agricultural areas, areas with T&E species and other natural resources,
urban/suburban areas to reduce property damage or other locations to address
specific FSDM needs (e.g., protection of human health and safety).
b. Operations
Under this Alternative, the status quo for APHIS-WS FSDM activities is an
IWDM approach, as described in Section 2.C, that incorporates the use or
recommendation of a range of nonlethal and lethal techniques, used singly or in
combination, to meet the need of each requestor for resolving conflicts with feral
swine. APHIS-WS state programs provide assistance to cooperators in the form
8
USDA Fiscal Year (FY) runs from Oct 1 to Sept 30.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 26
of technical assistance (advice, training, loan of equipment). When appropriate,
APHIS-WS also provides damage management assistance (operational assistance)
using lethal and non-lethal methods, if funding is available. Resource managers
and others requesting operational assistance are provided with information
regarding the use of effective nonlethal and lethal techniques including
recommendations as to effective long-term strategies for reducing risk of feral
swine damage. Lethal methods used by APHIS-WS includes shooting, aerial
shooting, snaring, and live trapping (snares, nets, cage traps, and less commonly,
foothold traps), followed by euthanasia. Euthanasia is not feasible under all field
conditions. However, APHIS-WS employees strive to incorporate American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA 2013) euthanasia recommendations for
free-roaming animals in program activities, where practical and effective. Where
they are not practical or effective, the animal is dispatched as quickly and
humanely as possible. Non-lethal methods used or recommended by APHIS-WS
may include fencing and aversive devices. In many situations, the
implementation of non-lethal methods (i.e., fencing) would be the responsibility
of the requestor to implement. A reproductive control agent or toxicant may be
incorporated into program activities if/when it is registered for use. Toxicants and
other reproductive control methods such as sodium nitrite and phage-peptide
constructs are under development. These methods could be used if proven
effective and registered for use with EPA after the completion of environmental
review as directed by the NEPA. (A complete list and description of FSDM
methods available to APHIS-WS is provided in Section E of this chapter.)
The Current APHIS FSDM Program is or may be conducted on private, public,
tribal, and other lands where a request has been made, a need has been
documented, and after appropriate agreements for service have been prepared.
All management actions comply with appropriate federal, state, territorial, tribal,
and local laws.
c. Disease Monitoring
APHIS-WS personnel collect biological samples from some feral swine killed
during operational control activities and from other sources (e.g., hunter-killed
animals in some states). APHIS-WS submits samples to labs identified by
APHIS-VS to run diagnostic tests. Over 2,300 feral swine were sampled each
year during previous years to monitor for classical swine fever in the United
States. Samples from those same 2,300 feral swine samples have also been used
to monitor for pseudorabies, swine brucellosis, and other diseases of national
interest.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 27
d. Research
The APHIS-WS National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) currently conducts
research projects on an array of issues related to feral swine, including:
Toxicants and delivery systems to control feral swine;
Patterns of feral swine movement and potential disease transfer between
feral swine, domestic animals, and wildlife;
Effectiveness of various feral swine exclusion devices;
Effectiveness of capture devices;
Population estimation techniques;
Baits for pharmaceutical delivery;
Attractants for feral swine;
Fertility control agents (e.g., GonaCon™);
Feral swine behaviors in response to damage control activities;
Economic analysis of feral swine damage;
Economic considerations for implementing management strategies; and
Ecological investigations addressing feral swine impacts on agriculture and
the environment.
Currently, research is constrained due to limited funding and it is necessary to
prioritize projects. The highest NWRC feral swine research priority is assessing
the feasibility of sodium nitrite, a feral swine toxicant developed in Australia, to
safely reduce feral swine populations. Another related high-priority study focuses
on developing a delivery system to dispense baits to feral swine while limiting
access to non-target species. NWRC regularly collaborates with other
government agencies, universities, and private organizations to conduct research
activities.
e. Outreach and Education
Most APHIS outreach and education efforts are conducted by personnel at the
state and territory level. APHIS personnel provide on site technical assistance,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 28
participate in professional and public meetings, fairs and other gatherings, and
teach classes on wildlife damage management (including management of invasive
species) as time, cooperative agreements, and available funding allow. A number
of agencies, universities, and private entities also provide education and outreach
on FSDM, and APHIS may work collaboratively on projects with these entities.
Some educational materials have been developed by APHIS at the national level.
However, in the absence of dedicated FSDM funding, APHIS must balance
FSDM outreach and education needs with the needs of all other APHIS programs
and projects.
f. Disposal of Feral Swine Removed During Damage Management Activities
Feral swine carcasses are disposed in a manner that comports with APHIS-WS
Directive 2.515, Disposal of Wildlife Carcasses, which states that all disposals
will be made in a manner that is consistent with federal, state, tribal, territorial,
and local regulations. Discussion of carcass disposal methods is provided in
Section E. 11.
2. Alternative 2 - Integrated Feral Swine Damage Management Program
(Integrated FSDM Program/Preferred Alternative)
a. Introduction
The Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) is the management alternative
preferred by APHIS. It is a nationally coordinated response that integrates
improvements to the baseline operational capacity of APHIS-WS in all states with
feral swine, strategically allocates resources to reducing the size and range of the
national feral swine population and protecting select local resources (see
“Strategic Local Projects” in section b. below). It also provides improved
national support for research, education, disease monitoring and international
coordination. APHIS would serve as the lead Federal agency in a cooperative
effort with other agency partners, tribes, organizations, and local entities that
share a common interest in reducing or eliminating problems caused by feral
swine.
APHIS’ strategy would be to provide resources, expertise, and overall
coordination at the national level, while allowing APHIS-WS State Directors the
local decision-making authority and flexibility to provide FSDM operational
services in cooperation with local partners. APHIS-WS state programs would
have the flexibility needed to effectively manage operational activities based on
local needs and constraints. Flexibility is necessary considering the wide
variation among state laws governing feral swine management, and local
environmental conditions that must be considered in site-specific planning (e.g.,
land uses, access, vegetative cover, terrain, weather, and feral swine populations).
APHIS’ capacity to manage feral swine damage and risks to human and animal
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 29
health will continue to be enhanced through cooperation with agency partners,
tribes, and local entities, with a common interest in eliminating problems caused
by feral swine. A draft version of a national FSDM program plan with specific
details on how the project may be implemented if Alternative 2 is selected is
provided for reference on the Feral Swine EIS webpage
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife-damage/fseis.
APHIS would implement activities to reduce problems associated with feral swine
in most states where they are present. In states where feral swine are emerging, or
populations are low, APHIS would cooperate with partner agencies to implement
strategies to eliminate them. In states where feral swine populations are large and
widely distributed, and/or state, territorial, or tribal management objectives do not
support eradication, APHIS and its partners would protect local resources and
reduce problems by suppressing local populations and implementing other local
risk and damage management measures.
b. Key Program Components
Improve Baseline Operational Capacity to Respond (Infrastructure)
As noted, under the Current Program Alternative (Alternative 1), APHIS-WS
response capacity has been limited to actions which can be conducted with
cooperator funding and very limited APHIS resources. Under the Integrated
FSDM Program Alternative, additional federal funding and resources would be
distributed to APHIS-WS state programs to enhance baseline operational capacity
to respond to requests for assistance with feral swine damage and increase cost-
share partnerships with other agency, tribal, and private partners to address local
FSDM problems. Allocation of APHIS personnel, funding, and other resources
would be coordinated through APHIS-WS state programs in consultation with
agency partners, Tribes, and other organizations. The level of funding allocated
to each state WS program office would depend on feral swine populations and
distributions, damage to resources, presence of potential resources likely to be
damaged, and state, territorial, tribal or local regulations that impact management
efforts in the states and territories served by the office.
In states and territories with small isolated populations or scattered reports of feral
swine, APHIS-WS would be expected to investigate and confirm reports of feral
swine activity by conducting ground or aerial surveys to locate feral swine or
evidence of damage, and remove them as appropriate, in collaboration with state,
territorial and tribal officials. By enhancing baseline capacity, APHIS-WS would
be better positioned to conduct these activities and be able to remove swine from
some areas while their populations are still relatively small. Most of APHIS-WS’
prior FSDM actions (under the Current Program Alternative) have been
conducted at the request of individual cooperators (land management agencies for
individual properties and private entities). Cooperator resources and prioritization
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 30
of FSDM varies. This variation limits APHIS’ capacity to detect and affect
overall feral swine populations affecting multiple adjacent landowners/managers
and managing entities. Additionally, cooperators typically have not requested
APHIS-WS assistance until after feral swine populations were large or damage
became extensive. By enhancing baseline operational capacity with appropriated
funds, APHIS-WS would be able to proactively address damage issues before
they become difficult and expensive to manage.
National Feral Swine Damage Management Projects
National projects would be implemented to enable comprehensive coverage of
disease monitoring, risk analysis, and economic analysis, along with other
research activities on feral swine including but not limited to research on new
FSDM and population monitoring methods and population modeling. National
projects would provide additional support for activities to meet the national
objective of preventing the spread of feral swine, and eventually reducing the
range and population size of feral swine in the United States and its Territories.
APHIS would focus its initial efforts on eliminating feral swine from states with
emerging or low populations (i.e., feral swine present and breeding in small
numbers and/or limited to isolated portions of the state) (see Figure 2-2).
Additional criteria considered when prioritizing states would include project
duration, potential for long-term impacts, costs, and state laws/regulations that
may affect success.
Figure 2-2. Distribution of feral swine in 2014. States with low populations generally have <10,000 feral
swine and swine are only in isolated portions of a state; states with medium populations generally have
10,000–100,000 feral swine; and states with high populations generally have >100,000 feral swine and
feral swine are found in all or most counties in the state. Population estimates provided by APHIS-WS
state program directors in collaboration with state agency partners.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 31
Strategic Local Projects
Strategic local projects would be developed and proposed by APHIS-WS’ State
Directors in conjunction with partner agency, tribal, and other local partners to
address specific feral swine issues within their respective states. These projects
would support national objectives, but generally on a smaller or more local scale.
Priorities for strategic local projects would include geographic importance (i.e.,
isolation from other populations), resources protected, results support achieving
national goals/objectives, potential for success, available cost-share funds from
non-APHIS source, and potential for long-term impacts (e.g., population
elimination/reduction). For example, this could include projects designed to
eliminate feral swine populations in specified areas (e.g., county level, refuges)
within a state, enable collaborative opportunities to work with local stakeholders
to address feral swine issues, or provide increased protection of particularly
vulnerable or valuable local resources (e.g., commercial swine facilities, T&E
species).
Generate Cooperative Support
APHIS would seek cooperative partners in all aspects of FSDM. APHIS would
develop projects with cooperators to combine efforts and resources towards
meeting national objectives. Often, the APHIS lead for these projects would be
APHIS-WS State Directors. These activities will usually focus on eliminating or
suppressing feral swine populations in targeted agricultural areas, protecting
natural and cultural resources, or removing swine from urban/suburban areas to
reduce property damage.
c. Similarity with Current APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 1, No Action
Alternative)
Operations
The Integrated FSDM Program Alternative would incorporate most aspects of the
Current APHIS FSDM Program Alternative (i.e., the No Action Alternative)
including: 1) the use of the Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992, Figure 2-1, Section
F) for determining the most appropriate field-level management strategies; 2) all
available management methods including technical assistance, lethal tools, and
non-lethal methods (Section E); and 3) all applicable APHIS-WS Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) (Section G). APHIS-WS would continue to use an
IWDM approach to resolve damage issues.
Disease Monitoring
APHIS-WS state programs would continue to opportunistically collect disease
samples, under the Integrated FSDM Program Alternative. However, this
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 32
alternative allows for targeted sampling where disease transmission risk might be
highest.
Research
NWRC would continue existing research projects and collaborative efforts
described under the No Action Alternative (Current APHIS FSDM Program).
NWRC would continue to work with agency partners and research institutions to
develop or modify other new capture devices, and to evaluate efficacy and
efficiency of existing and new methods, including potential reproductive
inhibiters (e.g., GonaCon™). However, there would be better coordination
between research and the needs of the operational implementation of the program.
Education
APHIS would continue to provide on site technical assistance, teach classes,
publish research findings, and participate in professional and public meetings,
fairs and other gatherings where people may be interested in FSDM (e.g., an
educational booth at a state fair). APHIS would also continue to collaborate with
other entities on feral swine outreach and education materials and projects.
Carcass Disposal
APHIS would continue to dispose of carcasses in accordance with APHIS-WS
Directive 2.515, Disposal of Wildlife Carcasses and applicable federal, state,
tribal, territorial, and local regulations.
d. Unique Aspects of Alternative 2, Integrated FSDM Program
New components of the National FSDM Program under Alternative 2 that are
different from the No Action Alternative are as follows:
Operations
Under the Preferred Alternative, APHIS-WS would increase its capacity to
deliver FSDM assistance at the state level because WS would receive additional
federal funding for FSDM. Field operations would primarily consist of efforts to
reduce feral swine populations, in specific areas, to protect valuable resources.
APHIS-WS State Directors would lead field operations and would serve as the
primary liaison with agency partners, tribes and other cooperators. APHIS-WS
would continue to use an IWDM approach to resolve damage issues. Aerial
shooting has proven to be an effective means to control feral swine, and would be
expected to increase under the Preferred Alternative. The operational APHIS-WS
programs would have increased capacity to respond to requests to provide
education, technical advice, and recommendations to landowners, when
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 33
requested. Additionally, national level outreach and education efforts would
increase.
Population Monitoring
This Alternative provides funds to aid in investigation of feral swine population
movements and new feral swine sightings in states where feral swine are not
currently known to occur or where feral swine are thought to have been
eradicated. Determining feral swine population numbers and distribution, as well
as developing models to predict future feral swine distribution are priorities and
more details on those activities under this alternative are detailed below.
Once feral swine are removed from states, resources dedicated for population
removal would be shifted to other areas or states. In the case of entire states being
cleared of feral swine, a minimal baseline capacity would remain to ensure feral
swine populations do not become re-established. To determine the success of
FSDM in a particular area or state, APHIS-WS will work with land owners, land
managers, local, state, territorial, and tribal authorities as applicable. Once a state
is thought to be free of feral swine, it will be considered a “Detection State” for
two years. During this time, techniques incorporated into determining whether
feral swine are present will include cameras, monitoring for sign, and verifying
any reports of new sightings and removing animals when necessary. More
information on tools used for population monitoring can be found in Chapter 2
Section E.2. Site specific conditions will determine the appropriate measures to
serve as indicators of feral swine absence. Prescribing a common protocol among
all states, or even for areas within states, would result in either animal missed
because procedures were not adequate for local conditions, or in other cases may
be a waste of resources documenting the obvious. Therefore, strategies for
determining the presence or absence of feral swine in a given area will be
determined at the local level in cooperation with local management authorities.
Only after that two year period, and in conjunction with appropriate state, tribal,
or territorial agencies will APHIS-WS declare a state to be free of feral swine.
However, even at that point, feral swine could be reintroduced to the state, as
illegal transport of feral swine by people is likely to continue. Therefore, under
Alternative 2, all states will have access to contingency resources to quickly
respond to new feral swine populations.
Disease Monitoring
Unlike the current program, which primarily uses opportunistic sampling for
disease monitoring, this alternative would include increased targeted disease
monitoring that uses strategic and scientifically sound sampling designs. APHIS
would collaborate with agency partners to identify locations where disease
transmission is of greatest concern due to potential for interaction between feral
swine and livestock or wildlife, and then would target monitoring efforts at those
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 34
locations. As data and tools become available, risk-based modeling will be used
to aid identification of locations and populations that should be targeted for
disease sampling. APHIS-VS identified five diseases to be incorporated in a
national monitoring program: classical swine fever, swine brucellosis, porcine
reproductive and respiratory syndrome, influenza A virus in swine (IAV-S), and
pseudorabies. However, the list of diseases included in monitoring efforts could
be modified to address needs as they develop (e.g., Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea
Virus) including diseases that may impact native wildlife populations or removing
diseases from the list if continued sampling is deemed unnecessary. APHIS-VS
also would provide general guidance and support for diagnostic tests conducted
through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories and collaborating
laboratories. Beyond the five diseases included in the national monitoring
program, APHIS would collect additional biological samples from feral swine in
collaboration with state, territorial, tribal and local animal health officials to
address concerns regarding diseases in their area. APHIS would also collect
samples to support research activities to assess new disease risks.
APHIS would also work with the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide assistance for
monitoring diseases of concern to public health. These partnerships would enable
APHIS and human health institutions to improve risk mitigation for zoonotic
pathogens, such as pathogenic E. coli, leptospirosis, and Salmonella. These
efforts directly support APHIS’ efforts to address zoonotic diseases in animals,
and Health and Human Services’ goal to advance the health, safety, and well-
being of the American people by reducing the occurrence of infectious diseases.
Research
Under the preferred alternative, additional funding would be available for
research on FSDM. This would enable NWRC to work on more projects
concurrently than under the Current APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 1 – No
Action Alternative). NWRC would have improved capacity to form partnerships
with agencies, tribes and research institutions to investigate potential for emerging
technologies to be incorporated in feral swine control and monitoring activities
(e.g., reproductive inhibitors such as phage-peptide constructs).
Another role of research would be developing and evaluating techniques for
monitoring accomplishments of the FSDM program including improved
techniques to estimate feral swine populations and monitor population trends.
APHIS-WS and APHIS-PPD would work closely to develop performance
measurements that are consistent with long-term strategic goals and objectives of
the National FSDM Program. Performance measures would be incorporated into
adaptive management decision making.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 35
APHIS-VS also would contribute to feral swine research. The APHIS-VS Center
for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) would integrate existing
knowledge to develop disease risk models to estimate potential impacts of feral
swine on domestic agriculture animals. Epidemiologic data gathered during
disease monitoring activities would also be of value in populating risk models.
These models would be used in developing and evaluating future strategies for
monitoring feral swine diseases and FSDM activities. CEAH would collaborate
with APHIS-WS to refine existing maps of feral swine distribution, and create
habitat models to predict where future feral swine establishment may occur.
APHIS-VS’ Wildlife Livestock Disease Investigations Team would also
investigate technologies for remote detection of infectious diseases in feral swine
(e.g., brucellosis, tuberculosis). They also would aid in the development and
evaluation of population and disease management methods for feral swine, such
as vaccines and vaccine delivery methods.
Education and Outreach
National level communication support will be available including but not limited
to the development of a strategic communication plan, key messages, and related
outreach materials and events. APHIS will work with agency partners, tribes and
private entities to identify appropriate audiences, messages, materials, and
actions/events. Initial materials development will likely focus on web pages,
factsheets, displays, and online videos. National level assistance will be available
to APHIS program spokespeople in the states and territories when responding to
media inquiries, and identifying and coordinating proactive media opportunities.
Disposal of Swine
The number of feral swine removed by APHIS-WS would substantially increase
under this alternative. In addition to conformance with applicable APHIS
program policy for carcass disposal, as described under Sections G (Standard
Operating Procedures) and E.11. (different disposal methods), the APHIS-WS
Feral Swine Program Manager would work with appropriate APHIS-VS
personnel and agency and tribal partners to review current carcass disposal
guidelines, and develop or refine additional guidelines and methods. All
disposals would be made in a manner that demonstrates APHIS-WS’ recognition
of the public’s sensitivity to the viewing of animal carcasses. APHIS-WS would
work with agency partners and tribes to ensure that feral swine carcass disposal is
conducted in compliance with the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act,
and similar applicable state, territorial, tribal, and local government statutes.
Regulatory Actions
The lead and cooperating federal agencies have limited regulatory authority for
feral swine management. Under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2),
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 36
APHIS does not propose to modify its existing regulations at 9 CFR 78.30(c)
which restrict the interstate transportation of animals. APHIS would continue to
assess the effectiveness of these regulations, and would also work with Federal
agency partners to investigate other regulatory options under their authorities.
These efforts could aid in reducing feral swine damage and help prevent illegal
movement of swine. (See also Section F.2.b. below.)
States, territories, tribes, and local governments are the primary entities with
regulatory authority pertaining to feral swine hunting, animal production
practices, and the sale and movement of animals in their jurisdiction. APHIS
would work with agency and tribal partners on ideas to improve the consistency
and efficacy of state, territorial, tribal, and local regulations and policies to
address FSDM. APHIS would also work with federal, state, territorial, tribal and
local partners on education and outreach efforts pertaining to feral swine
regulations, and the need for feral swine management. (See also Section F.2.b
below.)
Coordination with Neighboring Countries
Feral swine are known to move across borders between the United States and
Mexico and Canada on their own and through human intervention. The
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) would address issues associated with
feral swine along these borders. APHIS- VS, -WS and -IS would work
collaboratively with Mexico and Canada to develop plans to reduce movement of
feral swine and associated damage and disease risks.
Evaluation and Monitoring
APHIS would monitor program adherence to conditions specified in the EIS,
Record of Decision (ROD) including any required mitigation for compliance with
relevant laws, regulations and program policies. APHIS would also develop
performance measurements that are consistent with long-term strategic goals and
objectives of the FSDM plan. Program monitoring and performance reports
would be used to communicate with agency decision-makers and budget officials
within USDA and APHIS and to guide and refine management practices in
accordance with adaptive management practices.
3. Alternative 3—Baseline APHIS FSDM Program
a. Introduction
The Baseline APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 3) is a nationally coordinated
response that improves the baseline operational capacity of APHIS-WS state
programs that assist in states and territories and tribal lands with feral swine. This
alternative does not include the national feral swine projects or strategic local
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 37
projects as described for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
Allocations would be based on the size of the feral swine population in each state
and territory. Resources would not be strategically allocated at the national level
specifically to stabilize and eventually reduce the national feral swine population,
although some population reductions and eliminations would be likely as a result
of improved baseline operational capacity at the state, territory and tribal level.
As with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), APHIS would serve as the
lead Federal agency in a cooperative effort with other agency partners, tribes,
organizations, and local entities that share a common interest in reducing or
eliminating problems caused by feral swine.
b. Key Program Components
Improve Baseline Operational Capacity to Respond (Infrastructure)
This alternative would increase the resources available for APHIS-WS state
programs to conduct FSDM at the state, territory, and tribal level. The Baseline
FSDM Program would maximize cost-share opportunities for operational
management with agency partners, tribes, and other cooperators because the
majority of available funds would be directed to local feral swine management,
instead of being partially allocated to national projects such as research,
educational programs, international coordination, and disease monitoring.
APHIS would provide resources at the national level while allowing APHIS-WS
State Directors the local decision-making authority and flexibility to provide
FSDM operational services in cooperation with local partners. As with the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), APHIS-WS state programs would
have the flexibility needed to effectively manage operational activities based on
local needs and constraints. APHIS’ capacity to manage feral swine damage and
risks to human and animal health will continue to be enhanced through
cooperation with agency partners, tribes, and local entities, with a common
interest in eliminating problems caused by feral swine. In states where feral
swine are emerging, or populations are low, APHIS would cooperate with partner
agencies to implement strategies to eliminate them. In states where feral swine
populations are large and widely distributed, and/or state, territorial, or tribal
management objectives do not support eradication, APHIS and its partners would
protect local resources and reduce problems by suppressing local populations and
implementing other local risk and damage management measures.
Generate Cooperative Support
APHIS would seek cooperative partners in all aspects of FSDM. APHIS would
develop projects with cooperators to combine efforts and resources towards
meeting national objectives. Often, the APHIS lead for these projects would be
APHIS-WS State Directors. These activities will usually focus on eliminating or
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 38
suppressing feral swine populations in targeted agricultural areas, protecting
natural and cultural resources, or removing swine from urban/suburban areas to
reduce property damage and risks to public safety.
c. Similarity with Current APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 1, No Action
Alternative)
Operations
Alternative 3 would incorporate most aspects of the Current APHIS FSDM
Program Alternative (i.e., the No Action Alternative) including: 1) the use of the
Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992, Figure 2-1, Section F) for determining the most
appropriate field-level management strategies; 2) all available management
methods including technical assistance, lethal tools, and non-lethal methods
(Section E); and 3) all applicable APHIS-WS Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) (Section G). APHIS-WS would continue to use an IWDM approach to
resolve damage issues.
Disease Monitoring, Research
There would be no increases in most national program activities including disease
monitoring, research, outreach and education, and international coordination.
These activities would occur at levels described for the Current APHIS FSDM
Program (Alternative 1) above.
Carcass Disposal
APHIS would continue to dispose of carcasses in accordance with APHIS-WS
Directive 2.515, Disposal of Wildlife Carcasses and applicable federal, state,
tribal, territorial, and local regulations.
d. Unique Aspects of Alternative 3, Baseline APHIS FSDM Program
New components of the Baseline FSDM Program that are different from the No
Action Alternative are as follows:
Operations
This alternative would increase APHIS-WS’ operational baseline FSDM capacity
to respond over levels which would occur under the Current APHIS FSDM
Program (Alternative 1) and Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) for WS
state programs working in states, territories and tribal lands with feral swine.
Aerial shooting has proven to be an effective means to control feral swine, and
would be expected to increase under this alternative, because the increase in
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 39
federal resources would facilitate access to trained aerial shooting equipment and
personnel. However, there would not be aerial shooting resources provided by
National FSDM program, which will increase the burden on state programs to
acquire them.
Disposal of Swine
The number of feral swine removed by APHIS-WS would substantially increase
under this alternative. In addition to conformance with applicable APHIS
program policy for carcass disposal, as described under Sections G (Standard
Operating Procedures) and E.11. (different disposal methods), the APHIS-WS
Feral Swine Program Manager would work with appropriate APHIS-VS
personnel and agency and tribal partners to review current carcass disposal
guidelines, and develop or refine additional guidelines and methods.
Regulatory Actions
States, territories, tribes, and local governments are the primary entities with
regulatory authority pertaining to feral swine hunting, animal production
practices, and the sale and movement of animals within their area of jurisdiction.
APHIS would work with agency and tribal partners at the state, territory, tribal
and local level on ideas to improve the efficacy of their regulations and policies to
address FSDM and on education and outreach efforts pertaining to feral swine
regulations, and the need for feral swine. However, these efforts would primarily
occur at the state, territory and tribal level. There would be no change in national
level review of regulatory processes under this alternative over that which occurs
under the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1).
Education and Outreach
The APHIS-WS state programs would have increased capacity to respond to
requests to provide education, technical advice, and recommendations to
landowners because of the increase in baseline operational capacity to respond.
However, these efforts would not have the benefit of support from a national
FSDM education and outreach program as would occur under the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2) and National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
Program (Alternative 4).
Evaluation and Monitoring
Program evaluation and monitoring would occur as under the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2). However, the evaluation and monitoring process would
not benefit from research in the same way as the Integrated FSDM Program
because there would be no increase in NWRC research capacity under this
alternative.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 40
APHIS would monitor program adherence to conditions specified in the EIS,
Record of Decision (ROD) including any required mitigation for compliance with
relevant laws, regulations and program policies. APHIS would also develop
performance measurements that are consistent with long-term strategic goals and
objectives of the FSDM plan. Program monitoring and performance reports
would be used to communicate with agency decision-makers and budget officials
within USDA and APHIS and to guide and refine management practices in
accordance with adaptive management practices.
4. Alternative 4—National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects Program
a. Introduction
This alternative places emphasis on national FSDM projects and strategic local
projects as described in Section 2.b. above. This alternative would focus all
available resources on national and strategic local projects selected based on their
ability to help achieve national goals of containing and eradicating feral swine and
protection of sensitive resources (e.g., cultural sites, Threatened and Endangered
species). Consequently, APHIS-WS programs serving states and territories which
are a low priority for achieving national feral swine population management
objectives may not receive any federal funding to enhance FSDM efforts until
management objectives are achieved in high priority areas and resources
reallocated to new sites. APHIS-WS programs in low priority states and
territories could continue to assist cooperators as currently occurs under
Alternative 1.
b. Key Program Components
National Feral Swine Damage Management Projects
National FSDM projects under this alternative would be the same as for the
Integrated FSDM Program. However, resources that would go to improve
baseline capacity to respond in low priority states and territories under Alternative
2 would be allocated to national and strategic local operations projects under this
alternative. APHIS would focus its initial efforts on eliminating feral swine from
states with emerging or low populations (i.e., feral swine present and breeding in
small numbers and/or limited to isolated portions of the state) (see Figure 2-2).
Once feral swine are removed from states with low feral swine populations,
resources dedicated for population removal would be shifted to other areas,
leaving a minimal baseline capacity in these states to ensure feral swine
populations do not become re-established. Additional criteria considered when
prioritizing states would include project duration, potential for long-term impacts,
prior status, costs, and state laws/regulations that may affect success. This
alternative would also provide funds to aid in investigation of feral swine
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 41
sightings in states where feral swine are not currently known to occur. Program
objectives include eliminating feral swine from 2 states in the first 5 years;
continuing to eliminate feral swine from additional states, on average eliminating
feral swine from 2 states every 5 years; and stabilizing the increase in feral swine
damage within 10 years of program initiation.
Strategic Local Projects
Strategic local projects would be developed and proposed by APHIS-WS’ State
Directors in conjunction with partner agency, tribal, and other local partners to
address specific feral swine issues within their respective states. These projects
would support national objectives, but generally on a smaller or more local scale.
Priorities for strategic local projects would include geographic importance (i.e.,
isolation from other populations), resources protected, results support achieving
national goals/objectives, potential for success, available cost-share funds from
non-APHIS source, and potential for long-term impacts (e.g., population
elimination/ reduction). For example, this could include projects designed to
eliminate feral swine populations in specified areas (e.g., county level, refuges)
within a state, enable collaborative opportunities to work with local stakeholders
to address feral swine issues, or provide increased protection of particularly
vulnerable or valuable local resources (e.g., commercial swine facilities, T&E
species).
Generate Cooperative Support
APHIS would seek cooperative partners in all aspects of FSDM. APHIS would
develop projects with cooperators to combine efforts and resources towards
meeting national objectives. Often, the APHIS lead for these projects would be
APHIS-WS State Directors. These activities will usually focus on eliminating or
suppressing feral swine populations in targeted agricultural areas, protecting
natural and cultural resources, or removing swine from urban/suburban areas to
reduce property damage and risks to public safety.
c. Similarity with Current APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 1, No Action
Alternative)
Operations
Alternative 4 would incorporate most aspects of the Current APHIS FSDM
Program Alternative (i.e., the No Action Alternative) including: 1) the use of the
Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992, Figure 2-1, Section F) for determining the most
appropriate field-level management strategies; 2) all available management
methods including technical assistance, lethal tools, and non-lethal methods
(Section E); and 3) all applicable APHIS-WS Standard Operating Procedures
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 42
(SOPs) (Section G). APHIS-WS would continue to use an IWDM approach to
resolve damage issues.
Some APHIS-WS’ programs in states, territories, and tribes with large feral swine
programs, or in areas where eradication is not feasible or desired (e.g., feral swine
managed as a game species) may not receive any funding until such time as
priority management objectives have been achieved and resources are shifted to
other areas with feral swine. In these areas, APHIS involvement in FSDM would
be the same as occurs under the Current FSDM Program.
Population Monitoring
This alternative provides funds to aid in investigation of feral swine population
movements and new feral swine sightings in states where feral swine are not
currently known to occur or where feral swine are thought to have been
eradicated. Determining feral swine population numbers and distribution, as well
as developing models to predict future feral swine distribution are priorities and
more details on those activities under this alternative are detailed under the
heading d. Unique Aspects of Alternative 2, Integrated FSDM Program.
Once feral swine are removed from an area, resources dedicated for population
removal would be shifted to other areas or states. In the case of entire states being
cleared of feral swine, a minimal FSDM baseline capacity would remain to ensure
feral swine populations do not become re-established. To determine the success
of FSDM in a particular area or state, APHIS-WS will work with land owners,
land managers, local, state, territorial, and tribal authorities as applicable. Once a
state is thought to be free of feral swine, it will be considered a “Detection State”
for two years. During this time, techniques incorporated into determining
whether feral swine are present will include cameras, monitoring for sign, and
attempting to verify any reports of new sightings. More information on tools used
for population monitoring can be found in Chapter 2 Section E.2. Site specific
conditions will determine the appropriate measures to serve as indicators of feral
swine absence. Prescribing a common protocol among all states, or even for areas
within states, would result in either animals missed because procedures were not
adequate for local conditions, or in other cases may be a waste of resources
documenting the obvious. Strategies for determining the presence or absence of
feral swine in a given area will be determined at the local level in cooperation
with local management authorities. Only after that two year period, and in
conjunction with appropriate state, tribal, or territorial agencies will APHIS-WS
declare a state to be free of feral swine However, even at that point, feral swine
could be reintroduced to the state, as illegal transport of feral swine by people is
likely to continue. Therefore, under Alternative 4, all states will have access to
contingency resources to quickly respond to new feral swine populations, but the
lack of baseline operation capability will increase the amount of time it takes to
form a response.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 43
Disease Monitoring
APHIS-WS state programs would continue to opportunistically collect disease
samples, under the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). However, this
alternative also allows for targeted sampling where disease transmission risk
might be highest. In states which are not identified as a priority for National
FSDM project, targeted disease surveillance could be funded as a strategic local
project.
Research
NWRC would continue existing research projects and collaborative efforts
described under the No Action Alternative (Current APHIS FSDM Program).
NWRC would continue to work with agency partners and research institutions to
develop or modify other new capture devices, and to evaluate efficacy and
efficiency of existing and new methods, including potential reproductive
inhibiters (e.g., GonaCon™). However, there would be better coordination
between research and the needs of the operational implementation of the program.
Education
APHIS would continue to provide on site technical assistance, teach classes,
publish research findings, and participate in professional and public meetings,
fairs and other gatherings where people may be interested in FSDM (e.g., an
educational booth at a state fair). APHIS would also continue to collaborate with
other entities on feral swine outreach and education materials and projects.
Carcass Disposal
APHIS would continue to dispose of carcasses in accordance with APHIS-WS
Directive 2.515, Disposal of Wildlife Carcasses and applicable federal, state,
tribal, territorial, and local regulations.
d. Unique Aspects of Alternative 4, National FSDM and Strategic Local
Projects Program
New components of the National FSDM Program under Alternative 4 that are
different from the No Action Alternative are as follows:
Operations
Under Alternative 4, APHIS-WS would increase its capacity to deliver FSDM
assistance in states, territories and tribal lands that are identified as national
FSDM priorities. Field operations in strategic local project areas would primarily
consist of efforts to reduce feral swine populations, in specific areas, to protect
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 44
valuable resources. APHIS-WS State Directors would lead field operations and
would serve as the primary liaison with agency partners, tribes and other
cooperators. APHIS-WS would continue to use an IWDM approach to resolve
damage issues. Aerial shooting has proven to be an effective means to control
feral swine, and would be expected to increase under this alternative. The
APHIS-WS programs serving priority states and territories would have increased
capacity to respond to requests to provide education, technical advice, and
recommendations to landowners, when requested.
Disease and Population Monitoring
Unlike the current program, which primarily uses opportunistic sampling for
disease monitoring, this alternative would include increased targeted disease
monitoring that uses strategic and scientifically sound sampling designs. APHIS
would collaborate with agency partners to identify locations where disease
transmission is of greatest concern due to potential for interaction between feral
swine and livestock or wildlife, and then would target monitoring efforts at those
locations. As data and tools become available, risk-based modeling will be used
to aid identification of locations and populations that should be targeted for
disease sampling. Identification of priority diseases for the national monitoring
program would be the same as described for the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2). APHIS-VS also would provide increased guidance and support
for diagnostic tests conducted through the National Veterinary Services
Laboratories and collaborating laboratories. APHIS would also collect additional
biological samples from feral swine in collaboration with state, territorial, tribal
and local animal health officials to address concerns regarding diseases in their
area. APHIS would also collect samples to support research activities to assess
new disease risks.
APHIS capacity to cooperate with the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide assistance for
monitoring diseases of concern to public health would increase under this
alternative in the same manner as described for the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2).
Research
Similar to Alternative 2, under this alternative, additional funding would be
available for research on FSDM. This would enable NWRC to work on more
projects concurrently than under the Current APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative
1 – No Action Alternative) and Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3). NWRC
would have increased capacity to form partnerships with agencies, tribes and
research institutions to investigate potential for emerging technologies to be
incorporated in feral swine control and monitoring activities (e.g., reproductive
inhibitors such as phaged-peptide constructs).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 45
As with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), the APHIS-VS Center for
Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) would integrate existing knowledge to
develop disease risk models to estimate potential impacts of feral swine on
domestic agriculture animals. CEAH would collaborate with APHIS-WS to
refine existing maps of feral swine distribution, and create habitat models to
predict where future feral swine establishment may occur. APHIS-VS’ Wildlife
Livestock Disease Investigations Team would also investigate technologies for
remote detection of infectious diseases in feral swine (e.g., brucellosis,
tuberculosis). They also would aid in the development and evaluation of
population and disease management methods for feral swine, such as vaccines and
vaccine delivery methods.
Education and Outreach
National level communication support will be available including but not limited
to the development of a strategic communication plan, key messages, and related
outreach materials and events. APHIS will work with agency partners, tribes and
private entities to identify appropriate audiences, messages, materials, and
actions/events. National level assistance will be available to APHIS program
spokespeople in the states and territories when responding to media inquiries, and
identifying and coordinating proactive media opportunities.
Disposal of Swine
The number of feral swine removed by APHIS-WS would substantially increase
under this alternative. In addition to conformance with applicable APHIS
program policy for carcass disposal, as described under Sections G (Standard
Operating Procedures) and E.11. (different disposal methods), the APHIS-WS
Feral Swine Program Manager would work with appropriate APHIS-VS
personnel and agency and tribal partners to review current carcass disposal
guidelines, and develop or refine additional guidelines and methods.
Regulatory Actions
States, territories, tribes, and local governments are the primary entities with
regulatory authority pertaining to feral swine hunting, animal production
practices, and the sale and movement of animals in their jurisdiction. The lead
and cooperating federal agencies have limited regulatory authority for feral swine
management. APHIS does not propose to modify its existing regulations at 9
CFR 78.30(c) which restrict the interstate transportation of animals at this time.
APHIS would continue to assess the effectiveness of these regulations, and would
also work with Federal agency partners to investigate other regulatory options
under their authorities. These efforts could aid in reducing feral swine damage
and help prevent illegal movement of swine. (See also Section F.2.b. below).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 46
APHIS would also work with federal, state, territorial, tribal and local partners on
education and outreach efforts pertaining to feral swine regulations, and the need
for feral swine management. (See also Section F.2.b below.)
Coordination with Neighboring Countries
Feral swine are known to move across borders between the United States and
Mexico and Canada on their own and through human intervention. This
alternative would address issues associated with feral swine along these borders.
APHIS- VS, -WS and -IS would work collaboratively with Mexico and Canada to
develop plans to reduce movement of feral swine and associated damage and
disease risks.
Evaluation and Monitoring
APHIS would monitor program adherence to conditions specified in the EIS,
Record of Decision (ROD) including any required mitigation for compliance with
relevant laws, regulations and program policies. APHIS would also develop
performance measurements that are consistent with long-term strategic goals and
objectives of the FSDM plan. This alternative would include research to develop
performance measurements for monitoring accomplishments of the FSDM
program including improved techniques to estimate feral swine populations and
monitor population trends. Program monitoring and performance reports would
be used to communicate with agency decision-makers and budget officials within
USDA and APHIS and to guide and refine management practices in accordance
with adaptive management practices.
5. Alternative 5—Federal FSDM Grant Program
Under this Alternative, APHIS would distribute National FSDM Program funding to
states, territories, tribes, organizations representing native peoples, and research
institutions. APHIS’ role in operational FSDM would be substantially diminished and
APHIS-WS would not conduct any operational FSDM under this alternative. Entities
currently receiving APHIS-WS assistance with FSDM would be referred to the grant
recipient conducting the FSDM work in their area. All feral swine control actions would
be implemented by grant recipients or their agents. APHIS-WS would not be able to be
the grant recipient’s “agent” under this alternative, which would restrict access to the
expertise and resources available through APHIS-WS.
The National FSDM Program Manager would administer the Federal FSDM Grant
Program to achieve the key project components described for the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2; Section 2.b above). Grant distribution would place emphasis on
empowering those entities with regulatory authority over the management of feral swine,
and those which are most able to provide baseline operational assistance and meet
national project priorities. Grant applicants would be encouraged to work collaboratively
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 47
with entities in their area such as federal land managers and private organizations when
developing their grant proposals. Feral swine education and outreach, and disease and
population monitoring would be implemented at the discretion of grant recipient agencies
and/or as directed through the grant.
Research grants would be included with this alternative, and would be distributed to non-
APHIS applicant research institutions for feral swine-related research projects. Priorities
for research grants would include emerging technologies, developing and evaluating
performance measures for FSDM, economics of feral swine damage and damage
management, and feral swine population modeling. However, NWRC would not be
involved in feral swine research or product development. Research entities will not have
the opportunity to benefit from NWRC wildlife damage management research experience
and capacity to handle registration of feral swine toxicants and reproductive control
materials.
The grants process would require more administrative/managerial resources to administer
than the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Federal funding for FSDM through
grants constitutes a significant federal nexus, which would require grant recipients to
work with APHIS on compliance with federal regulations including but not limited to
NEPA, ESA, and NHPA. Grant recipients would also be expected to comply with SOPs
and mitigation measures established for the protection of the environment in this FEIS
(Chapter 2 Section G). APHIS may not be able to provide more than minimal monitoring
for compliance with these measures without reallocating substantial amounts of the funds
that should go for project implementation to project monitoring. Consequently, less
funds would be available for operational management and research than under the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Additionally, response times to new feral
swine populations would be significantly slower than other alternatives due to the
timeline for issuing federal grants.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 48
Table 2–1. Summary and Comparison of Alternatives with Additional Management Considerations
Alternative 1—
Current APHIS
FSDM Program
(No Action
Alternative)
Alternative 2—National
FSDM Program (Includes
Baseline Capacity,
National, and Strategic
Local Projects) (Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative 3—
Baseline APHIS
FSDM Program
(Support Based on
Swine Population
Levels)
Alternative 4—National
and Strategic Local
Projects Program (No
Federal Support for
Baseline Capacity)
Alternative 5—Federal
FSDM Grant Program
(Includes Baseline
Capacity, National and
Strategic Local
Projects
APHIS Program Components
National
Coordination
No Yes Some. Similar to
Alternative 1 with
addition of national
coordination of
resources to increase
baseline capacity to
respond.
Yes Yes, limited to
allocation of resources
through grant process.
Operational Damage
Management by
APHIS
Yes, where
cooperator funding
is provided.
Yes, with national funding to
improve baseline capacity to
respond and address national
priority and strategic local
projects.
Yes, with highest level
of national funding
allocated for baseline
capacity to respond. No
national funding
specifically allocated to
national priority or
strategic local projects.
Yes, with expanded
support for national
priority and strategic local
project areas. National
funding to increase
baseline capacity to
respond may not be
available to assist in all
areas with feral swine.
None conducted by
APHIS. Supported as
funded through the grant
process, and could be
implemented by states,
territories, tribes and
organizations
representing native
peoples.
Eradication and
Containment at
National, State,
Tribal, or Territorial
Levels by APHIS.
Limited to actions
initiated and funded
by states, territories,
and tribes.
Yes, Priorities set based on a
combination of national feral
swine population
management objectives and
state, territorial and tribal
management objectives (e.g.,
prevention, eradication,
reduction, game species)
Similar to Alternative 1
but with increased
resources for baseline
capacity. No
strategically coordinated
effort to stabilize and
reduce national feral
swine population
Similar to Alternative 2
except all funding would
be committed to national
and strategic local
projects. Increases
capacity to eradicate and
contain feral swine in
priority states, territories,
and tribal lands.
Supported as funded
through the grant
process. Could be
implemented by states,
territories, tribes and
organizations
representing native
peoples
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 49
Alternative 1—
Current APHIS
FSDM Program
(No Action
Alternative)
Alternative 2—National
FSDM Program (Includes
Baseline Capacity,
National, and Strategic
Local Projects) (Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative 3—
Baseline APHIS
FSDM Program
(Support Based on
Swine Population
Levels)
Alternative 4—National
and Strategic Local
Projects Program (No
Federal Support for
Baseline Capacity)
Alternative 5—Federal
FSDM Grant Program
(Includes Baseline
Capacity, National and
Strategic Local
Projects
APHIS Disease
Monitoring
Yes, national
efforts are primarily
opportunistic to
other damage
management
actions. Targeted
local efforts may
occur if cooperator
funding is provided.
Yes, at elevated levels with
nationally coordinated and
targeted sampling
Yes, similar to
Alternative 1, but with
increased resources
associated with
improved baseline
capacity to respond.
Yes, similar to Alternative
2 but through national and
strategic local projects
only.
APHIS would not have
field staff in place to
assist in the same
manner as Alternatives
1–4. Grant recipients
(states, territories, tribes,
and organizations
representing native
peoples) could submit
samples.
Rapid Response to
New Populations of
Feral Swine in
otherwise Swine-free
States
Very limited
capacity. Relies on
cooperator
initiation and
funding.
Yes Same as Alternative 1
because baseline
resources would be
provided only to states
with existing feral swine
populations.
Yes No APHIS response
other than support
through grant program.
Response would be
implemented by states,
territories and tribes.
Research Some based on
limited funding.
Increases research activities
over Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 2. No research by APHIS.
Increased research by
other research
institutions supported
through grant program.
Education/Outreach Cooperative
partnerships,
technical assistance
at APHIS-WS state
program levels.
Incorporated into
other/existing
activities. Limited
national support.
Includes development and
implementation of a strategic
communication plan for
outreach materials and
events. Plan prepared in
collaboration with partner
agencies and tribes to
identify and address needs
and effective methods.
Same as Alternative 1
with additional outreach
at the APHIS-WS state
level through baseline
funding. National level
outreach and education
same as for Alternative
1.
Same as Alternative 2 for
states identified as
priorities for FSDM. In
states and territories not
identified as national
FSDM priorities, local
education and outreach
would be similar to
Alternative 1 with some
As supported through
grant program and at
discretion of states,
territories and tribes.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 50
Alternative 1—
Current APHIS
FSDM Program
(No Action
Alternative)
Alternative 2—National
FSDM Program (Includes
Baseline Capacity,
National, and Strategic
Local Projects) (Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative 3—
Baseline APHIS
FSDM Program
(Support Based on
Swine Population
Levels)
Alternative 4—National
and Strategic Local
Projects Program (No
Federal Support for
Baseline Capacity)
Alternative 5—Federal
FSDM Grant Program
(Includes Baseline
Capacity, National and
Strategic Local
Projects
Outreach would include
support of federal, state and
tribal regulations which
discourage activities that
contribute to the feral swine
problem.
indirect benefits from
national FSDM efforts.
Review of Federal,
State, Territorial and
Tribal Feral Swine
Regulations
No coordinated
review of state
regulations.
APHIS-VS has
regulatory oversight
of Federal interstate
movement of feral
swine.
No new federal regulations
are proposed at this time,
however, APHIS would
review and monitor existing
regulations at the state,
territorial, and tribal levels.
APHIS would support state,
territorial, and tribal agency
efforts to develop effective
regulations.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 1
Coordination with
Canada and Mexico
Limited to the local
state, territory and
tribal level.
National coordination with
Canada and Mexico to
establish plans to address
feral swine along common
borders.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 2 None by APHIS except
as required for disease
management by APHIS-
VS.
APHIS Cooperative
Partnerships
At state, territorial,
tribal, and local
levels.
National, state, territorial,
tribal, and local
State, territorial, tribal,
and local levels.
National, state, territorial,
tribal, and local levels.
Limited to grants
process at national,
state, territorial, tribal
levels.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 51
Alternative 1—
Current APHIS
FSDM Program
(No Action
Alternative)
Alternative 2—National
FSDM Program (Includes
Baseline Capacity,
National, and Strategic
Local Projects) (Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative 3—
Baseline APHIS
FSDM Program
(Support Based on
Swine Population
Levels)
Alternative 4—National
and Strategic Local
Projects Program (No
Federal Support for
Baseline Capacity)
Alternative 5—Federal
FSDM Grant Program
(Includes Baseline
Capacity, National and
Strategic Local
Projects
Population
Monitoring
None, or
opportunistic based
on cooperator
funding.
Yes, includes research and
modeling support at the
national level.
Yes, in all states
currently with feral
swine.
Yes, includes research and
modeling support at the
national level.
Through grant process
and at discretion of
states, territories, tribes
and Organizations
representing native
peoples.
Coordination and Management
APHIS Program
Leadership and
Coordination
APHIS-WS state
management under
regional and
national APHIS-
WS leadership, but
no nationally
coordinated FSDM
strategy. National
leadership for work
by NWRC.
National FSDM Program
established under national
oversight to coordinate
activities across APHIS
organizations. National
FSDM Program Manager
works with APHIS-WS
state, regional and national
leadership as under
Alternative 1.
Same as Alternative 2
except all coordination
would be limited to
baseline operations
Same as Alternative 2
except all coordination
would be limited to
national and strategic local
projects, with no baseline.
Same as Alternative 2,
but limited to
distribution of grants.
Operations Project
Management – Direct
Control and
Technical Assistance
APHIS-WS State
Directors as
established in
cooperative
agreements with
cooperators.
Same as Alternative 1 but
coordinated with National
FSDM Program
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 2
State, territorial, and
tribal agencies with feral
swine management
authority or as
authorized by states,
territories, and tribes
Disease Monitoring
(APHIS disease
monitoring tied to
staff in operations).
Nationally
coordinated through
APHIS National
Wildlife Disease
Program. Local
collaboration.
Nationally coordinated
through FSDM program.
Uses risk-based modeling
for targeted disease
sampling. Includes local
collaborative efforts.
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 2 No disease monitoring
by APHIS. Could be
implemented by states,
territories, tribes and
organizations
representing native
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 52
Alternative 1—
Current APHIS
FSDM Program
(No Action
Alternative)
Alternative 2—National
FSDM Program (Includes
Baseline Capacity,
National, and Strategic
Local Projects) (Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative 3—
Baseline APHIS
FSDM Program
(Support Based on
Swine Population
Levels)
Alternative 4—National
and Strategic Local
Projects Program (No
Federal Support for
Baseline Capacity)
Alternative 5—Federal
FSDM Grant Program
(Includes Baseline
Capacity, National and
Strategic Local
Projects
Primarily
opportunistic
sampling.
peoples that receive
grants.
Research NWRC project
management.
Same as Alternative 1 with
coordination through
National FSDM program.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 2. Coordination and
management limited to
allocation of funds
through grant program.
Communications and
Outreach
APHIS-WS State
Directors, NWRC.
Same as Alternative 1 with
National FSDM Program
coordination and
management.
Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 2. Limited to only that
needed to solicit
p
articipation in the grant
program.
Funding
Funding Sources Primarily
cooperator funding
from federal, state
territorial, tribal,
and local entities
and/or landowners.
Same as Alternative 1/ but
adds Federal cost-share
baseline capacity to respond
at APHIS-WS state levels.
Adds Federal funding for
national and strategic local
projects.
Same as Alternative 1
but adds Federal cost-
share with increase in
baseline capacity at
APHIS-WS state levels.
Same as Alternative 1 but
adds Federal funds for
national and strategic local
projects. No baseline
funding to APHIS-WS
state programs.
Federal FSDM grants.
Cooperator funding
would still be available.
Funding
Prioritization
Funding priorities
established by
requesting
cooperators.
National funding for
baseline capacity to respond
in all states with feral swine
based on feral swine activity,
followed by consideration of
resources protected, state,
territorial and tribal laws and
regulations that may affect
success, and geographical
Priorities for national
funding to improve
baseline capacity to
respond same as in
Alternative 2. No
national or strategic
local projects.
Same as Alternative 2 but
no funding to improve
baseline capacity to
respond.
Grants issued to achieve
same goals as
Alternative 2 with
similar system of
funding priorities.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 53
Alternative 1—
Current APHIS
FSDM Program
(No Action
Alternative)
Alternative 2—National
FSDM Program (Includes
Baseline Capacity,
National, and Strategic
Local Projects) (Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative 3—
Baseline APHIS
FSDM Program
(Support Based on
Swine Population
Levels)
Alternative 4—National
and Strategic Local
Projects Program (No
Federal Support for
Baseline Capacity)
Alternative 5—Federal
FSDM Grant Program
(Includes Baseline
Capacity, National and
Strategic Local
Projects
and spatial distribution of
swine.
Nationally generated
projects would be identified
based on capacity to achieve
goal of reducing range and
size of national feral swine
population. Strategic local
projects selected to augment
efforts to protect sensitive
resources and national
population management
goals.
Personnel
Operational (includes
disease monitoring)
and Research
Personnel
APHIS current
staff.
APHIS current staff, adding
staff transfers and temporary
hires.
Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2. Grant recipients
including state, territory,
and tribal agencies,
Organizations
representing native
people, and their
designated agents.
Administration Existing APHIS
regional and State
staff.
National FSDM Program,
with existing APHIS
regional staff and APHIS
State Directors.
Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2. National FSDM
Program administers
grant program.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 54
Alternative 1—
Current APHIS
FSDM Program
(No Action
Alternative)
Alternative 2—National
FSDM Program (Includes
Baseline Capacity,
National, and Strategic
Local Projects) (Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative 3—
Baseline APHIS
FSDM Program
(Support Based on
Swine Population
Levels)
Alternative 4—National
and Strategic Local
Projects Program (No
Federal Support for
Baseline Capacity)
Alternative 5—Federal
FSDM Grant Program
(Includes Baseline
Capacity, National and
Strategic Local
Projects
Feral Swine Damage Management Tools and Environmental Protection Measures
Operational Tools for
Feral Swine Damage
Management
All legally available
methods (Section
2.C) using APHIS-
WS Decision
Model (Slate et al.
1992, Figure 2-1)
Same as Alternative 1 but
increased funding for
research. Increased research
capacity will facilitate
improvement of existing
methods and development of
new methods. New methods
development may include
registration of chemical
methods already under
development (e.g., sodium
nitrite and GonaCon
TM
).
Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 2 All methods legally
available to grant
recipients.
Mitigation and SOPs Mitigation
measures are built
into existing
programs as SOPs
and in project-
specific agreements
for control.
Mitigation measures have
been built into the current
program as SOPs (Section
2.D). Additional locally
developed measures adopted
as needed.
Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 APHIS would require
implementation of
mitigation and SOPs by
grant recipients as a
condition of funding.
APHIS would need to
allocate staff to monitor
mitigation or SOP
implementation.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 55
Alternative 1—
Current APHIS
FSDM Program
(No Action
Alternative)
Alternative 2—National
FSDM Program (Includes
Baseline Capacity,
National, and Strategic
Local Projects) (Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative 3—
Baseline APHIS
FSDM Program
(Support Based on
Swine Population
Levels)
Alternative 4—National
and Strategic Local
Projects Program (No
Federal Support for
Baseline Capacity)
Alternative 5—Federal
FSDM Grant Program
(Includes Baseline
Capacity, National and
Strategic Local
Projects
NEPA Compliance
Post EIS/ROD NEPA
Considerations -
Operations
Current projects are
addressed by
APHIS-WS at state,
territorial or local
level in
Environmental
Assessments and
Categorical
Exclusions,
depending on scale
of project and
anticipated impacts.
May require further site-
specific NEPA compliance
for consistency with Record
of Decision (ROD) resulting
from this EIS.
Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2 May require further
grant- specific NEPA
compliance for actions
not fully assessed in this
EIS.
Program Monitoring
Evaluation and
Monitoring.
Programs monitored
to assess efficacy
and impacts as well
as, compliance with
federal regulations,
including NEPA,
and program policy.
Monitoring for
operations is
conducted at APHIS-
WS state level for
compliance with
NEPA and all
regulatory and policy
requirements.
Alternative 1 with
additional national program
monitoring of performance
to be planned,
implemented, and
incorporated into adaptive
management decision-
making. Includes research
to improve monitoring of
program efficacy.
Same as Alternative 2,
but no increase in
research to develop
improved monitoring
systems.
Same as Alternative 2 Same as Alternative 2
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 56
E. Discussion of Feral Swine Damage Management Methods Available for Use
in All APHIS Alternatives
This Section includes a review of all FSDM strategies currently available for use or recommended
by APHIS for FSDM under any of the available alternatives.
1. Technical Assistance
a. Education, Communication, and Outreach
Education is an important element of FSDM activities, and facilitates finding
balance and coexistence between the needs of people and the needs of wildlife. In
addition to the routine dissemination of recommendations and information to
individuals or organizations sustaining damage, APHIS would provide lectures,
courses, and demonstrations to producers, homeowners, state and county agents,
colleges and universities, and other interested groups. Technical papers have been,
and would continue to be, presented at professional meetings and conferences so
that other wildlife professionals and the public would be periodically updated on
recent developments in damage management technology, programs, laws and
regulations, and agency policies. Technical assistance may also include loaning
damage management equipment to cooperators seeking to reduce feral swine
damage.
Legislative and Public Affairs (LPA) is the lead group within APHIS for
development of communication and outreach on FSDM. APHIS-LPA provides
effective communications and outreach products for a large number of partner and
stakeholder groups, along with members of the general public. APHIS-LPA
and -WS work with agency partners, tribes, universities, extension programs, and
other cooperators to develop educational materials and opportunities to inform
cooperators and the general public about feral swine issues and methods to resolve
problems. Potential workshop activities may include training personnel from
agencies and tribes on methods to monitor and capture feral swine, to working with
communities to address feral swine damage in urban areas, to methods for
protecting endangered species.
b. Regulatory Support/Advice
State, territorial, tribal, and local governments have primary authority for the
management of feral swine. Federal land management agencies may have
additional authorities relative the management of feral swine damage within the
boundaries of lands they manage. Feral swine regulations and policies developed
by these entities are critical to the success of FSDM and eradication programs.
Variation among jurisdictions complicates management, and is particularly
problematic for agencies, tribes, and other landowners/managers who maintain
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 57
properties that cover multiple jurisdictions. APHIS can work with agency partners
to foster communication among regulatory agencies, and provide information on
existing regulations and regulations which aid or hinder FSDM. APHIS’ technical
assistance programs can also work with agency partners and the research program,
discussed in Section 9 below, to prepare and identify materials on the impacts of
feral swine, which may aid elected and agency officials in developing regulations
on feral swine.
2. Monitoring
Monitoring involves direct observation, camera systems, hunter surveys and other systems
to monitor for the presence or absence of feral swine. Aerial monitoring using fixed-wing
aircraft, helicopters, and drones would be used to evaluate and monitor damage, locate feral
swine populations for control, monitor feral swine ranges and movement patterns, and
obtain information pertinent for local population estimates. Manned aircraft would have a
trained observer to conduct visual searches and to document findings. As with aerial
shooting, the APHIS-WS’ program aircraft-use policy helps ensure that aerial surveys are
conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner, in accordance with federal, state,
territorial and tribal laws. Pilots and aircraft must also be certified under established
APHIS-WS’ program procedures and policies (APHIS-WS Directive 2.62).
a. Judas Pigs/Telemetry
This technique involves attaching a radio-collar to a feral swine (preferably an adult
female) and releasing it with the expectation that it would join a sounder (Mayer
2009b).
6
Prior to its release, the animal may be sterilized to prevent reproduction.
Once the sounder’s location is established, feral swine associated with the “Judas”
pig are removed with live capture devices, hunting with dogs, or shooting. The
collared animal is allowed to escape, to join another sounder, and the process is
repeated. The success of this technique depends on the formation and stability of
groups which can vary substantially among seasons (Pech et al. 1992) and may also
vary with the distribution of food and water resources. This technique is target-
specific and has minimal impact on other species. Adult sows are preferred for this
type of action because they are the most likely to seek to join a sounder after
release. Adult males join sounders infrequently and immature animals may be
excluded from groups or seek to form temporary groups on their own (Mayer
2009b).
Radio-collared animals may be located using a hand-held antenna and radio
receiver. However, feral swine can move significant distances. When they cannot
be located from the ground, they may be located using radio telemetry from fixed-
6
A sounder is a group of swine, usually related adult females with their sub-adult and juvenile offspring (Kaminski et
al. 2005, Poteaux et al. 2009).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 58
wing aircraft or helicopters. Global Positioning System (GPS)-based telemetry
systems may also be used.
b. Night Vision and Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) Devices
Night vision and Forward Looking Infrared Devices (FLIR) equipment aid in
locating feral swine at night when they may be more active. Night vision and FLIR
equipment could be used during feral swine surveys, and in combination with
shooting to remove feral swine at night. APHIS-WS’ personnel would most often
use this technology when responding to assistance requests for damage caused by
feral swine. FLIR devices would be used to target feral swine in the act of causing
damage, or likely responsible for causing damage. The use of these methods allows
APHIS-WS to conduct FSDM activities at night when human activities are
minimal, thereby, reducing risks to human safety.
c. Camera Systems
Remote camera systems are a valuable monitoring tool. Feral swine have poor
eyesight, and rely primarily on their sense of smell which makes them sensitive to
human presence. APHIS-WS’ personnel may use remote trail cameras to minimize
human presence at trapping sites, and to monitor large tracts of land. Some cameras
contain a GPS modem that transmits images instantly to a private access web
system. This allows personnel to minimize travel expenses and monitor feral swine
activity without disturbing bait and trap sites. Trail cameras allow for the
monitoring of feral swine movement patterns and responses to prebaiting. Camera
systems may be used with remote-activated cage traps to maximize the chance that
an entire sounder is captured and minimize risks to non-target species.
d. Aircraft Including Unmanned Aircraft
Monitoring from manned aircraft is a commonly used technique in wildlife
management and, depending on environmental conditions, can be an effective and
efficient means of locating feral swine. Monitoring from aircraft can be a tool for
measuring feral swine damage over large areas. Monitoring sites from the air can
be less expensive than ground monitoring for remote areas and can reduce the need
to physically visit the site from the ground and associated environmental impacts
(e.g., soil and vegetation disturbance; Watts et al. 2010, Koh and Wich 2012). The
difficulty in locating animals in heavy vegetation can be a limiting factor, and the
method is best suited to areas with sparse vegetation and use in winter when
vegetation is limited and snow can facilitate location of swine. Thermal imaging
systems (Section 2.b above) may also be used in combination with aircraft to
facilitate locating swine. The APHIS-WS program currently uses manned aircraft
for feral swine monitoring. The APHIS-WS’ program aircraft-use policy (APHIS-
WS Directive 2.620) helps to ensure that aerial operations are conducted in a safe
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 59
and environmentally sound manner, in accordance with all applicable laws and
regulations. Pilots and aircraft must be certified under established APHIS-WS’
program procedures.
Unmanned aircraft are receiving increasing attention as a wildlife management tool
(Watts et al. 2010, Koh and Wich 2012, Martin et al. 2012) and have been adapted
by private entities for use in locating feral swine (Hirsch 2013, The Economist
2013). As with manned aircraft, unmanned aircraft could also be used to conduct
monitoring for feral swine damage. Unmanned aircraft generally produce less
noise, use less fuel and are generally less expensive to operate than manned aircraft
(Watts et al. 2010). Use of unmanned aircraft eliminates the safety risk to pilots
and flight crews (e.g., observers), inherent in low-altitude flights used for wildlife
management. In the private system currently in place, remote-controlled aircraft are
used to locate the swine and locations are relayed to hunters who go to the site and
remove the swine (The Economist 2013). APHIS-WS is not currently using
unmanned aircraft operationally for FSDM. All use of unmanned aircraft would be
conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local
regulations.
3. Ground Shooting
Shooting is a commonly used method to remove free-ranging feral swine, or to euthanize
feral swine caught in live-capture devices. Shooting to remove free-ranging swine may
occur during the day or at night using spotlights, night-vision equipment or thermal
imaging. Firearms may be equipped with noise suppressors to avoid disturbance, and to
facilitate success by minimizing the tendency of feral swine to flee from the sound of
gunfire. Elevated shooting sites, such as tree stands, truck beds or other vantage points,
may be used, where appropriate, to improve safety and efficacy. Elevated positions cause a
downward angle of trajectory; therefore, any bullets that inadvertently miss or pass through
targeted feral swine will enter the ground or earthen embankments. This approach
minimizes the risk of stray bullets that could present a safety hazard to people, pets, or
property. Nontoxic bait (food) may be used to attract feral swine to safe sites for shooting,
and to enhance success and efficiency. The selection and use of firearm and ammunition
types would be in compliance with local laws and regulations, as well as the policies of the
cooperating and participating agencies.
Firearm use is a sensitive issue and a public concern due to the potential for misuse of
firearms. To ensure safe firearms use and awareness, APHIS-WS’ employees who use
firearms to conduct official duties are required to attend an approved firearms safety-and-
use training program within three months of their appointment, and a refresher course
every two years afterwards (APHIS-WS Directive 2.615). Wildlife Services’ employees
who carry firearms as a condition of employment are required to sign a form certifying that
they meet the criteria, as stated in the Lautenberg Amendment (18 U.S.C. 922), which
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 60
prohibits firearm possession by anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence.
4. Aerial Shooting
Aerial shooting (shooting from an aircraft) is a commonly used FSDM method. Aerial
shooting has been identified as a viable tool for feral swine management in the United
States (West et al. 2009, Campbell et al. 2010a). Reported removal rates reported for aerial
shooting range from 9–39 swine per hour (Hone 1983, Saunders and Bryant 1988,
Campbell et al. 2010a). Some APHIS-WS programs in areas with ideal conditions for
aerial shooting and high densities of feral swine have had higher removal rates, up to 70
feral swine per hour (M. Bodenchuk, APHIS-WS Texas, pers. comm., 2014). Differences
in swine density, climate, terrain, and plant cover account for most of the variation in
capture rates. Although aerial shooting is an expensive method, APHIS-WS’ experience
with feral swine removals indicates that the staff time, travel time, and labor required to
achieve similar results using ground-based methods will likely make aerial shooting a cost-
effective option.
Aerial shooting is species-specific and can be used for immediate control to reduce damage
if weather, terrain, and cover conditions are favorable. Fixed-wing aircraft are most
frequently used in flat and gently rolling terrain, whereas helicopters, with better
maneuverability, have greater utility and are safer over rugged terrain and timbered areas.
In broken timber or deciduous cover, aerial shooting is more effective in winter when
leaves have fallen and snow cover improves visibility.
The APHIS-WS’ program aircraft-use policy (APHIS-WS Directive 2.620) helps to ensure
that aerial shooting is conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner, in
accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Pilots and aircraft must be certified under
established APHIS-WS’ program procedures and only properly trained APHIS-WS’
employees are approved to shoot from aircraft. Although unmanned aircraft could be used
in conducting monitoring for feral swine (measuring damage and locating swine), APHIS-
WS is not proposing to shoot swine from unmanned aircraft.
5. Tracking with Dogs
Tracking/trailing dogs and “Bay” dogs are commonly used to locate and “hold” feral swine
(Mayer et al. 2009). The dogs become familiar with the scent of the animal they are to
track, and will howl when they smell them. Tracking dogs are trained to follow the scent
of target species, and to ignore the scents of non-target species. If the track of the target
species has not degraded beyond what the dogs can detect, the dogs can follow the trail and
temporarily surround or hold the feral swine at bay. The dogs stay with the animal until the
APHIS-WS employee arrives and dispatches (via gunshot), tranquilizes, or releases the
animal, depending on the situation. Handlers arrive at the site of encounters between feral
swine and dogs as quickly as possible to minimize stress to the swine and risk of injury to
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 61
dogs. Intentional take of feral swine by dogs will not be allowed. Handlers are encouraged
to use protective equipment for dogs (see Mayer et al. 2009 for examples). Tracking feral
swine with dogs is particularly useful in areas with thick vegetation which are difficult to
access, and where visibility is limited, especially in southern areas where year-round
vegetation limits the utility of aerial shooting. Use of dogs can be limited seasonally in
some areas due to heat impacts on dogs or weather conditions unfavorable to dogs
detecting the scent of swine.
Although trained dogs usually stay on the trail of the target species, it is possible that the
dogs will switch to the fresher trail of a non-target species while pursuing the target
species. This switch sometimes occurs if the dogs are less experienced, but running less-
experienced dogs with more-experienced dogs reduces the likelihood of this occurrence. In
addition, as soon as the APHIS-WS employee realizes that the dogs have switched from a
target species to a non-target species, the dogs are called off from tracking, and the non-
target animal is allowed to escape. Radio tracking collars are generally used on dogs to
facilitate recovery and prevent dogs from getting lost.
6. Live Capture Systems
a. Cage and Corral Traps
Box or cage traps are usually rectangular and are made from various materials,
including metal, wire mesh, plastic, and wood. These traps are well suited for
removing small numbers of animals from residential areas, and work best when
baited with foods attractive to feral swine. Box traps are generally portable and
easy to set-up.
Corral traps are large circular or oval traps consisting of panels anchored to the
ground using steel posts, with a door allowing entrance and an open top. As with
cage traps, bait is used to draw the swine into the trap. Side panels are typically
woven metal fencing, and are referred to as hog panels or cow panels. The
entrances into the traps generally consist of a door that allows entry into the trap but
prevents exit. Some doors are designed to allow swine to continually enter the trap
which allows for the possibility of capturing multiple swine and can be used to
remove entire sounders at one time.
The disadvantages of using cage and corral traps are: 1) some individual feral swine
may avoid cage traps (Saunders et al. 1993); 2) some non-target animals may
associate the cage traps with available food and purposely get captured to eat the
bait, making the trap unavailable to catch target animals; 3) cage traps must be
checked frequently to ensure that captured animals are not subjected to extreme
environmental conditions; 4) some animals will fight to escape and may become
injured; 5) materials to construct the traps are expensive; 6) once constructed, corral
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 62
traps are not moveable until disassembled and transported; and 7) in remote areas,
transporting the required equipment can be difficult.
Trap monitoring devices may be used in some situations. Trap monitors are devices
that send a radio signal to a receiver if a set trap is disturbed, and alerts field
personnel that an animal may be captured. Trap monitors can be attached directly
to the trap, or attached to a string or wire, and then placed in a tree or shrub away
from the trap. When the monitor is hung above the ground, it can be detected by
the receiver from several miles away, depending on the terrain in the area.
There are many benefits to using trap monitors, such as saving considerable time
when checking traps, decreasing fuel usage, prioritizing trap checks, and decreasing
the need for human presence in the area. Trap monitoring devices allow personnel
to prioritize the traps they check and decrease the amount of time required to check
traps, thereby decreasing the amount of time captured target or non-target animals
are restrained in the trap. By reducing the amount of time target and non-target
animals are restrained, potential stress and injury are minimized.
Cage traps may also be monitored and activated from remote sites using video
systems. Camera systems send images to off-site devices. Users of the system can
monitor activity in the project area to obtain information on the number of animals
in a sounder, and the extent to which animals are entering the trap area. Some live
trap systems have remote-activated triggers that can be activated by a remote user
when the desired number of animals is observed in a trap. Remote observation and
activation of triggers also substantially reduces or eliminates risks of trapping non-
target species. However, use of remote monitored and activated systems is limited
by the expense of the systems.
Recent variations on corral traps include a method which elevates the trap that
allows feral swine to enter and exit the project area without encountering trap doors
or walls. This approach reduces problems with trap-wary behavior (Gaskamp and
Biermacher 2013). The trap is “dropped” when the trigger mechanism is activated
by an individual observing the site electronically from a remote location. This
observational approach also helps eliminate the risk of capturing non-target species
in the trap.
b. Drop Nets
Drop nets are large nets set over a baited area to capture vulnerable target species.
Drop nets have been used for other ungulate species, such as deer, for many years.
Until recently, drop nets had not been evaluated for feral swine. Gaskamp and Gee
(2011) published a study comparing the effectiveness and efficiency of a drop net
and a traditional corral trap for trapping feral swine. A mark and recapture analysis
showed more swine were removed with drop nets (93%) than with corral traps
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 63
(55%). Efficiency estimates for the average time per capture were 1.9 hours for
drop nets and 2.3 hours for corral traps. Feral swine did not appear to exhibit trap
shyness around drop nets, which often allowed the researchers to capture entire
family units (sounders) in a single drop. The use of drop nets also eliminated the
capture of non-target species because the device is activated remotely by a person
who can see the target area. Results of this study indicate that drop nets are an
effective tool for capturing feral swine. Disadvantages of drop nets are that an
observer must be nearby to monitor the net and then euthanize the feral swine
before they escape from the nets.
c. Snares and Cable Restraints
Cable restraints, or snares, are typically made of wire or cable consisting of a loop,
which are positioned to close around the neck, torso, or foot of a target animal as
the animal moves through the loop. When an animal moves forward into the loop
formed by the cable, the noose tightens and the animal is held. Neck snares are
used effectively to capture a broad range of species (Muńoz-Igualada et al. 2010,
Wegan et al. 2014) and may be used as either lethal or live-capture devices (i.e.,
cable-restraint) depending on how or where they are set (AFWA 2009). Snares set
too close around the neck of an animal are usually intended to be a lethal method.
Snares are an integral tool when managing feral swine damage. They can be placed
where an animal moves through a confined area (e.g., crawl holes under fences,
trails through vegetation, etc.) where other trapping methods may not be applicable.
The height that the snare is set above the ground and the diameter of the snare loop
can reduce the number of non-target animals captured. Proper loop size and
placement allows animals smaller than the target species to pass through or under
the device. Minimum diameter stops allow the snare cable to close only to a certain
diameter that can allow deer and other non-target animals to escape. Additionally, a
relaxing lock allows the cable to release constriction pressure when the cable is not
taut (e.g., when the animal stops pulling) which reduces the possibility of
strangulation.
Foot snares are set on or just under the surface of the ground, and can be triggered
passively (e.g., by the animal pulling) or activated by an animal stepping on a pan
or trigger which tightens the noose around the top of the hoof. Foot snares are live-
capture devices and can be set with a loop size smaller than the diameter of larger
animals, such as black bears, to prevent accidental capture. Foot snares are
effective tools for capture of feral swine that may be trap shy and in areas where
transporting larger traps is not feasible.
Risks of non-target capture do occur when using cable restraints or snares. Snares
must be set in locations where the likelihood of capturing non-target animals is
minimized. Risks associated with snares are greatest for non-target animals that
frequent the areas where snares are placed and travel along the paths of the target
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 64
species. APHIS-WS’ personnel perform a thorough search for evidence of non-
target animals (tracks, scat, etc.) prior to setting snares for feral swine. When
attractants are used (i.e., bait or lures), it reduces the chance of non-target activity at
capture sites. Risks to non-target animals may also be reduced by adjusting the size
of the loop and the height of the loop above the ground. Hazards to non-target
animals associated with the use of snares could range from minor injuries to
potential death. Snares would only be used by employees experienced in targeting
and capturing specific animals, which would further minimize risks to non-target
animals.
d. Foothold Traps
Foothold traps are not commonly used for FSDM, and are generally not effective as
capture devices for adult swine. However, they can be a useful method for
capturing small swine for research, radio collaring for a Judas pig application, or
removal for damage management. Larger swine can easily pull free from foothold
traps, but smaller swine may be held. Most take of swine in foothold traps is
incidental to other damage management actions on the same property as the swine
removal (i.e., a feral swine may be captured in a foothold trap on a property where
APHIS-WS is working to remove swine and coyotes to address damage problems).
If feral swine are captured in foothold traps set for other species they would most
often be lethally removed.
Foothold traps for swine are usually set in the travel lanes of feral swine. Traps
which rely solely on good placement to encounter an animal and do not use an
attractant are known as "blind sets." Various tension devices can be used to prevent
animals smaller than target animals from springing the trap. Site investigations and
careful trap placement can help reduce risks to non-target species.
7. Non-Lethal Methods
APHIS-WS usually gives preference to non-lethal methods where practical and effective
(APHIS-WS Directive 2.101). However, most non-lethal methods have limited efficacy in
the management of feral swine (West et al. 2009). Although non-lethal methods can be
used to protect specific areas (e.g., individual feeders, farms and some parks), the feral
swine are still free-ranging to damage other natural resources outside the protected area.
As noted in Chapters 1 and 3, the adverse impacts of feral swine on natural resources are
serious enough that in many areas allowing swine to remain at large is undesirable.
Currently available nonlethal methods fail to address problems with increasing feral swine
populations and associated costs of damage and damage management. Consequently, non-
lethal methods which relocate animals are of limited utility in FSDM.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 65
a. Exclusion
Physical exclusion methods (e.g., fences and similar barriers) restrict the access of
feral swine to resources. These methods provide a means of appropriate and
effective prevention of site-specific damage management problems, and can reduce
the risks of disease transmission between feral swine and domestic animals.
Predator-exclusion fences constructed of woven wire or multiple strands of
electrified wire can be effective for feral swine in some areas. Electric fences were
not completely effective in excluding swine, but in rangeland tests 2-strand electric
fences reduced incursions to bait stations 49% and resulted in a 64% drop in
damage to sorghum crops when compared to unfenced areas (Reidy et al. 2008).
However, fencing does have limitations. Even an electrified fence may not be
swine-proof and, in some cases, the expense may exceed the benefit. If large areas
are fenced, feral swine have to be removed from the enclosed area to make it useful.
Some fences inadvertently trap, catch, or affect the movement of non-target
wildlife. Physical exclusion methods impede the use of areas by many wildlife
species, so use of these methods must be considered with care, especially in areas
where migratory mammals, such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pass.
However, in some situations it may be possible to design fences which exclude feral
swine but still allow movement of other species. For example, fences have been
designed that exclude feral swine from deer feeders, but still allow passage of deer
(Rattan et al. 2010). Lastly, fencing is not practical or legal in some areas (e.g.,
restricting access to public land).
b. Frightening Devices
Frightening devices may use sound, lights, noise, pursuit, or other methods to
disperse animals from the area to be protected. For example, Dakpa et al. (2009)
developed a device which used noise and light to reduce feral swine damage to
crops in Bhutan. These methods are best suited to short-term protection of
relatively small areas. Methods which use light and sound, such as pyrotechnics
and propane cannons, are often of limited efficacy because the animals eventually
become accustomed to the stimulus and cease to respond to the device. In a study
aimed at identifying deterrents for wild boar, Vassant and Boisaubert (1984) tested
acoustic scarers, such as cannon firing at random, electronic sound generators, and
wild boar alarm calls. The results showed that wild boar became habituated to all
repellents within a few days. Although frightening devices can be effective for
limited areas, there is the risk of displacing the problem from one area to another.
Additionally, dispersing the swine may protect a project site, but will not resolve
the larger issue of feral swine damage to native ecosystems or reduce problems
associated with an increasing feral swine population.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 66
8. Chemical Methods
a. Immobilization and Euthanasia Drugs
Chemical immobilization and euthanasia drugs are important tools for managing
wildlife. Under certain circumstances, APHIS-WS’ personnel are involved in the
capture of animals where the safety of the animal, personnel, or the public are
compromised, and chemical immobilization provides a good solution to reduce
these risks. APHIS-WS’ employees who use immobilization drugs are certified to
use them, and must follow the guidelines established in the APHIS-WS’ Field
Operational Manual for the Use of Immobilization and Euthanasia Drugs. Telazol
®
(tiletamine) and Ketamine/Xylazine are immobilizing agents used by APHIS-WS to
capture and remove wild animals. These are typically used in urban, recreational,
and residential areas where the safe removal of a problem animal is most easily
accomplished with a drug delivery system (e.g., darts from rifle, pistol, or blow
guns, syringe pole, or hand-fed baits). Immobilization is usually followed by
euthanasia. Euthanasia is usually performed with drugs such as Beuthanasia-D
®
or
Fatal-Plus
®
which contain forms of sodium phenobarbital (APHIS-WS Directive
2.430). Euthanized animals are generally disposed of by incineration or burial (on
site or landfill) to avoid secondary hazards. Drugs are monitored closely and stored
in locked boxes or cabinets in accordance with APHIS-WS’ policies, and U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), FDA, and
applicable state and territorial regulations and guidelines. Most drugs fall under
restricted-use categories and must be used under the appropriate license from DOJ-
DEA held by APHIS-WS.
b. Reproductive Inhibitors
Reproductive inhibitors are currently under investigation as a potential nonlethal
option to help reduce feral swine populations and associated damage. However, at
this time, no methods are currently approved by EPA or FDA for feral swine
control. Registration of a contraceptive will require extensive laboratory and field
testing. These methods are being included in the EIS to the extent that information
is available to facilitate NEPA review for research on these methods, and their
incorporation into future program activities in the event that the methods are
registered for this application.
APHIS-WS’ NWRC has been instrumental in the development of a contraceptive
agent called GonaCon™ registered for use in female white-tailed deer and free-
ranging horses and burros that also is effective in feral swine (Killian et al. 2006,
Campbell et al. 2010b). GonaCon™ is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)
immunocontraceptive vaccine which is delivered as a single shot. The vaccine
stimulates the production of antibodies that bind to GnRH (a hormone in an
animal’s body that signals the production of sex hormones). By binding to GnRH,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 67
the antibodies reduce the release of sex hormones, causing reduced breeding
activity. Research is needed to support a potential registration for use in feral
swine, and NWRC is working on the development of an oral delivery vaccine.
Sufficient information is available on the injectable formulation of GonaCon for a
detailed analysis in this FEIS. Consequently, if registered, an injectable
formulation of GonaCon could potentially be incorporated into an operational
APHIS-WS program depending on the management alternative selected.
Insufficient data is available on a feed-based application for environmental analysis
at this time and additional analysis pursuant to NEPA would be needed before a
feed-based formulation could be used operationally.
Self-administered feed-based formulations would be needed for cost effective
contraceptives. However, oral vaccines need to be species specific because they
would be distributed in uncontrolled environments where they might be accessible
to non-target species. Species specificity can be achieved through feeder design
and bait formulation, the type of contraceptive agent, or a combination of the two.
Research on feeders and bait formulations is underway (Twigg et al. 2005,
Campbell and Long 2007, 2008, 2009b; Campbell et al. 2011), and research
investigating more species-specific contraceptives is also ongoing.
The Auburn University’s School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences and its College
of Veterinary Medicine are working on a species-specific oral contraceptive for use
in feral swine (Samoylova et al. 2012). Zona pellucida (ZP) are the membranes
surrounding mammalian eggs. Sperm-ZP interaction is proposed to be the major
factor which defines species specificity of mammalian fertilization (Reid et al.
2011). The Auburn University project involves identification and development of
phage-peptide constructs that bind to ZP through epitopes that mimic sperm
proteins at fertilization (Samoylova et al. 2012). Immunization with these peptides
stimulates production of anti-sperm antibodies which can impede reproduction.
Their research has identified candidate peptides which appear to trigger sufficiently
intense and species specific immune responses to warrant additional development in
a contraceptive vaccine for feral swine.
c. Repellents
A large number of olfactory, acoustic, and gustatory repellents have been developed
to decrease the impact of wildlife on human activities (Conover 2002). Deterrent
properties of repellents vary depending upon circumstances. Repellents may be
more effective in situations where alternative foods are readily available, or the
target animals are unfamiliar with the food source or site. Repellents are less
reliable in situations where alternate food sources are limited and animals are
familiar with or prefer the food source. In a study aimed at identifying deterrents
for wild boar, Vassant and Boisaubert (1984) tested 25 potential chemical repellents
and acoustic scarers, such as cannon firing at random, electronic sound generators,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 68
and wild boar alarm calls. The results showed that wild boar became habituated to
all repellents within a few days. In China, Cai et al. (2008) found similar results
with odor repellents used by local farmers to protect crops against wild boar, and
concluded that the only effective measure was the presence of humans in the field.
In France, Vilardell et al. (2008) tested two potential odor repellants to protect
tortoise nests from predation by wild boar, and found both repellants ineffective. In
contrast, in pen trials with a limited number of pigs, Santilli et al (2005) determined
that 3 topical repellents (repellents applied directly to the material to be protected)
available for use to deter other species (Hot Sauce
®
, Tree Guard
®
and Morkit
®
) also
reduced consumption of corn by pigs. The authors noted that the repellents were
more effective when untreated food was available and suggested that the products
may be effective in reducing swine damage to newly planted corn if diversionary
food was available.
d. Toxicants
Sodium nitrite is a common meat preservative and has been shown to be a quick-
acting, low-residue toxicant for lethal feral swine control. A sodium nitrite bait
formula patented as Hog-Gone® has been under development in Australia (Lapidge
et al. 2012). There are currently no toxicants registered for use in feral swine
control in the United States. NWRC researchers are collaborating with Australian
scientists in the development and U.S. registration of a bait product similar to Hog-
Gone
®
. NWRC is evaluating its effectiveness, potential effects on non-target
species, and swine-specific delivery systems to reduce risks to non-target animals.
Once an appropriate bait formulation and bait-delivery method are determined,
APHIS may conduct field trials to further assess the efficacy of the product for use
in the United States. If these field trials indicate that the product may be safely and
effectively used in the United States, product registration with EPA and state
agencies would be needed before sodium nitrite could be used.
9. Research and Development
NWRC, a branch of the APHIS-WS’ program, provides scientific information and
development of methods for wildlife damage management that are effective and
environmentally responsible. Research biologists with the NWRC work closely with
wildlife managers, researchers, and others to develop and evaluate wildlife damage
management techniques. (Research activities are summarized in section D.1.d, and include
control and trapping techniques, economic analyses, and biological modelling.) As new
information becomes available, it will be incorporated into the FSDM program.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 69
10. Non-Federal and Private Control Options
a. Private Control Operators
Private wildlife control operators are fee-for-service companies that can, with the
appropriate federal, state, territorial or tribal permits, trap, capture, transport, or
euthanize several damaging wildlife species, including feral swine. They operate as
private enterprises and set their own fees. In some instances, private control
operators have assisted successfully in eradication efforts (Parkes et al. 2010).
However, larger-scale population control or elimination of swine may be
problematic for these operators because of the wide geographic scope of the project,
financial disincentives for eradication, lack of regulations or enforcement on feral
swine movement, and the over-all scale of the project.
b. Hunting
For purposes of this analysis, hunting refers to the capture and removal of feral
swine by the public, primarily for recreation or food. Hunting also involves implicit
assumption of the principle of fair-chase which does not apply to FSDM removals.
When removals are needed for damage management, the goal is to remove the
animals in as humane and efficient a manner as possible, while minimizing the risk
of adverse impacts on human safety and the environment. In this situation, the
concept of fair-chase does not apply.
Laws and regulations regarding the management of feral swine vary by state,
territory, and tribe (Appendix D, Table 1). Some states, territories, and tribes
currently allow for the recreational take of feral swine as game animals, pursuant to
a state, territorial or tribal hunting license as game or non-game animals. These
states, territories and tribes may establish hunting seasons, bag and possession
limits, and allowable methods of take. Hunting does result in the removal of feral
swine, and may help reduce total number of swine in an area. However, there are
some concerns and limitations regarding the use of this method. In many areas,
recreational hunting has done little to manage feral swine populations. For
example, Florida allows feral swine hunting year round with no bag limit, yet it
maintains one of the highest feral swine populations in the country (FFWCC 2014).
Unfortunately, illegal movement and release of swine to create local hunting
opportunities by some hunters has contributed substantially to the rapid spread of
feral swine in recent years (Bevins et al. 2014). Agencies may be reluctant to
encourage or endorse a practice which has contributed to the feral swine problem.
Agencies in states, territories, or tribes which are working to eradicate swine may
also be concerned that introducing hunting as a control tool may lead to a situation
where hunting groups start advocating for the state, territory, or tribe to retain feral
swine populations for hunters to enjoy.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 70
On public lands, use of hunting as a management strategy may also be limited by a
number of factors, including the statutes governing land uses, safety concerns for
other members of the public using the site, agency policies regarding hunting, and
the potential for adverse interactions between hunting and other uses of the site.
Further, hunting becomes increasingly less efficient as populations of the targeted
species decrease. Hunters may not have the time, resources, or interest in the effort
needed to remove the last swine from an area.
Although APHIS-WS, along with most natural resource agencies, discourage
hunting because it can hamper operation activities and may contribute to the
expansion of feral swine population, hunting may have utility in reducing feral
swine populations in areas where feral swine are already widespread.
c. Removal by Certified Volunteers
A certified volunteer system would allow volunteers who have applied for and
received special training and certification to participate in feral swine removal.
Volunteer certification would be managed by the state, territory, tribe, or individual
landowners/managers, and they could potentially establish their own training
requirements for volunteers on their lands.
11. Disposition of Feral Swine Captured or Killed for Damage Management
This section discusses methods available to APHIS for the disposal of feral swine removed
during damage management. Factors that must be considered when selecting a disposal
method include cost of the method, project logistics, environmental conditions at the
project site, existing site use, and applicable federal, state, territorial, local, and tribal
regulations (Appendix H). For example, disposal methods that require collection and
transport of large numbers of live animals/carcasses to a central location for processing are
likely to be expensive and time consuming. The costs and logistics of collecting and
processing animals are such that the methods may only be logistically viable if a large
number of animals can be made available to the carcass disposal service provider at one
time. Local regulations restricting the movement of feral swine within the state, territory,
or tribal lands also need to be considered when selecting a swine disposal strategy. Choice
of disposal methods can also impact the methods available to kill or handle the animal. For
example, euthanasia chemicals may not be used on animals to be donated for human
consumption, or for use by animal sanctuaries and zoos. Additionally, animals that are
euthanized prior to the established withdrawal periods for immobilizing drugs would be
subject to similar restrictions. Some states, territories or tribes may have restrictions on the
use of lead bullets and donation of meat. Disposal of all carcasses would be made in a
manner that demonstrates APHIS-WS’ recognition of public sensitivity to the viewing of
wildlife carcasses (APHIS-WS Directive 2.515). APHIS-WS has outlined SOPs for
carcass disposal in Section G.6 of this Chapter.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 71
a. On site Carcass Disposal Options
Leave Onsite
Death of animals is a normal part of any natural ecosystem. In circumstances other
than FSDM the carcasses of feral swine that die due to predators, disease or other
natural factors remain on the landscape and are scavenged and decompose through
natural processes. This strategy involves leaving the animals where they are killed.
This method offers several advantages, in comparison to other carcass disposal
methods, such as lower disposal costs, providing a food base for scavengers, and
lowering the potential for disease transmission to off-site locations. Leaving
animals on site is often preferred for swine shot from aircraft because the cost of
retrieving the swine with aircraft or ground crews can be prohibitive (especially in
remote areas) and it minimizes the environmental impacts associated with accessing
sites with vehicles from the ground. Feral swine carcasses would only be allowed
to remain on site with landowner permission, and if permitted by all applicable
federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local laws and regulations. In states and
territories where permitted, this is one of the most common methods of carcass
disposal currently in use.
Food Use
Feral swine can carry a number of diseases transmissible to humans. Consequently,
any consideration of feral swine donation for human consumption must include
provisions to address risk of disease transmission. The Federal Meat Inspection Act
requires feral swine to be inspected live, slaughtered under inspection, and
processed under inspection to be eligible for donation. Animals euthanized offsite
and delivered to USDA-licensed facilities are not eligible for donation. However,
provided the animals have not been treated with chemicals that would preclude use
as food (e.g., immobilization and euthanasia chemicals or any lethal control
chemical without an approved food use) and if state, territorial or tribal regulations
and permits allow, euthanized swine may be provided on request to the landowners
for personal consumption. Landowners can process the swine on their own on their
own property or take them offsite for processing if there is an available facility
which will accept the animals.
Composting
Composting is the natural biological process of decomposition of organic materials
in a predominantly aerobic environment. During the process, bacteria, fungi, and
other microorganisms break down organic materials into a stable mixture called
compost while consuming oxygen and releasing heat, water, and carbon dioxide and
other gases. Under optimal conditions, composting results in a dark brown to black
soil called “humus” containing primarily non-pathogenic bacteria and plant
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 72
nutrients. A carcass composting system requires a carbon source (e.g., sawdust,
straw, silage, manure, or leaves), bulking agents (e.g., sludge cake, spent horse
bedding, or rotting hay bales), and biofilters (a biofilter is a layer of carbon source
and/or bulking agent that enhances microbial activity, deodorizes the gases released
at ground level, and prevents access by insects and birds) (NABCC 2004). APHIS-
WS would not create new composting facilities to dispose of feral swine but
landowners may choose to compost feral swine taken on their
property. Landowners would be responsible for conducting composting in
accordance with applicable federal, state, territorial, tribal, county, and local
regulations.
Burial
Wildlife carcasses may be discarded or buried on the property where they were
killed, or deposited on another cooperator’s property if approved by the respective
property owner and allowed under applicable federal, state, territorial, tribal and
local regulations. All disposals would be made in a manner which demonstrates
APHIS-WS’ recognition of public sensitivity to the viewing of wildlife carcasses
(APHIS-WS Directive 2.515). Carcass burial is an economically feasible option
that, when performed on site, eliminates the need for transportation of potentially
infectious material (NABCC 2004).
Open Air Burning
Incineration would likely be used only when burial is not feasible because burning
tends to be difficult and expensive in terms of labor and materials. Because of
safety and air quality concerns, APHIS does not anticipate using open air burning to
dispose of carcasses. In the unlikely event that open air burning would be
considered in a state or territory, use of this method would be analyzed separately at
the local level for environmental impacts under NEPA.
b. Off-site Carcass Disposal Options
State and federal regulations regarding the movement of swine to reduce risks of
disease transport or spread of feral swine populations may limit access to some of
these disposal options.
Food Use
As noted above for on site disposal options, the Federal Meat Inspection Act
requires feral swine to be inspected live, slaughtered under inspection, and
processed under inspection to be eligible for donation in a facility approved by the
USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). Animals euthanized offsite and
delivered to USDA-licensed facilities are not eligible for donation. Regulations and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 73
logistic challenges associated with transport of live feral swine increase disposal
costs and limit the utility of this method. Additionally, in part because of the
diseases which may be in feral swine, there are only a limited number of FSIS
approved facilities which are willing to process feral swine. However, in some
areas (e.g., Texas), mobile inspection and animal processing stations have been
developed to meet the needs of the commercial game production industry. It may
be possible to adapt these strategies for use with feral swine.
Burial in Landfills
In many states, and territories disposal of animal carcasses in landfills is also an
allowable option. However, individual landfill operators generally decide whether
or not to accept carcass material. Commercial landfills, particularly those in
compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D (landfills
suitable for non-hazardous solid waste), have been evaluated for suitability, and the
necessary environmental precautions designed and implemented. Landfills,
therefore, pose little risk to the environment. However, several criteria need to be
met before commercial landfills can be used, including meeting
State/territorial/local environmental requirements and obtaining necessary permits.
Cost of landfills may limit the use of this option, especially for large projects.
Incineration
Incineration would likely be used only when burial is not feasible because burning
tends to be difficult and expensive in terms of labor and materials. Because of
safety and air quality concerns, APHIS does not anticipate using open air burning to
dispose of carcasses. Stationary incinerators are highly efficient and include design
features that minimize risks to the environment. However, this equipment is
typically only available at hospitals, laboratories, and medical schools. Because of
their location, cost, and lack of portability, incineration would not likely be a
feasible method of disposal in most situations.
Digesters
Alkaline hydrolysis tissue digesters use sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide
as an agent that, under heat and pressure, digests carcass tissue, leaving only liquid
effluent and the mineral portion of bone and teeth. The effluent has a pH level
ranging from 11.4 to 11.7 and, therefore, in most cases, can be discharged into
municipal sewage systems. If potassium hydroxide is used, the effluent can be
dehydrated and used as fertilizer. The bone and teeth can be crushed into a fine
powder and sent to a landfill (USDA 2005).
Anaerobic digestion involves the transformation of organic matter by a mixed
culture bacterial ecosystem without oxygen. It is a natural process that produces a
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 74
gas principally composed of methane and carbon dioxide. The end products of
anaerobic digestion are typically biosolids, methane, and liquor (which can be used
as a liquid fertilizer). If the end products of anaerobic digestion (biosolids) are
applied to the land without pathogens being sufficiently reduced, the pathogens may
pose a risk of contamination. Among the advantages of anaerobic digestion are that
methane production can be used in place of fossil fuels, well suited for large-scale
operations, and end products may be used as fertilizer. However, several
disadvantages also exist including complexities and problems associated with
sludge management and disposal, significant consumption of water, and the process
does not destroy all pathogens (e.g., prions and thermo resistant bacteria) (NABCC
2004).
Rendering
Rendering of carcasses involves the conversion of carcasses into three end products
(i.e., carcass meal, melted fat or tallow, and water) using mechanical processes
(e.g., grinding, mixing, pressing, decanting, and separating), thermal processes
(e.g., cooling, evaporating, and drying), and sometimes chemical processes (e.g.,
solvent extraction). The main carcass rendering processes include size reduction
followed by cooking and separation of fat, water, and protein materials using
techniques such as screening, pressing, sequential centrifugation, solvent extraction,
and drying. Resulting carcass meal can sometimes be used as an animal feed
ingredient, or may be used as fertilizer (NABCC 2004). However, rendering
facilities which can accept dead animals are not always readily available (USDA
2005), and rendering cannot be used to dispose of swine that are removed using
lead ammunition or those chemically euthanized.
F. Alternatives and Methods Considered but Dismissed from Detailed Analysis
Several alternatives were dismissed from detailed analysis because they did not meet all four of the
criteria for alternatives development as discussed in Section B. Additionally, several methods
were removed from further analysis because they were considered to not be reasonably efficient,
feasible, or cost-effective methods for FSDM.
1. Alternatives Dismissed from Detailed Analysis
a. Exclusive Use of Private Industry, Volunteers, and Private Hunting
This alternative is similar to Alternative 5 in that APHIS would essentially become
a contracting agency which arranged with non-government entities to conduct
FSDM. Extensive resources would be needed at the APHIS National and state
program level to administer and monitor the program and use of federal resources,
leaving substantially less funding for operational management. Some disease
monitoring and work to address international feral swine issues would not occur.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 75
This alternative would not meet the objectives established in Chapter 1 including
international coordination and development of interagency partnerships and,
therefore, will not be addressed in detail. Actions to enhance commercial harvest of
swine for meat also appear to be unlikely to result in sufficient harvest to control
populations. A study from Australia that evaluated the use of commercial harvest
determined that commercial harvest rates were generally low (<20% of population).
Commercial harvest rates capable of sustained population reductions in long term
population size were isolated occurrences and not maintained across sites and years
(Gentle and Pople 2013) and were insufficient to hold populations at low densities.
Limitations to use of hunters for feral swine population control are discussed in
Chapter 2 Section E.10.b above.
b. No APHIS Involvement in Feral Swine Damage Management
Under this alternative, APHIS would discontinue all FSDM work, including that
requested and paid for by cooperators. Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species
directs Federal agencies to use their programs and authorities to prevent the spread
or to control populations of invasive species that cause economic or environmental
harm, or harm to human health. The APHIS-WS program is authorized by law to
protect American agriculture and other resources from damage associated with
wildlife and (Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 U.S.C. 426–426b) as amended,
and the Act of December 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 1329–331, 7 U.S.C. 426c). APHIS-
WS already receives numerous requests from agency partners, tribes, and private
entities for assistance with FSDM. APHIS-VS has additional responsibilities for
the protection of livestock and domestic animals under the Animal Health
Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 109.8301), which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture
to restrict the movement or to order the removal of animals to prevent the
introduction or dissemination of livestock pests or diseases. Data presented in this
FEIS establish unequivocally that feral swine can and are having adverse impacts
on agriculture, natural and cultural resources, property and human health and safety
in the United States. Furthermore, Congress has acknowledged that feral swine are
a harmful and destructive species, and that there is a need for a national FSDM
program (Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014, Public Law No. 113-76 2014).
Selection of this alternative would not meet the need for action established in the
FEIS; would be inconsistent with agency authorizations, mandates, and EO 13112;
and would run counter to Congressional direction. Therefore, this alternative will
not be analyzed in detail.
c. Eradication of Swine from All Areas of Occurrence
This alternative would direct all program efforts toward eradication of feral swine
wherever they occurred. Eradication is already a program goal in those states,
territories, and tribes where feral swine populations are new or not well established,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 76
and where the states, territories, and tribes desire their complete removal.
Eradication is not feasible where state, territory, and tribal law and management
objectives provide for hunting and maintenance of a feral swine population, or
where populations are historically well established. Where swine are well
established, the number and movement of feral swine combined with vegetative
cover, the constraints of current management tools, challenging terrain, access
problems, or other obstacles creates diminishing returns and makes eradication
infeasible. The obstacles to making this a feasible alternative preclude further
analysis of it at this time.
d. Only Use Non-Lethal Methods to Address Feral Swine Problems
Under this alternative, APHIS-WS would be required to implement only non-lethal
methods to resolve damage caused by feral swine. Limits to the efficacy and
applicability of current nonlethal methods preclude development of an effective
national FSDM strategy which exclusively uses nonlethal methods. Non-lethal
harassment methods often have a high rate of habituation after multiple applications
(Gilsdorf et al. 2003, Shivik 2004). To lessen habituation, non-lethal harassment
and dispersal techniques require application only when feral swine are present,
which can lead to elevated costs from increased monitoring of vulnerable resources.
Fencing and other exclusion systems can be effective in preventing access to
resources in certain circumstances. Exclusion is most effective when applied to
small areas to protect high value resources, although they have been applied to
larger areas such as national parks when reduction or elimination of the feral swine
population on neighboring lands has not been possible or desirable. In these
circumstances, use of fencing is initially accompanied by a period of lethal removal
of swine within the fenced area. In general, exclusionary methods have limited
applicability in protecting human safety, agriculture, or natural and cultural
resources from feral swine across large areas. There are also concerns regarding the
impact of large-scale fencing systems on non-target wildlife.
Currently available nonlethal methods do little to prevent the feral swine population
from increasing, although contraceptive methods are under development.
Application of this alternative alone would not meet the purpose and need for
action. The proposed action, using an IWDM approach, incorporates the use of
non-lethal methods. In instances where non-lethal methods would effectively
resolve damage from feral swine, they would be recommended for use under the
proposed action. Non-lethal methods would be available for use under all
alternatives advanced for detailed analysis in this EIS.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 77
e. Only Use Lethal Methods to Address Feral Swine Problems
Under this alternative, APHIS-WS would not conduct any non-lethal control for
feral swine, but would rely solely on lethal FSDM methods. This alternative was
eliminated from further analysis because some situations can be resolved effectively
through non-lethal means, and be quite cost-effective. For example, fencing in
urban areas, can often deter feral swine from entering and damaging resources, and
not have a dramatic effect on non-target wildlife. Fencing and exclusion systems
can also help to reduce risk of disease transmission between feral swine and
domestic livestock. In some situations, APHIS-WS has used non-lethal methods
exclusively as an effective means to resolving damage. Further, this alternative
does not interface with the overall concept of IWDM, where multiple methods can
achieve a desired cumulative effect. It is APHIS-WS’ policy that personnel apply
and use the IWDM approach to efficiently and effectively prevent or reduce
damage caused by wildlife (APHIS-WS Directive 2.105). Restricting the program
to lethal methods would likely not be socially acceptable to various agencies,
stakeholder groups, and individuals. For feral swine in areas where the eradication
of a local population is desirable, most methods used would be lethal. However,
APHIS-WS could still use non-lethal control methods to protect sensitive areas
while lethal methods were being implemented.
f) Funding to States, Tribes and Territories with Supplemental Assistance from
APHIS
This alternative would be a combination of Alternative 5, the FSDM Grants
Program (issuing funds to States, Territories and Tribes), and Alternative 3, the
baseline program (maintaining baseline operational capacity to respond). Although
we recognize the appeal of this alternative, unfortunately it also combines some of
the limitations that precluded identification of Alternatives 3 and 5 as the preferred
alternative. The component that would issue grants to States, Territories and Tribes
would be subject to the same problems with inefficiencies and administrative costs
as Alternative 5, only even less money would be available for distribution to States,
Territories and Tribes, because some funds would be retained by APHIS to support
operational capacity to respond to requests for assistance. As with Alternative 3,
this suggested alternative would also be limited by the lack of a national APHIS
program component including nationally coordinated disease surveillance, outreach
and education programs, research and work with Canada and Mexico at the national
level to resolve issues of mutual concern regarding feral swine damage
management. To get as much of the funding as possible to field operations, this
alternative would also commit all resources at the beginning of the funding cycle
and no national program funding would be withheld for rapid response to new
reports of feral swine in areas previously believed to be without feral swine and
areas where all feral swine are believed to have been removed. Finally, creating the
condition where trained and available APHIS personnel and equipment stand ready
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 78
for assistance on an unplanned, stand-by basis would be logistically and fiscally
inefficient, particularly if the additional APHIS assistance was not needed at the
times and locations where they are available.
2. Methods Dismissed
a. Bounty System
Bounty systems involve the payment of funds (bounties) for killing animals
considered “undesirable” and are usually proposed as a means of reducing or
eliminating animal populations. APHIS does not support bounty payments because
of several inherent drawbacks and inadequacies in the payment of
bounties. Bounties are often ineffective at controlling damage over a wide area,
such as across an entire state. The circumstances surrounding the take of animals
are typically arbitrary and completely unregulated because it is difficult or
impossible to assure animals claimed for bounty were not taken from outside the
area where damage was occurring or were not domestic swine. For example, in a
costly bounty program at a military base in Georgia, there were reports that people
submitted false evidence of take by turning in tails from meat processing plants
(Holtfreter et al. 2009, unpublished report). In some situations, bounty programs
may be counterproductive as they provide an incentive for some individuals to
maintain swine populations and use bounties as a source of constant income (Weeks
and Packard 2009). Bounty programs can provide some benefit by increasing
public awareness (Bevins 2014). Nonetheless, bounties can become a costly
endeavor, not provide relief, or even worsen the problem. In Queensland, Australia,
a 31-year long bounty payment program to remove feral swine did not reduce the
population (Woodall 1983).
b. National Legislative Changes
The lead and cooperating Federal agencies continue to review possibilities for
national level legislation to address feral swine damage. Challenges which must be
considered include the limits to existing agency regulatory authority; state,
territorial, tribal, and local opposition to federal regulation; the difficulty in creating
national regulation responsive to local needs; and the resources needed to enforce
regulations. Review of existing regulations indicates that the agencies are
struggling to enforce the regulations currently available; adding additional
regulations would require a substantial funding and leave few resources for damage
management. Based on these considerations, the agencies have determined that the
most effective regulatory strategy is to work with state, territorial, and tribal
agencies to develop effective regulations which are suited to their local needs.
There are no changes in federal legislation planned at this time.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 79
c. Diversionary Feeding
This method involves using supplemental food plots or bait stations to lure feral
swine away from areas and resources where damage is occurring. This alternative
is inefficient at best, and would most likely lead indirectly to increased damage.
Supplemental feeding could increase damage in two ways. First, feral swine may
be attracted to areas that they would not (or not as frequently) visit if no food were
provided. Second, due to the likely proximity of agricultural lands to supplemental
feeding sites, feral swine may visit and damage crops more (rather than less) often
than in the absence of supplemental food (Geiser and Reyer 2004). Further,
diversionary feeding does not hinder their ability and propensity to wander to other
locations where they can cause damage.
To remain effective, supplementary food must be available throughout the period
when the resource (e.g., crop) is vulnerable, which makes this method expensive in
terms of staff and resources (Vassant et al. 1987). Additionally, the abundant food
supply provided by supplemental feeding may be counterproductive to feral swine
population management by enhancing population growth through improved
survival and reproductive output (Groot Bruinderink et al. 1994).
d. Export Swine to Other Countries
As discussed in Section F.11 on the disposition of feral swine, there are many
criteria which would need to be met for feral swine to be safely used as human food
on a commercial scale. These logistical obstacles would also apply to feral swine
intended for export to other countries. Additionally, feral swine intended for export
would be subject to testing and certification requirements and inspections in the
destination country. Consequently, implementation of this alternative was
determined to be too costly and logistically difficult, and will not be considered
further.
e. Donation to Zoos and Animal Sanctuaries
Many zoos and wildlife sanctuaries accept donations of non-chemically euthanized
animals. Feral swine that meet these criteria could be donated for animal
consumption at such facilities. However, feral swine are known to carry a number
of diseases which may be transmitted to other animals through consumption of
carcasses (e.g., trichonella) and many facilities may be unwilling to accept feral
swine donations due to the risk of disease transmission. The testing necessary to
ensure that carcasses could be safely used is unlikely to be cost effective.
Therefore, this method will not be considered in detail.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 80
G. Standard Operating Procedures Common to all Alternatives except the
Federal FSDM Grant Program
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are built into APHIS alternatives as applicable, and serve
to improve the safety, selectivity, and efficacy of activities intended to resolve wildlife damage.
SOPs are incorporated into the Current APHIS-WS FSDM Program whether it involves technical
assistance, direct control, or both. Additional measures may be added to the list below, based on
site-specific needs and depending upon unique local circumstances. For example, specific
measures to protect resources (i.e., sensitive species) would be added to local- or state-level
APHIS-WS programs based on consultations or coordination with federal, state, territorial, tribal
or local resource management agencies. Similarly, coordination with land management agencies
would likely result in additional measures to avoid conflicts with agency policy, legislative
directives, and land use management plans.
Under the Federal FSDM Grant Program (Alternative 5), grant recipients would be expected to
comply with the primary SOPs included here. However, APHIS would have limited capacity to
monitor for compliance with these measures.
1. General SOPs Used by APHIS-WS in Operational Activity
• The APHIS-WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992, Figure 2-1) is used to identify
the most appropriate strategies for FSDM on a case-by-case basis. APHIS-trained
wildlife specialists consider multiple variables specific to the project site before
selecting the appropriate techniques. Legal and practical restrictions on the use of
methods, considerations for human safety and risks to non-target animals, weather,
vegetation density, and terrain are just some of the variables that would be
considered in this model.
2. SOPs on Program Monitoring and Compliance
• APHIS-WS monitors and reports the lethal removal of all feral swine through its
Management Information System (MIS) database
7
. This information is available to
feral swine management agencies, and can be used to help evaluate population
trends and the magnitude of take in each state, territory or tribal area.
8
• FSDM activities are evaluated prior to the start of work and monitored annually to
ensure that they fall within the scope and limits of NEPA analyses and associated
decisions including state and local level analyses. NEPA analyses will be updated
or supplemented as necessary.
7
MIS Database information - http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/directives/4.205_reporting.pdf
8
Data on APHIS-WS take of feral swine at the state and territory level is also available to the public in annual
program data reports accessible from the WS home page at
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 81
• APHIS-WS complies with all applicable laws and regulations that pertain to
conducting FSDM on federal, state, territorial, tribal, local, and private lands.
• APHIS-WS personnel adhere to all label requirements for use, storage, and disposal
of chemical toxicants, repellents, and immobilization, euthanasia, and contraceptive
drugs. EPA/FDA-approved labels provide information on preventing exposure to
people, pets, and T&E species, along with environmental considerations that must
be followed. APHIS-WS personnel abide by these. These restrictions preclude or
reduce exposure to non-target species, the public, pets, and the environment.
• APHIS-WS Specialists who use firearms and pyrotechnics are trained and certified
by experts in the safe and effective use of these methods.
• Training and certification is required of pilots and crew members for aerial shooting
projects. This training includes training in the use of personal protective
equipment, emergency procedures in the event of an aerial accident, target
identification, and additional firearms training specific to aircraft. Commercial-
rated pilots must pass a Class II physical exam, as defined by the Federal Aviation
Administration, and are subjected to recurrent APHIS-WS safety training for low-
level aircraft. Aircraft are inspected to meet or exceed Part 135 Federal Aviation
Administration aircraft standards.
3. SOPs to Minimize Harm to Non-Target Species
• APHIS-WS monitors the impacts of program actions on non-target species (e.g.,
dispersed, captured and released, killed) to determine if program impacts are within
parameters anticipated and analyzed in applicable national, state, or local NEPA
analyses. This information is available to applicable wildlife management agencies
and can be used to help evaluate impacts of program actions on non-target species.
• APHIS-WS Specialists use specific trap types, trap door systems and trigger
devices, baits, lures and device placement that are most conducive for capturing the
targeted animals and minimizing the potential capture of non-target animals.
• APHIS-WS specialists confirm identification of the target animal prior to shooting.
• Where appropriate, suppressed firearms would be used to minimize noise and
disturbance.
• When conducting nighttime activities, potential impacts associated with spotlights
may be minimized by the use of night vision equipment, infrared devices, or red
filtered spotlights.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 82
• Non-target animals captured in cage traps or any other restraining device would be
released whenever it is possible and safe to do so. Animals that sustain life-
threatening injuries would be euthanized on site as humanely as possible, as
authorized by state and federal regulation.
• Traps would be checked, in accordance with applicable state, territorial, local, and
tribal laws, to ensure non-target species would be released in a timely manner, and
to minimize unnecessary stress or injury to target or non-target species (WS
Directives 2.21 and 2.45).
• Human presence at sites would be kept to the minimal time needed to accomplish
the management action.
• Trap monitoring devices may be employed where applicable to facilitate monitoring
of the status of traps in remote locations, reduce risks to non-target species, and to
ensure any captured wildlife was removed promptly to minimize stress and injury.
• APHIS-WS personnel work with research programs, such as NWRC, to continually
improve and refine the selectivity of management devices, thereby reducing non-
target take.
• APHIS-WS will use non-toxic ammunition on national parks and FWS wildlife
refuges, as required by land management policies, and as required by state,
territorial and tribal laws. On other lands, APHIS-WS will exhaust the available
supply of effective lead-free ammunition for aerial operations when possible before
resorting to ammunition containing lead. For ground operations, APHIS will work
to transition from lead to lead-free ammunition within the constraints of
availability, performance, and safety.
4. SOPs that Minimize Harm to T&E Species
In addition to SOPs that minimize harm to non-target species, APHIS-WS would
implement specific measures, as requested by the FWS during the consultation process, to
comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act:
• Before any FSDM actions that may affect federally listed T&E species could be
implemented, a formal or informal consultation with FWS and/or National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), as appropriate, would be completed.
• Reasonable and prudent Alternatives, Measures, and Terms and Conditions
associated with formal ESA Section 7 consultations are incorporated into local
program planning.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 83
• Minimization measures identified in specific informal ESA consultations with FWS
and/or NMFS, as applicable, are incorporated into FSDM projects.
• APHIS-WS will use non-toxic ammunition when and where required by ESA
Section 7 consultations.
• APHIS would not proceed with any action that the FWS has determined could
jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed threatened or endangered
species, or that would adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.
5. SOPs that Minimize the Potential for Non-purposeful Take of Eagles
• All projects proposed for implementation at the state, territory, tribal or local level
will be reviewed for potential to take
9
eagles in accordance with the provisions of
the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). If potential risk of take is
identified, APHIS-WS will work with the FWS on measures to reduce risks and the
need for a non-purposeful take permit.
• Eagles are known to scavenge on carcasses. APHIS-WS would not intentionally
use carcasses to draw feral swine to foot-hold traps or snares, but carcasses (e.g.,
road kill, predation, wildlife damage management) could be near project sites. To
reduce risks of unintentional capture of an eagle in a snare or foot-hold trap, WS
Directive 2.45 states that no foot-hold traps or snares (cable devices) will be set
closer than 30 feet from any exposed animal carcass or part thereof, having meat or
viscera attached that may attract raptors or other non-target animals. If an animal
carcass could be dragged or moved by scavengers to within 30 feet of set foot-hold
traps, snares (cable device); the carcass will be secured to restrict movement.
6. SOPs on Carcass Disposal
• Carcasses of feral swine retrieved by APHIS-WS after damage management
activities would be disposed of in accordance with APHIS-WS Directive 2.515.
• If APHIS-WS is directly involved in carcass burial, burial site remediation should
include soil conservation measures to minimize runoff and soil erosion, loss of
topsoil and effects on vegetation.
• On non-federal lands, when APHIS-WS is directly involved in carcass burial, siting
decisions would be made after consulting with State Historic Preservation Officers
9
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act defines “Take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture,
trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Disturb is defined as any activity that can result in injury to an eagle, or cause nest
abandonment or decrease in productivity by impacting breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 84
(SHPOs), affected tribal authorities, and land managers to avoid adverse effects on
cultural/historic resources.
• When more than one sounder requires burial per site and there are not specific rules
for feral swine burial, APHIS-WS operational programs that bury feral swine
carcasses, or that advise landowners or land managers about on site burial, should
consult with local resource experts and/or follow/recommend local routine livestock
burial rules or guidelines to help minimize adverse effects on soils and water
quality.
• Open air burning of feral swine carcasses would be avoided (APHIS-WS Directive
2.515) except when this method is required by regulations and can be conducted
safely.
• If cultural resources or artifacts are inadvertently discovered during carcass
disposal, APHIS-WS will cease operations and contact appropriate SHPO office.
7. SOPs that Minimize Risks to Human Safety
• Conspicuous warning signs, alerting people to the presence of foot-hold traps or
snares will be posted on main entrances or commonly used access points to areas
where foot-hold traps snares are in use. Signs will be routinely checked to assure
they are present, obvious, and readable.
• Whenever possible, FSDM activities would be conducted away from areas of high
human activity. If this is not possible, APHIS-WS personnel would work to
schedule activities during periods when human activity was low (e.g., early
morning or late at night) or may work with the landowner/manager to temporarily
close areas during FSDM. Signs would be placed to warn the public of any
potential hazards as appropriate.
• Shooting would be conducted during times and in locations where risks to the
public may be eliminated (e.g., site is closed to public).
• Personnel involved in shooting operations would be fully trained in the proper and
safe application of this method in accordance with APHIS-WS Directive 2.615.
• Aviation safety and the operation of aircraft would adhere to standards for the use
of aircraft in APHIS-WS’ activities under APHIS-WS Directive 2.620.
• All pilots, crewmembers, ground crews, and aircraft maintenance personnel would
adhere to the APHIS-WS Aviation Operations and Safety Manual, as amended, as
well as, Title 14 CFR, and FAR, Part 43, 61, 91, 119, 133, 135, and 137.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 85
• Personnel employing chemical methods would be properly trained and certified in
the use of those chemicals. All chemicals used by APHIS-WS would be securely
stored and properly monitored to ensure the safety of the public. APHIS-WS’ use
of chemicals and training requirements to use those chemicals are outlined in
APHIS-WS Directive 2.401 and APHIS-WS Directive 2.430.
• All chemical methods used by APHIS-WS or recommended by APHIS-WS would
be registered with the FDA, DEA, EPA, and the appropriate State or tribal
regulatory agency(ies).
• In most cases, captured feral swine would be killed. In cases where feral swine
would be chemically immobilized, fitted with radio telemetry equipment, and
released for research or operational purposes, released animals would be identified
with ear tags or other similar devices that provide APHIS-WS’ contact information
and a warning to the public not to capture, kill, or eat the marked animal. APHIS-
WS would adhere to all established withdrawal times for feral swine when using
immobilizing drugs for the capture of feral swine that are agreed upon by APHIS-
WS, state, territorial and tribal regulatory agencies, and veterinary authorities.
• When allowed by law and when landowners prefer to retain feral swine carcass(es)
killed on the property for personal use, APHIS-WS provides information about food
safety and the safe handling of the carcass to reduce risks. Therefore risks to
human safety are minimized by emphasizing precautions for safe handling and
preparation/consumption. In addition, landowners are advised not to feed pets or
other animals uncooked meat or other carcass products.
8. SOPs that Minimize Harm to Cultural Resources
• Before any FSDM actions that may affect cultural resources protected by the NHPA
could be implemented, consultations with federal, state, territorial, and tribal
historic preservation offices, as appropriate, would be conducted to prevent,
minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to cultural resources.
• If an individual activity with the potential to affect archaeological resources is
planned under the alternative selected in this FEIS, APHIS-WS will comply with
the provisions set forth in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of
1979.
• On public lands and on other federal lands, the land management agency requesting
feral swine control could be designated as the lead agency for compliance with
Section 106, and APHIS would cooperate in that effort.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 86
9. SOPs that Address Animal Welfare Concerns
• Personnel would be well trained in the latest and most humane devices/methods for
removing feral swine.
• APHIS-WS’ personnel would attempt to kill captured feral swine as quickly and
humanely as possible, in accordance with APHIS-WS’ directives (APHIS-WS
Directive 2.430, APHIS-WS Directive 2.505), and applicable AVMA euthanasia
guidelines for use on wildlife under field conditions (AVMA 2013).
• NWRC is continually conducting research to improve the selectivity and
humaneness of wildlife damage management devices used by personnel in the field.
• Any non-target animal that is deemed unlikely to survive due to injuries caused by
FSDM methods will be euthanized as humanely as possible.
• APHIS-WS aerial crews are trained to note the result of each shot and to quickly
follow-up on suspected non-fatal shots to ensure a humane death. While this
technique has been highly effective to date, should any decline in efficiency be
noted, APHIS-WS will investigate the potential causes and make adjustments or
corrections as necessary.
10. SOPs that Address Coordination within States and Territories
• States and territories would be involved in the planning and prioritization of FSDM
in areas under their jurisdiction to ensure that all actions are conducted in
accordance with state or territorial management objectives for the species.
• States and territories animal health agencies will be apprised of feral swine disease
monitoring activities and projects occurring in their state or territory.
• All FSDM activities would be conducted in accordance with applicable state and
territorial regulations.
• APHIS will consult with state and territorial agencies regarding the impacts of
proposed methods on state and territory listed T&E species. APHIS will work with
states and territorial agencies on methods to ensure that FSDM actions do not
jeopardize state or territory listed T&E species.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 87
11. SOPs that Address Coordination with Tribes
• Tribes would be included in the planning and prioritization of FSDM activities that
occur in areas under their jurisdiction to ensure that all actions are conducted in
accordance with tribal objectives for the species.
• No FSDM would be conducted on tribal lands without the written consent of the
tribe.
• All FSDM activities conducted on tribal lands would be conducted in accordance
with applicable tribal regulations.
• APHIS will consult with tribes regarding the impacts of proposed methods on
tribally-listed T&E species. APHIS will work with tribes on methods to ensure that
FSDM actions do not jeopardize tribally listed T&E species.
• APHIS will remain open to consultation with tribes regarding FSDM in accordance
with APHIS Directive 1040.3.
12. SOPs that Address Actions Conducted on Federal Lands
• Except as otherwise provided under Memoranda of Understanding, FSDM
conducted on lands administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of Defense agencies, and other federal lands would be
at the request of the federal land management agency and in accordance with agreed
upon conditions for minimizing adverse effects on land uses and other resources
(e.g., requirements for lead-free ammunition, trap placement).
• The federal land management agency would be consulted prior to conducting
FSDM to ensure consistency with applicable land and resource management plans,
Congressional direction regarding the intended purpose of the site, and existing site
uses.
• All FSDM conducted on federal lands must be reviewed for consistency with
applicable land and resource management plans, Congressional direction regarding
the intended purpose of the site, existing site uses, and federal laws.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 88
This page left intentionally blank.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 89
Chapter 3: Affected Environment
The affected environment for this analysis includes those aspects of the human environment that
are impacted by feral swine and impacts on the environment that may result from implementation
of the proposed FSDM methods. This Chapter provides a detailed review of the adverse impacts
of feral swine that we introduced as the Need for Action (Chapter 1, Section D), but also addresses
the positive impacts associated with feral swine. Components of the affected environment which
may be impacted by FSDM are also addressed.
A. Feral Swine
1. Origin and Morphology of Feral Swine in the United States and Territories
Swine are not native to the United States or the Territories. It is commonly thought that the
first domestic swine were introduced into areas which eventually became part of the United
States by Polynesians that settled in Hawaii over 1,200 years ago (Pacific Clade; Larson et
al. 2007; Baker 1975). The first swine introduced to Hawaii were most likely descendants
of the Asiatic form of swine from peninsular Southeast Asia (i.e., Pacific Clade haplotype;
Larson et al. 2007). Captain James Cook, a British explorer, observed that the existing
swine on the Hawaiian Islands were small in size, black in color, and weighed about 50 to
60 pounds (Baker 1975). During his explorations, Cook is believed to have brought
European domestic swine to the Islands (Baker 1975). Boars of larger breeds were
purposefully released into the wild to increase the overall size of the smaller Polynesian
pigs, and early reports state that the Asiatic form was replaced by the European breeds
(Baker 1975). However, DNA analysis has indicated that modern Hawaiian feral swine
still show of a mix of Pacific Clade and East Asian haplotypes (see below), with the latter
likely the result of post contact introductions.
Feral swine are also found within the U.S. Territories of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. However, there are limited primary
sources of information for when and how these animals were transported to these islands.
Polynesians settled American Samoa approximately 3,000 years ago and brought domestic
swine with them (American Samoa Historic Preservation Office 2014). These swine have
genotypes distinct from those in the Pacific Clade haplotype and appear to originate from
mainland East Asia (East Asian haplotype; Larson et al. 2007). Similar to the mainland,
these animals became feral when they escaped confinement or were released to range freely
in areas adjacent to settlements. Spanish settlers introduced domestic swine to NMI
between 1672 and 1685 (Conry 1988). It is thought that initially, the swine came from
domestic Philippian herds (Conry 1988). By 1772 there was an established feral
population, which was abundant by the time the American administrative period began in
the early 1900s (Conry 1988).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 90
Feral swine in the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are likely descended from domestic
European swine. Danish settlers are thought to have brought feral swine to St. Johns, one
of the three islands that make up the U.S. Virgin Islands, in 1718 when they colonized the
island (NPS 2003). The swine have established breeding populations in all habitat types
within Virgin Islands National Park (NPS 2003). One source cites that in the 16
th
century,
Christopher Newport landed on Mona Island, one of the islands of Puerto Rico, and found
19 people raising pigs (Cintron 2011). The same source indicates that by the 17
th
and 18
th
centuries, the only surviving remnants of previous colonization on Mona Island were the
goats and pigs that had become feral (Cintron 2011).
The first documented mainland introduction of domestic swine was in Florida by Hernando
de Soto, a Spanish explorer (Giuliano 2010, Mayer and Brisbin 1991). However, the first
introduction may have actually occurred during a failed expedition by Juan Ponce de Leon
(Mayer 2009c). During his second expedition, he brought several species of livestock,
including pigs, with the plan of establishing a settlement in Florida as a base to further
explore the region. The expedition was attacked by local Indians shortly after landfall and
several members wounded. It is unclear as to whether the animals were actually released at
the site. Introductions of swine were then made in Texas in the 1680s (Mapston 2004) and
the Carolinas and Georgia around the same time (Wood and Barrett 1979). The California
Department of Fish and Wildlife indicates that Spanish and Russian settlers introduced
domestic swine to California in the 1700’s (CDFW 2014). The domestic swine in the areas
became feral when they escaped confinement or were released into open ranges (Giuliano
2010), which was a normal farming practice at the time.
The Eurasian wild boar, native to Europe and Asia, were introduced throughout the U.S.
mainland primarily during the 1900s (New Hampshire in 1886, New York in 1902, North
Carolina/Tennessee in 1912, Texas in 1930, and Washington in 1981; Mayer and Brisbin
1991, Mayer 2009c) to provide hunting opportunities. In the 1920’s, a landowner
introduced the European wild boar into California (CDFW 2014). Wild boar were
introduced to provide new game to hunt and to increase the sporting value of feral swine
through hybridization (Giuliano 2010, Mayer and Brisbin 1993). In most places where the
domestic feral swine and Eurasian wild boar populations overlap in their distribution,
hybridization occurs (Mayer and Brisbin 1993, Giuliano 2010, CDFW 2014).
It is sometimes difficult to visually distinguish between Eurasian boars, feral domestic
swine, and their hybrids because each subspecies can be very diverse in its physical
appearance. In general, domestic swine that become feral still resemble domestic swine but
they are usually leaner. They also have more developed shoulders, longer and larger snouts
and tusks, smaller ears, longer, coarser hair, and straighter tails with a bushy tip (Mapston,
2004). Some feral swine develop a mane of hair on their necks and backs that can be raised
when they are angered, hence, the nickname “razorback” (Mapston 2004). Males have an
area along their shoulders called the shield, that has tough skin, cartilage, and scar tissue
which develops as the animal ages and fights (Mapston 2004). Striped patterns are visible
in all types of juveniles, but disappear as the animal matures (Mapston 2004).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 91
Eurasian wild boars are slightly taller than feral swine, typically have longer hair, appear
leaner, have larger heads, longer snouts, shorter and straighter tails, and smaller, more
upright ears (Giuliano 2010, Mapston 2004). Most have large prominent tusks (Mayer and
Brisbin 1993). Other differences are outlined on the Table 3-1 below.
Table 3-1. Comparison of the identifying morphological characters used to determine the three
primary types of wild swine found in the United States. This comparison is for adult
animals only (Mayer and Brisbin 1993).
Morphological
Character
Eurasian Wild Boar Wild Boar/Feral
Hog Hybrids
Feral Hog
Skull Determined by Analysis of Skull Measurements
External Body
Dimensions
Determined by Analysis of External Body Measurements
Coat Coloration
Patterns
Light-tipped/brown-
base bristles over most
of the body with dark
brown to black solid-
colored points
a
; white-
tipped facial pattern
(saddle or mouth
streak)
Include wild boar
and feral swine
colorations in pure
form or
combinations of the
parental stock
patterns
Combinations of
black, white and
red/brown; can
include solid or
mottled patterns;
white points and
belting also
observed
Bristle Coloration Light to Dark Brown
bristles with white to
cream/buff tips
Solid-colored and
light-tipped/dark-
based bristles
Solid-colored
bristles
Underfur Coloration Color variable (e.g.,
cream to smoke gray)
but typically different
from the base
coloration of the
bristles
Color variable; color
can be the same or
different from the
bristles in the same
area of the pelage
Color variable but
same as the bristles
in the same area of
the pelage
Other Morphological
Structures
No neck wattles or
syndactylous digits
Neck wattles or
syndactylous digits
can be present
Neck wattles or
syndactylous digits
can be present
a
The “points” include the ends of the snout, legs, tail, and the entire pinnae of the ears.
2. Population Status of Feral Swine
Chapter 1, Figure 1 shows the distribution of feral swine in North America. Feral swine
are also known to have established populations in portions of Hawaii, American Samoa,
NMI, Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Knowledge about swine distribution and
population size changes frequently as awareness of the damage and risks associated with
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 92
feral swine grows and agencies become increasingly involved in feral swine management
efforts. Figure 2-2 classifies states into rough categories based on data and general
opinions of natural resource managers (state wildlife and agriculture departments, and
APHIS-WS staff) regarding population size. While most agencies are aware of areas
where swine occur in their jurisdiction, most states and territories do not have sufficiently
detailed information to feel comfortable providing a detailed estimate of the number of
swine in their area (Appendix D, Table 2), although at least one author has endeavored to
develop a national population estimate using existing information.
No consistent method of monitoring and estimating feral swine is implemented by the
states. Efforts to quantify feral swine populations are complicated by several factors
including swine behavior, agency financial constraints, and available methodology
(Engeman et al. 2013). Feral swine often prefer areas of heavy vegetation cover which
complicates visual surveys. Additionally, swine subjected to hunting pressure and damage
management removal efforts often become increasingly secretive and wary of humans and
shift primary activity patterns from daytime to evenings. Agency budgets are limited and
there is considerable competition for resources that might be used to manage and monitor
feral swine populations. Management of invasive species often has lower priority than
native species preservation and management. Similarly, routine inspections of fenced
swine hunting facilities, and investigations of feral swine sightings may have lower priority
as responses to more immediate threats to trade and the agricultural industry such as the
Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus (PEDV; AASV 2013).
Despite existing limitations, two systems for monitoring the national feral swine population
are available. The Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS) started
producing nationwide feral swine distribution maps in 1982. Populations are only
considered established and recorded on the maps if the population has been present for 2 or
more years or there is evidence of reproduction. Data for the maps is provided by APHIS-
WS, state and territorial natural resource and agriculture agencies and other state and
federal agencies involved in natural resources management (Figure 1-1). The mapping
system has the advantage of providing a standardized method for monitoring the feral
swine population over time, but it does not provide information on the number of swine
present.
A system for estimating the number of animals in the national feral swine population has
been developed by J. J. Mayer with the Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken,
South Carolina (Mayer 2014). The system uses available information to provide an
estimate of the feral swine population in each of the states where feral swine occur. When
available, population estimates reported by either an agency (e.g., state or federal) or an
academic or extension researcher for the state in question were used. Sources for the
estimates include journal publications or other reports, official web sites, quotes from
secondary sources (e.g., news media), or personal reports to the author. Some states collect
data on swine taken by hunters. When these data are available, feral swine populations are
estimated using an assumption of a 23% harvest rate, based on information in the literature.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 93
Neither population estimates nor hunting data are available in some states, but the states
have reported the presence of these animals. These reports include informal or anecdotal
estimates of the numbers of feral swine present (e.g., included numbers present or
population sizes such as “a few,” “a couple of dozen,” “45 or fewer,” or “several
hundred.”). None of these casual estimates involved large numbers of animals (e.g.,
thousands of feral swine) and in some cases the occurrence of these animals may have been
temporary or even questionable (i.e., there may in fact be no feral swine left in the area). To
account for the lack of information on feral swine in these states, the author used a system
of “bounding” estimates to encompass the numbers associated with the presence of these
animals in those states. Data available to Mayer as of May 2014 yielded a mean national
population estimate of 6.3 million swine (range 4.4 – 11.3 million animals; Table 3-2). The
advantage of a numeric system is that it provides an indication of the scale of the problem,
and, given that damage and conflicts are related to population size, the magnitude of the
conflicts and ecosystem impacts of feral swine. Unfortunately, the lack of consistent
population monitoring in states makes it difficult to accurately monitor changes in the
population over time.
Table 3-2. Estimated size of the feral swine population in the United States in 2014 (Mayer 2014).
State
Population Estimate Estimate Basis/Bases
Minimum Mean Maximum
Published
or
Reported
Harvest
Percentage
Bounding
Estimate
Alabama 90,000 195,000 300,000 X
Alaska 0 0 0 X
Arizona 200 400 600 X
Arkansas 60,000 130,000 200,000 X
California 70,000 110,000 275,000 X
Colorado 100 200 400 X
Connecticut 0 0 0 X
Delaware 0 0 0 X
Florida 500,000 750,000
a
1,000,000 X
Georgia 600,000 1,000,000 2,700,000 X
Hawaii 10,000 16,000 40,000 X
Idaho 0 25 50 X
Illinois 0 40 80 X
Indiana 3,000 3,000 3,000 X
Iowa 25 40 100 X
Kansas 500 750
a
1,000 X
Kentucky 1,000 1,000 1,000 X
Louisiana 500,000 500,000 500,000 X
Maine 0 5 10 X
Maryland 0 0 0 X
Massachusetts 0 0 0 X
Michigan 1,000 2,000
a
3,000 X
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 94
State
Population Estimate Estimate Basis/Bases
Minimum Mean Maximum
Published
or
Reported
Harvest
Percentage
Bounding
Estimate
Minnesota 0 0 0 X
Mississippi 190,000 300,000 800,000 X
Missouri 10,000 10,000 10,000 X
Montana 0 0 0 X
Nebraska 0 0 0 X
Nevada 200 250 300 X
New
Hampshire 500 500 500 X
New Jersey 0 40 80 X
New Mexico 500 750 1,000 X
New York 100 150 200 X
North Carolina 1,000 1,500
a
2,000 X
North Dakota 0 50 100 X
Ohio 1,000 1,000 1,000 X
Oklahoma 430,000 500,000 1,600,000 X
Oregon 1,000 3,000
a
5,000 X
Pennsylvania 2,000 2,500
a
3,000 X
Rhode Island 0 0 0 X
South Carolina 95,000 160,000 400,000 X
South Dakota 0 0 0 X
Tennessee 1,000 1,500
a
2,000 X
Texas 1,800,000 2,600,000 3,400,000 X
Utah 50 75 100 X
Vermont 0 0 0 X
Virginia 2,000 3,000 4,000 X
Washington 0 0 0 X
West Virginia 140 200 360 X
Wisconsin 100 100 100 X
Wyoming 0 0 0 X
Totals 4,370,415 6,293,075 11,253,980 30 9 11
a. Calculated average of the minimum and maximum estimates.
3. Behavior of Feral Swine
a. Social Structure
Feral swine are typically found in groups called sounders. The size of the sounders
may vary depending on the season, region, predation, and/or the biological cycle of
the animal (Mapston 2004, Fernandez-Llario et al. 1996, Mayer 2009c). Sounders
are composed of two or more individuals which are generally related females, and
usually have about 3 to 9 individuals but may range from 2 to 30 or more animals
(Mayer 2009e, Mapston 2004, Graves 1984). However, during a dry season or
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 95
drought some sounders may have up to 40 or 50 animals (Mapston 2004).
Sounders are typically comprised of a sow and her litter (Mayer, 2009) or several
females and their offspring (Graves 1984) although groups of adults or subadults
are possible. Other individuals may be “loosely associated” with sounders, for
example boars may associate with females when they are sexually receptive
(Graves 1984). Weaned female swine generally remain with their natal group,
although some females are known to disperse and form groups with siblings
(Kaminski et al. 2005, Spencer et al. 2005, Lapidge et al. 2004). Males are usually
solitary, except when found in breeding groups (Mayer 2009c, Mapston, 2004).
Data from Georgia (Sparklin et al. 2009) on movements of female feral swine
indicated that sounders had nearly exclusive home ranges and completely exclusive
core movement areas. This information combined with behavior observations was
indicative of territorial behavior by sounders. Animals within sounders are likely to
exclude immigrants until the sounder is reduced to the point where new individuals
can invade (Sparklin et al. 2005). Genetic studies have shown multiple paternities
within family groups, including offspring of males which are not part of the family
group (Comer and Mayer 2009). However, dispersal rates are likely to be greater
than those indicated by genetic analysis (Spencer et al 2005). Using a
multidisciplinary approach, Spencer et al. (2005) studied the social structure of a
controlled population of feral swine in Australia. Generally, the Australian swine
groups were comprised of related individuals, at the level of first-cousin relatives.
However, the study suggested that females will accept multiple matings, females
form loose groups that appear to be highly dynamic, males will travel large
distances between the units, and the unit will form a single open (unfenced)
population with no evidence of genetic structuring. Giffin (1978) suggested that
Hawaiian feral swine units consisted of both related and unrelated swine grouped
temporarily; while the usual group consisted of one or two sows and their offspring.
Feral swine have poor vision and excellent senses of hearing and smell (Mapston
2004). Consequently sound and odor cues are the primary means of
communication. They have a variety of calls, including an alarm grunt given by the
first swine that senses an intruder (Giuliano 2010). Feral swine also communicate
by scratching and rubbing their bodies on posts that other swine and animals can
smell (Giuliano 2010). They use tusks to scrape the bark of trees which may
indicate dominance and/or territorial claims (Baker 1975, Giuliano 2010).
b. Use of Habitat
One of the reasons swine have historically been a popular livestock animal is
because of their ability to survive in various environments. Feral swine are
generalists when it comes to habitat selection, and are highly adaptable to their
environment. They can tolerate a range of climates, they are largely indiscriminate
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 96
in their food selection, and there are claims they can live a day’s walk from water
(Mississippi State University 2014).
In undisturbed areas, feral swine are largely diurnal (Mayer 2009b). However,
swine appear capable of adjusting their activity patterns in response to human
activity. In areas with hunting pressure or high human activity, swine may be
primarily nocturnal (Mayer 2009b, Mapston 2004). Daily activities of feral swine
are also influenced by temperature (Mayer 2009b, Hellgren 1993). In the summer,
feral swine observed in Tennessee feed primarily at night (Singer et al. 1981). In
Hawaii, feral swine activity peaks in late afternoon, night, and early morning,
suggesting night and afternoon resting periods between activity periods (Diong
1982). However, in colder climates, activity increases during daylight hours in the
colder portions of the year. Age and sex also influence activity patterns with
younger swine moving more often during daytime hours than older swine (Diong
1982, Mayer 2009b). Sows may maintain relatively constant activity during active
period while males generally may exhibit bursts of activity with prolonged periods
of inactivity (Mayer 2009b). However, boars generally travel farther than sows
(Mapston 2004, Mayer 2009e).
Individual swine may have overlapping territories, but there is evidence that
sounders may be territorial. However, distribution of food resources, may influence
territoriality (Sparklin et al. 2009). The size of feral swine’s home range can vary
greatly depending on habitat quality. For example, Hellgren (1993) reported
smaller home ranges in coastal Texan habitats and larger home ranges found in the
Rio Grande Plains and the post oak savannah. Home ranges are normally 0.5 to 3
square miles, but can vary from 0.4 to over 19 square miles if food or water is not
adequate (Hellgren 1993). In Hawaii, home ranges of boars (2.0 km
2
) were nearly
two times that of sows (1.1 km
2
; Diong 1982). In Georgia, average home ranges for
sounders varied from 1.95-3.66 km2 (Sparklin et al. 2009) and were similar to other
reports from the southeastern United States. In Mississippi, dry season home
ranges (6.4 km
2
) were larger than wet season ranges (3.0 km
2
; Hayes et al. 2009).
c. Capacity for Learning
Pigs have well-developed, large brains, and researchers have begun to use domestic
swine for cognitive research due to their physiological and anatomical similarities
with humans (Gieling et al. 2011). Sus scrofa have been shown to perform learning
and memory tasks, but many results have not been replicated or validated (Gieling
et al. 2011) so more research is needed. This research is lacking in feral swine;
however, there are numerous references in the literature to the intelligence of feral
swine. Mayer (2009c) describes feral swine as very intelligent and secretive. Feral
swine are often seen as intelligent due to observations that the animals may change
behaviors due to human presence (Singer et al. 1981) such as shifting their home
range or to become more nocturnal when there is intensive hunting (Mapston 2004).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 97
Additionally, feral swine have been observed to smell humans from nearly a half
mile away and have avoided or jumped over nearby traps (Nogueira et al. 2007).
People who work on removing swine have noted the ability of swine to learn and
avoid capture devices, hunters, and dogs after prior experience, making removal of
the animals increasingly difficult. Consequently, methods which focus on
removing entire sounders at one time and which reduce the risk of individual
animals escaping and learning to avoid capture systems are preferred.
d. Food Habits
Feral swine are opportunistic omnivores and appear to be able to survive on almost
anything edible (Ditchkoff and Mayer 2009, Sweeney et al. 2003). Diet varies
throughout the year in accordance with changes in availability of food sources.
Feral swine have a simple, non-ruminant stomach which means feral swine are not
as efficient in using food items high in cellulose, hemicellulose and some
carbohydrates as ruminants such as cattle.
Feral swine obtain food through grazing on above-ground plant material, rooting for
below ground food sources, predation and scavenging on carcasses. Depending on
soil type (density, moisture level, compaction) swine may root at depths ranging
from less than an inch to a yard or more below the surface (Ditchkoff and Mayer
2009).
Vegetation usually comprises the majority (> 85%) of feral swine diets, with the
actual amount varying depending on the availability of alternate food sources. Mast
(e.g., acorns, beechnuts, chestnuts, hickory nuts) is preferred when it’s available and
can have substantial impacts on body condition, reproductive potential and
movement patterns (West et al. 2009). Because of their high digestibility and
concentration of individual plants, agricultural crops can also be a preferred food
source (Ditchkoff and Mayer 2009).
Feral swine are also known to consume algae, fungi, invertebrates (e.g., insects,
worms, crustaceans), eggs and other animal matter (Ditchkoff and Mayer 2009,
West et al. 2009). Feral swine may prey on and/or scavenge carcasses of small
animals including reptiles, fish, amphibians, ground-nesting birds, and young of
wild game and domestic livestock (Ditchkoff and Mayer 2009, Wilcox and Van
Vuren 2009). Evidence of larger animals sometimes is found in feral swine
stomachs, and is primarily associated with scavenging carcasses. However, feral
swine have been known to prey on adult livestock which are vulnerable when
giving birth. Animal matter is a regular but limited portion of feral swine diets. In
the U.S., animal matter rarely exceeds 2% but can be as high as 30% or more during
periods of animal matter abundance. In one study, animal matter was found in 94%
of feral swine stomachs (Ballari and Barrios-Garcia 2012). Some authors have
interpreted the relatively high frequency of animal matter in feral swine stomachs as
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 98
an indication that, at least in some areas, feral swine require a limited amount of
animal matter in their diets (Balli and Barrios-Garcia 2014). Feral swine have been
known to prey on small mammals, ground-nesting birds, their eggs and chicks,
reptiles and amphibians, crustaceans, snails, insects and other arthropods.
Information on the extent to which animals were scavenged or live when obtained
by the feral swine is not available because the status of the animal at the time it was
consumed can rarely be determined based on stomach contents.
4. Life History
Reproductive capacity in feral swine can vary widely depending upon where they occur,
the degree to which the animals are related to domestic swine or Eurasian wild boar, and
the amount of time the swine have been established in the wild (Comer and Mayer 2009).
Domestic swine are generally more prolific than Eurasian wild boar, although productivity
tends to decline to levels more akin to Eurasian wild boar with time in the wild. Feral
swine have the potential to reproduce at high rates and those rates increase with improved
habitat quality. Feral swine are generally capable of reproducing from five months to one
year of age. However, in males, only older more dominant animals are likely to
successfully reproduce (West at al. 2009, Comer and Mayer 2009). Feral swine can give
birth year-round and females are capable of giving birth two times in a year, with multiple
litters more likely in sows more than one year old and in areas with abundant year-round
food supplies (Comer and Mayer 2009, West et al. 2009). Average litter size is slightly
higher for swine related to domestic pigs than for feral swine but generally range from 3-6
piglets per litter (Sweeney et al. 2003). Ditchkoff et al. (2012) reported a mean litter size
for feral swine of 4.8 to 7.5 piglets, with some litters as large as 12 piglets.
A number of small to medium size predators and omnivores prey on piglets, including
coyote, bobcats, turkey vultures, and larger raptors (Mayer 2009c), but only a few large
predators including American alligator, black bear, mountain lion, wolves, coyotes, and
feral dogs are likely to also prey on adults (Mayer 2009c, Mapston 2004). Juvenile
mortality, especially during the first 3 months of life is high, but tapers during the first year
(Mapston 2004). Juvenile deaths are due to suffocation by sows, starvation, parasites,
disease, accidental death, hunting, and predation (Mapston 2004). When the animals reach
40 pounds or larger, there are few threats to them in the wild. Feral swine usually live 4 to
5 years under good conditions, with some living up to 8 or more years (Giuliano 2010,
Mapston 2004).
Models that predict feral swine population growth rates and density assist biologists when
attempting to manage feral swine. Texas A&M’s model (2014) determined potential feral
swine habitat by using Geographical Information Systems (GIS). Potential habitat included
areas with adequate vegetation coverage and types and an adequate average rainfall
(greater than or equal to 20 inches of annual rainfall, unless area was in a riparian area).
Areas with high to low development were omitted. Researchers estimated that, for Texas,
approximately 18 to 21% annual population growth rate, an average density of 1.33 to 2.45
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 99
feral swine/ square mile, an estimate of 1.8 to 3.4 million feral swine statewide, and
approximately 134 million acres (79% of the state) of habitat is suitable to feral swine
(Texas A&M 2014).
5. Genetics
As noted in Chapter 1, this FEIS uses the term “feral swine” refer collectively to free-
ranging swine (Sus scrofa), belonging to the family Suidae. This term includes escaped
domestic and pet swine and their descendants, Polynesian pigs, and Eurasian wild boar and
their hybrids (Chapter 3.B). Physiological and behavioral characteristics and associated
societal values may vary depending on the origin of the swine (McCann et al. 2014, Mayer
and Hochegger 2011, Larson et al. 2007). For example, feral swine that are closely related
to modern farmed domestic swine are most likely to be perceived as pests and a nuisance
problem that should be removed. In contrast, swine that are more closely related to current
populations of Eurasian wild boar may be perceived as a game species and valued for
recreational opportunities and the characteristics of their meat. Similarly, there are
communities in Hawaii and the Pacific islands that would like to see feral Polynesian pig
populations maintained for cultural reasons. Modern genetic testing can differentiate
among these groups of swine and inform management decisions (McCann et al. 2014,
Mayer and Hochegger 2011, Scandura et al. 2011).
Genetic testing can also inform management decisions to control or eradicate feral swine
by providing information on population dynamics. Genetic testing can assist in determining
dispersal rates between populations and sources of reinvasion after control efforts have
been implemented (Hampton et al. 2004, Spencer et al. 2005, Delgado-Acevedo et al.
2007). This information may be particularly useful when determining the scale of effort
needed when agencies are working to eradicate or substantially reduce populations.
Ideally, management actions would be conducted at a scale that includes the target
population plus primary sources of immigrants. Similarly, knowledge of feral swine
subpopulations and movements could also aid managers in responding to disease
outbreaks. Caudell et al. (2013) used oral history combined with molecular analysis to
understand feral swine introductions to Indiana. Combining the data allowed researchers to
understand the legal and illegal introductions of feral swine into the state. Understanding
the history of introduction in an area will allow for more appropriate, case-by-case
management solutions.
Heritage and Specialty Breeds of Pigs
The Livestock Conservancy, whose mission is to ensure the future of agriculture through
genetic conservation and promotion of endangered breeds of livestock and poultry, defines
U.S. heritage animals as ones that are pure breeds with deep histories in the United States
(Livestock Conservancy 2014). Heritage breeds were selected over time to be well adapted
to the local environment and thrive under historic farming practices, mainly multi-use and
open-pastured farming. Modern swine breeders may also work to cultivate varieties of pigs
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 100
with specific characteristics which they believe will enhance the viability or marketability
of their swine. Some swine breeds can have physical characteristics similar to European
wild boar
10
such as hairy coats which can lead to conflicts when state regulations intended
to prohibit introduction and production of Eurasian wild boar, and associated risks that the
swine will become free-ranging, are based on the physical characteristics of the pigs
(MDNR 2011; W. C. Swartz, Jr., Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, pers. comm. 2013).
Ultimately, genetic techniques may enable better and more conclusive identification of
feral swine sources for purposes of regulatory enforcement (see Genetics below).
With the industrialization of farms, many animal breeds disappeared because they were not
suited to a new type of farming. Current breeds are selected for characteristics that suit
large scale production, such as rapid growth. Therefore, genetic diversity within swine has
been drastically decreased. Some of the earlier heritage breeds of swine that were brought
to the United States in the 1500s neared extinction and are now appreciated and valued for
their various attributes. There have been recent movements to preserve swine diversity.
Groups interested in preserving heritage swine breeds want to protect the breeds’ genetic
integrity, are interested in long-term conservation, encourage management strategies that
are sustainable, and celebrate cultural and culinary traditions of the breeds (Livestock
Conservancy 2014).
Ossabaw Island pigs are an example of a heritage variety that some people are interested in
preserving. The feral swine live on Ossabaw Island, off the coast of Georgia. Spanish
explorers introduced the swine onto the island in the 16
th
century as a source of food
(Mayer and Brisbin 1991). The feral swine continued to occupy the island during colonial
plantation development of the island and subsequent private ownership by sportsmen that
hunted the animals (Brisbin and Sturek 2009). While most feral swine breed with domestic
pigs, the Ossabaw Island swine, as a population, have remained relatively isolated from any
significant introductions of mainland feral or domestic swine (Mayer and Brisbin 1991).
The Ossabaw Island swine have a heavy coat and long snout. They are smaller than most
feral swine, weighing less than 200 pounds. Those that want to preserve the breed believe
it is the closest genetic representative of historic stocks of pigs brought over by the
Spanish, the population provides a great example of a long-term natural population, and the
breed is biologically unique because it has been shaped by natural selection in a very
challenging environment known for heat, humidity, a diet with high salt content, and food
scarcity (Brisbin and Sturek 2009). However, as with swine in other ecosystems the
Ossabaw swine adversely impact native species and habitats and the swine have been
documented disturbing nests and eating eggs of federally-listed endangered loggerhead sea
turtles and snowy plover. Because of the impacts of the swine on native vegetation and
animal species, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources works to reduce and closely
manage the feral swine population on the Island (Georgia Department of Natural Resources
2000). The only other remaining individuals of this breed are in existing breeding
10
Traits similar to those of wild boar
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 101
populations kept off-island by farmers for their value as heritage pork and in limited
populations in zoos and parks.
B. Agriculture
1. Impacts of Feral Swine on Agriculture
a. Crop Impacts
Hogs will feed on almost any agricultural crop they find, especially crops adjacent
to riparian areas. They eat seeds, seedlings, mature crops, hay, turf, and gardens.
Feral swine damage pasture and agricultural crops by consumption, rooting,
digging, and trampling (Seward et al. 2004). Rooting can affect the plant
composition of a pasture by promoting the growth of undesirable plants where feral
swine have destroyed desirable forage grasses. Once pastures are degraded in this
way, landowners must spend considerable money and time restoring them to pre-
swine conditions (Whitehouse 1999, Mapston 2004).
Feral swine will travel long distances to consume attractive foods. One study
reported that feral swine traveled 6 miles to forage on sorghum (Mungall 2001). In
a survey of extension agents in Texas, Rollins (1993) found the most common
complaint was damage to crops, including hay, small grains, corn, and peanuts.
Crops such as vegetables, watermelons, soybeans, cotton, tree fruits, and conifer
seedlings were also affected by feral swine. The presence of feral swine in
agricultural areas is likely to lead to requests for assistance to manage and prevent
damage to agricultural crops. Feral swine also cause damage to pastures, land used
for hay, and sod farms by their rooting and wallowing activities (Beach 1993).
Feeding activities of feral swine on agricultural crops can lead to increased erosion
due to the removal of vegetation, leaving bare soil. Since feral swine often travel in
family groups, damage from rooting and wallowing can be extensive and
encompass several acres. Use of agricultural crops as a forage resource by feral
swine may make up 71% of the plant material consumed (Mayer and Brisbin 2009).
A single group of feral swine can destroy a 10-acre cornfield in less than a week
(Gates 2012).
Although it is certainly not realistic to suggest that the entirety of the $223 billion in
crop production (2012) in the United States is at risk of being destroyed, it is worth
noting that between 60 and 80% of row crop production takes place in states that
have a confirmed feral swine population (NASS 2014). In states where feral swine
have been established for several years, data documenting feral swine damage to
agriculture exists. In one study area in Texas, 48 cooperators estimated damages
and expenditures to manage feral swine totaling $2,228,076 on 230,017 acres they
owned or controlled. In Georgia, respondents to a questionnaire developed by the
Georgia Feral Hog Working Group reported an average loss to crops and/or crop
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 102
related damage due to feral swine during 2011 at $12,646 per respondent (response
rate of 39.25%; Mengak 2012). In 2011, it was estimated that feral swine caused in
excess of $57 million dollars in damages to agriculture and an additional $24
million in damage to non-crop values in Georgia (Mengak 2012). In 29 counties in
northern Florida in 2009, feral swine damaged and estimated $314,739 of corn,
$327,943 of cotton, $1,151,178 of peanuts, and $30,815 of soybeans (Ober et al.
2011). In California, agricultural commissioners reported feral swine caused $
1,731,920 in damages (Seward et al. 2004).
No detailed national studies are available quantifying potential damage to row crops
by feral swine. One commonly cited national estimate of annual damage to row
crops uses an estimate of $200 in agricultural crop damage per feral swine per year
and a U.S. feral swine population estimate of 4 million animals to generate a
nationwide estimate of $1.5 billion per year in total damage and control costs
(Pimentel 2007). This estimate is likely very conservative because it uses a
conservative estimate of the national feral swine population and it does not consider
livestock predation, disease transmission, or environmental degradation.
b. Livestock Impacts
Predation
Feral swine sometimes prey on livestock, including lambs, kids (goats), newborn
cattle, poultry, and exotic game. Predation on young livestock animals usually
occurs on calving or lambing grounds where feral swine may be attracted by
afterbirth (Beach 1993, Wade and Bowns 1985, Gallagher undated). Though
predation is usually concentrated on young animals, livestock giving birth are
sometimes killed and consumed (Wade and Bowns 1985). Feral swine are
frequently attracted to after-birth and fetal tissue at livestock birthing grounds
(Beach 1993). In addition to directly preying on livestock, when feral swine
damage fencing they leave livestock vulnerable to predators and offer opportunities
for livestock to escape (West et al. 2009).
Feral swine predation on livestock can be difficult to verify because the entire
carcass is usually consumed, leaving little evidence. When newborns and afterbirth
are rapidly consumed by feral swine, producers may not realize that low
reproductive rates in their herd may be attributable to predation and not a failure of
the animals to give birth (Beach 1993). In addition, feral swine will scavenge
carcasses killed by other animals. If the whole carcass is not consumed, however,
feral swine usually follow a characteristic feeding pattern that can be used to
identify the source of the damage (Pavlov and Hone 1982). They typically kill their
prey by biting and crushing the skull or neck (Frederick 1998). The carcass
typically will be skinned and the rumen or stomach contents consumed (Wade and
Bowns 1985).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 103
Feral swine cause serious economic loss to the livestock industry, although exact
numbers and values are uncertain. This is due, in part, to the misidentification of
the cause of predations. For example, signs of coyote (Canis latrans) and feral
swine predation appear very similar; therefore cases reported as coyote predation
may actually be feral swine (Seward et al. 2004).
In 1990, 1,243 sheep and goats were documented as being lost to feral swine in
Texas, with an estimated value of $63,000 (Rollins 1993). Barrett and Birmingham
(1994) reported 1,473 sheep, goats, and exotic game animals were killed by feral
swine in Texas and California in 1991. Texas produces 1.1 million goats annually;
about 90% of the goats raised in the United States (Scrivner et al. 1985, and Pearson
1986) reported that predators killed 18% of adults and 34% of kids. The number of
goats lost to feral swine predation in unknown, but is likely substantial (> $1
million; Seward et al. 2004).
Disease Threat to Livestock
The cattle and swine industries are the industries at greatest of potential impact by
feral swine. The cattle industry’s $49.2 billion in production (2012) could be
dramatically impacted by diseases transmitted by feral swine, as could the $15.8
billion swine industry. While a disease incident is unlikely to affect either industry
entirely, trade with other countries could very likely be impacted. U.S. pork exports
in 2012 totaled over $5.1 billion, while beef exports were over $4.7 billion (USITC
2014).
Pork production in the United States accounts for about 10% of the total world’s
supply. The United States is one of the world’s largest producers of pork and is the
second largest exporter of pork. The retail value of pork sold to consumers exceeds
$30 billion annually (USDA 2008). Disease transmission by feral swine is likely to
occur where domestic livestock and feral swine have a common interface, such as at
water sources and livestock feeding areas. Transitional domestic swine raised in
fenced enclosures are at greatest risk of disease transmission from feral swine.
Feral swine are capable of carrying numerous parasites and diseases that potentially
threaten the health of livestock (Forrester 1991, Williams and Barker 2001,
Sweeney et al. 2003). Feral swine can harbor at least 30 significant viral and
bacteriological diseases (Williams and Barker 2001; Table 3-3) and feral swine in
Florida have been documented to have as many as 45 different parasites and
infectious diseases (Forester 1991).
These include 37 parasites (12 protozoans, 17 nematodes, 1 acanthocephalan, 1
sucking louse, 4 ticks, and 2 mites), 7 bacteria, and 1 virus. The diseases of most
concern to the livestock industry include pseudorabies, swine brucellosis, bovine
tuberculosis, leptospirosis, and vesicular stomatitis (Nettle et al. 1989, Davidson
and Nettles 1997, Williams and Barker 2001, Davidson 2006). These and the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 104
possibility of an exotic disease outbreak, such as foot and mouth disease, a
contagious viral disease of ungulates (e.g., pigs, sheep, cattle, goats, and deer) (Pech
and McIlroy 1990), or classical swine fever (a contagious viral disease of wild and
domestic swine), could have serious repercussions for the United States livestock
industries (Hone et al. 1992). On the other hand, feral swine may serve as a
monitoring tool for the early detection of exotic diseases (Mason and Fleming 1999;
Witmer et al. 2003).
Feral swine in the United States have tested positive for several of these diseases
listed above. Corn et al. (1986) found that out of a larger sample, 124 feral swine
tested positive for diseases in Texas; pseudorabies (36%), brucellosis (3%), and
leptospirosis (33%). A study in Oklahoma that collected samples from 120 feral
swine found they tested positive for antibodies of porcine parvovirus (17%),
leptospirosis (44%), IAV-S (11%), and porcine reproductive and respiratory
syndrome virus (2%; Saliki et al. 1998). Since 2006, NWRC has implemented
disease monitoring programs for swine brucellosis, pseudorabies and classical
swine fever across the nation. NWRC periodically also monitors for other diseases
in feral swine in partnerships with state and federal agencies and research
institutions. A summary of information from this survey is provided in Table 3-4.
Table 3-3. A partial list of viral and bacterial diseases to which feral swine are
susceptible (Williams and Barker 2001).
Viral Diseases Bacterial Diseases
Bovine herpesvirus Anthrax
Classic swine fever (hog cholera) Brucellosis suis
Coronaviral infection Erysipelothrix infections
Encephalomyocarditis Helicobacter spp.
Foot-and-mouth disease Leptiosporosis
Influenza A Bovine tuberculosis
Louping-ill virus Pasteurellosis
Malignant catarrhal fever Plague
Menangle virus Salmonellosis
Papillomavirus infections Yersiniosis
Parainfluenza Virus
Pestivirus infections
Pseudorabies (Aujeszky’s disease)
Rabbit hemorrhagic disease
Rinderpest
San Miguel sea lion virus
Swinepox virus
Swine vesicular disease
Vesicular swine virus
Vesicular stomatitis
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 105
Although the source of livestock disease outbreaks can be difficult to identify, a risk
of transmission and the spreading of diseases to domestic swine and other livestock
exists wherever feral swine and domestic livestock interact. A disease outbreak not
only has negative economic implications to the individual livestock producer but
also can cause economic losses that can negatively affect the statewide swine
industry.
Table 3-4. Nationwide disease monitoring results for select pathogens that pose a risk to humans, domestic animals and
livestock. All results reflect antibody prevalence. (Bevins et al. 2014).
Disease Taxonomic
Association
Years
Conducted
Sero-
prevalence
95%
Confidence
Interval
Description
Brucellosis Brucella spp. 2006-2012 4.3% 4.0-4.6% Multiple Brucella species and
biovars, some of which can be
transmitted to multiple species,
including humans, in which they
can cause serious disease.
Influenza A Multiple
strains of
Influenza A
and C
2010-2012 10.8% 9.9-11.8% Multiple strains of influenza can
circulate in swine including the
2009 outbreak of a novel H1N1
strain that eventually spread to
people worldwide.
Pseudorabies
(as
Aujeszky’s
disease)
Suid
herpesvirus I
2007-2012 15.5% 14.9-16.1% Endemic swine disease that can
be transmitted to other wild and
domestic animals including
cattle, sheep and dogs.
Trichinella Nematoda 2009-2012 2.0% 1.5-2.6% Parasitic roundworm with a
wide range of potential hosts,
including humans, who can be
exposed through ingestions of
undercooked swine meat.
Hepatitis E Hepatitis E
virus
genotypes 3
and 4.
2010-2012 4.4% 3.7-5.2% Can cause brief acute illness in
infected people, with feral swine
potentially acting as a viral
reservoir and with transmission
to humans occurring through the
consumption of swine.
Brucellosis: Swine brucellosis is caused by Brucella suis, a bacteria that is similar
to the one that causes brucellosis is cattle. Cattle that are in close contact with
swine harboring the disease may become infected (USDA 2005a). Swine infected
with the disease can develop clinical signs or appear healthy; making laboratory
tests an important diagnostic tool. Infection can move through a herd quickly.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 106
Swine brucellosis is a zoonotic bacterial infection and is transmitted through oral
and venereal routes (Thorne 2001). Boars can shed bacteria in their semen, and
both sexes may experience short-term or permanent sterility. Infected sows may
abort or give birth to weak piglets. Infection can also cause lameness.
From March 2009 through December 2010, the percentage of samples testing
positive for brucellosis ranged from 0.7 to 14.4% in a study examining blood
samples of feral swine from 13 states, including New York (Pederson et al. 2012).
Seropositive feral swine were often clustered in one area within a state (Pederson et
al. 2012). Feral swine are a reservoir for the B. suis disease, and have the potential
of transmitting it back to domestic herds (Pederson et al. 2012).
Pseudorabies Virus (PRV): Pseudorabies is a viral disease most prevalent in swine,
often causing newborn piglets to die. Older pigs can survive infection, becoming
carriers of the pseudorabies virus for life. It is an alpha herpes virus and
transmission usually occurs by oral or venereal contact (Wyckoff et al. 2009).
Other animals infected by swine die from pseudorabies, which is also known as
Aujeszky's disease and “mad itch.” Infected cattle and sheep can first show signs of
pseudorabies by scratching and biting themselves. In dogs and cats, pseudorabies
can cause sudden death. The virus does not infect humans. In 2004, Commercial
swine in the United States recently achieved pseudorabies-free status after a 17-year
effort and the expenditure of approximately $200 to $250 million dollars (Hutton et
al. 2006).
Avian Includena A in Swine (IAV-S): Swine Influenza Virus is a viral infection in
swine that is common throughout the world. It causes a respiratory illness in pigs.
Symptoms include acute respiratory disease characterized by fever, inactivity,
decreased food intake, respiratory disease, coughing, sneezing, conjunctivitis, and
nasal discharge (Vincent et al. 2008). IAV-S is a herd disease with a high rate of
infection within the herd but generally low mortality (Vincent et al. 2008). The
emergence of new subtypes of SIVs (hu-H1, H3N2, H4N6, H2N3, and hu-H3) in
North American pigs has implications for pigs and people who care for them.
Newly emerging viruses are capable of epidemics at the herd level since they are
antigenically distinct from previously circulating and/or currently used commercial
vaccine strains, are virulent in the pig, and can infect and transmit from pig to pig
(Vincent et al. 2008).
Leptospirosis: Leptospirosis is a worldwide zoonotic disease of domestic animals
and wildlife. It is caused by a spirochete bacteria classified under the Leptospira.
Infections may be asymptomatic or cause various signs, including fever, jaundice,
bloody urine, renal failure, infertility, abortion, and death (Aiello and Moses 2011).
Abortions are the most common manifestation in pigs. After acute infection,
leptospires frequently localizes in the kidneys or reproductive organs and are shed
in the urine, sometimes in large numbers for months or years. Because the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 107
organisms survive in surface waters, such as swamps, streams, and rivers, for
extended periods, the disease is often waterborne. The organism survives well in
mud and moist, alkaline soil, such as riverbanks. Periods of high rainfall are
associated with an increase of disease outbreaks (Merck Veterinary Manual 2012).
A number of wildlife species have been implicated as reservoirs for the bacteria
including raccoons, opossums, squirrels and feral swine (Chatfield et al. 2013).
Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PRV RSV): PRRSV was
first reported in the United States in 1987 (Merck Veterinary Manual 2012). The
disease causes reproductive failure during late-term gestation in sows and
respiratory disease in pigs of all ages. In 2006, a new, highly pathogenic PRRSV
emerged, characterized by high fever (41°C–42°C), skin discoloration/reddening,
high incidence of illness (50%–100%), and high proportion of deaths (20%–100%)
in pigs of all ages.
Anthrax: Anthrax is a soil-borne disease that occurs in some states, usually where
the daily minimum temperature is at least 60 degrees F, where wet periods are
followed by long, dry periods, and where soils are alkaline or neutral. All
mammals, especially ruminants, are susceptible to anthrax. Feral swine may come
into contact with the bacteria while feeding or by interacting with infected animals.
Foreign Animal Diseases: Feral swine can serve as a reservoir and amplifier for
many diseases, making it difficult or impossible to eradicate disease in livestock in
areas with feral swine (Hone et al. 1992, Corn et al. 2005, Hutton et al. 2006,
Wycoff et al. 2009). Feral swine could potentially play a role in spreading and
perpetuating exotic diseases in the future. For example, foot-and-mouth disease,
which was eradicated from the U.S. in 1929, would be essentially impossible to
eradicate again if it reemerges in areas with feral swine (West et al. 2009). If foot-
and-mouth disease were to reemerge in the U.S. commercial swine herd, it could
result in a reduction of $14 to 21 billion in U.S. farm income (Paarlberg et al.
2002).
Foot-and-mouth-disease (FMD) is a foreign animal disease (FAD) of great concern
because it is highly contagious, spreads rapidly, can cause serious economic losses,
and can constrain international trade in livestock products. It is a viral disease of
ungulates (mainly cloven-hoofed ruminants, including swine) and some rodents.
Symptoms include fever and blister-like lesions on the tongue, teats, lips, inside of
the mouth, and between the hooves. Many infected animals recover, but some may
be permanently debilitated. The virus can be spread by contact with infected
animals and with contaminated feed, water, or equipment (Mapston 2004).
Classical Swine Fever (CSF) is a highly contagious foreign viral disease that affects
swine. Once called hog cholera, CSF has been eradicated from many developed
nations, including the United States. Depending on the strain of the virus, the virus
can either be very virulent and cause high mortality in swine herds, or it can be mild
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 108
with the only symptoms being poor performance and failure to thrive (CFSPH
2009).
Trade and Market
Therefore there is concern relative to the role feral swine could pose to the pork
industry as a reservoir for disease. The introduction of a FAD to the commercial
herd would have serious implications to agricultural industries. Although the U.S.
has not experienced a FMD outbreak since the 1920’s, several other developed
countries (e.g., Taiwan, the U.K., the Netherlands, Ireland, France, and Italy) have
experienced outbreaks in recent decades, leading to concerns about FMD in the
U.S. (Paarlberg et al. 2003). Outbreaks of FMD in domestic swine in the U.K.,
Ireland, France, and the Netherlands necessitated the destruction of 6 million head
of livestock, which had an estimated value of $11 - $12 billion (FAO 2009). If
FMD or other foreign animal disease were to occur in the feral swine population, it
would substantially increase the cost and complexity of management and eventual
eradication of the disease.
Cozzens et al. (2010) modeled the potential spread of FMD from feral swine to
livestock and within livestock in Missouri using the North American Animal
Disease Spread Model (NAADSM) and predicted an expected livestock loss of
18,658 animals until the disease was eliminated. This implies a direct economic
loss of $7.5 million resulting from a disease outbreak lasting 45 days. Indirect
losses were estimated at $4.4 million, based on a decrease in producer revenue of
$7.5 million. Thus, the expected total economic impact of feral swine FMD
outbreak was nearly $12 million from a 45-day disease outbreak.
PRV is by no means the only disease that could create a significant impact to the
swine and other livestock industries, and effects of other diseases potentially could
be even more significant. Swine brucellosis, for example, poses a risk not only to
swine and other livestock, but can also infect humans who come into contact with
infected pigs. Swine-carried tuberculosis is a similarly zoonotic hazard.
Bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) has been a recurring concern for the
Hawaiian island of Molokai (USDA 2006). In 1985, the entire population of cattle
on the island was depopulated in an effort to eradicate the disease. However, in
1997, a cow that originated from Molokai was determined to be infected with M.
bovis with subsequent depopulation of the infected herd. No additional infected
animals were found. A wildlife survey was conducted which found feral swine
infected with M. bovis. The area where the feral swine were sampled was located in
the same area the infected cow resided. DNA fingerprinting of the M. bovis strain
found in infected cow showed a similar profile to the M. bovis strain found in the
feral swine.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 109
In 2006, APHIS conducted a risk assessment to study the transmission of bovine
tuberculosis from feral swine to cattle on the Hawaiian island of Molokai (USDA
2006). At the time of the risk assessment, a testing protocol was in place to reduce
the risk of infected animals mixing with animals from portions of the island and
state where the disease does not occur. The testing program included annual
complete herd testing of cattle and goats as well as testing for movement other than
for slaughter. Costs associated with one round of testing for bovine tuberculosis on
Molokai, Hawaii were $17,499 with two rounds of testing needed prior to export.
Costs of the testing program are summarized in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7. Costs associated with one round of testing for bovine tuberculosis on Molokai, Hawaii, 2006 (APHIS Risk
Assessment - Transmission of Bovine Tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) from Feral Swine to Cattle on the Island of
Molokai 2006).
Ranches Labor Airfare
State
Admin
Expenses
Livestock
Inspector
Mileage
Expenses
Eartag
Expenses
Tuber-
culin
Expenses Total
Puu-O-
Hoku
Ranch $4,111 $900 $47 $60 $150 $620 $5,888
Kapualei
&
Kaluaaha
Ranches $2,489 $450 $47 $40 $40 $215 $3,281
Pedro $4,186 $900 $47 $60 $40 $287 $5,520
Kililikane $2,231 $450 $47 $40 $7 $34 $2,809
Total $13,017 $2,700 $47 $200 $237 $1,156 $17,499
c. Other Agriculture Impacts
Feral swine commonly cause significant damage to agriculture infrastructure. In
addition to directly damaging crops, feral swine can damage fences, irrigation
ditches, roads, dikes, and other structures. Rooting and wallowing in agricultural
fields creates holes that, if unnoticed, can damage farming equipment and pose
potential hazards to equipment operators (Nunley 1999). In Texas, 72% of
surveyed extension agents reported additional damage to ranch facilities (e.g.,
fences, water supply, irrigation ditches, and guzzlers) (Seward et al. 2004). Feral
swine wallowing can severely muddy ponds and streams and cause algae blooms,
oxygen depletion, bank erosion, and soured water (Mapston 2004).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 110
Because of their size and strength, feral swine can damage even robust fences, thus
compromising the fence’s ability to contain livestock and exclude predators. Fence
damage, including torn netting, holes, and weakened wires and posts, can allow
livestock to wander, give access to predators, and result in costly repairs (Mapston
2004). Although no one has estimated the economic impact of this damage, it has
the potential to be significant in terms of fence repair costs and escaped livestock
(Beach 1993).
Feral swine consume supplemental food and damage feeders and food plots
intended for livestock and wildlife. When feral swine frequent these sites other
animals often avoid them (Mapston 2004). Additionally, feral swine compete with
livestock by rooting up and eating vegetation intended for livestock feed (Mapston
2004).
2. Agriculture Resources Which May Be Impacted by Feral Swine Damage
Management
a. Damage and Disease Risks
Section B.1 describes the economic impact of feral swine damage to agriculture. It
is likely that many of the losses described would be alleviated or significantly
lessened in areas targeted for FSDM. In Texas alone, reports of feral swine damage
to agriculture were estimated at $51.8 million annually (Adams et al. 2005).
Pimental et al. (2007) estimated the annual cost associated with feral swine damage
at $1.5 billion, but suggested this estimate is conservative because damages
associated with diseases are not easily translated into dollar values.
USDA-APHIS established successful national eradication programs for swine
brucellosis and pseudorabies, and have ongoing bovine tuberculosis with a goal of
elimination of these diseases from all commercial livestock herds in the United
States (Witmer et al. 2003). Unfortunately, one of the most serious setbacks to
achieving this goal is the widespread and growing occurrence of feral swine
populations across the country. Lack of feral swine control could significantly
hinder the accomplishment made by these programs. Elimination of feral swine
from some areas may also reduce management costs for transitional and back-yard
producers by eliminating the need for additional fencing or other structures to
prevent contact between feral and domestic swine.
b. Hunting Preserves and Associated Swine Production
Escapees from poorly monitored and maintained enclosed hunting preserves have
contributed to the range and magnitude of feral swine populations (Bratton 1975,
Bevins et al. 2014). Nonetheless, feral swine hunting preserves can be a profitable
business and some states do allow hunting preserves and/or the breeding and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 111
holding of feral swine for use in hunting preserves (Appendix D Table 3). It is
possible that some of these states could revise the regulations pertaining to feral
swine hunting preserves in response to a national feral swine population damage
management effort. For example, Michigan declared Sus scrofa to be an invasive
species in the state and possession of this species is now prohibited and it may not
be used in hunting and breeding facilities (MDNR 2013). Producers were given a
set time interval to eliminate their captive wild boar herds. Alternatively, some
states may choose to increase monitoring, reporting, or fencing requirements.
c. Use of Pastures for Swine Production
There is increasing public interest in animal production systems which do not
include close confinement of animals and in free range or pasture raised livestock
including swine (Penn State Extension 2011, Clancy 2006). Risk of disease
transmission between feral and domestic swine is greatest for pasture raised swine
in areas with feral swine populations. Fencing can also be effective in reducing
risks of disease transmission. However, construction and maintenance of fencing
which can prevent contact between feral and domestic swine, entrance of feral
swine and/or exit of domestic swine can be labor intensive and expensive. Removal
or reduction of feral swine populations in these areas can eliminate or reduce risks
depending on the level of removal achieved.
As with hunting preserves, escapees from farms which raise domestic swine in
pastures have contributed to the feral swine population. A national feral swine
program and increased awareness and interest in reducing or eliminating feral swine
populations may have indirect impacts on domestic swine production in pastures.
states, territories, and tribes working to eradicate swine or prevent feral swine from
becoming established may consider mechanisms to prevent escape of pigs from
pastures including increasing fencing or monitoring and reporting requirements
which would likely result in increased costs to producers. In areas where feral
swine eradication is not possible, state, territorial, or tribal agencies could increase
fencing requirements (e.g., require double fencing) to prevent contact and potential
disease transmission between feral and domestic swine.
C. Natural Resources
1. Natural Resources Affected by Feral Swine
Soil quality describes the capacity of soil to provide ecosystem services. Preserved soil
quality allows for sustained plant and animal productivity, maintained or enhanced water
and air quality, and improved plant and animal health (Herrick 2000). Soil quality is
degraded by erosion, compaction, loss of soil structure, loss of nutrient content, and
changes to soil salinity (Cook 1990). Although some level of soil disturbance is natural,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 112
soils subjected to severe or low-level chronic disturbance may not function as well in terms
of soil stability, production, resistance to erosion and other ecosystem services.
a. Soils, Water, and Fungi
Soil creation and soil loss
Soils are formed from the mechanical and chemical weathering of rocks and other
parent material, or from loose deposits that have been transported by the process of
erosion. Soil erosion is a natural process within ecosystems that removes and
redistributes soil. A soil system is in equilibrium when soil erosion is in balance
with the formation of new soil (Wall et al. 2012). In general, fine sand and silt
components of a soil, along with the particulate organic matter, are more easily
eroded and transported by erosion.
Physical Characteristics of Soils
Soil is categorized based on a number of factors including how well water filters
through it (permeability); how much water it holds after excess water has drained
(water-holding capacity); the size of the particles (soil texture); its ability to clump
and hold together (soil structure); and its chemical properties (e.g., pH, salinity,
etc.). The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service has categorized soils
into 12 soil orders and 64 suborders (Soil Survey Staff 1999). Based on their
different characteristics, soil orders and suborders have varying capacities to
support ecosystem services (i.e., retain water, filter water impurities, cycle
nutrients, anchor plant roots, and absorb air pollutants). As a result, different soil
types are impacted differently, and to varying degrees, by disturbance.
Soil is organized into visibly, chemically, and physically distinct layers, called
horizons. There are five soil horizons: O, A, E, B, and C. Not all of these layers
are present in every location, and horizon layering (called a soil profile) can vary
depending on the amount of vegetation and water in the environment. The O
horizon consists of at least 20 percent organic matter by mass. The low oxygen
levels that occur within this horizon slow the decomposition process and allow
organic material to accumulate, and plant matter, like leaves, is generally still
recognizable. The A horizon is composed of mineral soil, and is commonly
referred to as topsoil. Compared to other mineral horizons, it is rich in organic
matter. Natural events, such as flooding and wind storms, can bury or remove an A
horizon so that it is no longer found at the surface. The E horizon has lower clay
content, making it lighter in texture than either the A or B horizons. The B horizon
is also composed of mineral soil, but it contains a larger portion of clay, salts, and
iron. As a result, it tends to be denser than other horizons. Processes such as
accelerated erosion can sometimes strip away overlying horizons and leave a B
horizon at the surface. The C horizon consists of less refined materials, such as lake
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 113
sediments that have little to no alterations. In general, additions and losses of soil
are minimal within this horizon.
Soils are an important component of the global carbon cycle, as they hold and
release carbon. Over two-thirds of the carbon of terrestrial ecosystems is stored
within the soil (Powlson et al. 2011), and there is growing evidence of critical
feedbacks between climate change and soil processes (Wall et al. 2012). The
amount of carbon that is released from the soil as carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas
that is considered a major contributor to global climate change (Solomon et al.
2009), is a function of soil organic matter, microbial activity, temperature and
moisture, and nutrient concentrations. Changes to any one of these parameters can
increase or decrease carbon dioxide emissions from the soil (Wall et al. 2012). For
example, as soil temperature rises, the amount of carbon dioxide released from the
soil increases (Risch et al. 2010). Large animals, such as swine and cattle, that
significantly disturb the soil by digging or trampling can directly affect these
parameters through physical disturbance, and can increase the amount of carbon
released from the soil as carbon dioxide (Risch et al. 2010).
Feral swine turn over the ground surface when digging (rooting) for plants, fungi or
animal material to eat. Depending upon soil conditions and the availability of
underground food sources, feral swine rooting may range from only an inch or so to
approximately a yard in depth. The size of uprooted areas can range from relatively
small patches to acres in size. In one example recorded in Savannah Preserve State
Park in Florida, feral swine uprooted a 2.2 acre (9,027 m
2
) continuous patch to a
depth of approximately 16 inches (42 cm; Engeman et al. 2007a).
Feral swine also impact soils through trampling and the use of sites for wallowing
(Vtorov 1993, Karlen et al. 1997). Feral swine lack sweat glands to aid in cooling
and use mud wallows to lower body temperature and for protection against insects.
Wallows are shallow depressions containing mud or muddy water. Some wallow
sites can be used repeatedly over a period of years while other are temporary, and
may dry up after only a season of use (Mayer 2009c). The area adjacent to wallows
that is used repeatedly is commonly denuded of vegetation with compacted soils.
Frequent use can lead to elimination of vegetation and soil disturbance and
compaction in the area immediately adjacent to the wallow. Wallows can be
located anywhere but are commonly located in or adjacent to riparian or bottomland
habitats (Mayer 2009c, Chavarria et al. 2007).
Data on the impacts of feral swine rooting on soil structure, chemistry, bulk density
and nutrient cycling are limited and provide mixed conclusions (Barrios-Garcia and
Ballari 2012). Singer et al. (1984) documented reductions in depth of upper soil
horizons, particularly the O and A layers (Singer et al. 1984) and reduced bulk
density of soils in rooted areas of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Rooted
areas also had lower levels of leaf litter. Reductions in soil density can increase the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 114
rate of nutrient leaching in soils, and reduced levels of calcium, phosphorous, zinc,
copper and magnesium were observed in leaf litter and soils in rooted areas (Singer
et al. 1984, Mohr et al. 2005). Inorganic nitrogen concentrations were lower in the
litter of stands with feral swine rooting, but nitrate and ammonium levels increased
which may indicate that at least some of the soil nitrogen was converted to other
forms instead of leeching out of the system. Sieman et al. (2009) also measured
increased nitrogen mineralization rates.
In some situations impacts of feral swine rooting can be beneficial or rooting may
have little impact on the system. Rooting can be similar to tilling in crops which
increases nutrient cycling and decomposition rates, but also increases nitrogen loss
through leaching or direct erosion of soil (Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012,
Wirthner et al. 2012). Wirthner et al. (2012) detected increases in soil carbon,
nitrogen and microbial biomass carbon in soils of Swiss hardwood forests
supporting the hypothesis that rooting enhanced decomposition and faster nutrient
turnover rates in rooted soils. However, in contrast to Singer et al. (1984) plant
available nitrogen was lower in rooted plots than unrooted plots. Wirthner et al.
(2012) hypothesized that differences in plant available nitrogen between their study
and that of Singer et al (1984) may have been attributable to differences in plant
uptake (i.e., use for growth), use by the increased microbes in soil, or loss through
leaching or erosion. Tierney and Cushman (2006) did not detect any differences in
ammonium and nitrate in soils within and without feral swine exclosures over time,
nor did they detect changes in organic matter content or particle size. Similarly, a
study in the Netherlands failed to find any differences in soil pH, organic matter, or
nitrogen (Campbell and Long 2009a) between rooted and unrooted portions of
Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) plantations. Feces from feral swine can, in theory,
provide some soil enrichment, although the ultimate value of this benefit in the
context of other adverse environmental impacts has been questioned (Stankus
2014).
The limited number of studies assessing impacts of feral swine on soil structure and
chemistry and the general lack of replication in methods or among habitat types
make it difficult to make determinations regarding the variation in feral swine
impacts on soils. Ultimately, the impact of rooting on soils is likely to vary among
ecosystems environmental conditions with variations likely occurring between
types of ecosystems (e.g., grassland vs woodland) and within ecosystem types.
Frequency and intensity of disturbance may also be factors in determining feral
swine impacts.
Water and Aquatic Organisms
Water quality and availability is closely related to soil quality. When a soil is well
managed, its porosity (or the space between soil particles) allows it to be an
efficient receiver of rainwater. Water that infiltrates the soil, in the absence of
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 115
excessive nutrient or contaminant loads, is generally purified before entering
groundwater sources or returning to surface water bodies (Karlen et al. 1997).
However, if the soil is improperly managed or disturbed and the porosity
insufficient, water may run off the surface, carrying potential pollutants and soil
particles with it. This process of removal contributes to soil erosion. When this
eroded soil enters surface waters as sediment, it negatively impacts water quality.
This impact is magnified in riparian and floodplain habitats, which are especially
sensitive to changes in water quality (Doupé et al. 2010). Smaller particles such as
clay stay in suspension for very long periods, contributing significantly to water
turbidity (Cook 1990). By volume, sediment is the largest cause of impairment of
rivers and streams across the United States (Cunningham et al. 2001) and the
second largest overall (EPA 2013a).
Rooting loosens soil, and substantially reduces litter layer cover and vegetation
which would otherwise help combat erosion (Lacki and Lancia 1983, Vtorov 1993,
Seward et al. 2004). Soil damage may adversely impact the quality of both surface
and subsurface water resources and soil-borne pathogens and parasites may become
more prevalent (Vtorov 1993, Mayer 2009a). Singer et al. (1984) did not document
any changes in soil sediment yields in areas altered by feral swine rooting.
However, water sampling indicated levels of nitrate and potassium in watersheds
disturbed by feral swine rooting. In a Hawaiian watershed, total suspended solids in
runoff from streams during storm events were consistently greater in areas with
feral swine (Dunkell et al. 2011). Doupé et al. (2010) noted that although feral
swine foraging in wetlands and temporary lagoons increased problems with water
turbidity and low dissolved oxygen, the adverse impacts associated with feral swine
were not as great as those associated with other factors such as flooding, ambient
temperature, and amount of rainfall.
Kaller et al. (2007) observed increases in waterborne bacteria, including increases
over the levels considered acceptable under state and federal water guidelines, in
areas damaged by feral swine in Louisiana. Although there were many potential
sources of Escherichia coli (fecal coliform bacteria) in water, polymerase chain
reaction (PCR)-based testing identified a more than 95% similarity between
coliform bacteria in the contaminated water and samples from feral swine harvested
within the treated area. The bacteria also differed from 900 other bacteria samples
from a range of domestic animals and wildlife.
Soil Biota including Fungi
Soil biota are the various organisms that live on or near the surface of the soil
(Barrios 2007). Most soil invertebrates are found within the upper 10 centimeters
of the soil. Soil disturbance and foraging by feral swine can alter the cycling of
nutrients in the soil, decrease rates of nitrogen retention, and decrease soil microbe
populations (Seward et al 2004, Vtorov 1993, Mack and D'Antonio 1998). In most
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 116
ecosystems, soil biota can have direct and indirect impacts on land productivity by
helping to regulate a number of key ecosystem services, including plant production,
nutrient and carbon cycling, maintenance of soil structure, and water regulation
(Barrios 2007, Wall et al. 2012). Millions of bacteria and fungi are often found in
fertile surface soils (Tiedje et al. 2001). Soil organisms include various types of
bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, and invertebrates such as earthworms and
ants. Each type of soil organism is specialized in its contribution and support of
various ecosystem services. To varying degrees, soil biota are sensitive to physical
and chemical changes of the soil.
Soil invertebrates break dead organic matter, such as leaf litter, into smaller pieces
and facilitate decomposition by soil bacteria and fungi, which further process
nutrients for plant growth. The earthworm, common throughout North America, is
often referred to as an ecosystem engineer because of its wide ranging impacts on
the soil ecosystem (Cole et al. 2006). In addition to decomposition, the presence of
earthworms can reduce surface runoff due to the pores and tunnels they create in the
soil by burrowing. The numbers, species diversity, and distribution of soil
invertebrates depend on soil fertility, moisture, density, and pollution level (Vtorov
1993).
Biological soil crusts are communities of soil organisms living at the surface of
desert soils that play many important ecological roles within semiarid and arid
landscapes. They consist of green algae and significant fungal, microbial, and
invertebrate populations, which facilitate increased soil stability, help prevent soil
erosion, and “unlock” vital nutrients (such as phosphorus), releasing them back into
the soil (Belnap and Lange 2001). Biological soil crusts also help reduce runoff,
which increases water infiltration and the amount of water stored for plant use.
Soil bacteria and fungi offer powerful metabolic machinery for performing essential
ecosystem processes and are important for the decomposition of organic matter.
They also catalyze important transformations in the carbon, nitrogen, and
phosphorus cycles. Mycorrhizae are fungi whose hyphae grow into or around the
cells in plant roots and help plants absorb water and nutrients from the soil.
Mycorrhizae are found in most soils on earth and form symbiotic relationships with
over 80% of plant species (Smith and Read 2008) and nearly every food crop (Wall
et al. 2012). The positive direct impacts of mycorrhizae on crop yields have been
well documented (Smith and Read 1997, Giller and Wilson 2001). In addition,
these soil fungi often increase the disease and drought resistance of plants (Heijden
and Sanders 2002). Not all impacts of fungi are beneficial and some forms are
known to cause disease in plants such as the fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi
which causes root rot in native vegetation in Hawaii and Phytophthora ramorum
which causes sudden oak death (Kliejunas and Ko 1976,
www.suddenoakdeath.org). In addition to their ecological function in
decomposition and plant growth, fungal fruiting bodies are consumed by a wide
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 117
variety of species including people (Boa 2004, Alexander et al. 2002, Dubay et al.
2008).
Studies on the impact of feral swine rooting on microbial activity or decomposition
rates are extremely limited (Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012). A study in Germany
detected decreases in soil microbial activity in response to simulated feral swine
disturbance. However a study in Switzerland found a significant increase in soil
respiration and microbial and fine-root biomass in areas with feral swine rooting,
but the impact disappeared 2 years after the initial event (Risch et al. 2010).
Wirthner et al. (2011) failed to detect significant differences in microbial biomass,
or soil bacterial communities.
Changes in soil conditions and vegetation resulting from feral swine foraging, may
impact the types of soil biota which can thrive at a site. Soil micro-invertebrates
declined up to 80% in feral swine rooted plots in Great Smoky Mountains National
Park (Lowney et al. 2005). In Hawaii, feral swine dispersed seeds of the non-
native, nitrogen fixing, Myrica faya tree in rainforests (Aplet et al. 1991).
Earthworm abundance increased in areas near invasive Myrica faya plants,
presumably because of the increased nitrogen near the tree roots. In another study in
Hawaii, soil biomass doubled and arthropods increased 2.5 times above initial
levels over a 7-year period after feral swine were removed (Vtorov 1993). Mohr et
al. (2005) documented declines in predatory soil arthropods in areas damaged by
feral swine.
Feral swine may help to move mycorrhizea, which can help with genetic mixing of
mycorrhizea species. Génard et al. (1988) identified several types of mycorrhizal
fungi in the feces of wild boar in France. The authors hypothesized that wild boar
may play a role in dispersal and colonization of the fungi, and may have a
beneficial impact on forest regeneration. However, feral swine can also distribute
harmful or non-native fungi. On Isla Victoria, Argentina, feces from feral swine
and introduced deer also appear to be dispersing mycorrhizal fungi necessary for
the growth of non-native pines, enabling the unwelcome spread of pine on the
island (Nuñez et al. 2013). Feral swine are also believed to spread the fungus
Phytophthora cinnamoni which causes root rot in native Hawaiian vegetation
(Kliejunas and Ko 1976).
Feral are known to forage on fungi (Ballari and Barrios-Garcia 2014), but the extent
to which feral swine impact fungi populations and use of fungi by people and native
wildlife has not been well documented, particularly in the U.S. In a study of feral
swine foraging in forest communities of Queensland, Australia, Laurance and
Harrington (1997) noted that wet sclerophyll forests had the greatest amount of
rooting by feral swine. The authors noted that fungi may be a significant
component of feral swine diets in this forest type because most sclerophyllous trees
are associated with mycorrhizae which form edible fruiting bodies. The authors
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 118
expressed concern that foraging by feral swine may result in competition with
native species including an endangered northern bettong (Bettongia tropica). In
Italy, fruiting bodies of summer truffles (Tuber aestivum) increased significantly in
areas where fences were installed to exclude wild boar (Salerni et al. 2013)
b. Vegetation
Vegetation is the primary component of feral swine diet, and is among the most
extensive and commonly documented forms of feral swine damage (Seward et al.
2004, Campbell and Long 2009, Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012, Ballarli and
Barrios-Garcia 2013, Stankus 2014). National wildlife refuges strive to conserve,
manage, and where appropriate, restore the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and
their habitats.
Feral swine impact plants directly through consumption of underground plant parts
(e.g., roots, tubers), seeds and vegetation, uprooting plants while seeking other
underground forage, rubbing on trees, and trampling (Campbell and Long 2009,
Mayer 2009a, West et al. 2009). For example, hard mast (e.g., acorns, beechnut,
hickory nut) is a preferred food source of feral swine when available, and
consumption of these seeds can reduce forest regeneration. Selective foraging can
result in shifts in plant species abundance and plant community composition
(Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012). Foraging on seeds, tubers and young plants can
also alter the successional stage of plant communities and associated ecosystem
services (Lowney et al. 2005, Campbell and Long 2009, Barrios-Garcia and Ballari
2012). Although there are some exceptions (see below), the cumulative impacts of
feral swine foraging also tend to result in reduced plant species diversity (Kotanen
1995, Hone 2002, Barrrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012, Boughton and Boughton
2014).
Feral swine do not use all ecosystem types equally, and the extent to which any
given ecosystem can withstand and recover from feral swine foraging varies; even
fairly similar systems can respond very differently to feral swine damage (Cushman
et al. 2004, Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012). Plant communities adapted to
disturbance may be more likely to sustain and recover from feral swine foraging
(Baron 1982, Kotanen 1995).
Habitat damage is particularly important in wet areas where plant communities and
soils are more vulnerable to disturbance (Chavarria 2007, West et al. 2009). In
Hawaiian rainforests feral swine rooting prevented regeneration of young plants and
modified forest community structure and composition. Feral swine feeding also
reduced populations of native tree ferns and sub canopy cover (Diong 1982). Feral
swine appear to have a preference for wetlands and riparian habitats (Mayer 2009a).
In Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, there was an average of 28% feral swine
damage in three of the management units (Chavarria et al. 2007), although damage
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 119
varied among management units. In the Big Sandy Creek Unit, damage was
greatest in wet and mesic sites with 45% of wetland habitat damaged in comparison
to 35% damage on slopes and 4% on uplands. In the Turkey Creek Unit, damage
was greatest in flatlands (46%), intermediate in slopes and floodplains (26%) and
lowest in uplands (4%). However, in the Lance Rosier Unit, damage was greatest
in uplands (33%), followed by slopes (21%), floodplains (15%) and flatland (14%).
On Santa Rosa Island, Channel Islands National Park, California, seven endangered
plants and one threatened plant have been impacted by feral swine, including
Hoffman’s rock cress (Arabis hofmannii), Santa Rosa Island manzanita
(Arctostaphylos confertiflora), soft-leaved paintbrush (Castilleja mollis), Island
bedstraw (Galium buxifolium), Hoffmann's slender-flowered gilia (Gilia tenuiflora
hoffmanii), island rush-rose (Helianthemum greeni), island barberry (Berberis
pinnata ssp. insularis), and island phacelia (Phacelia insularis ssp. insularis)
(Lombardo and Faulkner 2000). Florida’s seepage slope habitat, an imperiled form
of wetlands characterized by boggy grassy meadows or shrub thickets, is threatened
by feral swine (Engeman et al. 2007). Many rare and endemic plants occur in
seepage slope habitat. The state-listed endangered white-top pitcher plant
(Sarracenia leucophylla) occurs in this habitat, and its presence was negatively
correlated with swine damage (Engeman et al. 2007b). Other species that are
considered indicators of seepage slope health (toothache grass, wiregrass, and
herbaceous cover) were also negatively correlated with swine damage (Engeman et
al. 2007b). However, in the same study, the state-listed red-flower pitcher plant
(Sarracenia rubra), was positively correlated with swine damage.
Invasive plant species tend to colonize disturbed areas more readily than native
species, and areas disturbed by feral swine are often more vulnerable to invasion by
non-native plants (Baron 1982, Seward et al. 2004, Barrios-Garcia and Ballari
2012). Feral swine also facilitate spread of invasive plants though distribution of
seed in their feces, even though most seeds consumed by feral swine are digested
(Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012). Feral swine may also transport seeds in their
coats. In Hawaii, feral swine are instrumental in the spread of strawberry guava and
Myrica faya seeds (Aplet et al. 1991). Additionally, as noted in section C.1.a
above, many plant species form symbiotic relationships with mycorrhizae needed
for plant growth, and in at least one instance, feral swine facilitated the spread of an
invasive plant by spreading the mycorrhizae upon which it depended (Nuñez et al.
2013). Colonization by invasive species can be a more persistent problem because
invasive plants often remain after feral swine are removed. In one study from
Hawaii, invasive plants persisted in the area 16 years after feral swine had been
removed, even though common native plant species had recovered in the area (Cole
et al. 2012). It should be noted that although feral swine rooting and feeding can
create situations which favor colonization by invasive species, correlation between
feral swine damage and invasive species does not necessarily mean that the feral
swine were the causative agent. In some situations, areas with invasive species may
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 120
be more extensively damaged because feral swine were attracted to invasive species
or conditions associated with invasive species (e.g., invasive species create soil
conditions favorable to invertebrates eaten by swine; Barrios-Garcia and Ballari
2012).
Feral swine can also damage plant communities indirectly through alteration of soil,
water, and fungi as discussed above. Plant-soil interactions are extremely important
in regulating soil processes and the ecosystem services soil provides (Tierney and
Cushman 2006). Feral swine foraging can result in substantial reductions in plant
cover, and at least one instance of damage of up to 80% of understory plant cover
has been documented (Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012). Also in Great Smoky
Mountains National Park rooting by wild hogs can reduce understory cover in gray
beech forested by 95% (Bratton 1975, Huff 1977). Vegetative cover provides an
abundant nutrient supply, buffers the soil environment from temperature extremes,
and helps maintain levels of soil moisture. In the southwestern United States,
canopies of woody plants modify the microclimate beneath and around them by
intercepting precipitation and shading the ground, both of which influence soil
moisture and temperature (Breshears et al. 1998). Different plant characteristics
have been shown to have significant effects on levels of soil organic matter and
nutrients (Vinton and Burke 1995). Vegetation type and diversity also influences
the rate of soil respiration, or the release of carbon dioxide from the soil. Proper
soil respiration is required to support the growth of plants, the maintenance of soil
biota, and nutrient cycling.
Feral swine foraging may have beneficial impacts in some ecosystems. In
California grasslands, native plant species diversity was 24% higher in plots with
feral swine (Cushman et al. 2004). Unfortunately, invasive plant species diversity
also increased 29% in swine damaged sites. Biomass of native perennial grasses
was not affected by feral swine foraging but biomass of exotic perennial grasses
was reduced 56% in plots dominated by native perennial bunchgrass. Feral swine
foraging did not change biomass of invasive species in plots dominated by annual
grasses and forbs. Biomass of exotic annual grasses increased 80% in patches
dominated by bunchgrass but decreased 56% in patches dominated by annual
grasses and forbs. Cushman et al. (2004) hypothesized that the differences may
have been attributable to differences in plant community response to reduced
competition and the ability of species to colonize disturbed sites. In a related study
of plant community recovery from feral swine damage after feral swine exclusion,
exotic plant species richness rebounded quickly while native species richness was
slower to recover (Tierney and Cushman 2006). In a study conducted in Hawaii,
the invasive shrub, Psidium cattlelanum, increased along with the native vegetation
in areas fenced to exclude feral swine (Cole et al. 2012).
Ultimately, although some positive responses to feral swine foraging have been
documented, most scientists have concluded that any benefits were exceeded by the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 121
adverse impacts of feral swine on other ecosystem components, including
continued invasion by invasive plant species (Cushman et al. 2004, Tierney and
Cushman 2006, Bevins et al. 2014, Stankus 2014).
c. Wildlife
Feral swine primarily impact wildlife through adverse impacts on habitat as
discussed above. Rooting by feral swine destroys habitat for tunneling and ground
dwelling organisms including frogs, salamanders, voles, mice, ground squirrels,
chipmunks, and birds (Barrios-Garcia et al. 2014). Changes in plant community
succession adversely impact a wide range of species that may be dependent upon a
specific seral stage of habitat. In Hawaii, damage to understory vegetation reduces
the amount of nectar available for birds (Stone 1985). In Tennessee’s Great Smoky
Mountain National Park, red-backed voles and northern short-tailed shrews were
common in plots with little to no feral swine activity, but absent from intensively
rooted stands (Singer et al. 1984). The voles build surface tunnels between the
ground and leaf litter and declines in their presence was likely attributable to habitat
loss. Declines in shrews may have been attributable to a combination of habitat
(cover) loss and a decline in the number of invertebrates for food.
Diets of feral swine overlap with many native wildlife species. In some areas these
overlaps may result in competition for limited resources. In portions of the south
where there are tens or hundreds of thousands of feral swine, the total food demand
is substantial and diminishes the overall carrying capacity of native habitats. The
FWS has stated that on National Wildlife Refuges in the Southeast United States,
feral swine are consuming the bulk of the natural foods produced on the refuges.
Feral swine prefer mast crops (nuts such as acorns, hickory nuts, beechnuts) that are
also a high value food used by native species such as deer, turkey, and squirrels.
Studies documenting impacts of this competition for resources are limited.
However, Gabor and Hellgren (2000) observed 5-8 fold higher collared peccary
densities in areas without feral swine indicating that the feral swine may be
displacing the peccary. Other evidence of competition between feral swine and
wildlife exists for squirrels and black bear, deer, turkey, and cranes (Barrios-Garcia
and Ballari 2012).
Feral swine have been known to prey on small mammals, young of larger animals,
ground-nesting birds (and their eggs and chicks), reptiles and amphibians,
crustaceans, snails, insects and other arthropods (Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012).
Information on the extent to which animals were scavenged or live when obtained
by the feral swine is not available from swine diet analyses because the status of the
animal at the time it was consumed can rarely be determined based on stomach
contents. Consequences of predation vary depending upon the species. Impacts are
greatest for T&E species which are already experiencing a wide range of
environmental challenges. In the Southeastern United States, feral swine nest
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 122
predation has become a significant limiting factor for federally-listed T&E tortoises
with predation rates as high as 80% in some regions of Florida (West et al. 2009).
Tortoise species affected included loggerhead (Caretta caretta – threatened), green
(Chelonia mydas - endangered), leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea - endangered),
hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata - endangered), and Kemp’s Ridley
(Lepidochelys kempii - endangered; USDA 2002). A survey of Louisiana alligator
farmers who were permitted to collect eggs from the wild indicated an increasing
trend in alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) nest predation by feral swine (Elsey et
al. 2012). Survey respondents reported 590 destroyed nests on 36 separate
properties. Similarly, ground nesting birds such as quail, waterfowl, and even
penguins have been impacted by feral swine predation (Barrios-Garcia and Ballari
2012). In Texas in 1993, Tolleson et al. (1993) documented feral swine predation
on 28% of artificial quail nests. Feral swine are also adversely impacting nest
success of wild turkey and bobwhite quail in some portions of the United States
(Seward et al. 2004). In a study conducted at Fort Benning west-central Georgia
and east-central Alabama, Jolley et al. (2010) estimated that 68 feral swine sampled
had consumed 64 reptiles and amphibians from 5 species over an estimated 254
hours of foraging. Extrapolating data from their findings, the authors estimated
that the entire population of feral swine at the Fort Benning could consume up to
3.16 million reptiles and amphibians per year.
Changes in water quality and microbial communities can have consequences
throughout the aquatic food chain. In a Louisiana study by Kaller and Kelso
(2006), increases in riparian disturbance and associated erosion, fecal coliform
bacteria and biochemical oxygen demand in feral swine-damaged sites caused a
decrease in insects and freshwater mussels and a shift to a community dominated by
gastropods (snails). Long-term consequences of losses in collecting and scraping
insects and mussels may include interruption of nutrient cycling and energy transfer
within the systems. Shifts in aquatic invertebrate community composition and water
quality are also likely to impact vertebrates which feed on these species. Many
species of fish and mussels, including T&E species may be affected by feral swine
activity. For example, clubshell (Pleurobema clava – endangered), rabbitsfoot
(Quadrula c. cylindrica – threatened) and snuffbox mussels (Epioblasma triquetra -
endangered) occur in small streams which could be impacted by feral swine. They
require clear water and sand or gravel substrates. The siltation and water
contamination associated with feral swine rooting can result in loss of habitat for
these species. In Hawaii, areas with feral swine have higher levels of mosquitos
believed to be important for disease transmission in wild birds (Culex spp.;
Lapointe 2006). The increase in mosquitos appears to be related to feral swine
foraging on tree fern trunks that increases the availability of water pools in the tree
fern trunks. These pools are among the most abundant and productive habitats for
larval mosquitos.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 123
As noted in the section on Agriculture above, feral swine can carry a number of
diseases of significance to agriculture. Some of these diseases are also
transmissible to and a concern for wildlife (Bevins et al. 2014). For example,
pseudorabies has also been detected in native wildlife including raccoons, foxes,
and skunks and is usually fatal (Wisely 2014, Pederson et al. 2013, SCWDS 2004).
Wildlife usually becomes exposed to pseudorabies when they prey on feral swine or
eat feral swine gut piles left by hunters. Pseudorabies does not general persist in
wildlife because animals succumb to the disease so rapidly that they rarely transmit
the disease. However, reports of pseudorabies in wildlife are rare, and impacts on
wildlife populations are unknown. As of 2014, at least four endangered Florida
panthers have been confirmed to have died from pseudorabies infections, and
another 14 were suspected to have died from pseudorabies infections likely
contracted by eating feral swine (Glass et al. 1994).
Feral swine are prey for a range of native wildlife species, particularly while young.
In situations where prey is a limiting factor for a species, the presence of feral swine
may help support enhanced predator populations. Although the availability of
swine as prey may have benefits to predators including eagles, the abundance and
distribution of a non-native food source can cause an imbalance between predator
populations and native prey. On the northern California Channel Islands, the
presence of an abundant feral swine population supported a breeding population of
golden eagles, a species that had formerly been a transient in the area. The eagle
population increase and associated predation drove populations of three native
subspecies of island fox (Urocyon litoralis) to near extinction on the northern
California Channel Islands (Collins et al. 2009). Likewise, the relationship between
the endangered Florida panther (Puma (=felis) concolor coryi) and feral swine is
not without its complication. Although feral swine can be a valuable food supply
for the panthers, feral swine in Florida also carry the disease pseudorabies that is
known to kill Florida panthers (Pederson et al. 2013).
d. Climate Change
The State of the Climate in 2012 report indicates that since 1976, every year has
been warmer than the long-term average (Blunden and Arndt 2013). Global surface
temperatures in 2012 were among the top 10 warmest years on record with the
largest average temperature differences in the United States, Canada, southern
Europe, western Russia, and the Russian Far East (Osborne and Lindsey 2013).
Impacts of this change will vary throughout the United States, but some areas will
experience air and water temperature increases, alterations in precipitation, and
increased severe weather events.
The distribution of a plant or animal species is often dictated by temperature and
precipitation. According to EPA (2013b), as temperatures continue to increase, the
habitat ranges of many species are moving into northern latitudes and higher
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 124
altitudes where temperatures are more conducive to their survival. In the case of
feral swine, this may result in range expansion. Additionally, the warming trend in
the United States could further influence the reproductive success of feral swine by
ensuring abundant food sources in an increasing number of areas.
In Hawaiian native forests, researchers determined that feral swine influence soil
respiration, which can subsequently impact terrestrial carbon cycling (USDA,
2013c). However, the impact of feral swine in context of other factors contributing
to climate change is unclear. In general, feral swine are not expected to have a
substantive direct impact on climate change, but adverse impacts of feral swine may
be aggravated in ecosystems and for species stressed by climate change. The
cumulative impact of damage from feral swine in a growing number of ecosystems
already stressed from climate change may cause irreversible ecological changes and
can contribute to species extinctions (Fischlin et al. 2007).
2. Resources That May be Affected by Feral Swine Damage Management
a. Impacts Associated with Elimination or Reductions in Feral Swine
Populations
As noted above, feral swine can cause substantial adverse impacts on natural
resources, individual native species and ecosystems. In areas were feral swine
cause adverse impacts, measures that reduce or eliminate feral swine populations
are generally expected to have beneficial impacts. For example, in Florida, one
year of a feral swine damage management program reduced damage to the last
remnant of a basin marsh ecosystem in the state, with 91% of transects showing
damage prior to the start of the program and only 31% of transects showing damage
after the first year of damage management (Engeman et al. 2004). Both hunting
and professional feral swine removal helped to reduce damage to endangered
seepage slope habitats in Florida, with professional feral swine removal activities
also having peripheral benefits on adjacent areas with hunting but no FSDM
program (Engeman et al. 2007b). On Cayo Costa Island in Florida, removal of
raccoons and feral swine reduced predation on sea turtle nests from 74% before
predator removal to 15-16% after predator removal (Engeman et al. 2010). Least
tern (Sterna antillarum) nest success went from no terns produced prior to predator
removal to 31 and 20 terns per year in the two years after the start of predator
removal. Feral swine exclosures at some nesting areas in Puerto Rico were helpful
in protecting Mona ground iguana nests and allowed hatching to occur. At
Pinnacles National Monument in California, building an exclosure and eradicating
all the swine within it eliminated adverse effects to the habitat of the California red-
legged frog and California tiger salamander (McCann and Garcelon 2008).
Removal of feral swine may reduce the damage, but may not, in and of itself, result
in recovery of the system. Additional restoration efforts may be needed,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 125
particularly in areas where invasive plant species have become established. For
example, once established, non-native plant species often outcompete native
species, and additional intervention may be needed to remove the invasive plants.
Exclosure studies in Hawaii have shown that removal of feral swine can result in
the recovery of native species but it does not necessarily impact non-native species
that have become established during the period of feral swine disturbance (Aplet et
al. 1991). Tierney and Cushman (2006) documented that although species richness
of native plants in a northern California coastal grassland recovered after feral
swine disturbance, richness of exotic species rebounded much more rapidly. They
did not observe a substantial decline in invasive species over the 5 years of their
study although there was variation among native plant types in ability to recolonize
in the presence of invasive species. Some plant communities may need an
extensive period to recover. Rejmánek (1989) documented a decline in dominance
of invasive species over a 50-60 year periods in an area of the Atchafalaya delta and
Atchafalay Basin forests disturbed by flooding; with many species present in the
initial stages of succession after disturbance, only 2 invaders in stands older than 30
years and only one species in forests older than 50 years.
Loss of Potential Benefits from Feral Swine
As discussed above, in very limited circumstances, feral swine can have positive
impacts on natural resources. However, these benefits are usually not without
adverse consequences. For example, feral swine are food for Florida panthers, but
feral swine in Florida also carry pseudorabies that can kill panthers and other native
wildlife. Feral swine may create conditions favorable to growth by some types of
plants, but they also facilitate distribution of non-native invasive plants. In general,
the collective adverse impacts of feral swine on the human environment outweigh
potential positive impacts.
Potential benefits of feral swine need to be considered in context of the baseline
conditions of the system in question. For example, increases in soil nutrients may
be beneficial to plant growth, but in an ecosystem with plants adapted to nutrient
poor soils, increased nutrients could favor non-native species over native species or
result in shifts in plant community composition. Furthermore, ecosystems in the
United States and territories did not evolve with feral swine. The native systems
they impact are or were able to function in a healthy sustainable way without feral
swine. Consequently, it may be possible or, potentially more desirable, for
managers to seek to achieve any benefits that may result from feral swine through
efforts to enhance native systems and species (Cushman et al. 2004, Tierney and
Cushman 2006, Bevins et al. 2014, Stankus 2014).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 126
b. Potential Impacts of FSDM Methods
Some FSDM activities, although intended to reduce adverse environmental impacts
over the long-term, can have the potential for limited and localized adverse impacts
on natural resources. These impacts may include trampling and soil compaction
associated with site access, disturbance of wildlife, and unintentional capture, injury
or death of wildlife in devices intended to capture feral swine. Impacts of the
existing program on natural resources are provided in Chapter 4. Three key federal
laws are particularly relevant in consideration of impacts of a FSDM program on
Natural Resources: the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Details on each of
these laws and their relationship to FSDM are provided below.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ((ESA) 16 USC
1531-1543), requires each federal agency to ensure that its actions will not
jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or modify such
species’ critical habitat. If one or more protected species may be affected within the
area of a proposed action, then the agency must determine whether and how the
action will or could potentially affect such species. If a “may affect” determination
is made, the agency must consult with the FWS to determine whether the action is
likely to adversely affect or jeopardize the continued existence of the species. If
FWS determines that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect or jeopardize
the continued existence of a protected species, the agency must avoid or mitigate
the proposed action so that the adverse action is avoided or the adverse impact is
reduced to an acceptable level. This FEIS provides a framework for local level
consultations, discusses potential effects of program activities, and determines when
consultation could be necessary. The potential effects from APHIS-WS FSDM
actions are summarized in Appendix G and are discussed in detail in Chapter 4
Section C.1.
Migratory Birds
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712) established a Federal
prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill,
attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase,
purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation,
transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means
whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or
in any manner, any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird.
USFWS released a final rule on November 1, 2013 identifying 1,026 birds on the
List of Migratory Birds (USFWS, 2013). Species not protected by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act include nonnative species introduced to the United States or its
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 127
territories by humans and native species that are not mentioned by the Canadian,
Mexican, or Russian Conventions that were implemented to protect migratory birds
(USFWS, 2013).
Executive Order 13186 directs Federal agencies taking actions with a measurable
negative effect on migratory bird populations to develop and implement a
Memorandum of Understanding with the USFWS that promotes the conservation of
migratory bird populations. On August 2, 2012, a Memorandum of Understanding
between APHIS and the USFWS was signed to facilitate the implementation of this
Executive Order. The Memorandum of Understanding provides APHIS with
guidance to avoid and minimize, to the extent practicable, detrimental migratory
bird habitat alteration or unintentional take during management activities.
General migratory bird stressors associated with FSDM may include things such as
disturbance of nesting birds by biologists, their vehicles, frightening devices, or
dogs used in FSDM, habitat disturbance during site access, unintentional take or
injury of birds in devices intended to capture feral swine and risks associated with
the use of lead ammunition. These risks are summarized in Appendix F, and
discussed in Detail in Chapter 4 Section C.2.
Bald and Golden Eagles
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) prohibits the
take of bald (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden (Aquila chrysaetos) eagles
unless permitted by the Department of the Interior. The term “take” in the Act is
defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect,
molest or disturb.” Disturb is defined as any activity that can result in injury to an
eagle, or cause nest abandonment or decrease in productivity by impacting
breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.
Bald eagle populations occur in the lower 48 States and Alaska and have rebounded
in the last few decades. Golden eagles are located mostly in the western half of the
United States. Survey data from 2006-2009 indicate that there is a stable golden
eagle population in four Bird Conservation Regions in the West, with a possible
decline of juvenile golden eagles in the southern Rocky Mountains (FWS 2011).
Unintentional take of bald or golden eagles could occur from the following
proposed methods for FSDM: disturbance from firearms and pyrotechnics and
unintentional capture, injury or death in devices set to capture feral swine.
Exposure to lead shot and bullets also is a concern if feral swine carcasses are left in
eagle areas. Potential risks to eagles are summarized in Appendix F and discussed
in detail in Section C.2.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 128
D. Property
1. Resources Affected by Feral Swine
a. Landscaping, Gardens, Golf Courses, Urban Parks/Recreational Areas,
Roads, Levees, Dikes
As populations of feral swine have spread and increased in size they have also
begun to expand into new habitats not previously occupied (Extension 2012c)
including urban and suburban environments. Feral swine can cause significant
damage in suburban/urban areas with their foraging activities. The most common
foraging impact observed is rooting. In urban areas this type of damage primarily
affects grassed areas such as residential lawns, parks, golf courses, sports fields,
cemeteries, and levees/dikes. In addition to the damaged turf, rooting can also
cause other physical impacts to the affected landscaping areas (erosions, slope
failure, down-grade sedimentation). Foraging by feral swine in developed areas can
also result in the depredation of ornamental species planted in landscaped areas.
Further depredation impacts by feral swine have been observed in backyard fruit
and vegetable gardens (Extension 2012c). Feral swine have also been observed to
disperse garbage and refuse as a result of their foraging activities, creating both
litter and sanitary issues (Extension 2012c). Additionally, rooting damage to levees
and dikes caused by feral swine leaves the soil vulnerable to being washed away
during a flood (SEAFWA 2012) and increases risk of flooding damage. In addition
to costs associated with repair and prevention of feral swine damage to property,
feral swine damage can adversely impact property values. Conversely, the presence
of feral swine may be considered a positive impact on property values in areas
where feral swine hunting is desired and permitted by law.
Feral swine can damage lawn irrigation and sprinkling systems by digging up and
breaking the piping associated with these systems to get at the water contained in
the lines. There have been instances of feral swine entering commercial businesses
or private residences. Feral swine can cause significant property damage trying to
escape from confined surroundings (Extension 2012 c).
b. Vehicle Collisions
Feral swine collisions with vehicles are known to occur in the United States
(Thompson 1977, Synatzske 1993, Mayer 2005). As the numbers of feral swine
have increased, the frequency of feral swine-vehicle collisions has increased
concurrently (Mayer and Brisbin 2009, Burns 2009, Mildenburg 2012). Mayer and
Johns (2007) collected data from 179 feral swine-vehicle collisions in South
Carolina occurring between 1968 and 2006 (Mayer and Johns 2007). Those
accidents collectively involved 212 feral swine. The study found that feral swine-
vehicle collisions occurred year-round and throughout the 24-hour daily time
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 129
period. Most accidents were at night and the presence of lateral barriers was
significantly more frequent at collision locations. Collisions with feral swine are
most common in areas of preferred feral swine habitat. An evaluation of 311 feral
swine-vehicle collisions in South Carolina determined that collisions were more
likely in areas closer to streams and with less pine forest than would occur if
collisions were randomly distributed (Beasley et al. 2013). As discussed in section
G.1.a, human injuries were infrequent but potentially serious. The mean vehicle
damage estimate was $1,173 (Mayer and Johns 2007). The projected cost of
vehicle collisions with feral swine in the United States could be as high as $36
million annually (Mayer and Johns 2007).
In addition to collisions with automobiles and motorcycles, feral swine have also
been involved in collisions with trains and aircraft. Feral swine collisions with
trains have been documented to occur in North America, Western Europe, and Asia.
In 1988, two feral swine crossing a runway at the Jacksonville International Airport
collided with an F-16 fighter jet that was attempting to take off, destroying the $16
million aircraft in the subsequent crash (Extension 2012b).
c. Pets
Unexpected, sudden encounters with feral swine in suburban areas have resulted in
attacks of humans and their pets. Such incidents are rare, but increasing. Feral
swine are potentially dangerous animals and can be very aggressive when they feel
either threatened or cornered. The presence of dogs being walked by their human
owners has been suggested to represent a hazard with respect to instigating feral
swine attacks (Extension 2012c). Several reports document attacks, some fatal, by
feral swine to domestic pets (Sanchez 2011, Burkhart 2012, Billi 2013).
2. Resources Which May be Affected by Feral Swine Damage Management
Effective FSDM programs are anticipated to result in reduced feral swine damage to
property and threats to pets. Most FSDM methods are not expected to pose any risks to
property, however there may be concerns regarding concentrated feral swine damage
within corral/cage traps. These traps are generally placed in areas already disturbed by
swine, so additive impacts are likely minimal. There may also be concerns regarding the
use of pyrotechnics in areas where environmental conditions increase risks of fire. As with
all APHIS-WS methods risks can be minimized or avoided through compliance with
applicable laws and regulations, staff training, and the implementation of SOPs and
specific APHIS-WS directives and safety guidelines for those methods.
Pets could potentially be impacted by some methods employed during FSDM. Potential
risks to pets and the environment from the proposed use of APHIS-WS methods are
evaluated in Chapter 4. The use of snares, pyrotechnics for hazing, cage and foothold
traps, drugs, carcass disposal and reproductive inhibitors could pose safety concerns for
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 130
domestic animals. Many of these risks will be minimized or avoided through compliance
with applicable laws and regulations and the implementation of SOPs and specific APHIS-
WS directives and safety guidelines for those methods. Primary risks to pets associated
with these methods include risk of unintentional capture, injury or mortality in snares,
foothold traps or, less commonly, live-traps. There may also be concerns regarding risks to
pets which may be frightened by the use of pyrotechnics. An analysis of current risks of
FSDM can be found in Chapter 4.
E. Socio-cultural Resources
1. Resources Affected by Feral Swine
a. Historic Properties and Cultural Resources
Rooting and foraging by feral swine can damage archaeological sites and resources
through mechanical disruption of soil profiles essential for dating and
understanding the context of archaeological information. Swine rooting also
increases the vulnerability of a site to erosion, further threatening the integrity of
buried historic resources. A study conducted at Avon Park Air Force Range in
Florida quantified the potential for feral swine damage to historical sites on the over
98,000 acres of land on the base (Engman et al. 2012). Thirty-six sites registered
with the Florida State Historic office and eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic places were examined for evidence of swine impacts and
potential vulnerability to swine (defined as presence of historic resources within the
range of rooting depth for swine). As part of the study, the “Dead Cow” prehistoric
cultural complex was also examined for evidence of feral swine damage. This site
has been identified as potentially being one of the most significant prehistoric sites
in the Okeechobee/Belle Glade archaeological area (Engeman et al. 2012). Fifteen
of the 36 historic sites had some level of swine disturbance including 14 of the 30
sites known to have artifacts within 8 inches of the surface – a depth well within the
rooting range of swine. At the prehistoric site, swine rooting was documented in
the vicinity of 14 of the 19 shovel test points for the project. Damage and damage
risks at the prehistoric site were of sufficient concern that the area was fenced at the
cost of approximately $18,000 for construction plus a commitment to future
maintenance costs to prevent further damage.
Feral swine damage is not limited to buried resources. Other damage to historic
resources can include visual and aesthetic damage to historic monuments,
battlefields, cemeteries (disturbance of headstones and other monuments), and
living-history sites. At sites managed by the NPS, feral swine foraging, rooting and
wallowing has resulted in damage to historic structures, soils and vegetation,
cultural landscapes and ethnographic resources, and traditional cultural properties
(G. Dickison, NPS, Scoping comments on APHIS feral swine EIS).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 131
b. Impacts on Native Americans, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial Values
Native Americans
Native American tribal interactions with and attitudes toward invasive species can
be complex and tribal perceptions of feral swine and feral swine impacts vary
among tribes and between individuals within tribes depending on their history with
the species. During the scoping phase for the FEIS, the Osage Nation of Oklahoma
reported difficulties with feral swine damage to tribal archaeological sites similar to
those noted above. Feral swine damage has the potential to remove or jeopardize
the viability of local plants, animals and fungi used for traditional purposes. For
example, Wiles (2005) reported that feral swine damage was reducing populations
of breadfruit tree, a traditional food source on Guam and the Mariana Islands. For
some tribes, the visual damage, changes in plant species composition, introduction
of invasive species, and impacts on wildlife associated with the presence of feral
swine are an undesirable impact on the tribe’s relationship with and stewardship of
the natural world. The presence of a foreign species can also be a highly
undesirable intrusion in tribal sacred sites.
Not all tribal relations with feral swine are negative. In scoping for the EIS, the
Seminole tribe of Florida noted that feral swine have been present in Florida for a
long time and have become a part of tribal culture and have positive and negative
impacts on tribal lands (Craig D. Tepper, Seminole tribe of Florida, Scoping
comment on APHIS feral swine EIS). Feral swine are used for food by tribal
members and are valued a game animal. Feral swine are also a prey item for the
federally-listed endangered and tribally-valued Florida panther. Consequently, the
tribe works to sustain feral swine populations at a manageable level and expressed a
desire to retain feral swine populations for tribal use.
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islands Cultures
Swine, including feral swine, play an important part in culture, traditions and
ceremonies of the people of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, particularly in areas
where swine arrived with the first human settlers. Swine feature prominently in
traditional meals and in some areas may still play a role in traditional perceptions of
status and wealth. In addition to ceremonial purposes, feral swine are used by some
families as an affordable source of food. State and territorial governments in these
areas usually manage feral swine as a game species with the intent to maintain
swine for ongoing use by local population. Although swine in these areas have a
high cultural value, people in these areas also experience damage by and conflicts
with swine. Damage management efforts in these areas must balance the uses of
swine with the need to reduce damage. For example, the current FSDM program in
Hawaii, APHIS-WS does not remove feral swine from public hunting areas. Feral
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 132
swine are removed from agricultural areas and private lands primarily, where they
are damaging crops, property and other resources. In other areas where the
community surrounding a national park supports the presence of feral swine, the
NPS has elected to use fencing as a means to protect valuable resources (e.g.,
National Park of American Samoa).
c. Hunting
Due to their size, ability to detect and avoid hunters, and reputation for aggressive
behavior, feral swine are a prized game species. Guided hunts can be highly
profitable businesses and likely have indirect economic benefits to local
communities (impact on hunting preserves addressed in Section 2.a above). For
states which require licenses to hunt swine, swine hunting can provide substantial
revenue for wildlife management. For example, in California, the state generated
over five million dollars in revenue from sale of tags for feral swine hunting (Kreith
2007). Based on a 1981 Florida survey, in-state and out-of-state hunters were
estimated to kill nearly 103,000 feral swine in a year (Degner 1989). Resident
hunters estimated the average value per feral swine killed at $71 while nonresident
hunters estimated the value of feral swine killed at $81. The total value of feral
swine killed to the hunters was approximately $7.3 million. Resident hunters also
trapped feral swine and placed a value of $34 on each animal trapped. Total
estimated value of all trapped feral swine to trappers was $854,000. An additional
$1.5 million was spent on hunting leases and an estimated $400,000 was spent on
taxidermist fees.
Unfortunately, increased interest in feral swine hunting is also likely one of the
primary contributors to the recent rapid spread of feral swine (Bevins et al. 2014).
Illegal movement of swine has occurred as individuals transport and release feral
swine to create local hunting opportunities. In some areas unexpected expansion in
the feral swine population has occurred when states have created feral swine
hunting seasons with the intent of getting the public to help contain swine
populations. Hunters have transported swine to their previously unoccupied areas
in order to create local hunting opportunities. In Tennessee, feral swine populations
were relatively stable and confined to only a few counties from 1950s through
1980s. A statewide, year-round hunting program with no limits on the number of
animals harvested was instituted in 1999. Populations have expanded rapidly since
that time and in 2011, nearly 70% of counties had pockets of feral swine (Bevins et
al. 2014). A similar pattern was observed in California, and Waithman et al. (1999)
stated that the interest among landowners in establishing or augmenting populations
on private land was the single most important human-related factor in feral swine
population expansion in the state.
Not all hunters perceive feral swine as an asset. As noted above, in the section on
impacts to natural resources, feral swine can adversely impact native species and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 133
their habitat and adversely impact associated hunting opportunities. Feral swine
prey on popular native game species including deer fawns, and eggs of ground-
nesting birds such as waterfowl, turkeys, and quail. Feral swine activity and habitat
impacts may alter movement patterns and space use of native wildlife which can
also impact hunting opportunities. Feral swine wallows and erosion resulting from
soil disturbance and vegetation loss associated with feeding by swine can adversely
impact water quality and associated fishing opportunities.
d. Other Outdoor Activities
Each year, millions of Americans and visitors to the United States and its
Territories participated in outdoor recreation. Similarly, a national survey by the
Outdoor Foundation of indicated that in 2012, nearly half of all Americans
(approximately 142 million people) age 6 and older participated in some form of
outdoor recreation. These individuals participated in approximately 12.4 billion
outdoor excursions. The most popular activities by participation rate and favorite
outdoor activities by frequency of participation are listed in Tables 3-8 and 3-9.
The extent to which feral swine can impact the resources viewed or enjoyed by
individuals participating in a specific outdoor recreation activity varies, but
activities such as hiking, bird and wildlife watching, fly fishing, and camping are
among those most likely to be impacted by the presence of feral swine. Some
individuals may enjoy opportunities to view free-ranging swine, but others may
perceive the presence of non-native “livestock” as an adverse impact on their
recreational enjoyment of an area. However, physical damage to the environment
cause by feral swine has the potential to adversely impact recreational enjoyment of
the outdoors. Habitat changes, direct predation and disturbance by feral swine also
have the potential to adversely impact wildlife movements and distribution and
associated opportunities for wildlife viewing. Adverse impacts may be particularly
acute for individuals who encounter swine when recreating in wilderness areas and
other sites specifically intended to preserve native systems in a condition with
minimal disturbance by people.
Table 3-8. Most popular outdoor activities for Americans age 6 and older by participation rate as
identified in 2012 identified in an Outdoor Association (The Outdoor Foundation 2013)
Activity
Estimated Proportion of
Population that Participates
Estimated Number of
Participants (Millions)
Running, Jogging and Trail
Running
19% 53.2
Freshwater, Saltwater and Fly
Fishing
16% 46.0
Road Biking, Mountain Biking
and BMX
15% 42.3
Car, Backyard and RV Camping 13% 38.0
Hiking 12% 34.5
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 134
Feral swine have habituated to the presence of people and may be readily viewed in some
parks and recreational areas. This opportunity to see free-ranging animals, even if they are
not native species, is valued by some individuals. These individuals may also enjoy
feeding swine at recreational sites, although in most areas the practice is prohibited to
reduce risks of adverse interactions between people and habituated swine which may
aggressively solicit food from visitors.
Table 3-9. Number of outings for favorite outdoor activities for Americans age 6 and older by frequency of
participation as identified in 2012 identified in an Outdoor Association (The Outdoor Foundation 2013)
Activity Yearly Outings per Person Total Outings
Running, Jogging and Trail
Running
87 4.6 billion
Road Biking, Mountain Biking
and BMX
64 2.7 billion
Birdwatching and Wildlife
Viewing
46 1.2 billion
Freshwater, Saltwater and Fly
Fishing
22 1 billion
Hiking 18 6.3 million
e. Feral Swine Related Businesses
As feral swine populations and associated damage have increased, so have businesses to aid
landowners and managers in managing damage. These businesses include feral swine
removal and damage management consultation services, and businesses which provide
supplies for FSDM including corral traps, trap monitoring systems. Some of these
businesses are new enterprises committed solely to FSDM while others will be expansions
of existing services (e.g., companies finding new markets for existing goods and services).
While information on the existence of these businesses is readily available through a review
of the internet, there are no studies evaluating the economic scale or impact of FSDM
related businesses.
f. Humaneness and Ethical Concerns
Ethical Concerns
Ethics can be defined as the branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human
conduct, with respect to the rightness or wrongness of actions and the goodness and
badness of motives and ends (Costello 1992). Individual perceptions of the ethics of
wildlife damage management and the appropriateness of specific management techniques
depend on the value system of the individual. These values are highly variable (Schmidt
1992, Teel et al. 2002), but can be divided into some general categories (Kellert and Smith
2000, Kellert 1994 Table 3-10). An individual’s values on wildlife may have components
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 135
of various categories and are not restricted to one viewpoint. The tendency to hold a
particular value system varies among demographic groups.
Views on ethics of wildlife management also often contain an emotional component that
can be variable depending on location and species being considered, can change over time,
or can be inconsistent (Haider and Jax 2007, Littin et al. 2004). Various types of
viewpoints can influence ethics and value systems. For example, one major factor
influencing value systems is the degree of dependence on land and natural resources as
indicated by rural residency, property ownership and agriculture or resource dependent
occupations (Kellert 1994). People in these groups tend to have a higher tendency for
utilitarian and dominionistic values. Socioeconomic status also influences wildlife values
with a higher occurrence of naturalistic and ecologistic value systems among college
educated and higher income North Americans (Kellert 1994). Age and gender also
influence value systems with a higher occurrence of moralistic and humanistic values
among younger and female test respondents (Kellert 1980, 1994).
Table 3-10. Basic wildlife values. [Taken from Kellert and Smith (2000) and Kellert (1994)].
Term Definition
Aesthetic Focus on the physical attractiveness and appeal of large mammals
Dominionistic Focus on the mastery and control of large mammals
Ecologistic Focus on the interrelationships between wildlife species and natural
habitats
Humanistic Focus on emotional affection and attachment to large mammals
Moralistic Focus on moral and spiritual importance of large mammals
Naturalistic Focus on direct experience and contact with large mammals
Negativistic Focus on fear and aversion of large mammals
Scientific Focus on knowledge and study of large mammals
Utilitarian Focus on material and practical benefits of large mammals
Many philosophies on human relationships with animals can be considered relative to
ethical perceptions of wildlife damage management techniques. Some of the more
prevalent philosophies are discussed here, although there may be others that influence
wildlife management decisions.
One philosophy, animal rights, asserts that all animals, both human and nonhuman, are
morally equal. Under this philosophy, no use of animals (for research, food and fiber
production, recreational uses such as hunting and trapping, zoological displays and animal
damage management, etc.) should be conducted or considered acceptable unless that same
action is morally acceptable when applied to humans (Schmidt 1989).
Another philosophy, animal welfare, does not promote equal rights for humans and
nonhumans, but focuses on reducing pain and suffering in animals. Advocates of this
philosophy are not necessarily opposed to utilitarian uses of wildlife but they are concerned
with avoiding all unnecessary forms of animal suffering. However, the definition of what
constitutes unnecessary is highly subjective (Schmidt 1989). In general, only a small
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 136
portion of the U.S. population adheres to the animal rights philosophy, but most individuals
are concerned about animal welfare.
A third philosophy takes the view that overpopulation of an animal species (whether
natural, man-induced, or artificial) leads to increased animal suffering when the population
suffers malnutrition, disease outbreaks of epidemic proportion, or populations crashes due
to exceeding the environmental carrying capacity. Advocates for this approach suggest that
it is man’s obligation to manage animal populations in a manner that reduces potential
suffering to a minimal level (Beauchamp and Frey 2011). Similarly, some individuals may
feel that humans have a moral obligation to correct environmental impacts that result from
the human introduction of invasive species such as feral swine.
When evaluating issues relating to the ethics of conserving or controlling nature, another
approach is to consider the reason for the action as the determination of whether the action
is ethical or not. In this approach, one model involves assessing actions from the point of
view of humans only (anthropocentric) or from a more general view of all living organisms
(biocentric) that considers any harm to living creatures that can be avoided as immoral
(Haider and Jax 2007). These approaches have been considered for conservation decisions,
but could also be applied to feral swine control decisions such as those discussed in this
EIS.
A simple model for determining the ethics of a potential action proposes assessing whether
the action is necessary, and whether it is justified. In this model, if “yes” is the answer to
both questions, the action is ethical (Littin and Mellor 2005). Although the considerations
relating to each of these questions may involve several factors, only the two basic questions
need to ultimately be answered using this model.
Yet another approach developed a set of six major criteria that can be used to design a pest
control program that is ethically sound (Littin et al. 2004). The six major criteria are:
1. The goals, benefits and impacts of action must be clear.
2. The action should only be taken if goals can be achieved.
3. The most effective methods must be used to achieve goals.
4. The methods must be used in the best ways possible.
5. The goals must be assessed.
6. Once goals are achieved, processes should be in place to maintain results.
Using this model, an ideal project is one that follows all six criteria above (a “gold
standard” project). If not all can be followed, an ethically sound pest control program can
still be conducted if the project is conducted in a way that moves toward to the “gold
standard”. With unlimited funding and time available, achieving a “gold standard” project
may be possible. The challenge in coping with this type of model is how to achieve the best
project (as close to the “gold standard” as possible) with the least amount of animal
suffering within the constraints imposed by current technology and funding.
Models assigning numerical values to criteria have been proposed to assist in decision-
making for alternatives when faced with animal disease outbreaks. One such model
attempts to incorporate social ethics as one of the major criteria to be ranked, assigning
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 137
numerical ranking to issues such as animal welfare (Mourits et al. 2010). Although the
primary application of this model is for disease outbreaks, it could also potentially be
applied to feral swine control.
The issue of ethics is evolving over time (Perry and Perry 2008), but no one commonly-
accepted standard for the evaluation of ethics relating to control of animal pests exists.
Any of the above models, alone or in combination, may provide additional consideration of
the ethics of a proposed action. APHIS-WS has numerous policies, directives and SOPs
that provide direction to staff involved in wildlife control reinforcing the achievement of
the most appropriate and effective wildlife damage management program possible. Many
of these guidance documents incorporate aspects of the ethics consideration issues
discussed above. Directives pertaining to APHIS-WS’ activities may be located using the
APHIS-WS home page at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlifedamage.
Humaneness Concerns
The issue of humaneness, as it relates to killing or capturing of wildlife is an important but
complex concept that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Humaneness is a person's
perception of harm or pain inflicted on an animal, and people may perceive the humaneness
of an action differently. Few premises are more obvious than that an animal can feel pain.
Determining whether an animal is experiencing pain or suffering is difficult. Despite this
difficulty, many manifestations of pain are shared by many animal species (AVMA 2013).
The intensity of pain perceived by animals could be judged by the same criteria that apply
to its recognition in human beings. If a condition causes pain in a human being, it probably
causes pain in other animals. Suffering is a much abused and colloquial term that is not
defined in most medical dictionaries. Neither medical nor veterinary curricula explicitly
address suffering or its relief. Therefore, there are many problems in attempting a
definition. Nevertheless, suffering may be defined as a highly unpleasant emotional
response usually associated with pain and distress. Suffering is not a modality, such as
pain or temperature. Thus, suffering can occur without pain; and although it might seem
counter-intuitive, pain can occur without suffering (AVMA 2013). The degree of pain
experienced by animals that are shot probably ranges from little to no pain to significant
pain depending on the nature of the shot and the time until death. Since the connotation of
suffering carries with it the connotation of time, it would seem that there is little or no
suffering where death comes immediately.
People concerned with animal welfare are concerned with minimizing animal suffering as
much as possible, or eliminating unnecessary suffering. The determination of what is
unnecessary suffering is subject to debate (Schmidt 1989). Humaneness, as perceived by
livestock and pet owners, requires that domestic animals be protected from predators
because humans have bred the natural defense capabilities out of domestic animals.
Predators frequently do not kill larger prey animals quickly, and will often begin feeding on
them while they are still alive and conscious (Wade and Bowens 1982). The suffering
apparently endured by livestock damaged in this manner is unacceptable to many people.
Therefore, humaneness, in part, appears to be a person's perception of harm or pain
inflicted on an animal. People may perceive the humaneness of an action differently.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 138
When implementing management activities, APHIS-WS evaluates all potential tools for
their humaneness, effectiveness, ability to target specific individuals as well as species, and
potential impacts on human safety. The American Veterinary Medical Association
(AVMA 2013) recognizes that “for wild and feral animals, many recommended means of
euthanasia for captive animals are not feasible. The panel recognized there are situations
involving free-ranging wildlife when euthanasia is not possible from the animal or human
safety standpoint, and killing may be necessary.” AVMA states that in these cases, the
only practical means of animal collection may be gunshot and lethal trapping, and that
personnel should be proficient, and use the proper firearm and ammunition. APHIS-WS
policy and operating procedures are in compliance with these guidelines, and the APHIS-
WS program recognizes the importance of careful decision-making regarding use of lethal
methods.
APHIS-WS supports the most humane, selective, and effective damage management
techniques, and would continue to incorporate advances into feral swine control program
activities. APHIS-WS’ control activities are in concert with AVMA guidelines for
euthanasia, developed by the long-standing Panel of Experts convened to evaluate issues
relating to euthanasia (AVMA 2013). In addition, APHIS-WS field specialists conducting
FSDM are highly experienced professionals, skilled in the use of management methods and
committed to minimizing pain and suffering. APHIS-WS has numerous policies, directives
and SOPs that provide direction to staff involved in wildlife control reinforcing the
achievement of the most humane wildlife damage management program possible. SOPs for
APHIS-WS activities may be located from the APHIS-WS home webpage at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlifedamage.
Ethics and humaneness issues relating to each of the alternatives in this EIS are discussed
in Chapter 4 of this document (see 4.C.10: Environmental Impacts; Humaneness and
Animal Welfare Perspectives).
2. Resources Which May be Affected by Feral Swine Damage Management
a. Historic Properties and Cultural Resources, Native Americans, Traditional
Cultures and Ceremonial Values
Removal and reductions in feral swine populations and implementation of nonlethal
FSDM techniques are expected to reduce feral swine damage to historic resources,
culturally significant resources and sites, native species hunting and wildlife
viewing opportunities and adverse aesthetic impacts on parks and natural areas. In
areas were feral swine are valued for traditional or ceremonial purposes, reductions
in populations or changes in movements in distribution associated with damage
management activities could have adverse impacts on cultural uses of swine.
However, adherence to state, territorial and tribal management objectives for feral
swine and consultation with tribes and other native peoples should help to reduce
risks of adverse impacts.
Conversely, there may also be concerns that FSDM actions conducted adjacent to
historic, cultural or tribal sites, where FSDM is not permitted due to conflicts with
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 139
the spiritual value or intended use of the site, may result in feral swine taking refuge
in areas where they had not previously occurred. Fencing, while effective in
protecting sensitive sites (Engeman et al. 2012), may also have adverse impacts on
historic and cultural sites because of visual impacts, impacts on movement of native
wildlife or the landscape and soil disturbance associated with fence construction.
Noise and site disturbance associated with FSDM and some carcass disposal
methods (e.g., on site burial, leaving on site) also have the potential to adversely
impact historic sites/resources, and tribal and other traditional cultural values and
site uses. Compliance with the NHPA and consultation with tribes in accordance
with Executive Order 13175 and APHIS Directive 1040.3 and will be needed to
prevent or minimize risk of these types of adverse impacts.
b. Hunting
Hunters who are concerned about the impact of feral swine on native species
populations and hunting opportunities are likely to benefit from FSDM actions and
associated reduction or elimination of feral swine populations. Removal or
reductions in swine populations can adversely impact individuals who value feral
swine hunting. In states that receive license revenues for feral swine hunting,
reductions in the feral swine population may adversely affect income. However,
information on the net balance between revenue from hunting and overall costs of
managing the hunt and addressing feral swine damage is not available. Reductions
in feral swine hunting may also adversely impact associated businesses including
guides/outfitters, the travel industry, meat packaging plants and other businesses.
The extent of the impact will depend largely in the size of the feral swine
population and the duration of time it has been in the area and state, territorial and
tribal regulations and management goals. In states with low or newly developed
feral swine populations and/or regulations prohibiting hunting, impacts on hunting
are likely to be minimal. Impacts may be less pronounced in states, territories, and
tribal lands that seek to retain a feral swine population for cultural reasons and sport
harvest.
c. Other Outdoor Activities
Removal and reductions in feral swine populations and implementation of nonlethal
FSDM techniques are expected to reduce feral swine damage to native species
populations, natural sites, and wildlife viewing opportunities, and adverse aesthetic
impacts on parks and natural areas. Removal of feral swine may reduce safety
concerns for individuals who choose to recreate in areas where feral swine occur
and may increase their willingness to use these locations. Conversely, individuals
who enjoy seeing free-ranging swine on the landscape and those who may feel that
their aesthetic enjoyment of a site is impaired because of the knowledge that lethal
methods may have been used to remove feral swine, may be adversely impacted by
feral swine removal.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 140
Some damage management methods have the potential to impact outdoor activities
through disturbance (noise associated with aerial shooting, ground shooting, or
frightening devices), or temporary reductions in access for the protection of human
safety during damage management operations (e.g., temporary site closures when
shooting or hunting with dogs are used). There may be aesthetic concerns
regarding some on site methods of carcass disposal including odor and ground
disturbance. Nonlethal methods such as fencing may also have impacts (visual,
movement through site) on other outdoor activities.
d. Feral Swine Related Businesses
The proposals for a national FSDM program are intended to reduce the range and
size of the feral swine population in the U.S. in accordance with state, territory and
tribal management plans. Initial increases in damage management efforts will
likely increase private business opportunities. There may also be opportunities for
private-federal partnerships in the development of new management techniques.
However, over the long term, reductions in the feral swine population will likely
result in reduced FSDM related business opportunities in some areas.
e. Humaneness and Ethical Concerns
The proposed alternatives involve manipulating animals and natural systems and
the use of lethal damage management techniques. Consequently, there will be
varying perceptions of the ethics and humaneness of the proposed alternatives and
individual management methods as discussed above in Section E.1.f.
F. Human Health and Safety
1. Impacts of Feral Swine on Human Health and Safety
a. Vehicle Collisions
Although the primary threat associated with feral swine-vehicle collision is property
(i.e., vehicle) damage as discussed in Section C.3, human injures also occur.
Human injures are infrequent, but can be potentially serious. In a study analyzing
feral swine-vehicle collisions, Mayer and Johns (2007) collected data from 179
feral swine-vehicle collisions occurring between 1968 and 2006. During this study
3 people were noted as being injured in these accidents including one motorcycle
driver with minor lacerations, one car driver with minor injuries to the left arm, and
1 security officer who was fatally injured in a secondary crash.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 141
Feral swine collisions at night are often difficult to avoid. Unlike many other
animals, feral swine lack a tapetum lucidum (i.e., reflective layer) behind their
retinas (Texas Wild Hog Relief 2013). This makes it very difficult for motorists to
detect and react to feral swine in roadways after dark. Additionally, feral swine are
large and have a relatively low center of gravity. Consequently, collisions with
feral swine represent a serious safety hazard and can result in personal injuries and
fatalities (Extension 2012b). In 2009, a Florida woman was killed when her vehicle
flipped after colliding with a feral swine (Wolf and Bartz 2009). In another recent
incident, a Texas family narrowly survived a feral swine collision that caused their
vehicle to overturn several times on a high speed highway (KXAN 2013).
However, a pet dog did not survive the accident.
b. Risk of Disease Transmission (Zoonoses)
Feral swine carry several diseases that can infect humans (zoonoses) including
brucellosis, balantidiasis, leptospirosis, salmonellosis, toxoplasmosis, trichinosis,
trichostrongylosis, sarcoptic mange (Seward et al. 2004), tuberculosis, tularemia
(Hubalek et al. 2002, Stevens 1996), anthrax, rabies (Luangtongkum et al. 1986,
van Leeuwen and van Essen 2002), plague (Burns and Loven 1998),
cryptosporidium, giardia, and campylobacter (Jay and Wiscomb 2008). These
zoonoses can be transmitted to humans via different exposure routes. For example,
human contract brucellosis when blood or other body fluid from an infected animal
comes into contact with a person’s eyes, nose, mouth, or open wound. Human
contract tularemia by direct contact through a wound, eating infected meat, and by
ticks and biting flies carrying this disease (USDA-APHIS 2013a, Timmons 2011).
The NWRC National Wildlife Disease Program (NWDP) conducts nationwide
monitoring for disease. The NWRC NWDP conducts nationwide monitoring for
diseases of interest to human, livestock and wildlife health. A summary of data
from the program is provided in Table 3-4 above.
Although reports of human illness associated with feral swine are rare, this may be
due to misdiagnosis (Amass 1998). The CDC reported two incidents of individuals
contracting Brucella suis from feral swine that were initially diagnosed by medical
professionals as other illnesses (CDC 2009). There are likely illnesses contracted
from swine that people may perceive as the common flu or other more common
illnesses that are left untreated, unreported, or misdiagnosed (Hutton et al. 2006).
Additionally, feral swine are often not the only possible route of transmission for
some of these diseases and attributing the source of more common infections to a
specific source is often challenging. In addition to the rare instances of direct
disease transmission to humans, secondary infections through a third host can
occur. Feral swine may transmit many diseases to other wild mammals, birds, and
reptiles which in turn may transmit them to either domestic livestock or humans
(Hutton et al. 2006).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 142
Water contamination caused by feral swine can also pose a risk to human health and
safety. In some areas, such as Plum Creek in Texas, water quality degradation by
feral swine is so severe that the water body cannot support contact recreation. Feral
swine can also contribute to protozoal contamination of drinking water supplies,
potentially increasing water treatment costs. Atwill et al. (1997) found that feral
swine in western California shed the intestinal parasites Cryptosporidium parvum
and Giardia spp. when they defecate in and around the margins of water bodies.
They reported that under appropriate environmental conditions, feral swine may
contaminate surface water supplies with these protozoa leading to additional water
treatment requirements by municipalities.
While serious diseases that pass from swine to humans may be rare in the U.S. due
to modern livestock production, disease control, water treatment, and medical
technology, diseases like brucellosis, anthrax, rabies, plague, tuberculosis, and
tularemia can be fatal for the infected individual (Hutton et al. 2006). Following is
a brief description of feral swine zoonotic diseases of significance.
Brucellosis
Brucellosis (Brucella suis) is a common infection of feral swine throughout the
United States. With the recent expansion of feral swine populations across the
country, this disease poses an increasing threat to agricultural producers and hunters
(Leiser et al. 2013). Human infection by Brucella bacteria is possible and not
uncommon. Due to the naturally occurring infection in feral swine, hunters are at
increased risk of developing brucellosis from handling and dressing wild swine but
cases are rare (Davidson and Nettles 1997). Health officials in Florida documented
that 6 of 9 (8 confirmed and one probable) human cases of brucellosis in 2010)
were linked to feral swine hunting activities (Florida Department of Health 2011).
From 2001 through 2010, 82 cases of brucellosis were reported in Florida. In
humans, the disease manifests itself with flu-like symptoms including intermittent
fever, headaches, muscle and joint soreness, and weakness. Though few humans
die of infection, the disease is often chronic and debilitating (West et al. 2009).
Trichinosis
Trichinosis is caused by the nematode, or round worm, parasite Trichenella spiralis.
Infected feral swine and other animals rarely show definitive signs of infection. A
variety of animals are susceptible to trichinosis, including feral swine, bears,
wolves, wolverines, raccoons, foxes, rats, and birds. Hosts become infected by
eating larvae in the muscle of infected animals. Adult worms live in the intestinal
tract, and the larvae form cysts in muscle tissue. More larvae can be found in the
most active muscles of the body, including the tongue, diaphragm, jaw, and
intercostal muscles. The larvae remain viable for years within muscle tissue until
ingested and passed on to the next animals. While trichinosis does not produce
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 143
illness in feral swine and other infected animals, it is an important disease because
of human infections that cause severe flu-like symptoms and potentially lead to
death (Davidson and Nettle 1997, Davidson 2006). Large outbreaks of trichinosis
have been attributed to consumption of contaminated feral swine meat (Barrett-
Connor et al. 1976, Greenbloom et al. 1997, Serrano et al. 1989). A hog from Great
Smoky Mountains National Park was found to be carrying 588 Trichinella larvae
per gram of tissue; a parasite load that could lead to death if consumed without
properly cooking the meat (APHIS 2013b).
Tuberculosis (TB)
TB is a disease caused by a bacterium called Mycobacterium tuberculosis.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, is sub-classified into types based on the species of
host usually affected: the human type generally referred to as M. tuberculosis
affects people and primates, the bovine type, M. bovis, affects cattle, badgers, and
other wild herbivores and sometimes people; the avian type, the M. avian/M.
intracellulare complex, affects mainly birds. Pigs are susceptible to all three but
are most commonly affected by M. avian (The Pig Site 2012a). The bacteria
usually attack the lungs, but TB bacteria can attack any part of the body such as the
kidney, spine, and brain. If not treated properly, TB can be fatal. TB was once the
leading cause of death in the United States.
Toxoplasmosis
Toxoplasmosis is a disease caused by the protozoan Toxoplasma gondii, which
affects animals and people. The life cycle is indirect. Cats are primary hosts and
the only one that sheds infective oocysts in their feces. Pigs may become infected
by ingesting feed or water contaminated with cat feces, by cannibalism of other
infected dead pigs, by ear and tail biting or by eating infected rodents or other
uncooked meat (The Pig Site 2012b). The primary dangers of toxoplasmosis to
human health appears to be in immunosuppressed people because it can cause
lethargy and lesions that may include vision loss, and to pregnant woman because it
can cause miscarriage (Boden 2001).
Escherichia coli
Escherichia coli (E. coli) infections usually result from ingesting food contaminated
by small amounts of infected human or animal feces, and may result in bloody
diarrhea and other gastrointestinal symptoms. E. coli bacteria normally live in the
intestines of people and animals (CDC 2012a). Most E. coli are harmless and
actually are an important part of a healthy human intestinal tract. However, some
E. coli are pathogenic, meaning they can cause illness. Some kinds of E. coli cause
disease by making a toxin called Shiga toxin. The bacteria that make these toxins
are called “Shiga toxin-producing” E. coli, or STEC for short. Some types of STEC
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 144
frequently cause severe disease, including bloody diarrhea and hemolytic uremic
syndrome (HUS), which is a type of kidney failure (CDC 2012a). The most
commonly identified STEC in North America is E. coli O157:H7. Although other
types of E. coli also produce shiga-toxins, currently, there are limited public health
surveillance data on the occurrence of non-O157 STECs, and many STEC O145
infections may go undiagnosed or unreported (CDC 2012a). STEC live in the guts
of ruminant animals, including cattle, goats, sheep, deer, and elk. The major source
for human illnesses is cattle. STEC that cause human illness generally do not make
animals sick. Other kinds of animals, including pigs and birds, sometimes pick up
STEC from the environment and may spread it (CDC 2012a).
Recently, raw or minimally processed fresh produce (e.g., lettuce, spinach,
unpasteurized juices, or raw sprouts) has emerged as an import food vehicle for the
spread of E. coli (Jay and Wiscomb 2008). In September 2006, an outbreak of
E.coli O157 was linked to consumption of fresh, bagged baby spinach, with 26
states and Canada reporting 205 cases of illness and 3 deaths (Jay et al. 2007). The
exact mechanism of in-field contamination of the plants is unknown, but potential
environmental sources include contaminated fecal material (domestic livestock,
wildlife, human), water, soil amendments (compost), or bioaerosols. However,
findings of E. coli and campylobacter in feral swine feces in the area suggest that
they may have contributed to the contamination of the plants (Jay and Wiscomb
2008). E. coli infections have been linked to feral swine in other regions. In Texas,
4 of 7 (57%) feral swine tested in one small area carried STEC which could be
pathogenic to humans (Bodenchuk 2008).
Leptospirosis
Leptospirosis is a bacterial disease that affects humans and animals. It is caused by
bacteria of the genus Leptospira. In humans, it can cause a wide range of
symptoms, some of which may be mistaken for other diseases. Some infected
persons, however, may have no symptoms at all. Without treatment, Leptospirosis
can lead to kidney damage, meningitis (inflammation of the membrane around the
brain and spinal cord), liver failure, respiratory distress, and even death (CDC
2012b). The time between a person's exposure to a contaminated source and
becoming sick is 2 days to 4 weeks. Illness usually begins abruptly with fever and
other symptoms. Leptospirosis may occur in two phases. After the first phase (with
fever, chills, headache, muscle aches, vomiting, or diarrhea) the patient may recover
for a time but become ill again. If a second phase occurs, it is more severe; the
person may have kidney or liver failure or meningitis; this phase is also called
Weil's disease (CDC 2012b).
Many species have been implicated as reservoirs for the bacteria including
squirrels, raccoons, opossums and feral swine. A recent study testing for antibodies
to multiple forms of Leptospira in 158 male and 166 female feral swine collected
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 145
by hunters and permitted trappers in Florida determined that 33% of all samples
were positive for at least one form of Leptospira and 46% of the positive samples
tested positive for multiple forms of Leptospira. The authors concluded that feral
swine likely play a larger role in the complex causes and ecology of the disease in
Florida than previously believed and that additional research was warranted.
c. Aggressive or Habituated Feral Swine
Feral swine are formidable and have sometimes attacked humans (MDC 2013).
Generally, feral swine prefer to run and escape danger and incidents of swine
attacks on humans are rare relative to the size of the feral swine population. Their
razor sharp tusks combined with their speed can cause serious injury (TPW 2013).
In the United States, four people have died from feral swine attacks since the late
1800s. Three of the four victims were attacked by a wounded boar while hunting
(Extension 2012a).
Mayer (2013) reviewed media records and other reports of 412 feral swine attacks
on humans which occurred worldwide over the period of 1825 to 2012 (70%
occurred from 2000 to 2012). The majority of attacks were from the species native
range, but 24% were from the United States, with the highest level of attacks in
Texas, Florida, and South Carolina. Most attacks occurred in rural areas, although
the number of attacks in urban/suburban areas has been increasing since the mid-
1990s (Mayer 2013, Extension 2012a). Attacks primarily occurred during daylight
hours and, although attacks occurred year-round, they were most common during
the winter months. The majority of attacks (76%) occurred under non-hunting
circumstances. The most common (41%) identifiable cause of the attacks was the
animal being threatened. However, there were differences among hunting and non-
hunting related attacks; with 48% of hunting related attacks associated with
wounded animals and 49% of non-hunting related attacks apparently unprovoked.
Most attacks involved a single animal (82%). Attacks involving multiple animals
did occur and were more likely in urban/suburban areas. In cases where sounders
were involved, generally only one or two individuals from the sounder were
involved in the attack. The largest number of animals involved in physical
contact/mauling was six.
The presence of dogs being walked by their owners has been suggested as a hazard
with respect to instigating feral swine attacks. Feral swine may perceive dogs as
predators and a potential threat (Mayer 2013). However, the review by Mayer
(2013) found no clear trend on this issue. In some instances, pets helped to defend
their owners from the feral swine, and in most instances the companion animal
survived uninjured. Nonetheless, Mayer (2013) identified traveling in undeveloped
areas with dogs as a potential high risk activity. Other at-risk activities identified
by Mayer (2013) included traveling alone and on foot through undeveloped areas,
especially areas with heavy vegetation; threatening or chasing feral swine (e.g., out
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 146
of a yard or field); approaching an injured animal; approaching or attempting to
feed/pet/touch feral swine, especially those in suburban/urban areas; and blocking
the path of or cornering feral swine.
The most frequent outcome for victims is mauling, typically to the feet or legs, or
no injury (Extension 2012a, Mayer 2013). Injuries are primarily lacerations and
punctures, and can be extensive. Serious infections or toxemia can result from
injuries (Extension 2012a, Mayer 2013). Feral swine have been observed foraging
in parks and campgrounds. The increased level of human-swine interactions at
these sites increases the risk that human behavior could inadvertently trigger a
defensive response in swine. There are also concerns that swine in these areas may
learn to associate humans with food and could aggressively solicit handouts in the
same manner as has occurred with some wildlife species.
d. Feral Swine as a Food Source
Feral swine meat is considered highly desirable by some people because of
difference in flavor from domestic swine and because it is generally leaner than
pen-raised pork (Taylor 2003). Feral swine also represent a semi-controllable
source of meat (Bach and Conner 2013). Landowners and owners of agricultural
operations may consume the meat, sell the live animals, or give them to willing and
receptive individuals. Live feral swine are often sold to interested individuals, who
often butcher them for themselves (Bach and Conner 2013). In some areas,
particularly those with long-established feral swine populations, feral swine may be
a low-cost diet supplement.
Approximately 57 – 72% of live weight of a domestic pig is available for
consumption after processing (Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and
Forestry undated, Sterle 2000). With average weights ranging from 75-250 pounds,
an adult feral swine can make a substantial difference in a family’s food budget.
The extent to which feral swine are used as a supplemental food source, particularly
by low income families has not been documented. Impacts and use may be greatest
in areas where feral swine have been abundant and well established for years,
particularly in Hawaii, the territories, and southern portions of the United States. In
Texas, between 2004 and 2009, approximately 461,000 feral swine were federally
inspected prior to slaughter at Texas processing plants (Higginbotham 2013). This
figure does not include the feral swine kept for home use. Use of swine is also
likely to be greater in areas that have year-round seasons, no limit on take and
where no additional permits are required to hunt swine. Cultural and traditional
participation in hunting and use of swine will also impact the degree to which swine
are used as supplemental food by low income families.
Consumption of feral swine involves risks that do not occur with domestic pork. As
noted above, feral swine carry several diseases transmissible to humans. One
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 147
disease of particular concern for hunters and others processing swine is swine
brucellosis. Individuals processing feral swine are advised to wear long sleeves,
eye protection and use disposable or plastic gloves when butchering and field
dressing feral swine. Hands should be washed thoroughly with soap and water for
20 seconds or more after handling feral swine. Clean all tools and reusable gloves
with a disinfectant after field dressing or processing meat. Meat should be cooked
to an internal temperature of 160 degrees. (CDC undated, 2012c)
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, all swine are required to be inspected prior
to entering into any establishment in which they are to be slaughtered. Inspections
are carried out under the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). FSIS
has ruled that all swine are subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act and even if
donated are considered to be in commerce; therefore all animals must be processed
under inspection at an official establishment. This would entail examining the
animal alive, at rest, and in motion from both sides before passing the animal for
slaughter. Section 303.1 of the Act provides an exemption for individual
landowners/managers who may slaughter swine for their personal use or use by
family members, nonpaying guests, and employees. There is also an option for
custom processing of meat at an approved facility, again, only so long as the meat
will be used by the individual landowner, nonpaying guests and employees, and as
long as the meat is not sold. Perceived disease risk, logistics, and transportation
costs will limit the donation of swine for human consumption.
2. Resources Which May Be Impacted by Feral Swine Damage Management on
Human Health and Safety
a. Cooperators and the Public
The environmental impact of each of the alternatives on human health and safety is
analyzed in detail in Chapter 4 Section C.7. Methods that might raise safety
concerns include the use of firearms, aerial shooting, snares, pyrotechnics for
hazing, traps, drugs used for animal handling and carcass disposal. Although not
currently available for use, we also anticipate the need to address safety concerns
associated with toxicants (e.g., sodium nitrite) and reproductive inhibitors when
these products become available for use. Analyses in Chapter 4 Section C.7
indicate APHIS-WS use of shooting, aircraft, hazing with pyrotechnics, snares,
traps, drugs for animal handling and carcass disposal poses little risk to the human
environment. The choice of methods which may be used on the property of
cooperators requesting assistance is established through a MOU, cooperative
service agreement, work plans or similar documents. Potential risks, risk mitigation
measures (if needed) and advantages of management methods are discussed with
cooperators when developing the agreement for the site. When selecting methods
to control feral swine damage, APHIS-WS’ employees consider risks to human
safety when employing those methods based on location and method. For example,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 148
risks to human safety from the use of methods would likely be lower on private
lands in rural areas that are less densely populated. Activities would generally be
conducted when human activity is minimal (e.g., early mornings, at night) or in
areas where human activities were minimal (e.g., areas closed to the public).
Direct risks to the public from the use of snares, foothold traps, and live capture
devices are unlikely, but there is the indirect risk of injury to individuals attempting
to release a pet from the devices and if individuals approach within reach of
captured swine. Use of firearms is also often a safety issue to the public because of
concerns pertaining to misuse of firearms. Concerns may also exist that feral swine
carcass disposal methods could adversely impact human health through disease
transmission risk from carcasses left in the field, disease transmission risks
associated with consumption of feral swine, or water contamination from swine
carcasses. There is also a need to address potential risks to human health from
residue of drugs used for animal handling to individuals who subsequently capture
and eat the swine. Similar concerns will relate to the use of toxicants and
reproductive inhibitors currently under consideration for eventual registration and
use in FSDM. Compliance with laws and regulations for the protection of human
health and safety and APHIS-WS SOPs reduce potential risks associated with
proposed FSDM methods.
b. Operators/Employees
It is possible that APHIS-WS employees could be at an increased risk of exposure
to zoonotic diseases carried and transmitted by feral swine during some FSDM
activities. However, APHIS-WS’ employees will adhere to the SOPs outlined in
Chapter 2 Section G and are trained in the correct and safe use of personal
protective equipment (PPE) to reduce or eliminate the potential for exposure to
disease.
All APHIS-WS’ personnel who handle and administer chemical methods are
properly trained in the use of those methods. Training and adherence to agency
directives (see Wildlife Services Directive 2.430) ensures the safety of employees
applying chemical methods. Further, as discussed above in Section 2.a, in order to
use firearms for damage management activities, APHIS-WS employees are required
to attend firearms safety-training courses in accordance with APHIS-WS Directive
2.615 and to maintain such certification.
Aerial wildlife operations, like any other flying, may result in an accident. APHIS-
WS’ pilots and crewmembers would be trained and experienced to recognize the
circumstances that lead to accidents and have thousands of hours of flight time. The
national Wildlife Services Aviation Program has increased its emphasis on safety,
including funding for additional training, the establishment of a Wildlife Services
Flight Training Center and annual recurring training for all pilots. Still, accidents
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 149
may occur and the risks to human safety from APHIS-WS use of aircraft and all
other FSDM methods are addressed in Chapter 4 Section C.7.
c. Feral Swine as a Food Source
The Federal Meat Inspection Act requires that all swine be inspected pre- and post-
mortem if they are to be sold or donated for human consumption. However, feral
swine may be donated to the landowner/manager for their personal use.
Consequently, some landowners with feral swine may see short-term increases in
the feral swine available for food use. Depending upon state, territorial, and tribal
regulations permitting hunting of swine and management goals for swine (e.g.,
sustainable population vs. eradication), reduction or elimination of feral swine
populations could result in a long-term reduction in the amount of feral swine
available for use as a low-cost source of food. Impacts and use may be greatest in
areas where feral swine have been abundant and well established for years,
particularly in Hawaii, the territories, and southern portions of the United States.
G. Regulatory Environment
This section discusses the regulatory environment which influences FSDM planning, compliance
and efficacy. Besides providing environmental protections to resources that may be affected by
FSDM actions, the regulatory environment also provides direction and places limitations on
damage management planning and actions.
Numerous federal, state, territorial, and tribal laws, regulations, and federal Executive Orders
define the regulatory environment in which APHIS may conduct FSDM. Some Federal laws and
regulations, such as the ESA or NEPA apply directly to APHIS actions wherever actions may
occur. When APHIS enters into cooperative partnerships with other federal, state, territorial, and
local agencies, tribal governments, private landowners and others, additional federal, state,
territorial, tribal, and local laws may also be triggered that would influence damage management
actions and outcomes. For example, actions on federal lands must be conducted in compliance
with applicable federal laws that established the sites as well as agency and site-specific
regulations, policies and management plans. Additionally, APHIS FSDM actions would continue
to be conducted in accordance with applicable state, territorial, tribal and local laws and
regulations. Additionally, laws, regulations and policies implemented by the APHIS-VS program
impact swine management actions by state, territorial, tribal and local agencies and private entities.
MOUs (Chapter 1 Section I) also define APHIS relationships with agency partners and tribal
governments.
1. Key Federal Laws
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires that Federal actions be evaluated
for environmental impacts and that these impacts be considered by the decision maker(s) prior
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 150
to implementation. The Act also requires that agencies provide opportunities for public
involvement in the environmental analysis process (e.g., creation of Environmental
Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements). This EIS has been prepared in
compliance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4231, et seq.,); the President’s Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations, (40 CFR Section 1500 – 1508), and USDA APHIS
NEPA Implementing Regulations (7 CFR Part 372).
This EIS has been prepared to provide a programmatic evaluation of a nationally coordinated
FSDM program. Emphasis has also been placed on as many local environmental values as was
feasible for a program that is national in scope. Prior to completion of the NEPA process for
this EIS, APHIS-WS developed state level or more local environmental assessments and issued
Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) on FSDM programs. Upon completion of this
Final EIS (FEIS) and issuance of the associated Record of Decision (ROD), the local EAs and
FONSIs will be evaluated for conformance with the requirements of the ROD, and for
consistency with the evaluations in the EIS. Local NEPA decisions on FSDM would be
supplemented as necessary in accordance with CEQ and APHIS NEPA implementing
regulations. Barring extraordinary local circumstances not evaluated in this EIS, some APHIS-
WS programs in states with small or isolated feral swine populations may be able to conduct
FSDM work under this EIS or such work may be categorically excluded according to APHIS
NEPA Implementing Regulations (7 CFR Part 372).
Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is required under the ESA, that all Federal agencies shall
seek to conserve endangered and threatened species and shall utilize their authorities in
furtherance of the purposes of the ESA (Sec.2(c)). Section 7 consultations with the FWS are
conducted to use the expertise of the FWS to ensure that "any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by such an agency . . . is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species”. Numerous local level Section 7 consultations have been
completed for Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) activities. Based on the
proposed/preferred alternative to implement a National FSDM Program, APHIS-WS has
evaluated the potential for additional effects on T&E species from FSDM activities (Chapter 3,
Section C.2 and Chapter 4, Sections C. 2 and C. 3). Rather than initiate a programmatic
National ESA Section 7 consultation with this EIS process, APHIS-WS has determined that
regional, state territorial, and local level Section 7 consultations would provide the best
protection for T&E species, because they would allow for site specific analysis of local
projects in local environments, and utilize regional, state territorial and/or local FWS, NMFS,
APHIS and partner agency/tribal government biologists who are most familiar with the species
and habitats where individual projects may occur.
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (section 742j-1) Airborne Hunting. This Act was added to the
Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 and is commonly referred to as the Airborne Hunting Act or
Shooting from Aircraft Act. The Act allows federal and state agents or persons operating
under a federal or state issued license or permit, to shoot animals from aircraft for certain
reasons including protecting land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, crops and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 151
human life. FWS regulates the Airborne Hunting Act but has given implementation to the
States.
The Wilderness Act (WA). The WA established a national preservation system to protect areas
“where the earth and its community life are untrammeled by man” for the United States.
Wilderness areas are devoted to the public for recreational, scenic, scientific, educational,
conservation, and historical use. The Act left management authority for fish and wildlife with
the state for those species under their jurisdiction. Feral swine may be removed from
wilderness areas with the techniques and strategies discussed in Chapter 2, provided that the
proposed action is conducted in accordance with minimum tools analysis [Section 4(c)] and
similar provisions implementing the Act. APHIS-WS coordinates all activities in WAs with
the associated land managing agency (BLM, USFS, NPS, FWS) to ensure that any planned
actions do not violate the WA.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act established a Federal
prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take,
capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment,
ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or
cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or
export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird or any part, nest, or egg of any such
bird. FWS released a final rule on November 1, 2013 identifying 1,026 birds on the List of
Migratory Birds (FWS 2013). Species not protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act include
nonnative species introduced to the United States or its territories by humans and native
species that are not mentioned by the Canadian, Mexican, or Russian Conventions that were
implemented to protect migratory birds (FWS 2013). Migratory birds would not be expected
to be negatively affected by FSDM except in atypical circumstances involving a non-target
capture or lead poisoning from scavenging on feral swine shot with lead ammunition. Any
take on a migratory bird would be reported to the Service, Migratory Bird Management Office.
Chapter 4, Section C.3 contains a detailed evaluation of the potential effects on birds protected
under the MBTA.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). This law provides special protection for bald
and golden eagles. Similar to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.) prohibits the take of bald or golden eagles unless
permitted by the Department of the Interior. The term “take” in the Act is defined as “pursue,
shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” Disturb is
defined as any activity that can result in injury to an eagle, or cause nest abandonment or
decrease in productivity by impacting breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior. A detailed
evaluation of the potential effects on eagles is contained in Chapter 4, Section C. 3.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The NHPA requires federal agencies to: 1)
evaluate the effects of any federal undertaking on historic properties; 2) consult with the State
Historic Preservation Office regarding the value and management of specific cultural,
archaeological and historic resources; and 3) consult with appropriate American Indian tribes
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 152
or Native Hawaiians to determine whether they have concerns for traditional cultural properties
in areas of these federal undertakings. Operational FSDM typically is not considered an
undertaking under the NHPA since actions involving major ground disturbance, physical
destruction or damage to property, alterations of property, wildlife habitat, or landscapes, or the
sale, lease, or transfer of ownership of any property are not proposed with the possible
exception of burial of carcasses.
Various APHIS-WS state programs have consulted with the appropriate State Historic
Preservation offices and determined that typical wildlife damage management activities are
unlikely to have any adverse effects on cultural, archeological, or historic resources. However,
some of the activities involved in the National FSDM Program have the potential to affect
cultural resources, particularly when operational work may be done in or near cultural sites,
such as when the need for action involves protecting cultural resources from feral swine
damage. Examples may include working near archeological or sacred sites to remove feral
swine that threaten damage to such sites. In these instances, APHIS-WS state programs would
determine if their actions would trigger NHPA consultations and APHIS-WS State Directors
would initiate consultations accordingly. Chapter 4, Section C. 10. describes such situations
and protocol for coordination with the State Historic Preservation office, Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, and agencies, tribes and others who manage cultural resources. In
addition, through scoping and outreach to tribal governments and native peoples, APHIS has
considered the effects of the proposal on concerns for traditional and cultural values. These
issues are discussed in Chapter 3, Section F, and Chapter 4 under Section C.10. Additional
issues may be identified as APHIS-WS State Directors invite federally recognized tribes to
consult on issues they have with state and local FSDM proposals.
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). NAGPRA requires
federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Department that manages the federal lands upon
the discovery of Native American cultural items on federal or tribal lands. FSDM projects
would discontinue work until a reasonable effort has been made to protect the items and the
proper authority has been notified.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). FIFRA requires the registration,
classification, and regulation of all pesticides used in the United States. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for implementing and enforcing FIFRA. All chemical
methods integrated into any selected program as implemented by APHIS-WS or other
cooperating agencies must be registered with and regulated by the EPA and used in compliance
with labeling procedures and requirements. No chemical control methods are currently
registered for use in FSDM. While this EIS discusses the potential development of FSDM
toxicants and provides some preliminary discussion, none are included in the proposed action
for adoption and use in this EIS, therefore FIFRA applies only to the development and
registration phases.
Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). FMIA applies to all meat or products obtained from any
cattle, sheep, swine, goat, horse, mule, or other equines intended for distribution in commerce.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 153
Feral swine are considered amenable species and sale or donation of the feral swine must be
done in accordance with the FMIA. Animals falling under jurisdiction of the FMIA must be
inspected pre- and post-mortem. Animals that are killed before they reach a slaughter facility
are classified as “adulterated meat”, and cannot be used for human food per the FMIA. As
feral swine fall under authority of the FMIA, they could only be donated to charitable
organizations for use as food by needy individuals if they are delivered alive to a USDA
approved feral swine slaughter facility. Title 21 chapter 12, subchapter 1, section 623 of the
FMIA provides an exemption for persons having animals of their own raising and game
animals slaughtered for their own use without inspection. This provision allows landowners to
utilize feral swine removed from their own property, with the understanding that meat derived
from these feral swine will be consumed only by the farmer, his/her immediate family and/or
nonpaying guests.
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). This law established a voluntary national program
within the Department of Commerce to encourage coastal states to develop and implement
coastal zone management plans. Funds were authorized for cost-sharing grants to states to
develop their programs. Subsequent to Federal approval of their plans, grants would be
awarded for implementation purposes. In order to be eligible for Federal approval, each state's
plan is required to define boundaries of the coastal zone, to identify uses of the area to be
regulated by the state, the mechanism (criteria, standards or regulations) for controlling such
uses, and broad guidelines for priorities of uses within the coastal zone. In addition, this law
established a system of criteria and standards for requiring that Federal actions be conducted in
a manner consistent with the federally-approved plan. The standard for determining
consistency varies, depending on whether the Federal action involves a permit, license,
financial assistance, or a federally authorized activity.
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This law places administration of pharmaceutical
drugs, including those which could be used in capture and handling of feral swine, under the
Food and Drug Administration. Use of capture and handling drugs in FSDM is anticipated to
be uncommon and primarily used in the context of handling swine for research or attachment
of transmitters used to track feral swine used as Judas swine for damage management. This act
regulates safe levels of pesticides in food and could apply to FSDM relative to the development
of any toxicants or reproductive inhibitors for use in feral swine, and feral swine repellents
intended for use on food crops.
Controlled Substances Act. This law requires an individual or agency to have a special
registration number from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to possess
controlled substances, including those that could be used in capture and handling of feral
swine.
Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act of 1994 (AMDUCA). The AMDUCA and its
implementing regulations (21 CFR Part 530) establish several requirements for the use of
animal drugs, including those which could be used to capture and handle feral swine. Those
requirements are: 1) a valid “veterinarian-client-patient” relationship; 2) well-defined record
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 154
keeping; 3) a withdrawal period for animals that have been administered drugs; and 4)
identification of animals. A veterinarian, either on staff or on an advisory basis, would be
involved in the oversight of the use of animal capture and handling drugs by APHIS-WS.
Veterinary authorities in each state and territory have the discretion under this law to establish
withdrawal times (i.e., a period of time after a drug is administered that must lapse before an
animal may be used for food) for specific drugs. Animals that might be consumed by a human
within the withdrawal period must be identified; the Western Wildlife Health Committee
(WWHC) of the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has recommended that
suitable identification markers include durable ear tags, neck collars, or other external markers
that provide unique identification (WWHC 2010). APHIS-WS establishes procedures in each
state and territory where it intends to administer drugs used in wildlife and feral animal capture
and handling that must be approved by state veterinary authorities in order to comply with this
law.
2. APHIS Regulations Regarding Transportation of Feral Swine
Restrictions on the Interstate Movement of Swine because of Brucellosis (9 CFR § 78.30). As
noted in Chapter 1, Authorities, APHIS-VS has promulgated regulations in 9 CFR Part 78.30
to specifically address disease in swine, primarily through regulation of the interstate
movement of swine. With certain restrictions, the regulations allow for the interstate movement
of feral swine directly to slaughter if they do not come into physical contact with any domestic
swine or other livestock, or otherwise, as “monitored-negative” (based on an official testing
program) within the last 30-days and accompanied by an APHIS or state animal health official
permit.
3. Executive Orders
Several Executive Orders have been issued. These are not legislative, but nonetheless are
binding to federal agencies.
Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112). The Invasive Species Executive Order directs
Federal agencies to use their programs and authorities to prevent the spread or to control
populations of invasive species that cause economic or environmental harm, or harm to human
health. Like other non-native species, feral swine have caused significant damages to
environmental and economic resources, and threaten human health. Chapter 1, Need for
Action, and Chapter 3, Affected Environment, discuss the wide variety of harm and threats
created by the expansion of feral swine in the United States and its Territories.
Executive Order (EO) 13112 also established National Invasive Species Council (NISC) to
ensure that Federal programs and activities to prevent and control invasive species are
coordinated, effective, and efficient. NISC is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior,
Agriculture, and Commerce. Other NISC members include the Secretaries of State, Defense,
Homeland Security, Treasury, Transportation, Health and Human Services, the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR), as well as the Administrators of the EPA, National Aeronautics and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 155
Space Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development. NISC provides high-
level interdepartmental coordination of Federal invasive species actions and works with other
Federal and non-Federal groups to address invasive species issues at both the regional and
national levels, including assisting as a cooperating agency in the preparation of this FEIS.
NISC has developed and maintains a national invasive species management plan as required in
EO 13112 (NISC 2001, 2008). The plan recommends specific objectives and measures for
carrying out each of the Federal agency duties established in the Order and steps to be taken by
NISC to carry out its assigned duties. The Management Plan includes a review of existing and
prospective approaches and authorities for preventing the introduction and spread of invasive
species, including those for identifying pathways by which invasive species are introduced and
for minimizing the risk of introductions via those pathways, and identifies research needs and
recommends measures to minimize the risk that introductions will occur. Such recommended
measures shall provide for a science-based process to evaluate risks associated with
introduction and spread of invasive species and a coordinated and systematic risk-based
process to identify, monitor, and interdict pathways that may be involved in the introduction of
invasive species. The Management Plan identifies the personnel, other resources, and
additional levels of coordination needed to achieve the Management Plan's identified goals and
objectives. Within 18 months after measures have been recommended by the Council in any
edition of the Management Plan, each Federal agency whose action is required to implement
such measures must either take the action recommended or provide the Council with an
explanation of why the action is not feasible. The Council assesses the effectiveness of the
order no less than once each 5 years after the order was issued (NISC 2005) and reports to the
Office of Management and Budget on whether the order should be revised. Management
proposals and strategies in the feral swine FEIS are consistent with the provisions and
recommendations of the National Invasive Species Management Plans (NISC 2001 and 2008).
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (EO 13175). This EO directs
federal agencies to provide federally recognized tribes the opportunity for government-to-
government consultation and coordination in policy development and program activities that
may have direct and substantial effects on their tribe. Its purpose is to ensure that tribal
perspectives on the social, cultural, economic, and ecological aspects of agriculture, as well as
tribal food and natural-resource priorities and goals, are heard and fully considered in the
decision-making processes of all parts of the Federal Government.
APHIS recognizes the rights of sovereign tribal nations and the importance of strong
partnerships with Native American communities across the country. A unique legal
relationship exists between each tribe and the Federal Government. APHIS is committed to
respecting tribal heritage and cultural values when planning and initiating FSDM programs.
APHIS offers early opportunities for formal government-to-government consultation to all
tribes. In this way, tribal governments may cooperate in program planning and/or raise issues
of concern that can be incorporated into the planning and decision making process. APHIS-
WS has invited all federally recognized tribes to enter into formal consultation on the proposed
National FSDM Program. In addition, potentially affected tribes have been, and will continue
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 156
to be invited to consult on local level FSDM planning. APHIS primarily uses the NEPA
planning process to guide government-to-government consultation and to facilitate cooperation
and partnerships with tribes. Some tribes have either chosen formal consultation and
cooperation, and some have decided to participate on a less formal level by raising issues or
concerns for analysis. Tribal outreach associated with early planning for this EIS was
discussed in Chapter 1, Section I. Tribal concerns and values raised during the tribal outreach
process are discussed in Chapter 3, Section F.2. FSDM effects on tribal values are also
evaluated in Chapter 4, Section C.10.
Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (EO 12898). EO 12898 promotes the fair treatment of people of all races, income
and culture with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations and policies. Fair treatment implies that no person or group of
people should endure a disproportionate share of the negative environmental impacts resulting
either directly or indirectly from the activities conducted to execute this country's domestic and
foreign policies or programs. Through the NEPA process, as identified and discussed in
Chapter 3, Section F and Chapter 4, Section C.7, APHIS has evaluated its activities for
compliance with Executive Order 12898 to ensure that the activities would not result in any
adverse or disproportionate environmental impacts to minority or low-income persons or
populations.
Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (Executive Order 13443). This
order directs Federal agencies that have activities that have a measurable effect on outdoor
recreation and wildlife management, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting
opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat. It directs federal agencies
to cooperate with states to conserve hunting opportunities. APHIS-WS cooperates with state
wildlife and other resource management agencies in compliance with applicable state laws
governing feral swine management. State, territorial and tribal agencies, not APHIS, have the
authority to determine whether or not feral swine are managed as a game species, hunted,
eradicated, contained, or managed for local damages. FSDM effects on opportunities for feral
swine hunting and on opportunities for hunting other species affected by feral swine is
discussed in Chapter 4, Section C.5. Conversely, FSDM management actions may be initiated
to protect and preserve native wildlife species and associated hunting opportunities.
Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks (EO13045). Children may
suffer disproportionately from environmental health and safety risks for many reasons. SOPs
designed to protect human health and safety from FSDM operations are discussed in Chapter 2,
Section E, and effects on the safety and health of children is discussed in Chapter 4 under
Section C.7.
4. State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local Laws
It is APHIS-WS policy to comply with applicable state, territorial and local laws and
regulations that do not directly and substantively conflict with its federal statutory authorities
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 157
(APHIS-WS Directive 2.210). This is due to the cooperative nature of the program and the
non-regulatory status of the APHIS-WS program. Various state laws influence FSDM
activities. State laws may be directly related to FSDM, or indirectly through regulation of
various component actions. These may include laws for protecting state, territory or tribe-
listed endangered species, laws imposing restrictions on the use of capture or removal methods,
or laws dictating carcass disposal options. APHIS-WS conformance with state and local laws
generally helps to minimize negative environmental impacts and allows the flexibility to
honors states’ legislative decision making. In some states, the “mini NEPA” requirements
(state laws similar to the federal NEPA) are triggered by partnerships with local and state
agencies. States often choose to comply with “mini NEPA” laws by cooperating in the
development of joint NEPA/state environmental documents. Because of the variety and range
of state, territorial, tribal, and local laws, they will not all be addressed in detail in this EIS.
APHIS-WS considers applicable state, territory, tribal, and local laws and regulations in local
NEPA decision making. On most public lands and on other federal properties, and some tribal
lands, MOUs that describe the roles, authorities, and legal responsibilities for FSDM are either
in place or would be completed to facilitate FSDM program implementation.
During program and project planning, formal agreements are formed which outline the legal
responsibilities of each agency involved. State and territorial agencies generally manage feral
swine, whether as an invasive pest, a game animal or some intermediate designation.
Therefore, APHIS-WS follows state and territorial regulations governing feral swine. In
addition, when on federal, state, local, or private lands, APHIS follows state regulatory
restrictions on FSDM methods (e.g., aerial and ground shooting or restrictions on the use of
traps and snares). Federal land management agencies may coordinate with State and
Territorial agencies within the constraints of agency mission and management direction
established for the property in question. However, State or Territory status as a game species
would not preclude Federal land managers from seeking to reduce or eliminate feral swine
populations on their property in accordance with agency policy on management of non-native,
invasive species and EO 13112. The National Park Service has the ultimate authority to
manage feral swine on NPS properties.
When FSDM work is requested by federally recognized tribal governments, tribal law would
be followed as indicated in agreements made with tribes. APHIS-WS also complies with
Federal laws on tribal lands. Because tribes are sovereign governments, state laws may not
apply. APHIS-WS will also coordinate with tribes in situations where tribes have retained
rights to hunt fish and gather on lands not currently included in tribal reservations or other
tribal properties (e.g., ceded territories).
The State laws with the greatest influence on the planning and overall outcome of the
operational APHIS FSDM programs would be those directly governing feral swine
management including feral swine game management, hunting, and transportation. The
national FSDM Program alternatives would include work with state, territory, and tribal
entities to aid the development of laws and regulations which facilitate management of feral
swine damage and reduce the risk of introduction and/or spread of feral swine populations.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 158
Information on state and territorial feral swine management laws are provided in Appendix D
Tables 1-3. Major highlights are summarized below.
Feral Swine Game Management and Hunting Laws. California, Hawaii, Florida, Alabama,
West Virginia (select counties), and Guam manage feral swine as a game mammal. In
addition, most states allow hunting of feral swine for control purposes (Appendix D Table 3).
State laws vary with respect to restrictions on hunting such as licensing requirements, where
feral swine may be taken, and whether or not there are hunting seasons. Approximately half of
all states allow private landowners to sell hunting opportunities for free-ranging swine on their
lands. Most of these states allow private fenced hunting preserves. State hunting laws are
important to the analysis of impacts because hunting and selling hunts may increase incentives
to maintain populations of feral swine and/or create the unintended impression that relocation
of swine to create local hunting opportunities is acceptable (Bevins et al. 2014). This may
affect the efficacy of eradication or control programs and may contribute to the damages
inflicted by feral swine. in states, territories and tribes that manage feral swine as a game
species, or allow hunting or selling of hunts, hunters and related businesses may be negatively
affected by FSDM.
Feral Swine Transportation. In addition to the federal regulations governing interstate movements
of feral swine, most states have regulations in place that further restrict interstate movement of
feral swine, and some regulate intrastate movements. Some states have indicated that enforcing
the regulations is difficult. This is an important consideration that may contribute to the spread of
feral swine and could challenge a control or eradication program. A listing of the state regulations
with bearing on transportation is contained in Appendix D Table 1 (plus APHIS Regulations in
Section 2 above).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 159
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences
A. Introduction
Chapter 4 contains the evaluation of the potential environmental consequences, or effects of
FSDM. The environmental issues identified and described in detail in Chapter 3, Affected
Environment, are discussed for each of the alternatives identified in Chapter 2, Alternatives. The
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are identified where applicable.
Significance Criteria
The CEQ regulations on implementation of the NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508) describe the
elements that determine whether or not an impact is “significant.” Significance is dependent
upon the context and intensity of the impact. The following factors will be used to evaluate the
significance of impacts in this EIS as they relate to the context and intensity of biological and
other ecological effects. Social and economic impacts will be evaluated similarly to the extent
applicable.
Magnitude of the Impact. Magnitude relates to the size, number, or relative amount of
the impact. It is a measure of intensity. Magnitude as it relates to biological impacts is a
measure of the number of individual animals or species removed in relation to their
abundance. Quantitative analysis is used wherever possible because it is more precise,
rigorous, and based on the best available population estimates. Qualitative analysis is
based on population trends and modeling. Magnitude may be determined either
quantitatively or qualitatively.
Duration and Frequency of the Impact. The duration and frequency may be
temporary, seasonal, year round or ongoing. Duration and frequency is a measure of
intensity.
Likelihood of the Impact. The likelihood of an impact is a measure of its intensity by
estimating the possibility that an activity or impact may occur.
Geographic Extent. The consideration of the geographic extent of an effect may be site
specific, within a given management area, at the state/territory/tribal land area, regional
and/or national. The geographic extent of an effect is a contextual consideration.
Legal Status. The legal status of an affected resource is a contextual consideration.
Legal status may range from fully protected by law, such as an endangered species, to not
protected by law, as is the case for feral swine in some states where feral swine
eradication is the management objective.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 160
Conformance with Statutes, Regulations and Policies. Statues, regulations, and
policies provide contextual information in the analysis. Compliance with applicable
statutes, regulations, and policies can also serve as mitigation to ensure that certain types
of adverse impacts on the environment do not occur.
B. Ability of Alternatives to Achieve Management Goals and Objectives
The overall purpose of the environmental analysis is to reduce feral swine damage to
agriculture, natural resources, human health and safety, and property. Eight objectives
were outlined in Chapter 1, Section G to measure progress towards the purpose. Five
alternatives were created and evaluated against the objectives. This section reviews each
alternative to determine if the alternative could be successful in meeting the objectives.
The evaluation is distinct from the environmental impacts analyses in Chapter 4, Sections
C through H, and will aid the decision maker in making a well informed decision that
considers both the ability of the alternatives to meet the management objectives, and the
environmental consequences of the FSDM alternatives.
1. Expand feral swine management programs nationwide to reduce the feral swine
populations and associated threats to agriculture, natural resources, property,
animal health, and human health.
For purposes of this analysis, APHIS will consider the total area and number of states
with established feral swine populations as one of the primary measures of program
efficacy and impacts on feral swine populations. Knowledge of the number of feral
swine, present and the number of feral swine removed is important for effective local
population management. However, we do not believe that consideration of the total
number of swine removed by the program, the number of swine removed per unit time or
cost per swine provide an accurate measure of national program efficacy. At low
population densities, the resources and time required per animal to remove the last
animals in a population can be substantial. An effective program which is close to
achieving its goal of eradicating swine from an area is likely to have a lower rate of swine
removal and higher cost per animal than projects in areas with high swine densities and
areas in the early stages of project implementation. As discussed below, the impact of
removing a set number of swine varies depending upon the initial feral swine
populations. Removal of 100 or 1,000 swine from an area with a low or moderate feral
swine population may reach the level of removal needed for population reduction, but
would be inconsequential for statewide feral swine population reduction in areas like
Texas and Florida with high feral swine populations.
Some states, territories, and tribes wish to retain a feral swine population while
minimizing adverse impacts of feral swine on specific resources and populations. Even
in areas where eradication is desired, it is likely to take many years to achieve population
objectives in some areas. Consequently, efficacy of the program will also be assessed in
terms of capacity to conduct local FSDM projects to protect agriculture, natural
resources, property, animal health, and human health.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 161
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM
Program (No Action Alternative)
The Current APHIS FSDM Program, the
No Action Alternative, is a procedural
NEPA requirement (40 CFR 1502) and
serves as a baseline for comparison with
the other alternatives. The No Action
Alternative can be defined as “no change”
from the status quo, which is the
continuation of the Current APHIS FSDM
Program activities. Using the Current
APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 1) as
the No Action Alternative is consistent with
the President’s Council on Environmental
Quality definition for No Action
Alternative (CEQ 1981).
Impact on National Feral Swine
Populations
States, territories, and tribes have primary
regulatory authority for feral swine. These
entities set the management objectives for
the area under their authority. Management
objectives vary substantially (see, for
example, Appendix D, Table 2) depending
upon how long the species has been
present, cultural and recreational uses of
the species, and the extent of adverse
impacts on and risks to agriculture and
natural resources. APHIS understands and
respects the authority of partner agencies,
States, territories, and tribes to set their
own management objectives for feral swine
and regulate the methods which may be
used for FSDM. Current APHIS FSDM
projects are conducted in accordance with
applicable, federal, state, territorial, tribal,
and local management objectives and
regulations. APHIS-WS generally does not
conduct FSDM in any area without the
Table 4-1. Average annual number of
feral swine removed by APHIS-WS
during 2008-2012.
State
Number of
Swine Removed
Alabama 142.2
Arkansas 83.8
Arizona 31.2
California 863.2
Colorado 25.8
Florida 1,807.4
Georgia 321.4
Hawaii 744.8
Iowa 2.4
Idaho 0.4
Illinois 43
Indiana 1.8
Kansas 408
Kentucky 86
Louisiana 298.2
Michigan 126
Missouri 50.4
Mississippi 195.6
North Carolina 44.6
North Dakota 5.2
Nebraska 16.8
New Hampshire 6.8
New Jersey 3.2
New Mexico 116.2
Nevada 6.6
New York 16.6
Ohio 7.2
Oklahoma 3,310.2
Oregon 38.4
Pennsylvania 13
South Carolina 129.2
Tennessee 55.4
Texas 21,520.6
Virgin Islands 0.2
Virginia 2.4
West Virginia 5.6
Wisconsin 4
Total 30,533.8
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 162
written consent of the landowner /manager, but in some very limited cases,
APHIS-WS could remove swine from a property at the request of an agency with
authority to order the removal
11
.
To date, APHIS-WS’ role in FSDM has included investigating reports of free-
ranging swine and, if necessary, removing animals to prevent populations from
becoming established, working with state agencies to eradicate swine in areas
with limited feral swine populations, and responding to requests from
landowners/mangers to address site-specific feral swine damage problems.
APHIS-WS is able to use some of its general federal appropriations for FSDM,
but in general, response to feral swine damage and reports of feral swine is
dependent upon the availability of funding from cooperating agencies and
landowners/managers (Section 4.C. Economics). On average, APHIS-WS has
removed approximately 30,500 feral swine per year over the period of FY08-
FY12 (Table 4-1).
APHIS-WS is not the only entity removing feral swine. Feral swine are also
removed by state, territorial, and tribal agencies, federal land management
agencies, private landowners, recreational hunters, and damage management
contractors. Assessing the cumulative impact of swine removals on feral swine
populations is complicated by the general lack of information on the size of feral
swine populations at the national or state/territory level (Chapter 3, Section A.2).
Only a few states and territories have a systematic method for estimating their
feral swine populations. In the 2012 Annual State Summary Report of the
Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Wild Hog Working
Group, only six of the 15 member states were able to provide a general estimate
of the feral swine population in their state (Florida, Louisiana, Missouri,
Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia). In most of these states, the estimate was based
on anecdotal accounts, harvest surveys, and extrapolation from local studies, not a
formal system of population estimation. Similarly, in an informal questionnaire
sent to APHIS-WS state programs and their cooperators, only 15 of the 38 states
or territories with feral swine populations provided an estimate of their feral swine
population (Appendix D, Table 2). The remaining 23 states with feral swine
reported having an unknown population. An additional six reported sporadic
occurrences. Ten states and territories reported having no feral swine. Since not
all states and territories and tribes track and/or report feral swine population data
this document has to rely on the best scientific and commercial data available,
which is presented in Table 3-2 and Appendix D.
In general, states, territories and tribes have better knowledge of the distribution
of feral swine in their area than the population size (Appendix D, Table 2).
However, even this information is subject to differing interpretations as to what
11
In very rare circumstances, a regulatory agency may require the removal of feral swine from a property to address
disease risks and may request the assistance of APHIS-WS in removing the animals. In these situations, APHIS-WS
may work under the authority of the requesting regulatory agency.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 163
constitutes a feral swine population. Some agencies and authors consider any
detection of free-ranging swine to be a “population.” Others only consider an
area to have a feral swine population if reproduction is documented in the area.
The Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS) started
producing nationwide feral swine distribution maps in 1982. Populations are only
considered established and recorded on the maps if the population has been
present for 2 or more years or there is evidence of reproduction. Data for the
maps is provided to APHIS-WS, state and territorial natural resource and
agriculture agencies, and other state and federal agencies involved in natural
resources management.
Figure 4-1. Feral swine distribution in the United States. Populations are only recorded as
present for two or more years or there is evidence of reproduction (National Feral Swine Mapping
System (http://swine.vet.uga.edu/nfsms/)).
Review of the SCWDS data from the period of 1982 to 2013 indicates that the
cumulative impact of all feral swine removals to date have not reduced the overall
area impacted by established feral swine populations since SCWDS started
recording data in 1982 (Table 2-1). However, one state (Nebraska) has been able
to eliminate an established feral swine population. Success in preventing
populations from becoming established would not be reflected in the SCWDS
data. Based on reports of sporadic detections of swine but no established feral
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 164
swine populations (Appendix D Table 2), some states have had success in rapidly
responding to and eradicating recently escaped/released swine before breeding
populations became established.
Table 4-2. States with established feral swine populations and area occupied by feral swine from
the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study. (J. L. Corn, SCWDS, pers. comm.).
Year Number of States with Feral Swine Area with Feral Swine
1982 17 210,443 sq. mi.
2004 28 458,986 sq. mi.
2011 37 492,770 sq. mi.
2013 36 613,738 sq. mi.
Although there has been little statewide or national success in reducing
established feral swine populations, local population eradications can and have
occurred. However, these efforts have generally involved island populations
(Cruz et al. 2005, Miller and Mullette 1985) and/or used fencing to partition areas
to be cleared of swine into smaller more manageable sections and prevent
immigration of new animals (Schuyler et al. 2002). For example, feral swine
populations have been successfully eradicated from Santa Cruz Island (Parkes et
al. 2010) and Pinnacles National Monument in California (McCann and Garcelon
2008). Feral swine in the surrounding area are excluded from Pinnacles National
Monument by approximately 24 miles of pig-proof fence enclosing over 14,000
acres. In 2012, the Southeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Wild
Hog Working Group prepared a summary report containing information from 15
member states with feral swine (SEAFWA 2012). When asked about the efficacy
of current management efforts, Texas, West Virginia, and Louisiana reported that
current efforts were not successful in containing or reducing the population.
Oklahoma reported that although some wildlife management areas were
temporarily cleared of swine, the number of affected areas and total swine
population continued to increase. Eight states reported local successes, but
several noted that success was short term and ongoing effort was needed to keep
new animals from moving into protected sites. One state did not provide a
response and two states only provided statements regarding the efficacy of
individual methods for site specific damage management.
The reproductive capacity of feral swine makes controlling feral swine
populations particularly challenging. Timmons et al. (2012) used feral swine
population demographics data from studies in the southern United States and
information on feral swine habitats and harvest in Texas to estimate the impact of
varying levels of harvest on the feral swine population. Based on their
calculations, approximately 66% of the population would have to be taken on a
long-term basis (at least five years) to stabilize the feral swine population in
Texas. With an estimate of 1.8 to 3.4 million swine in the state, approximately
1.2 to 2.2 million feral swine would have to be removed each year to stabilize the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 165
population, a level of removal well in excess of the estimate of 750,000 feral
swine removed per year (Tompkins 2013). Other models have predicted that
ongoing removals of 70% or more would be needed to reduce feral swine
populations and that populations would rapidly rebound if control is interrupted
(Mayer 2009d).
The logistical difficulties inherent in removing swine at a level sufficient to
eliminate or reduce large or even moderate feral swine populations make it
essential for agencies to respond promptly and effectively to detection of feral
swine. It is also essential for agencies to commit to ongoing efforts until
eradication is achieved (Mayer 2009d). In some cases, delaying or postponing
control activities, even if only for a period of several months, can result in
substantial increases in local populations and associated management costs
(Mayer 2009d). Under current conditions, land managers and agencies may not
be able to respond promptly to reports of feral swine due to resource limitations.
Competing high priority needs for available funds may result in agencies delaying
response until they start receiving numerous complaints of substantial damage.
Unfortunately, by that time, difficulty and cost of control is likely to be high and
probability of success is reduced.
Compensatory population responses are changes in population factors such as
reproduction rates, immigration and survival of remaining animals that occur in
response to reductions in animal populations. Reproduction in feral swine is
linked to food availability (Geisser and Reyer 2005, Melis et al. 2006) and the
availability of supplemental feeds such as crops and livestock feed can increase
the density of feral swine in an area (Groot Bruinderink et al. 1994). Increases in
reproduction commonly result from improvements in the amount of food
available per animal when the population is decreased and associated
improvements in body condition of remaining animals. Survivorship can also be
impacted by food availability, particularly in areas with high seasonal variation in
the availability of resources. Compensatory factors may reduce the efficacy of
feral swine removal efforts (Hanson 2009, Mayer 2009d). However, the role of
compensatory factors on feral swine population dynamics may vary depending on
initial habitat quality and the level of feral swine removal. In areas of high quality
habitat and in situations where removal efforts do not affect a sufficient
proportion of the population to impact resource availability, compensatory factors
may not influence feral swine population dynamics (Ditchkoff et al. 2012).
Efficacy of Damage Management Methods
Effective site-specific damage management programs can and are being
implemented across the country and numerous descriptions of effective programs
can be found in the scientific literature (Engeman et al. 2004, Campbell and Long
2009, Mayer and Brisbin 2009, West et al. 2009). Differences in habitat types,
land use, presence of non-target species and other factors must be considered
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 166
when developing effective and environmentally responsible FSDM programs.
Variation among sites means that no one FSDM method will be suitable for all
situations. In addition to site variations, the ability of feral swine to learn to avoid
capture devices or ignore (habituate to) frightening devices can limit the utility of
some methods over time. The utility of specific damage management methods
may also vary depending upon the size of the feral swine population.
Consequently, effective FSDM programs require the integrated use of multiple
methods either sequentially or concurrently to achieve the best results.
Other Factors Influencing Efficacy of FSDM Programs
Feral swine population dynamics and efficacy of damage management methods
are not the only factors impacting the efficacy of FSDM programs. In a 2013
informal questionnaire completed by APHIS-WS state programs and their
cooperators, funding and inadequate or contradictory regulatory mechanisms were
the two most commonly cited challenges for states and territories seeking to
manage feral swine damage and/or eradicate feral swine populations (Table 4-3).
Table 4-3. Primary challenges to achieving state or territorial feral swine management objectives.
Data from informal survey of APHIS-WS state programs and their cooperators (APHIS-WS
unpublished Data 2013).
Primary Challenges Limiting Success of
Feral Swine Damage Management
Programs
Number of States and
Territories Reporting the
Challenge
1
Funding 31
Inadequate or contradictory regulations 14
Increased interest in hunting and/or
resistance from hunting interests
5
Difficulty in enforcing laws, especially
laws pertaining to movement of swine
4
Need improved partnerships for feral
swine damage management
3
Lack of public understanding of adverse
consequences of feral swine
3
Private land ownership, land use, and
property access
3
Lack of formal management objectives 2
Efforts started too late to be effective 2
Difficulties in balancing cultural and
hunting uses while also managing damage
1
Issues with bordering states or countries 1
Illegal movement of swine 1
Difficulties in locating swine 1
1
Several states and territories listed more than one issue.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 167
b. Alternative 2: National FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
This alternative provides funding for a nationally coordinated population control
effort and improved capacity for site-specific damage management. APHIS
would work to develop cooperative partnerships with agencies, tribes, private
organizations and individuals to optimize allocation of available FSDM resources
through cost share projects and collaborative work toward common goals. Often,
the APHIS’ lead for these projects would be APHIS-WS State Directors.
Collaboration with Canada and Mexico on projects of mutual concern can aid
understanding of feral swine concerns along borders and reduce movement of
feral swine across borders
Impact on National Feral Swine Population
In states, territories, and tribal lands where feral swine are emerging or
populations are low and eradication is a management objective (Figure 4-2),
APHIS would cooperate with agency partners, tribes, and private entities to
implement strategies to eliminate the populations. Once feral swine are removed
from states with low populations, resources dedicated for population removal
would be shifted to other areas, leaving only a minimal baseline capacity in these
states to ensure feral swine populations do not become re-established. Funds
would be available to help states investigate and respond to reports of feral swine
to help prevent swine from becoming established in new states and states where
populations are eradicated.
The target for the national population reduction effort is to eliminate feral swine
from two states within the first five years of the program and then continue to
eliminate feral swine from additional states at an average rate of two states every
three years. A long term objective is to eventually eliminate feral swine from
most states where they have become established over the past couple decades and
where the states or territories have requested assistance with eradication (Figure
4-3). Feral swine populations would remain in states, territories and tribal lands
that desire to maintain populations for recreational, cultural use or other purposes
and in some areas where high densities and other conditions preclude eradication
of the population.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 168
Figure 4-2. States and territories with eradication or prevention as a management objective for feral swine. Data
from an informal questionnaire sent to APHIS-WS State Directors and cooperating state and territorial agriculture
and natural resources agencies (Appendix D, Table 2).
Figure 4-3. Objective range of feral swine in the year 2038 upon successful conclusion of FSDM
program. Feral Swine populations are expected remain in Hawaii and the Territories.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 169
Capacity for Local Damage Management
Baseline funds to enhance local damage management efforts would be made
available to all APHIS-WS state programs serving areas with feral swine
populations. In states, territories and tribal lands with few feral swine, APHIS-
WS would confirm reports of feral swine activity and remove them from local
areas as appropriate in collaboration with state, territorial and tribal officials. By
establishing some baseline capacity, APHIS-WS would be better positioned to
remove swine from some areas while their populations are still relatively small.
Establishment of baseline funding would enable APHIS-WS to improve the
efficacy of current projects that are limited to areas where the cooperator can
provide funding for management. This would improve the ability of the project to
address overall populations and not just a patchwork of properties within
populations. Cooperators typically have not requested APHIS-WS assistance
until after feral swine populations are large or damage has become extensive. By
establishing baseline capacity with appropriated funds, APHIS-WS can
proactively address damage issues before they become significant. The level of
baseline capacity established in each state would depend on current feral swine
populations and distributions, current damage to resources, presence of potential
resources likely to be damaged, and state or local regulations that impact
management efforts. APHIS-WS would establish two helicopter teams in central
locations to provide aerial support for operational programs.
APHIS-WS field employees would serve as the primary data collectors on feral
swine populations. Each APHIS-WS State Director would track relevant
information regarding the location, number, and impact of feral swine and report
results to the Feral Swine Program Manager. These efforts would be supported
by research to develop and refine population monitoring methods. Data would
then be aggregated and summarized and then used to develop maps and other
reports. These products would be used to track APHIS’ progress in eliminating
feral swine in particular locations, and in managing feral swine in other locations.
The information would be valuable for tracking overall population trends,
delineating feral swine free zones, and more efficiently tracking potential
reintroductions of feral swine in areas where APHIS personnel have previously
eliminated them.
The target for baseline projects is to establish APHIS baseline management
capacity in all states
12
known or suspected to have established feral swine
12
The actual number of states known or suspected to have feral swine population changes over time, and may have
increased by the time this document is released for public comment. At the time this document was prepared, the
list of target states for FSDM baseline capacity included Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 170
populations, and stabilize the increase in feral swine damage within 10 years of
project initiation.
Additional funding for national and strategic local projects would also be
available to APHIS-WS state programs to support national objectives on a
smaller, more local scale. For example, projects designed to eliminate feral swine
populations in specified areas (e.g., county level, refuges) within a state, enable
collaborative opportunities to work with local stakeholders to address feral swine
issues, or provide increased protection of local vulnerable resources (e.g., protect
commercial swine facilities, or endangered or threatened species).
Efficacy of damage management methods
Under this alternative, additional funding would be available for research to
develop new FSDM methods and improve the efficacy of existing methods.
Although research is conducted under the Current FSDM program, the additional
funding would substantially improve the scope and pace of projects which can be
conducted concurrently. Priority areas for methods development include
assessing the feasibility of using sodium nitrite to safely reduce feral swine
populations. Research into reproductive inhibitors would also be facilitated under
this alternative. Other key research areas include determining economic impacts
of feral swine, and conducting research on swine-related diseases.
Research and disease monitoring conducted under this alternative would enable
APHIS and cooperators to identify areas of greatest risk from feral swine and
better target resources to areas of greatest need and maximum benefit. Improved
information on the location and abundance of feral swine relative to sensitive
resources and the economic costs and benefits of feral swine can be used by
legislators, agency personnel, and the public to guide management decisions and
the development of effective regulations and policies for feral swine management.
Targets for research efforts to improve methods include:
Assessing feral swine toxicants and developing safe delivery systems;
Adapting or developing a product to serve as a reproductive inhibitor in
feral swine;
Developing optimal monitoring/control strategies to be applied in two
habitat types;
North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 171
Developing or modifying, on average, one new removal technique
annually;
Creating maps depicting feral swine presence and protected resources
within four years;
Completing a risk analysis for a protected resource every two years;
On average, completing an economic analysis or cost/benefit analysis
every 2 years;
Conducting at least one training workshop annually.
Other Factors Influencing Efficacy of FSDM projects
Federal funding provided under this alternative would help address some of the
funding limitations listed by states and territories as the primary impediment to
achievement of FSDM objectives. APHIS-WS state programs would develop
cooperative relationships and cost-share projects with agency partners, tribes, and
private entities to stretch the impact of the increased funding to improve the
management efficiency and capacity of any one entity working alone on the issue.
Research and baseline capacity would increase the ability of APHIS programs to
provide technical assistance and data for state, territorial, tribal, and local agencies
and legislators who are developing regulations on feral swine. APHIS review of
existing federal regulations may identify areas for improvement in existing
regulations or potential new regulations which can facilitate effective FSDM.
Improved education and outreach efforts under this alternative would help
agencies address problems with public understanding of the nature of the feral
swine problem, the importance of prompt reporting of the presence of feral swine
in areas where swine are not known to occur, and the costs and benefits of feral
swine to their community. Outreach and education would be an essential tool in
modifying perceptions of the acceptability of movement and release of feral
swine. Movement and release of feral swine is one of the primary factors
contributing to the rapid spread of feral swine in the contiguous United States.
The combination of research and outreach would improve the ability of
landowners to identify and respond to feral swine damage on their property.
Research may also be able to identify improvements in fencing and other
practices to reduce the risk of swine escaping from domestic herds (i.e., pigs in
pastures) and hunting facilities and the risk of disease transmission to captive
swine.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 172
APHIS would work with Canada and Mexico to develop a comprehensive border
plan identifying regions with feral swine, estimating populations, and evaluating
agriculture damage.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
This alternative focuses on improving the baseline FSDM capacity of all APHIS-
WS state programs working in areas feral swine as described for the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Allocations would be based on the size of the
feral swine population in each state. This would maximize cost-share
opportunities for operational management with agency partners, tribes, and other
cooperators.
Impact on National Feral Swine Population
Ability to achieve national feral swine population management objectives would
be somewhat improved from the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), but
substantially reduced from levels described for the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2). All funding would be allocated to improve baseline capacity of
APHIS-WS state programs. There would be no funding available to achieve
national feral swine population containment and reduction objectives. The lack of
allocated funds specifically for targeted population reductions is likely to slow or
preclude eradication of feral swine from some states. Baseline funding, when
combined with cooperator funds, may only be sufficient for eradication and/or
substantial reductions in feral swine populations in states with low or moderate
populations (Figures 2-2 and 4-2). The rate at which feral swine populations are
eradicated, if it does occur, is likely to be lower than for the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2) but slightly improved from the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1).
Funding would not be held in reserve to investigate reports of feral swine in areas
where swine do not currently occur and areas which have been cleared of swine.
This may impede agency response to the occurrence of feral swine and increase
the likelihood that feral swine populations may become established in new areas.
The delay in response to reports in feral swine is also likely to increase the cost of
response once the presence of swine is confirmed and management is eventually
initiated.
Capacity for Local Damage Management
All funds would be allocated for baseline damage management capacity in states
with feral swine populations. Individual APHIS-WS state programs would have
the greatest amount of money to use to address local conflicts in cooperation with
agency partners, tribes, and private entities under this alternative. In the absence
of coordinated national population reduction efforts, feral swine populations in
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 173
some areas are likely to continue to increase. These increases and associated
damage may eventually exceed the capacity of the expanded baseline damage
management program. Overall efficacy of local projects would likely be reduced
due to the lack of national funding for research, outreach and education,
coordinated disease monitoring, damage and disease risk modeling and
international coordination which would occur under the Integrated FSDM
Alternative (Alternative 2).
Efficacy of damage management methods
There would be no increase in research, feral swine population or disease
monitoring, and risk assessment under this alternative. Improvements to existing
methods and development of new methods is likely to occur at a slower pace than
under the Integrated FSDM Program and would likely be similar to the Current
FSDM Program (Alternative 1).
Other Factors Influencing Efficacy of FSDM projects
This alternative would increase the baseline funding from federal appropriations
going to APHIS-WS state programs serving states, territories, and tribes with feral
swine which would address one of the issues listed by states as an impediment to
achievement of their FSDM management objectives listed in Table 4-3.
APHIS-WS state program staff would be available to respond to requests for
assistance by providing technical or operational feral swine damage management
to agricultural producers, agency officials, regulators and others as under the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). However, in the absence of the
expanded research, disease monitoring, population monitoring, and regulatory
review of the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), they would not have the
same tools and information to assist cooperators. Research, outreach and
education, international coordination and other benefits to the efficacy of the
FSDM program resulting from national coordination and involvement in FSDM
described in this section for the Integrated FSDM Program would not occur.
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
This alternative places emphasis on national FSDM projects and strategic local
projects. No funding would be allocated to the augmentation of baseline capacity
for all APHIS-WS state programs that support areas with feral swine. This
alternative would focus all available resources on national and strategic local
projects selected for their ability to help achieve national goals and objectives.
APHIS-WS programs supporting states, territories and tribes with low or
emerging populations and the desire to eradicate feral swine would be the initial
project priorities, although strategic local funding could be allocated for projects
in areas which are not identified as current priorities for swine eradication.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 174
Consequently, some APHIS-WS’ programs in states, territories and tribes with
large feral swine programs, or in areas where eradication is not feasible or desired
(e.g., feral swine managed as a game species) may not receive any funding until
such time as priority management objectives have been achieved and resources
are shifted to other areas with feral swine. This alternative would maintain
capacity to rapidly respond to reports of feral swine in states, territories and tribal
lands which do not have feral swine or feral swine are believed to have been
eradicated.
Impact on National Feral Swine Population
Funding for working with states, territories, and tribes, to eradicate and reduce the
national feral swine population as described for the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2) would be increased under this alternative. The increase in funds
may make it possible to achieve national feral swine population objectives more
quickly than under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
Capacity for Local Damage Management
No baseline funding would be available under this alternative. Capacity for local
damage management would be substantially reduced in some areas, particularly
those which are not identified as priorities for national feral swine population
control. Some limited funding for site-specific damage management would be
available for national and strategic local projects as described for the Integrated
FSDM Program.
Overall capacity for baseline FSDM would be similar to the Current FSDM
program with some improvements in efficacy possible due to research, population
monitoring, outreach and education, and international coordination which would
have greater funding than under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
However, the lack of baseline funding in some states may impede the ability of
state programs to collect data for use in population and disease monitoring and
mapping which may impede the quality or comprehensive nature of these projects
unless research and monitoring funding is committed for this purpose.
Efficacy of damage management methods
Research, feral swine population and disease monitoring, and risk assessment
would increase over current levels. Funding for these efforts would be greater
than for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), as would associated
improvements in program efficacy. However, implementation of improvements
and use of new information and outreach and education materials may be not be
as effective in the absence of baseline FSDM capacity to assist all states,
territories, and tribes with feral swine.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 175
Other Factors Influencing Efficacy of FSDM projects
Funding for FSDM would be allocated to achieve national feral swine population
management objectives and some national and strategic local projects.
Consequently, APHIS-WS state programs serving some states, territories, and
tribes would receive no increase in FSDM funding or less increase than under the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) or Baseline FSDM Program
(Alternative 3).
Research, outreach and education, feral swine population and disease monitoring,
and international coordination and associated benefits to program efficacy would
occur at levels similar to or increased from the Integrated FSDM Program.
However, in areas which are not identified as priorities for national feral swine
population management, capacity to collect data for feral swine population and
disease monitoring would likely be impaired as would capacity for technical
assistance and implementation of improvements resulting from research.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
Under this Alternative, APHIS would distribute funding to states, territories,
tribes, organizations representing native peoples, and research institutions.
APHIS’ role in operational FSDM would be substantially diminished and APHIS-
WS would not conduct any FSDM under this alternative. Entities currently
receiving APHIS-WS assistance with FSDM would be referred to the grant
recipient conducting the FSDM work in their area. All feral swine control actions
would be implemented by grant recipients or their agents.
Impact on National Feral Swine Population
Under this alternative, APHIS-WS state programs would not be involved in
FSDM. All FSDM would be coordinated at the national level and conducted by
states, territories, tribes and organizations representing native peoples with funds
from grants issued by APHIS. Funds would be allocated to achieve the same
national feral swine population management objectives as under the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Agency partners, tribes, and the public would
not have access to the experience and equipment of APHIS-WS field staff and
would have to find alternative sources for some materials and methods,
particularly shooting from aircraft. Reductions in efficiency and increased
administrative costs associated with this alternative would decrease the total funds
available for project implementation. It would likely take longer to achieve target
levels of national feral swine population reduction under this alternative.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 176
Capacity for Local Damage Management
Baseline funds for FSDM and funds for national and strategic local projects
would be available to all states, territories, and tribes with feral swine. However,
APHIS-WS would not be involved in operational FSDM or provide technical
assistance. These activities would be conducted by states, territories, tribes, and
native peoples with funds from grants issued by APHIS. APHIS-WS would not
be able to be the grant recipient’s “agent” under this alternative, restricting access
to expertise and resources available through APHIS-WS. Increased
administrative costs would reduce the funding available for management. APHIS
would not be involved in the national collection and coordination of feral swine
population or disease monitoring data, but these activities could theoretically be
contracted out through the grants process.
Efficacy of damage management methods
Under this alternative, APHIS could issue grants to agencies, universities, tribes
and organizations representing native peoples to conduct research projects as
under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Increased administrative
costs would mean that less money is available for these activities than under the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). The NWRC would not be available to
assist with product registration or development. The loss of NWRC resources and
experience in this area would likely slow the development and registration of
toxicants and reproductive inhibitors for FSDM.
Other Factors Influencing Efficacy of FSDM projects
Federal funding provided under this alternative would help address some of the
funding limitations listed by states and territories as the primary impediment to
achievement of feral swine management objectives in a manner similar to the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Some funding would be lost to
increased administrative costs. However, some states, territories, and tribes and
organizations representing native peoples may prefer receiving the money directly
through the grant system to working with APHIS-WS state programs. However,
one of the strengths of the APHIS-WS state programs is their ability to build
effective working partnerships among agency partners, tribes and private entities
with common damage management interests. These skills would not be put to use
under this alternative.
Research and data would be available for state, territorial, tribal, and local
agencies and legislators who are developing regulations on feral swine as per the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). However, in the absence of a central
point of contact for these projects, coordination of information may be
diminished. Improved education and outreach efforts would occur under this
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 177
alternative, but with less funding than under the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2).
There would be no APHIS review of existing federal regulations to identify areas
for improvement in existing regulations or potential new regulations which can
facilitate effective feral swine management. APHIS would not be available to
work with Canada and Mexico to develop a comprehensive border plan
identifying regions with feral swine, estimating populations, and evaluating
agriculture damage.
2. Further develop cooperative partnerships with other pertinent federal, state,
territorial, tribal, and local agencies, and private organizations working to
reduce impacts of feral swine.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
At present, most feral swine partnerships and relations are developed on the local
scale as agencies, tribes, organizations, and individuals respond to the challenges
of managing feral swine in their area. As concerns regarding the impact of feral
swine have increased, communities of practice have developed and are sponsored
by states and research institutions to provide and exchange information on the
impacts of feral swine and best practices for FSDM. Examples of these efforts
include the websites sponsored by Texas AgriLife Extension
(http://www.extension.org/feral_hogs), Mississippi State University
(http://wildpiginfo.msstate.edu/), and the Internet Center for Wildlife Damage
Management (http://icwdm.org/wildlife/FeralPigs.aspx). Agencies, universities,
and other organizations also work collaboratively to sponsor conferences to
facilitate communication and the exchange of information on FSDM. APHIS-WS
state programs work individually with states, territories, and tribes to meet local
management goals with only limited coordination with neighboring states and
tribes. State and some regional teams such as the Southeast Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies Feral Swine Task Force exist to exchange information and
work toward common goals for FSDM. However, there is no national
coordination of efforts or national funding available to contain the spread of feral
swine in the United States or reduce the current range and size of the feral swine
population. However, some national coordination for disease monitoring has
been possible under this alternative, although capacity for conducting monitoring
has been limited (see Section B.3 below).
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
Under this alternative, resources would be available for national coordination of
FSDM efforts. These efforts would include identification and allocation of
resources to areas identified as national priorities to achieve a coordinated goal of
reducing feral swine damage in the United States. APHIS would expand efforts
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 178
to facilitate coordination of existing FSDM efforts among states and regions and
establish new partnerships. APHIS would work to serve as a central point of
contact for coordinating national and international FSDM projects. Under this
alternative, APHIS-WS’ resources would be available to form partnerships with
other federal/state/local/Tribal agencies, subject to the determination of APHIS-
WS state offices.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
This alternative focuses primarily on allocation of resources to APHIS-WS state
programs to aid states, territories and tribes in addressing feral swine damage.
Resources would be allocated to APHIS-WS state programs based on the size of
local feral swine populations. No additional resources would be available to
coordinate a national level response to feral swine damage. Coordination among
states and tribes would be as described for the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1).
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
All available resources would be allocated for projects to achieve national
priorities for FSDM and strategic local projects. Coordination of FSDM activities
would be improved over current conditions and be similar to the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2), with some possible increase in capacity over the
Integrated FSDM Program, because funds that would be allocated for baseline
FSDM would be allocated to national priority projects.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
This alternative would provide resources to improve state, tribal, and territorial
capacity for FSDM. Coordination of FSDM efforts and development of
partnerships for FSDM would occur indirectly through the allocation of grants.
Under this alternative, APHIS would not be directly involved in the
implementation of FSDM projects. Loss of APHIS-WS state program
involvement in the establishment of partnerships among agencies, tribes,
organizations, and individuals may adversely impact the development of effective
partnerships to achieve national FSDM goals. Under this alternative, the role of
APHIS in FSDM would shift from partner in conducting FSDM to supervisory
authority. APHIS would be responsible for ensuring that grants are implemented
in a manner consistent with project objectives and procedures established in this
FEIS for the protection of the human environment, and that the projects meet
other APHIS obligations including obligations to tribes. This would be a
fundamental shift in the nature of APHIS-WS existing partnerships with states,
territories, and tribes.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 179
3. Expand feral swine disease monitoring to protect agriculture and human health.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
APHIS-WS and VS programs have worked collaboratively to monitor for diseases
in feral swine. Most samples collected by APHIS-WS personnel come from feral
swine killed during damage management projects and swine killed by hunters.
APHIS-WS submits samples to diagnostic labs identified by APHIS-VS to run
diagnostic tests. Over 2,300 feral swine have been sampled during prior years to
monitor for classical swine fever in the United States. These samples have also
been used to monitor for pseudorabies and swine brucellosis. This type of
sampling does not always lead to ideal distributions of samples for disease
monitoring.
In addition to national disease monitoring projects, APHIS-WS has occasionally
collected additional samples for disease monitoring and research projects
conducted in cooperation with federal, state, territorial and tribal agencies and
research institutions. Depending upon the funding source, sampling for these
projects may involve collecting samples from swine already obtained by hunters
or for damage management or it may include obtaining feral swine specifically for
disease sampling in accordance with survey or research protocols.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
Under this alternative, APHIS-WS and VS would have shared responsibilities to
monitor for diseases in feral swine. In conducting the national program for feral
swine, APHIS would use risk-based modeling to determine locations and
populations that should be targeted for disease sampling. APHIS-VS at this time
has identified five diseases to be incorporated in a national monitoring program:
classical swine fever, swine brucellosis, porcine reproductive and respiratory
syndrome (PRRS), swine influenza, and pseudorabies. These diseases may
change depending on needs. APHIS-WS would collaborate with APHIS-VS to
identify locations where disease transmission is of greatest concern due to
potential for livestock and feral swine interface, and then would target monitoring
efforts at those locations. APHIS-VS would also provide general guidance and
support for diagnostic tests conducted through the National Veterinary Services
Laboratories and collaborating laboratories. In addition to the diseases included
in the national monitoring program, APHIS-WS would collect biological samples
from feral swine in collaboration with federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local
animal health officials and research institutions to support research activities
assessing new disease risks.
APHIS would also work with the United States Department of Health and Human
Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the One Health
Coordinating Office on projects to monitor for diseases of public health concern.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 180
These partnerships would provide information to guide risk mitigation for
zoonotic pathogens, such as pathogenic Escherichia coli, leptospirosis, and
Salmonella. These efforts would directly support APHIS’ efforts to address
zoonotic diseases in animals, and Health and Human Services’ goal to advance
the health, safety, and well-being of the American people by reducing the
occurrence of infectious diseases. The strong inter-departmental working
relationships among agencies would increase the emergency response capacities
across all agencies.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Under this alternative, all funds would be allocated to baseline FSDM in the states
and territories. No additional resources would be available for disease
monitoring. These activities would occur in the same manner as described for
Alternative 1. Due to the substantial increase in FSDM, APHIS-WS would have
access to a larger number of feral swine for sampling from a wider range of areas.
However, resources for testing the samples would not be available unless
provided by cooperating agencies and research institutions.
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
All funds would be allocated to national priority projects which include
monitoring for diseases of concern to human and animal health. Design of
monitoring protocols, and collection and testing of samples would occur in the
same manner as for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Baseline
funding would not be available in all states with feral swine, so it would be
necessary to allocate funds specifically for disease monitoring in states, territories,
and tribal lands which are not identified as national priorities for FSDM.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
APHIS-WS activities would be limited to coordinating FSDM activities through
the allocation of grants. No APHIS-WS personnel would be involved in
operational FSDM, so some efficiency in collecting samples opportunistically
from swine taken for damage management would be lost. Samples could be
collected by entities working under grants, but the national coordination of
sampling effort and processing of samples would be limited unless some funds are
reserved for APHIS involvement in this function. APHIS-VS would not receive
additional funds to test samples or develop improved monitoring protocols other
than those funds allocated from other sources to meet existing program
obligations as under the current FSDM program (Alternative 1). Overall capacity
to conduct disease monitoring to protect agriculture and human health would
likely be intermediate to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) and the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 181
4. Develop and improve tools and methods to manage feral swine populations,
predictive models to assess feral swine population expansion and economic
impacts, and risk analyses for feral swine impacts to agriculture, animal health,
and human health.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
The NWRC currently conducts research projects on an extensive array of issues
related to feral swine within the constraints of available funding. These research
areas include:
Feasible toxicants and delivery systems to control feral swine;
Patterns of feral swine movement and potential disease transference
between feral swine and domestic animals;
Effectiveness of various feral swine exclusion devices;
Population estimation techniques;
Baits for pharmaceutical delivery;
Attractants for feral swine;
Fertility control agents;
Feral swine behaviors in response to damage control activities;
Economic analysis of feral swine damage;
Economic considerations for implementing management strategies;
Ecological investigations addressing feral swine impacts on agriculture
and the environment.
NWRC regularly collaborates with other government agencies, universities, and
private organizations to conduct research activities. Currently, the highest priority
for feral swine research conducted by NWRC is assessing the feasibility of using
sodium nitrite, a feral swine toxicant developed in Australia, to safely reduce feral
swine populations. Another related high-priority study focuses on developing a
delivery system to dispense baits to feral swine while limiting access to non-target
species.
APHIS-VS Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) develops
models for assessment of risks posed to livestock – primarily from diseases. Feral
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 182
swine may be included in these risk assessments if they play a role in the overall
risk from the disease. The CEAH are also developing models to address the
overall wildlife component as a factor in livestock health, which would include,
but is not limited to feral swine.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
The additional funding provided under this alternative would increase the capacity
of the NWRC to work on multiple projects concurrently. NWRC would continue
to develop or modify new capture devices and to evaluate efficacy and efficiency
of existing and new methods, including potential reproductive inhibiters. As
directed by Congress in the 2014 appropriations (Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 2014, Public Law No. 113-76 2014), research into
reproductive inhibitors would include working collaboratively with other agencies
and university researchers on the development of non-hormonal, species-specific
oral contraceptives, such as phage-peptide constructs. NWRC also would
investigate the potential for emerging technologies to be incorporated in feral
swine control and monitoring activities. Another role of research would be
developing and evaluating possible performance measurements for monitoring
accomplishments of the APHIS feral swine program.
Baseline funding enables all APHIS-WS state programs in areas with feral swine
to have some staff available for FSDM. These staff members can often collect
samples and other data for research projects during the course of their regular
FSDM activities or with minimal additional funding. This increases the collective
range and research capacity of APHIS research activities without the cost of
hiring new staff for each area where samples are needed.
APHIS-VS also would contribute to feral swine research. The APHIS-VS
Science Technology and Analysis Services (STAS) staff would integrate existing
knowledge to develop disease risk models to estimate potential impacts of feral
swine on domestic agriculture animals. Epidemiologic data gathered during
disease monitoring activities would also be of value in populating risk models.
These models would be used in developing and evaluating future strategies for
monitoring feral swine diseases and removal activities. APHIS-VS staff would
collaborate with APHIS-WS to refine existing maps of feral swine distribution
and create habitat models to predict where future feral swine establishment may
occur. APHIS-VS’ STAS Wildlife Livestock Disease Investigations Team would
develop technologies towards remote detection of infectious diseases in feral
swine (e.g., brucellosis, TB). They would also develop and evaluate population
and disease management methods for feral swine, such as vaccines,
contraceptives, and vaccine delivery methods.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 183
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Under this alternative, all FSDM funds would be allocated to baseline damage
management with the exception of funding provided for the development of non-
hormonal, species-specific oral contraceptives, such as phage-peptide constructs,
as directed by Congress (Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2014, Public Law
No. 113-76 2014). All other research and development activities conducted by
NWRC and APHIS-VS would be as discussed for the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1).
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
Research and development are included in the national FSDM priority projects as
described for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Implementation of
research and development would be conducted in the same manner as for the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). There is likely to be more funding
available for research and other national priority projects than under the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) because no funding would be allocated
to baseline program capacity.
This alternative may be less cost-efficient in conducting research and collecting
data for large scale projects than the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
In the absence of baseline funding, some APHIS-WS state programs in areas with
feral swine may not have staff available for FSDM, and alternative strategies
would be needed to collect samples over large areas. In these situations,
additional time and effort may be needed to collect samples for projects covering
large portions of the country.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
Under this alternative, no research or operational FSDM would be conducted by
APHIS-WS. Instead, APHIS would use a grants process to allocate funds to
universities and other research institutions to conduct research in areas of interest.
As a one-of-a-kind leader in research on human-wildlife conflict management, the
NWRC has over 120 years of experience in the development of wildlife damage
management techniques and registration of damage management products.
13
These skills would not be available under this alternative which could have a
substantial adverse impact on development of toxicants and reproductive
inhibitors for FSDM. Similar loss of APHIS-VS knowledge and expertise would
also impact development of disease risk models and resulting improvements in
damage management efforts. Additionally, no APHIS-WS operations staff would
be available to help with data collection and research for large-scale projects.
13
The NWRC has its origins in the Division of Economic Ornithology established in 1886, the USDA Control
Methods Research Laboratory established in 1905 and the USDA Food Habit Laboratory Established in 1931.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 184
5. Develop outreach materials and activities to educate the public about feral swine
damage and related activities to prevent or reduce damage.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
Education is a key component of effective FSDM. Elected officials, agency
managers, and the public need accurate information on the costs and benefits of
feral swine, effective management strategies, and the consequences of individual
actions pertaining to feral swine (e.g., releasing swine into natural areas).
Effective outreach programs can influence social norms and behaviors which
impact feral swine populations (e.g., transporting and releasing feral swine). This
information can also help elected officials make informed decisions when
developing effective local regulatory options to meet the management objectives
of their constituents.
At present, APHIS has produced a limited number of materials (two brochures
and a traveling display) on feral swine and FSDM. Additional educational
materials have been produced collaboratively with Universities and state agencies.
Time and resources for FSDM outreach efforts are weighed against similar needs
for other APHIS program activities. APHIS personnel participate in professional
conferences and educational programs to exchange information on current
program activities, research developments and to provide education on feral swine
damage and damage management techniques. APHIS provides site-specific
technical assistance on FSDM when requested as time and available resources
allow.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
This alternative would provide dedicated funds specifically for national FSDM
outreach and educational materials. This serves the dual purpose of increasing the
agency’s capacity for FSDM outreach but also has the indirect benefit of freeing
base APHIS funds for outreach on other APHIS priority areas. Proposals for an
expanded outreach program include a social media communication program with
weekly messages on FSDM; outreach materials including brochures and fact
sheets which can be customized to meet local needs; improved online materials to
be used by agencies and the public; additional traveling displays for use at fairs,
industry meetings and other gatherings; and print advertisements. These materials
would be available to partner agencies to maximize utility and impact of the
program. Resources would also be available to assess the effectiveness of
outreach strategies. APHIS includes technical assistance (advice) on FSDM with
all operational activities. The increase in capacity to conduct FSDM activities
would substantially increase opportunities to provide site specific advice to
landowners, communities, and agencies seeking to address conflicts with feral
swine.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 185
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
This alternative would not provide funding for national-level projects, so there
would be no nationally-coordinated outreach and education program under this
alternative. However, outreach and education is a critical component of any
FSDM project and APHIS-WS state programs could use some of their resources
for increased local education and outreach efforts. The increase in capacity to
conduct FSDM activities at the APHIS-WS state program level would
substantially increase opportunities to provide site specific advice to landowners,
communities, and agencies seeking to address conflicts with feral swine.
However, these efforts are likely to lack some of the benefits of a national
coordinated education and outreach program including research and evaluation to
improve the efficacy of outreach and educational efforts. Overall education and
outreach efforts are likely to be greater than the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1), but less than the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2),
National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects Program (Alternative 4), and the
Federal FSDM Grant Program (Alternative 5).
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
As with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), this alternative would
provide dedicated funds specifically for national FSDM outreach and educational
materials. National outreach and education activities and impacts would be as
described for Alternative 2. No funds would be available for baseline FSDM, so
opportunities for site specific technical assistance (advice) on FSDM during
operational activities would be limited for states and territories which are not
identified as national priorities for feral swine eradication or included in strategic
local projects. Overall impacts are likely to be similar to or less than the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) and greater than the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1), Baseline Program (Alternative 2), and Federal FSDM
Grant Program (Alternative 5).
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
Under this alternative, APHIS could request and allocate grants for the
development of outreach and education programs. Given the reduction in funds
for project implementation expected under this alternative, it is likely that there
would be fewer resources for the development of these projects than under the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). APHIS-WS would not be involved in
any operational FSDM. Technical assistance and all other local education and
outreach would need to be provided by the grant recipients and may not be as
consistently available as under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 186
6. Coordinate with Canada and Mexico to establish a collaborative plan to address
the feral swine threat along the common borders.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
Feral swine are known to move across the borders between the United States and
neighboring countries. These movements provide a potential avenue for
introduction of feral swine into areas where they do not currently occur. Under
the current program, coordination with Canada and Mexico occurs on a limited
basis and primarily consists of communications between individual states and
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NWDP collaborates with Canada
and Mexico on wildlife disease issues including those impacting feral swine on a
somewhat limited basis. APHIS-WS may occasionally provide technical
assistance to states on request. National level communication and coordination is
generally limited to APHIS-VS and -IS actions required to facilitate international
trade and movement of animals.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
This alternative would provide national coordination on issues associated with
feral swine along international borders with Mexico and Canada. APHIS would
rely on APHIS-VS and -WS expertise and -IS to develop collaborative plans with
Mexico and Canada. These collaborative efforts would assess movements of feral
swine across borders. These efforts would include:
Establishing an information exchange agreement with Canadian and Mexican
counterparts on feral swine movements and possibly disease monitoring
information;
Developing a comprehensive border plan with Mexico and Canada federal
representatives, identifying regions with feral swine, estimating populations
and evaluating agriculture damage and disease risks;
Evaluating potential benefits for providing training on capturing, handling,
and collecting biological samples from feral swine;
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
National coordination of FSDM would be limited under this alternative, because
all funding would be allocated to APHIS-WS state programs for baseline damage
management in cooperation with agency partners, tribes, private organizations,
and individuals. Coordination with Canada and Mexico would be similar to the
Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 187
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
This alternative implements the national projects and strategic local projects
components of the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Coordination with
Canada and Mexico under this alternative would be identical to the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
Coordination would only occur on the local level and would not involve the
APHIS-WS program because APHIS-WS actions would be limited to
coordinating the grants program so that it meets management objectives. APHIS-
VS and -IS coordination with Canada and Mexico would be identical to
Alternative 1.
C. Environmental Consequences
1. Impact on Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitats
The FWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) share regulatory responsibility for implementing the ESA
(Sections 1.I, Authorities, and Roles, and 3.E. Regulatory Environment). Generally, FWS
manages land and freshwater species, while NMFS manages marine and anadromous
species. APHIS-WS maintains close partnerships with the FWS at the national, regional
and local levels, to ensure that FSDM actions do not jeopardize species that are listed as
threatened and endangered (T&E) under the ESA. Most species potentially adversely
affected by FSDM actions fall under the jurisdiction of FWS; however, some actions
could potentially affect species managed by NMFS (e.g. salmonids or sea turtles),
therefore it is possible that APHIS-WS would also consult with NMFS when or if this
situation arose.
Section 7 of the ESA, entitled “Interagency Cooperation,” requires all federal agencies to
ensure that the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize
the existence of any T&E species. Pursuant to the ESA, APHIS-WS consults with the
FWS and/or NMFS if proposed FSDM actions may affect T&E species. The
consultations may be either formal or informal, depending upon the potential effects and
the risk of take
14
of a T&E species. Very often, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
(Section 2.C.E) are already built into the proposed action to minimize the potential for
harm (Chapter 2 Section G; Appendix E). Where appropriate, however, APHIS-WS and
FWS/NMFS collaboratively develop additional measures to further minimize the
potential for harm and these are adopted into project management planning and
implementation.
14
“Take” includes actions which result in the disturbance, capture, injury or death of a listed species and habitat
modifications or degradation that significantly impairs essential behavior patterns.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 188
Section 7 consultation processes to address program impacts on ESA protected species
and critical habitats were considered during the development of this EIS, and a blueprint
for analysis was developed. The blueprint for analysis was developed to guide local
consultations instead of a comprehensive or programmatic formal consultation for several
reasons:
this EIS has a broad geographic scope which cannot as yet identify all specific
potential impact locations and affected ESA resources. (e.g., developing
assessments and identifying minimization measures for every T&E plant species
from FSDM cannot be effectively or efficiently handled at the national level);
all ESA consultations for current FSDM programs, including all methods
currently in use by APHIS, have already been completed, primarily at the
APHIS-WS state program or local level, but also at the regional and national level
for some species;
partnerships with an array of other federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local
agencies and organizations would be formed under the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2) and other alternatives. It is premature to determine which land
areas, particular strategies, affected resources, and additional legal and protective
measures would be in play in these potential future partnerships; and
local level ESA compliance should be done in collaboration with partner agencies
and consider their ESA compliance needs and the measures they may already
have in place.
The blueprint for ESA analysis identifies the full array of potential FSDM actions that
could be implemented for all alternatives, the types of species that could be affected by
the FSDM actions, how or why the species may be affected, the APHIS SOPs or other
measures that would be in place to minimize harm, and actions that may still require
Section 7 consultations. This information is provided in Appendix E. Additional Section
7 consultations that may be required if APHIS expands FSDM programs would be
completed at the local, state, territorial or regional levels as appropriate.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
To date, APHIS-WS ESA Section 7 consultations at the state, territory, local,
regional, and national levels on the Current FSDM Program have never resulted
in conclusions that Current FSDM Program, including cumulative effects,
15
would jeopardize the continued existence of any T&E species or result in the
15
FWS considers cumulative effects under Section 7 of the ESA when it issues Biological Opinions on formal
consultations. Cumulative impacts under the ESA encompass only effects of future state or private activities
reasonably certain to occur within the action area subject to federal consultation (50 CFR § 402.02). ESA
cumulative effects should not be confused with cumulative effects under NEPA, which applies a broader definition.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 189
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitats. When local
FSDM programs change to include new work areas, when new ESA listings are
designated, or when other program or environmental changes occur that may
affect T&E species, APHIS-WS reinitiates ESA consultations to ensure that the
program continues to comply with the ESA and to ensure that jeopardy to any
species or critical habitat is avoided.
Considering Potential Adverse Effects of FSDM
Potential risks to T&E species from currently available FSDM methods generally
involve five classes of impacts:
disturbance of T&E species by movement of people, aircraft, vehicles,
horses, or dogs;
damage to T&E vegetation and habitats used by T&E species associated
with movement of people, vehicles, and horses through project areas and
concentrated swine activity in the area, or burial of carcasses;
risk that leaving carcasses on site may cause localized concentrations of
predators and scavengers near vulnerable T&E species (e.g., ground
nesting birds);
risks to T&E predators and scavengers from lead ammunition;
risks of unintentional capture, injury, or death of a T&E species in a
device set to capture feral swine.
Risk of disturbing T&E species is generally addressed through coordination and
consultation with the federal agencies, state/territorial agencies, tribes, and
landowners/managers. Sensitive areas are identified and either avoided at all
times, avoided seasonally during periods where impacts may occur (e.g., breeding
season), or, for species which occur irregularly, avoided if the species is detected
in the project area. With implementation of these types of measures, APHIS-WS
actions usually either have no effect on, or may affect T&E species; they are
unlikely to adversely affect T&E species because of disturbance.
Similar to disturbance, many of the risks to vegetation and habitats used by T&E
species from APHIS-WS FSDM activities are mitigated through coordination
with the necessary federal agencies, state/territorial agencies, tribes, and
landowners/managers to identify and avoid areas with T&E plant species.
Additionally, APHIS-WS uses established roads and trails to the maximum extent
practicable. Preference is given to locating carcass disposal sites, corral and cage
trap sites, and bait sites in areas which are already disturbed by agriculture or
other land uses and sites which have already been damaged by swine. In remote
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 190
areas and sites with sensitive soils and vegetation, aerial shooting may be a
preferred method because of the decreased need for movement of people and
equipment through the project site. With implementation of these types of
measures, APHIS-WS actions usually either have no effect, or may affect but are
unlikely to adversely affect T&E vegetation and habitats used by T&E species.
Concentration of feral swine carcasses in one area, such as may occur in areas
where cage traps are used, has the potential to temporarily attract concentrations
of predators and scavengers to a site at levels which may not otherwise occur.
The increase in predator and scavenger activity may pose temporary risks to
nearby T&E species, particularly species which may be at greater risks of
predation during the breeding season. APHIS-WS works with the FWS,
state/territorial agencies, tribes, and landowners/managers to identify locations
and seasons when these types of impacts may occur. Potential procedures to
minimize risk may include carcass removal or scheduling of project activities
during periods when the T&E species is not present or is less vulnerable to
predation. With implementation of these types of measures APHIS-WS actions
usually either have no effect or may affect but are unlikely to adversely affect
T&E species.
The issue of risks to non-target species from lead ammunition is discussed in
detail in Section C. 3 below. The APHIS-WS program is working to shift to non-
lead ammunition in situations where it is practical and effective. However, there
are currently substantial impediments to this effort. APHIS-WS has very specific
ammunition performance requirements and nontoxic ammunition options which
meet these requirements are not yet available for all types of firearms which may
be used for FSDM. In other cases, as with ammunition for use in shotguns,
difficulties with availability of ammunition and cost of ammunition are a limiting
factor. APHIS-WS does not use lead ammunition in areas where it is prohibited
to do so for the protection of T&E species (e.g., for the protection of California
condor). Other strategies to reduce risk from lead ammunition include retrieval of
carcasses or rendering carcasses inaccessible to predators and scavengers through
on site burial. Risks associated with the use of lead ammunition run the range
from “no effect” to “may effect” and may require informal or formal consultation
with the FWS. Consultations are completed whenever a proposed program may
adversely affect T&E species. For example, a consultation has been completed
addressing the effects of potential lead toxicity on the California condor.
APHIS-WS personnel are experienced and trained in the selection and use of
capture methods to reduce risks to non-target species. Risks of inadvertent
capture of non-target species are greatest for cage traps, snares, and foothold
traps. Non-target species can generally be released unharmed from cage traps.
Risks associated with the use of traps and snares may be mitigated through
avoidance of areas where T&E species occur, avoidance of placement of traps and
snares in areas with evidence of use by T&E species, bait selection, use of pan-
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 191
tension devices which reduce the risk that an animal smaller than the target
species may be captured, and frequent (daily) trap checks. Depending on the
T&E species in question and the SOPs, which can include FWS or partner agency
recommendations or requirements, risks to T&E species from capture devices
range from “no-effect” to “may affect” and may require formal or informal
consultation with the FWS.
APHIS-WS has received national/regional Biological Opinions on current
program effects, including FSDM methods that may affect T&E species
(primarily foot-hold traps; foot, leg, and neck snares, ground and aerial shooting,
and vehicle use) on: ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) (July 2010); jaguar (Panthera
onca) (1999
16
); and Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) (July 2011). APHIS-WS
has completed informal and/or formal consultations with FWS at the APHIS-WS
state program or local (specific project or region within state/territory) level for
program effects on a number of species that may be affected by FSDM including,
but not limited to: California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), whooping crane
(Grus americana), desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii); San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica); grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis); Louisiana black
bear (Ursus americanus luteolus); Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus leucurus); jaguarundi (Felis yagouaroundi cacomitli); Canada lynx
(Lynx canadensis); Florida panther (Puma (=felis) concolor coryi); Sonoran
pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis); gray wolf (Canis lupus), and red
wolf (Canis lupus rufus). APHIS-WS has consulted with the FWS on these
species because these are all species that may be affected by FSDM operations
depending upon where local programs are implemented and what methods are
used. In cases where unintentional take may occur in spite of implementation of
Reasonable and Prudent Measures established in formal consultation with the
FWS, the FWS has issued incidental take statements and terms and conditions for
the APHIS-WS action. However, in no instance has the potential take by APHIS-
WS been found to pose a risk of jeopardy to a federally-listed T&E species or
critical habitat. In all cases, when new information is available that may change
the determination of effects on T&E species or critical habitats, APHIS-WS
would consult with the FWS (or NOAA) as appropriate. Based on ESA
consultation requirements and the consultation history of the APHIS-WS
program, WS believes that no significant adverse effects on ESA protected
species or critical habitats would occur under this alternative.
Considering Potential Beneficial Effects of FSDM
ESA consultations are required when the FSDM program may affect T&E species
or critical habitats and this includes effects that are purely beneficial. The Current
FSDM Program may provide benefit to many T&E species and critical habitats.
However, APHIS-WS does not claim to have a beneficial effect, by ESA
16
The 1999 BO on jaguar was reviewed by the FWS in 2012 and deemed still complete and effective.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 192
definition, if the effect also occurs with negative program effects, even when they
are not likely, and even when the net effect is positive. A beneficial effect must
also occur contemporaneously with the project, and if it is indirect, it must be
traceable and predictable to the point where the benefit to the individual resource
can be clearly identified. Where beneficial effects are identified, APHIS-WS
ESA consultations examine those effects. Based on ESA definitions, beneficial
effects conclusions on their own are not typical. Still, based on information in
Chapter 3 Section C – Natural Resources, it is intuitive and reasonable to
conclude from a broader perspective that the removal or reduction of populations
of feral swine would benefit numerous T&E species and their critical habitats.
Feral swine that are removed cannot harm T&E species on another property at a
later time, or continue to destroy resources where a FSDM project removes them.
APHIS-WS is involved in a number of projects to protect T&E species from feral
swine depredation. For example, APHIS-WS is involved in projects to reduce
feral swine predation on eggs of the federally threatened green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas) in Guam. On St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge in Florida,
feral swine have been documented preying on half of the known nests of the
endangered loggerhead sea turtles. The population of the turtles is in steep
decline and removal of the swine has been recommended to enhance production
of juvenile turtles. In Missouri, feral swine have damaged the federally
threatened and state endangered Mead’s milkweed by rooting up the plant during
feeding. The plant's igneous glade habitat found in the Missouri Ozarks has also
been damaged by feral swine rooting activity. The federally endangered Hine’s
emerald dragonfly is also directly affected by feral swine. The dragonfly is found
in Reynolds County located in the Missouri Ozark fen
17
complex. Feral swine
utilize these fens to wallow in, frequently causing significant damage. The Hine's
emerald dragonfly deposits its eggs in slow moving streams also utilized by feral
swine. These programs are just a few examples of how FSDM may be
implemented to benefit T&E species.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
Considering Potential Adverse Effects of FSDM
Under the Integrated FSDM Program alternative, FSDM actions would include
the same management methods which may affect T&E species or critical habitats
as the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). However, some methods which
are available but have not yet been employed by APHIS-WS state programs,
including, but not limited to, drop nets, composting, chemical digesters,
incineration, and rendering, would be more likely to be used under this
alternative.
17
A fen is a type of wetland that is low and marshy or frequently flooded.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 193
Use of GonaCon™ injections as a reproductive inhibitor could be used under this
alternative if the product is registered with EPA for use in feral swine. The
toxicant sodium nitrite, and GonaCon™ and other reproductive inhibitor
formulations that allow for delivery in feed bait are under development.
Assessment of impacts is dependent upon details of product formulation and
delivery, which are not fully known and cannot be assessed at this time. As
products approach field applications, Risk Assessments will be prepared and
appropriate NEPA review will be conducted at the local or national level as
appropriate.
This alternative would substantially increase the level of FSDM which could be
conducted on state, territorial, and tribal lands with feral swine. As discussed
under the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), ESA consultations are already
completed for most of the available FSDM methods. These consultations may
need to be reinitiated to address expanded programs if FSDM operations would be
conducted in new areas with species or habitats not previously considered, or if
the use of methods that may adversely affect feral swine would increase
substantially and thus increase risks in a manner not previously considered.
Typically, APHIS-WS methods are evaluated on a statewide basis for all T&E
species, and standard operating procedures and other minimization measures keep
risks to T&E species low or unlikely. Where there is an allowance for incidental
take, based on a formal ESA consultation, similar reasoning would apply. In all
cases, when new information is available that may change the determination of
effects on T&E species or critical habitats, APHIS-WS would consult with the
FWS (or NOAA) as appropriate. Appendix E provides a description of the
specific activities and scenarios where consultations may be needed to comply
with the ESA. No actions would occur without review of program effects on
T&E species and the appropriate ESA consultations, documentation, approvals,
and decisions. While a jeopardy determination is not expected on any aspect of
FSDM under the Integrated FSDM Program, APHIS would not proceed with any
action that the FWS has determined could jeopardize the continued existence of
any federally listed threatened or endangered species, or that would adversely
modify or destroy designated critical habitat.
Additional consultation may also be needed for methods available but not
currently in use by operational programs. Given that adverse impacts on habitats
and adverse impacts from disturbance can usually be avoided through
coordination with the FWS, agency partners, tribes, and landowners/managers, we
do not expect use of drop nets, composting, chemical digesters, incineration, and
rendering to result in adverse impacts on T&E species or their habitats. For
example, drop nets are only triggered as directed by an operator. Operators would
not activate the devices if a T&E species were in the area affected by the device,
so there is minimal risk of unintentional capture, injury, or death of a T&E species
from the use of this method.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 194
Considering Potential Beneficial Effects of FSDM
On balance, the potential for benefit to T&E species and critical habitats is much
greater than any potential for harm. Compared with the Current FSDM Program
and the other alternatives, the potential benefit to T&E species would be greatest
under this alternative because it has the greatest potential to efficiently eliminate
feral swine from states with low populations and whose management objectives
are eradication. It also has the greatest potential for successful localized
elimination or damage control in states with larger feral swine populations and
thus, T&E species would likely benefit indirectly.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Considering Potential Adverse Effects of FSDM
Alternative 3 provides funding only to baseline FSDM operations, wherein all
funding would go to APHIS-WS state programs with operational FSDM programs
to support partnerships in the states, territories and tribes, and funding allocated
based on feral swine populations. No funding would go towards national projects,
such as research or method development. Thus, in the short term, this alternative
would see the greatest level of FSDM operational activity, with corresponding
increased potential for risks to T&E species and critical habitats. The discussion
of potential effects on T&E species and ESA consultation requirements would be
similar to Alternative 2, where consultations are already in place for ongoing
programs. Expanded or new programs may require additional consultation for
new information including new program locations, T&E species and critical
habitats, and differing or more intensive use of existing FSDM methods.
Appendix E provides a description of the specific actions and scenarios where
consultations may be needed to comply with the ESA.
Considering Potential Beneficial Effects of FSDM
In the short term, this alternative would see the greatest level of FSDM
operational activity. Benefits would be expected to correspond, especially where
projects are focused to specifically benefit individual T&E populations and
critical habitats. In states with large feral swine populations, this alternative may
provide the greatest potential for short term local benefits to T&E species because
funds would be allocated to states based on the size of their existing feral swine
population. The loss of funding for national and strategic local projects would
likely have an adverse impact on states and territories with low overall feral swine
populations because baseline funding may not be sufficient to address local risks
to T&E species. In the long term, without the support of national level projects to
create more efficiencies, (e.g. from research, national-level education, and
outreach programs and material), and a nationally coordinated effort to stabilize
and eventually reduce the feral swine population, this alternative is likely to be
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 195
less effective in eliminating feral swine and reducing local damages than the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Therefore, ultimately, this alternative
would be likely to provide less benefit to T&E species and critical habitats.
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
This alternative would not provide baseline capacity funding for all APHIS-WS
state programs in areas with feral swine. Consequently, some states, territories,
and tribal lands with high feral swine populations and/or which do not intend to
eradicate feral swine populations (Figure 4-2) may not receive any funding for
baseline operational work. In those cases, effects on T&E species and critical
habitats would be similar to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Where
states receive funding for strategic local projects, focused, intensive operations
would be implemented to eradicate feral swine, and potential effects, both
negative and positive would apply.
Considering Beneficial Effects of FSDM
Benefits to T&E species would be based on potential exposure to feral swine, and
the removal of that potential negative effect.
This alternative would apply more funding to national projects (e.g. research,
national-level education and outreach programs and materials) than any other
alternative, so it would likely provide beneficial effects based on long-term
efficiency and efficacy in developing tools and improving public understanding of
the need to stabilize and reduce the feral swine population. Potential benefits
would likely be achieved more quickly under this alternative where strategic local
projects were implemented than under the remaining alternatives. However, in
the interim, states which are low priorities for FSDM will receive little additional
support for projects to protect endangered species.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
Considering Adverse Effects of FSDM
APHIS-WS would not directly affect ESA T&E species or critical habitats under
this alternative because it would not implement FSDM operations. However,
ESA obligations also apply to actions with a significant federal nexus, including
funding. APHIS-WS would work with grant applicants to ensure that risks to
T&E species had been considered and the FWS consulted for actions which may
affect T&E species or which may adversely affect, modify, or destroy critical
habitats. Implementation of this alternative would require APHIS to commit a
substantial amount of funding to oversight, compliance, and monitoring. Risks to
ESA listed T&E species would be related to the degree that grant recipients
followed protocol established for resource protections. ESA consultations are
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 196
already in place for APHIS-WS activities for all other alternatives. ESA
compliance processes on broad programs with multiple effects can require
significant resources for both the action agency and the FWS. The FSDM Grant
Program presents substantial regulatory compliance inefficiency because, while
existing APHIS-WS ESA consultations may either be adequate or simply require
relatively minor updates for most other alternatives, ESA consultations under this
alternative would need to be initiated anew for all grant recipients.
Increases in costs for program administration and supervision would decrease
funds available for operational FSDM. Whether or not this alternative might
provide similar or greater benefits than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative
1) would depend greatly on the efficiency of the entities who deliver FSDM
services. Assuming the grant recipients are as effective as the APHIS-WS
program, the reduction in funding would result in lower benefits than under the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), Baseline Funding Program
(Alternative 3) and National and Strategic Local FSDM Program (Alternative 4).
Loss of NWRC experience and skills in product development and registration
may slow the development of toxicants and reproductive inhibitors which could
adversely impact program efficacy, particularly in states with substantial feral
swine populations (see Efficacy of methods Section B.1.a above).
Considering Beneficial Effects of FSDM
While APHIS programs would not implement operations designed to protect T&E
species from feral swine damage, entities could apply for grants to receive
funding for projects to protect T&E species. In addition, there may be indirect
benefits to T&E species and critical habitats by removing feral swine for other
purposes. This alternative is not likely to provide as much potential benefit to
T&E species and critical habitats negatively affected by feral swine because fewer
feral swine would likely be eradicated or removed.
2. Impact on Non-target Animals
Many animal species can benefit from FSDM because removal of feral swine can be
expected to reduce the potential for predation, competition for food, and damage to their
habitats (Chapter 3 Section C.1.c). On the other hand, non-target species could be
impacted by FSDM methods, whether implemented by APHIS-WS, other agencies, or the
public. Tools used to control or capture feral swine can result in some level of negative
effects on non-target animals. Specifically, foot snares and foothold traps have the
potential to directly capture non-target animals and may harm or kill individual animals.
Neck snares also have the potential to capture and harm or kill non-target animals. Non-
target animals may also be captured and not harmed, for example, by entering a cage or
corral trap. In these cases, the animal can usually either escape or be released without
harm. Trained wildlife specialists who use lead ammunition have little potential to
directly harm non-target animals. However, spent lead ammunition can be toxic when
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 197
ingested by scavengers. This impact will be minimized by using non-lead ammunition
with available during aerial activities or other activities where lead poisoning of non-
target species is a concern, particularly to T&E species.
Other impacts that could negatively affect non-target species include; disturbance of
species by the movements of people, aircraft, vehicles, horses, or dogs; damage to
habitats used by non-target species associated with the movement of people, vehicles, or
horses through a project area; concentration of feral swine activity, or carcass burial; and
risks that leaving carcasses on site might attract increase numbers of predators to an area.
Impacts associated with the movement of people or equipment through an area are
expected to be minimal due to the limited nature of the scope of individual FSDM
actions. However, where negative impacts are likely to occur, coordination with local
agencies on site access and restrictions will minimize any impacts. Vehicles, including
off-road vehicles (ORVs), stay on designated roads or trails to the maximum extent
practicable. Any off road access is likely to occur infrequently, as disrupting habitat
could reduce the success of FSDM. Additionally, FSDM activities are not generally
long-term activities in any one area. Some FSDM methods, such as corral traps or the
use of baits, may result in the congregation of feral swine in one area. While the
congregation of feral swine could temporarily impact an area, FSDM activities would
ultimately result in the removal of feral swine, reducing their future damage potential for
the area. Feral swine carcasses may be left on site, especially in remote areas, and could
attract increased number of predators to an area which may, in turn, prey on vulnerable
non-target species (e.g. nesting birds, amphibians). Measures which may be used to
avoid or minimize harmful effects from leaving carcasses on site include identification of
potential conflicts and resolutions through coordination with natural resource agencies,
coordination with land managers, and by avoiding sensitive areas altogether or during
critical life stages such as breeding, nesting, or birthing seasons. Burial of feral swine
carcasses would make them inaccessible to predators and in some cases may be used to
reduce risk to predators. However, burial can be intrusive to the habitat and would only
be conducted in accordance with APHIS-WS Directive 2.515 (Additional Information in
Appendix H). Overall, the minimal potential impacts from FSDM activities are
outweighed by the benefits of removing feral swine from an area.
Research into toxicants and feed-based reproductive inhibitors, is ongoing and may
eventually be evaluated under NEPA for inclusion in FSDM. APHIS-WS believes that
these methods will be important for program delivery in the future, but operational use of
sodium nitrite and feed-based reproductive inhibitors is not proposed under any of the
alternatives in this EIS because insufficient information is available currently for decision
making and planning for programmatic use. Proposals to use these products, if registered
for use under any alternative, would be subject to additional NEPA review, when and if
the products are developed and registered for field use.
SOPs are often incorporated into FSDM to reduce impacts to non-target species. Various
factors such as weather, access, vegetative cover, and land uses can preclude the use of
certain methods, so it is important to maintain the widest possible selection of FSDM
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 198
tools for resolving damage problems. However, the FSDM methods used to resolve
damage must comply with legal requirements and be biologically sound. Often, but not
always, impacts to non-target species can be minimized. Where impacts occur, they are
mostly of low magnitude in terms of non-target species populations.
This section evaluates the positive and negative effects of the alternatives, including the
effect of individual management methods on non-target animals. It includes discussion
of potential effects on specially protected animals (T&E species, bald and golden eagles,
and migratory birds), as well as other species that are biologically less sensitive or with
fewer or no legal protections.
a. Alternative 1: Current FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
The Current FSDM Program incorporates numerous measures that reduce the
potential to affect non-target animals. Methods such as shooting and the use of
live traps pose negligible risk to non-target species. While every precaution is
taken to safeguard against taking non-target species, other methods, such as
animal-activated cage and corral traps, snares, and foothold traps, have the
potential to take non-target animals. Some of methods may result in the death of
the non-target animals, but other methods may allow the non-target animal to be
released on site. The unintentional loss of individual animals, although
undesirable, has not been of sufficient magnitude to adversely impact populations
of non-target species under the current program.
Risks Associated with Specific Non-lethal Methods
Non-lethal methods are generally regarded as having minimal adverse effects on
overall populations of wildlife because the devices are not intended to result in the
death of the target animals. However, non-lethal methods have the potential to
cause adverse effects to non-target animals primarily through exclusion,
harassment, and dispersal. Any exclusionary device erected to prevent access of
feral swine also potentially excludes species that were not the primary reason the
barrier was erected. Depending upon the size and location of the barrier system,
migratory movements, natural dispersal of young animals, and genetic exchange
may potentially be adversely affected. Auditory and visual dispersal methods
(i.e., frightening devices) used to reduce damage or threats caused by feral swine
would also likely disperse non-target animals in the immediate area where the
methods were employed. Target and non-target animals often quickly learn that
there is no actual threat associated with the frightening device and cease to
respond (i.e., habituate to the device). Consequently, the use of frightening
devices is often limited to relatively brief periods when the resource to be
protected (e.g., crops) is most vulnerable.
The persistent use of non-lethal methods would likely result in the short term
dispersal or abandonment of those areas where non-lethal methods were
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 199
employed of both target and non-target species. This may result in disruption of
short-term seasonal uses of some areas. However, over the long term, habituation
is likely to result in non-target animals becoming indifferent to the devices.
Although non-lethal methods do not result in death of non-target animals, the use
of non-lethal methods can restrict or prevent access of some species to beneficial
resources. However, because of problems with feral swine habituating to the
devices, non-lethal methods would not be employed over large geographical areas
or applied at such intensity that non-target species would be adversely affected.
Coordination with the federal, state, territorial, and tribal natural resources
agencies and landowners/managers enables APHIS-WS to avoid critical areas
used by sensitive species.
Other non-lethal methods available for use under this alternative include live traps
(e.g., cage traps, walk-in traps, corral traps) and immobilization drugs. Non-
target animals captured in live traps would be handled in such a manner as to
minimize stress and risk of injury to the animal. However, despite these efforts,
as noted above, some mortality does occur in cage traps. Risks are lowest for the
more commonly used walk-in, panel, or “corral”-type cage traps because these
traps have open tops and commonly have wider spaces in the panels than enclosed
cage traps. These features make it easier for non-target animals to exit the trap,
even without human assistance. Risks of mortality are greater for the less
frequently used enclosed cage traps. Trap placement in areas where feral swine
were active and the use of attractants as specific to feral swine as possible would
minimize the likelihood of capture of non-target animals. Similar risks exist for
the use of drop nets. However, risks of non-target capture in drop nets are
negligible because the devices are activated by an observer. Observers would not
activate the traps if a non-target animal was observed in the capture area.
Fencing is a nonlethal method that is used by land managers and has the potential
for substantial impacts on non-target species. APHIS does not typically install
permanent fencing. Some land management agencies have used extensive
fencing systems to protect native habitat or archaeological sites and to partition
areas to facilitate systematic removal of invasive animals including feral swine.
The scale of some of these fences is much larger than is likely to be the case for
agriculture. Fences for most agricultural applications are likely small enough that
they do not impact non-target species. Federal land managers who install fencing
would be responsible for assessing the effects of their projects on non-target
species.
Use of immobilizing drugs would not commonly occur for FSDM. Immobilizing
drugs would most likely be used to facilitate safe release of a non-target animal,
for research purposes, or for placing telemetry collars on Judas pigs.
Immobilizing drugs are applied directly to individual animals from a dart gun,
blowgun, or jab-stick. Risks to non-target animals are negligible from the use of
this method due to program adherence to label restrictions. However, any time
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 200
tranquilizers are used on free-ranging animals, there is some risk of mortality.
Animals may be stressed from capture or have physical conditions that are not
readily apparent, and may affect their response to the drug. All APHIS-WS
personnel who use immobilization drugs are trained in the safe use of these
methods so risk of unintentional mortality is very low.
Foot and leg snares are similar to neck snares except that they are intended to
capture feral swine by the hoof instead of around the neck. Like neck snares, the
foot snare consists of a flexible wire hoop made from aircraft cable. Foot snares
are placed along the ground; loop pointed up, on active trails and/or bait sites. The
smaller loop size prevents larger animals, such as black bears, from accidentally
becoming caught. Non-target capture can be reduced through manipulation of the
site (e.g., brushing the top of the trail, placing jump sticks).Regularly checking
snares increases the probability that non-target species can be released.
Feral swine are generally only captured in foothold traps incidentally to the traps
intended placement to capture another species. Foothold traps are not a preferred
method for feral swine and are only effective for capture of small swine. Larger
animals can usually escape the devices. In areas with feral swine, removal of
feral swine is often included as a desired activity on APHIS-WS agreements and
the swine are considered a target species. For this reason, even though foothold
traps are not normally set for feral swine, non-target animals captured in these
locations are being reported as being associated with FSDM. Before foothold
traps are employed, their limitations must be considered by WS personnel.
Various tension devices can be used to prevent animals smaller than target
animals from springing the trap. Trap placement and bait selection can also help
minimizing non-target take.
Repellents, if developed and registered as appropriate with the EPA, states,
territories, and tribes, could be used under this alternative, but additional analysis
may be necessary. Any repellents would be used in accordance with label
restrictions and instructions. These products are non-lethal and are only expected
to be used on agricultural crops, nursery plants, and landscaping. Like frightening
devices, effective repellents may also deter non-target species away from
desirable habitat or food sources.
Use of repellents may warrant re-initiation of consultation with the FWS
regarding potential risks to T&E species. Repellents are generally not intended
for application over broad areas and are more commonly applied to specific
plants/areas of interest.
APHIS-WS does not currently use reproductive inhibitors on feral swine, as none
are currently registered for such use. However, reproductive inhibitors could be
used under the currently program if one becomes properly registered for use.
Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), trade name GonaCon™, is a naturally
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 201
occurring peptide hormone that stimulates sex hormones such as luteinizing
hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). LH and FSH regulate
gamete and steroid hormone production by the ovaries and testes and are critical
in the reproduction of vertebrates. APHIS-WS has developed an
immunocontraceptive vaccine, GonaCon™, that when injected into an animal
induces the production of antibodies against GnRH, resulting in infertility.
GonaCon™ is preloaded into syringes where it can be injected into target animals
by hand or remote delivery. GonaCon™ is currently registered for use in wild or
feral equine and white-tailed deer, and shows efficacy against bison and feral
swine as well as other mammals where it may eventually be registered for use
with the EPA. If registered for use in feral swine, the requirement for injection of
individual animals would likely limit the frequency and scope of the product’s use
to areas were landowners/managers desire population reduction or long-term
elimination of feral swine but are opposed to the use of lethal removal.
Risk to non-target fish and wildlife are negligible based on how GnRH is applied,
its fate, and label requirements. Risks to humans and non-target organisms that
may consume animals injected with GonaCon™ is also negligible, due to the low
toxicity of GnRH, its short half-life and its degradation in the gut. GnRH is a
protein which is rapidly broken down in the gut. The preloaded syringe
eliminates these types of exposures, with the exception of when a remote delivery
application misses the intended target or when a syringe is dislodged from an
animal. Label requirements to attempt to collect all darts, the very small quantity
of GnRH in each syringe, its short half-life, and the infrequent occurrence of a
remote delivery that misses the intended target and discharges into the
environment, would be expected to result in negligible risk to non-target fish and
wildlife.
APHIS-WS’ involvement in the use of or recommendation to use non-lethal
methods would ensure the potential effects on non-target species were considered
under APHIS-WS’ Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992; Figure 2-1). Non-lethal
methods would not be employed over large geographical areas or applied at such
intensity that essential resources (e.g., food sources, habitat) would be unavailable
for extended durations. They also would not be employed over a wide
geographical scope that could result in long-term adverse effects to a species’
population. Nonlethal methods would also not be employed if their use could
concentrate feral swine and adversely affect other species. Nonlethal methods
would generally be regarded as having minimal effects on overall populations of
wildlife because individuals of those species are unharmed. However, some non-
lethal methods may have adverse local impacts on species with small home ranges
that cannot disperse beyond the boundaries of the treatment areas. Overall,
potential impacts on non-target animals from the use of non-lethal methods would
not adversely affect populations because those methods would often be temporary
and do not result in lethal removal. Potential impacts on non-target animals under
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 202
this alternative from the use of and/or the recommendation of non-lethal methods
would likely be low.
Risks Associated with Specific Lethal Methods
Lethal methods available for use to manage damage caused by feral swine under
this alternative would include, but are not limited to, neck/body snares, shooting
(including shooting from aircraft and shooting animals caught in live-capture
devices), euthanasia chemicals (applied after live-capture), and the
recommendation of hunting.
An incidental risk to non-target species associated with lethal methods is that of
carcass disposal. One concern is the potential for disease transmission to non-
target species, including domestic animals, from the available carcass disposal
methods (Appendix H). In many situations, where it is deemed appropriate, a
common method of carcass disposal used by APHIS-WS during FSDM activities
is to leave the carcasses on site to decompose naturally. This will increase
scavenging opportunities for wildlife.
Pseudorabies is likely the only disease for which there could be an additive risk to
non-target species from on site disposal of feral swine carcasses (T. Gidlewski,
NWRC, pers. comm. 2014). Most domestic animals, including dogs and cats, are
susceptible to pseudorabies, but transmission only occurs when these animals are
in close proximity to infected swine (ISU 2014). Pseudorabies infection in dogs
and cats is generally fatal (ISU 2014). It would be expected that decomposing
feral swine carcasses would not likely pose a significant attractant to domestic
animals and of greater concern would be if a hunter were to offer a piece of
contaminated tissue to a hunting dog while dressing a harvested feral swine (T.
Gidlewski, NWRC, pers. comm. 2014). Cramer et al. (2011) reported on the
pseudorabies infection of three dogs that were used to hunt feral swine. Two of
the three dogs were euthanized due to the severity of their symptoms and third
died naturally from the infection. While the risk of pseudorabies transmission to a
pet from feral swine carcasses left on site is low, the potential for infection would
be high if a pet were to be fed contaminated tissues from an infected swine (T.
Gidlewski, NWRC, pers. comm. 2014.).
The risk of disease transmission to non-target species, including domestic
animals, of leaving feral swine carcasses on site is further reduced during the
purification process that destroys most disease causing agents. Compared with
the shedding stage during early infection, the amount of infectious agent released
from an animal after its death is greatly decreased. The temperature of the carcass
moves out of the optimal range for pathogen replication the pH in muscle tissue
declines, which inactivates many viruses (CAST 2008). In colder climates this
process may be slowed, but even in cold climates a carcass of any size will
undergo necrosis quickly (T. Gidlewski, NWRC, pers. comm. 2014).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 203
In addition to disease transmission, euthanasia drugs can pose risks to non-target
species that consume feral swine carcasses. Although used infrequently for
FSDM, euthanasia drugs may pose secondary hazards to scavengers and must be
disposed of according to federal, state, territorial, tribal, county, or local
regulations (APHIS-WS Directive 2.515). Further, APHIS-WS personnel will
comply with the procedures outlined in the APHIS-WS’ Field Operations Manual
for the Use of Immobilization and Euthanizing Drugs (2006), which directs that
euthanizing drugs will not be used unless the carcass can be incinerated or buried.
Snares restrain feral swine with a 12 to 14 inch diameter loop that is securely
attached, via the swivel to a firm object, or to a drag. They can be placed where an
animal moves through a confined area (e.g., crawl holes under fences, trails
through vegetation). Deer stops allow the snare cable to close to a diameter of not
less than 2 ½ inches and allow deer or other animals captured by the leg to escape.
Snares set for feral swine would likely be set with the top of the loop 15 to 20
inches above the ground. The loop would be low to the ground, making it unlikely
that APHIS-WS would catch a deer or bear in a cable restraint. Snares set to
capture feral swine by the neck are usually lethal, but stops can be attached to the
cable to make it a live-capture device and to close to only a certain diameter to
allow deer and other animals to escape. Snares can also take non-target animals
of similar size. The cable used to capture feral swine is generally larger in
diameter than cable used for smaller animals. This impacts the way the loop
closes and helps to reduce risks to smaller non-target animals. Risks to non-target
animals are also reduced by placing snares in areas which are extensively used by
feral swine and avoiding areas with evidence of use by non-target species that
may be vulnerable to the snare, e.g., larger mammals.
APHIS-WS uses specially trained tracking/trailing dogs to locate feral swine. It is
APHIS-WS policy (APHIS-WS Directive 2.445) that only trained dogs shall be
used by APHIS-WS personnel. The dogs are trained to only pursue the target
species. Handlers with the dogs monitor the trail the animals are pursuing and
will call back any dog that appears to be following the wrong species. Dogs are
most often used in areas with substantial vegetative cover, when locating swine
with other methods is difficult. Per APHIS-WS Directive 2.445, all dogs used to
track feral swine shall be trained to have minimal to no effect on non-target
wildlife species. The use of dogs is not expected to cause the death of a non-
target animal or substantively damage wildlife habitat. The primary potential for
an adverse effect would be the possible risk of disturbance to ground-nesting
birds. However, as discussed previously, the dogs are trained to focus on the
target species and are likely to only pass briefly by these birds while in pursuit of
feral swine. When selecting appropriate methods for feral swine removal,
APHIS-WS State Directors will decide on a case-by-case basis if dogs are the
appropriate methods for detection or removal. The use of dogs by APHIS-WS is
relatively infrequent in many states. For these reasons, APHIS-WS’ use of
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 204
tracking dogs is not expected adversely affect non-target species populations.
NEPA analyses at the state or local level would include discussion of the use of
dogs where they may be proposed for use.
The use of firearms is selective for feral swine because animals would be
identified prior to shooting. Therefore, no adverse effects on non-target species
populations would be anticipated from use of this method. Similarly, euthanasia
chemicals are applied directly to the target animal via injection and would not
result in the lethal removal of other species. Carcasses of animals killed using
euthanasia chemicals would be disposed of in a manner which makes them
inaccessible to scavengers (e.g., deep burial) to reduce the risk of adverse impacts
on non-target species.
Risks Associated with the Use of Aircraft
Shooting from aircraft can be one of the most efficient methods for removing
feral swine in areas where vegetation and terrain do not impede use of this
method. Aircraft, including drones, may also be used to conduct monitoring to
locate swine or assess feral swine damage (i.e., damage to field crops). Aerial
operations would be an important method of FSDM when used to address damage
or threats associated with feral swine in remote areas where access is limited due
to terrain and habitat. Aerial operations would only occur in those areas where a
MOU, work initiation document, or another similar document allowing the use of
aircraft had been signed between APHIS-WS and the cooperating landowner or
manager and as allowed under the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 USC 742j-1,
Airborne Hunting). Aerial operations would typically be conducted with aircraft
between the months of December and April, when the foliage has fallen, enabling
better visibility; however, aircraft could be used at any time of year. The amount
of time spent conducting aerial operations varies depending on the severity of
damage, the size of the area where damage or threats were occurring, and the
weather, as low-level aerial activities would be restricted to visual flight rules and
would be impractical in high winds or at times when animals were not easily
visible.
Aircraft play an important role in the management of various wildlife species for
many agencies. Resource management agencies rely on low flying aircraft to
monitor the status of animal populations including large mammals (Lancia et al.
2000), birds of prey (Fuller and Mosher 1987), waterfowl (Bellrose 1976), and
colonial waterbirds (Speich 1986). Low-level flights could also be required when
aircraft are used to track animal movements by radio telemetry (Gilmer et al.
1981, Samuel and Fuller 1996). However, there is potential for low-level aircraft
flights to potentially disturb wildlife, including T&E species.
A number of studies looked at responses of various wildlife species to aircraft
overflights. The National Park Service (1995) reviewed the effects of aircraft
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 205
overflights on wildlife and suggested that adverse effects could occur to certain
species. Some species will frequently or at least occasionally show an adverse
response to even minor overflights. In general though, it appears that the more
serious potential adverse effects occur when overflights are chronic (i.e., they
occur daily or more often over long periods). Chronic exposures generally
involve areas near commercial airports and military flight training facilities.
Aerial operations conducted by APHIS-WS rarely occur in the same areas on a
daily basis and little time is actually spent flying over those particular areas.
The effects of military-type aircraft on wildlife have been studied extensively (Air
National Guard 1997), and were found to have no expected adverse effects on
wildlife. Examples of species or species groups that have been studied with regard
to the issue of aircraft-generated disturbance are as follows:
Waterbirds and Waterfowl: Low-level overflights of two to three minutes in
duration by a fixed-wing airplane and a helicopter produced no drastic
disturbance of tree-nesting colonial waterbirds, and, in 90% of the observations,
the individual birds either showed no reaction or merely looked up (Kushlan
1979). Belanger and Bedard (1989, 1990) observed responses of greater snow
geese (Chen caerulescens atlantica) to man-induced disturbance on a sanctuary
area and estimated the energetic cost of such disturbance. Belanger and Bedard
(1989, 1990) observed that disturbance rates exceeding two per hour reduced
goose use of the sanctuary by 50% the following day. They also observed that
about 40% of the disturbances caused interruptions in feeding that would require
an estimated 32% increase in nighttime feeding to compensate for the energy lost.
They concluded that overflights of sanctuary areas should be strictly regulated to
avoid adverse effects. Conomy et al. (1998) quantified behavioral responses of
wintering American black ducks (Anas rubripes), American wigeon (A.
americana), gadwall (A. strepera), and American green-winged teal (A. crecca
carolinensis) exposed to low-level military aircraft and found that only a small
percentage (2%) of the birds reacted to the disturbance. They concluded that such
disturbance was not adversely affecting the time/activity budget
18
of the species.
Aerial operations conducted by APHIS-WS would not be conducted over federal,
state, territorial or other governmental agency property without the concurrence of
the managing entity. Those flights, if requested, would be conducted to reduce
threats and damages occurring to natural resources and should not result in
impacts to bird species. Thus, there is little to no potential for any adverse effects
on waterbirds and waterfowl.
Raptors: The Air National Guard (1997) analyzed and summarized the effects of
overflight studies conducted by numerous federal and state government agencies
and private organizations. Those studies determined that military aircraft noise
initially startled raptors, but negative responses were brief and did not have an
18
An animal’s activity budget is how it divides its time between activities (e.g. foraging, incubating eggs, building
shelter, etc) daily or seasonally.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 206
observed effect on productivity (Air National Guard 1997). A study conducted on
the impacts of overflights to bald eagles suggested that the eagles were not
sensitive to this type of disturbance (Fraser et al. 1985). During the study,
observations were made of more than 850 overflights of active eagle nests. Only
two eagles rose out of either their incubation or brooding postures. This study also
showed that perched adults were flushed only 10% of the time during aircraft
overflights. Evidence also suggests that golden eagles are not highly sensitive to
noise or other aircraft disturbances (Ellis 1981, Holthuijzen et al. 1990). Finally,
one other study found that eagles were particularly resistant to being flushed from
their nests (see Awbrey and Bowles 1990 as cited in Air National Guard (1997)).
Therefore, there is considerable evidence that eagles would not be adversely
affected by overflights during aerial operations.
Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) (Delaney et al. 1999) did not
flush when chain saws and helicopters were greater than 110 yards away; owls
flushed to these disturbances at closer distances and were more prone to flush
from chain saws than helicopters. Owls returned to their pre-disturbance behavior
10 to 15 minutes following the event and researchers observed no differences in
nest or nestling success (Delaney et al. 1999), which indicates that aircraft flights
did not result in adverse effects on owl reproduction or survival.
Andersen et al. (1989) conducted low-level helicopter overflights directly at 35
red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) nests and concluded their observations
supported the hypothesis that red-tailed hawks habituate to low level flights
during the nesting period; results showed similar nesting success between hawks
subjected to overflights and those that were not. White and Thurow (1985) did
not evaluate the effects of aircraft overflights, but found that ferruginous hawks
(B. regalis) were sensitive to certain types of ground-based human disturbance to
the point that reproductive success may be adversely affected. However, military
jets that flew low over the study area during training exercises did not appear to
bother the hawks, nor did the hawks become alarmed when the researchers flew
within 100 feet in a small fixed-wing aircraft (White and Thurow 1985). White
and Sherrod (1973) suggested that disturbance of raptors by aerial surveys with
helicopters may be less than that caused by approaching nests on foot. Ellis
(1981) reported that five species of hawks, two falcons (Falco spp.), and golden
eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) were “incredibly tolerant” of overflights by military
fighter jets, and observed that, although birds frequently exhibited alarm, negative
responses were brief and the overflights never limited productivity.
Grubb et al. (2010) evaluated golden eagle response to civilian and military
(Apache AH-64) helicopter flights in northern Utah. Study results indicated that
golden eagles were not adversely affected when exposed to flights ranging from
100 to 800 meters along, towards, and from behind occupied cliff nests. Eagle
courtship, nesting, and fledglings were not adversely affected, indicating that no
special management restrictions were required in the study location.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 207
The above studies indicate raptors were relatively unaffected by aircraft
overflights, including those by military aircraft that produce much higher noise
levels. Therefore, we conclude that aerial operations would have little or no
potential to adversely affect raptors.
Passerines (e.g., songbirds): Reproductive losses have been reported in one study
of small territorial passerines (“perching” birds that included sparrows and
blackbirds) after exposure to low altitude overflights (see Manci et al. 1988 as
cited in Air National Guard (1997)), but natural mortality rates of both adults and
young are high and variable for most of those species. The research review
indicated passerine birds cannot be driven any great distance from a favored food
source by a non-specific disturbance, such as military aircraft noise, which
indicated quieter noise would have even less effect. Passerines avoid intermittent
or unpredictable sources of disturbance more than predictable ones, but return
rapidly to feed or roost once the disturbance ceases (Gladwin et al. 1988, United
States Forest Service 1992). Those studies and reviews indicated there was little
or no potential for aerial operations to cause adverse effects on passerine bird
species.
Pronghorn (antelope) and Mule Deer: Krausman et al. (2004) found that
Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) were not adversely
affected by military fighter jet training flights and other military activity on an
area of frequent and intensive military flight training operations. Krausman et al.
(1986) reported that only three of 70 observed responses of mule deer
(Odocoileus hemionus) to small fixed-wing aircraft overflights at 150 to 500 feet
Above Ground Level (AGL) resulted in the deer changing habitats. The authors
believed that the deer might have been accustomed to overflights because the
study area was near an interstate highway that was followed frequently by
aircraft. Krausman et al. (2004) also reported that pronghorn and mule deer do not
hear noise from military aircraft as well as humans, which potentially indicates
why they appeared not to be disturbed as much as previously thought.
Mountain Sheep: Krausman and Hervert (1983) reported that, of 32 observations
of the response of mountain sheep to low-level flights by small fixed-wing
aircraft, 60% resulted in no disturbance, 21% in no or “slight” disturbance, and
19% in “great” disturbance. Krausman and Hervert (1983) concluded that flights
less than 150 feet AGL could cause mountain sheep to leave an area. Another
study (Krausman et al. 1998) found that 14% of bighorn sheep had elevated heart
rates that lasted up to 2 minutes after an F-16 flew over at an elevation of 400
feet, but it did not alter the behavior of the penned bighorns. When Weisenberger
et al. (1996) evaluated the effects of simulated low altitude jet aircraft noise on
desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus crooki) and mountain sheep (Ovis
canadensis mexicana), they found that heart rates of the ungulates increased
according to the decibel (dB) levels, with lower noise levels prompting lesser
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 208
increases. When they were elevated, heart rates rapidly returned to pre-
disturbance levels suggesting that the animals did not perceive the noise as a
threat. Responses to the simulated noise levels were found to decrease with
increased exposure.
Bison: Fancy (1982) reported that only two of 59 bison (Bison bison) groups
showed any visible reaction to small fixed-winged aircraft flying at 200 to 500
feet AGL. The study suggests that bison were relatively tolerant of aircraft
overflights.
Domestic Animals and Small Mammals: A number of studies with laboratory
animals (e.g., rodents (Borg 1979)) and domestic animals (e.g., sheep (Ames and
Arehart 1972)) have shown that these animals can become habituated to noise.
Long-term lab studies of small mammals exposed intermittently to high levels of
noise demonstrate no changes in longevity. The physiological “fight or flight”
response, while marked, does not appear to have any long-term health
consequences on small mammals (Air National Guard 1997). Small mammals
habituate, although with difficulty, to sound levels greater than 100 db (United
States Forest Service 1992).
Although many of the wildlife species discussed above are not present in all areas
where FSDM occurs, the information was provided to demonstrate the relative
tolerance most wildlife species have of overflights, even those that involve noise
at high decibels, such as from military aircraft. In general, the greatest potential
for impacts to occur would be expected to exist when overflights were frequent,
such as hourly and over many days that could represent “chronic” exposure.
Chronic exposure situations generally involve areas near commercial airports and
military flight training facilities. Even then, many wildlife species become
habituated to overflights, which appear to naturally minimize any potential
adverse effects where such flights occur on a regular basis.
APHIS-WS would generally only conduct overflights on a relatively small
percentage of the land area of the state or territory involved in FSDM, which
indicates that most wildlife would not be exposed to overflights. Additionally,
such flights would occur infrequently throughout the year which would further
lessen the potential for any adverse effects. Military aircraft produce much louder
noise and are flown over certain training areas many more times per year, and yet,
were found to have no expected adverse effects on wildlife (Air National Guard
1997). Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the aircraft used to shoot feral
swine should have far less potential to cause any disturbance to wildlife than
military aircraft.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 209
Take of Non-Target Species
While every precaution would be taken to safeguard against taking non-target
animals during operational use of methods and techniques for resolving damage
and reducing threats caused by feral swine, the use of such methods could result
in the incidental lethal removal of some animals. The unintentional capture of
removal of wildlife species during FSDM conducted under the proposed action
alternative would primarily be associated with the use of snare and live-traps.
Those occurrences would be infrequent and should not affect the overall
populations of any species under the proposed action. The unintentional removal
of non-target species by APHIS-WS during FSDM would be extremely low
relative to the population level of the species.
APHIS-WS records the number and type of methods used, target and non-target
animals dispersed, relocated, released, and killed for each of its work agreements.
These agreements may involve a conflict with one animal, but more commonly
they involve actions to resolve conflicts with multiple species. For example, a
farmer with a history of conflicts with multiple species (e.g., coyote predation on
livestock, crop damage by feral swine, and nuisance raccoon and skunk problems)
may establish an agreement with APHIS-WS for assistance in reducing these
conflicts over the course of a year when the conflicts occur. Unfortunately, while
all non-target take is recorded in the MIS system, the MIS system does not record
the intended target species. So, using the example above, the MIS would record
that a non-target animal was captured in a snare, but does not provide information
on whether the snare was set for coyotes or feral swine. Consequently, review of
the non-target animals taken on agreements with feral swine provides an over-
estimate of total risk from FSDM activities.
Nationwide, APHIS-WS’ FSDM activities (including the annual average take of
30,000 feral swine) and all other wildlife damage management activities
conducted under agreements that also include feral swine, resulted in the average
annual unintentional mortality of 122 animals (60 hooved mammals, 37 predatory
mammals, 23 other mammals, 1 marsupial, and 1 bird). Mortality of these non-
target animals was associated with use of snares (88.5%), foothold traps (7.5%),
and cage traps (4%). Capture of non-target animals in foothold traps was not
likely the result of FSDM because feral swine capture in foothold traps is
generally only incidental to other types of damage management. APHIS-WS only
rarely sets foothold traps specifically to capture feral swine. An additional 47
non-target animals were captured and released (32 hooved mammals, 7 predatory
mammals, 5 other mammals, 2 birds and 1 reptile). The animals were captured
and released from cage traps (67%), snares (29%) and foothold traps (4%). None
of the non-target animals captured were federally-listed T&E species.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 210
Risks to Migratory Birds and Bald and Golden Eagles
Bald and golden eagles are afforded protection under the MBTA and the BGEPA.
Migratory birds also have federal protection under the MBTA. We are providing
additional analysis of the risks to these species in this section because of the
federal regulations pertaining to their protection and because of the MOU
between the FWS and APHIS-WS regarding the conservation of migratory birds
(Chapter 1 Section H.11).
Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), “take” is defined as
pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or
disturb. For regulatory purposes, “disturb” is defined as “to agitate or bother a
bald…eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best
scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its
productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or
sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with
normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” When a potential risk of
unintentional take of eagles is identified, the APHIS-WS program consults with
the FWS (Appendix F). As discussed above, impacts to migratory birds and
eagles from overflights related to FSDM and other programs are negligible.
Coordination with FWS and state, territorial, and tribal resource agencies, land
management agencies, and landowners would be conducted to identify areas
where nesting eagles could be affected. Sensitive areas such as winter roost sites
and nesting sites can be avoided, and in some areas it may be possible to adjust
time of flight and distance from sensitive areas to avoid disturbance.
Frightening devices intended to disperse feral swine also have the potential to
disperse other species, including migratory birds and eagles. The BGEPA
prohibits disturbing eagles without authorization from the FWS. According to
the FWS, eagles are impacted most when an activity is visible from the eagle nest,
and when this activity or similar activities occur regularly near the nest.
Therefore, if a nest is identified during FSDM activities, APHIS-WS would
implement recommendations for avoiding disturbance at the nest sites as provided
in the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (FWS 2007). These
guidelines include a 330- to 600-foot buffer from an active nest, depending on the
visibility and level of activity near the nest. Further, APHIS-WS does not expect
that dispersal methods would be employed with sufficient frequency or duration
that essential resources would be unavailable for extended periods. Use of
frightening devices may be avoided in the vicinity of active eagle nests or during
breeding seasons when migratory birds are vulnerable to disturbance. APIHS-WS
does not believe the level of impact resulting from FSDM methods and actions
would qualify as “disturbance” as defined by the Act.
Capture methods such as snares, foothold traps, and cage/corral traps have the
potential to take eagles and migratory birds. During all damage management
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 211
activities conducted on agreements, which included feral swine, between FY08
through FY12, APHIS-WS lethally removed an average of one non-target
migratory bird per year. This is likely an over-estimate of total risk because this
number includes birds which were taken on the same properties for other types of
damage management (e.g., predation management, bird hazard reduction at
airports, crop and property protection). Only one American crow (foothold trap)
and 4 black vultures (snares – 3, cage trap - 1) were taken. Both species are
abundant and relatively widespread in the United States. APHIS-WS had
concluded that this low level of take does not individually or cumulatively to
adversely impact populations of these species. Although these are not the only
species which could hypothetically be taken during FSDM, the magnitude of
impact is typical of what would be expected for any migratory bird that receive
additional protections.
APHIS-WS implements numerous measures (see SOPs Chapter 2 Section G) to
minimize risks to non-target species, including eagles. Baits used to lure feral
swine toward these capture devices would typically be grain-based; meat baits are
not used. Per WS Directive 2.455, 30ft spacing is left between animal carcasses
and traps to minimize the potential that an eagle preying on a feral swine carcass
would be at risk of capture from an adjacent device. Pan tension devices prevent
smaller animals from triggering or being captured in such devices. Additionally,
the disposition of feral swine carcasses would take into account the potential for
attracting eagles. APHIS-WS has learned that in some areas, eagles move along
the ground more than might be expected. In these areas, carcasses would be left
downwind and crosswind of trap or snare sets to reduce risk of an eagle walking
onto a trap or into a snare. Based on typical eagle behavior, this keeps the food
source between the eagle and the sets.
The current FSDM program has not resulted in the capture of eagles. Other
APHIS-WS damage management activities use the same methods as the FSDM
program to target other species. Nationwide, all APHIS-WS damage management
activities that used the same methods as are in used with the FSDM
unintentionally captured 26 eagles in the past nine years. Three additional eagles
were captured unintentionally by other methods and programs during this time
period. Table 4-4 below shows the total number of bald and golden eagles that
were unintentionally captured and freed or killed by APHIS-WS from FY05
through FY13. The majority of the eagles were captured in foothold traps.
Foothold traps are not commonly used in FSDM; however they are widely used in
other programs. Bald eagle populations are stable or increasing nationwide
(Sauer et al. 2014). Aerial transect surveys and Breeding Birds Survey data
(BBS, Sauer et al. 2014) were used to evaluate golden eagle population data for
the U.S. portions of four Western Bird Conservation Regions over the interval of
2006-2010 (Millsap et al. (2013) evaluated golden eagle population trends for the
period of 2000 to 2010 (Chapter 3, Section C.1). In general they found slightly
declining trends for the southern regions and slightly increasing trends in the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 212
northern regions with an overall stable trend for the study area as a whole.
However, there are some data indicating that there may be a decline in juvenile
golden eagles in the southern Rocky Mountains (FWS 2011). Population trend
information takes into account all sources of impacts on the species population.
Based on eagle trend information, the average capture of just over three eagles per
year nationwide by all APHIS programs with no capture in the FSDM program,
and considering that foothold traps are not a primary capture method in FSDM,
we can conclude that the risk to individual eagles under the current program is
very low, and the cumulative impact of the Current APHIS-WS FSDM Program
is not adversely impacting eagle populations.
Table 4-4. Non-target Take of Bald and Golden Eagles during APHIS-WS program activities from
FY05-FY13.
Species Method Freed Killed
Bald eagle Foothold trap 13 4
Snare 1 0
Golden eagle Snare 2 5
Foothold trap 0 1
Risks Associated with Ammunition Used for FSDM
Agencies and members of the public have expressed concerns regarding the
potential for adverse environmental impacts and risks to human health and safety
from the materials used in ammunition. The majority of concerns expressed
pertain to the use of lead ammunition and this section correspondingly focuses on
risks associated with lead (e.g., Peregrine Fund 2009). However, it should be
noted that some of the non-lead materials used in ammunition and lead-free
ammunition (arsenic, nickel, copper, zinc, tungsten) are also known to pose
environmental risks (Clausen and Korte 2009, EPA 2005a, Beyer et al. 2004,
Eisler 1998).
Lead is a chemical element that has a variety of uses, including firearms
ammunition (shot, bullets, or pellets). Lead ammunition is only one of many
sources of lead in the environment (Nebraska Department of Health and Human
Services 2013). An average lead pellet contains up to 97% metallic lead, 2%
antimony, 0.5% arsenic, 0.5% nickel and jacketed bullets contain up to 90%
metallic lead, 9% copper, and 1% zinc (Tanskanen et al. 1991, Scheuhammer and
Norris 1995, Scheetz and Rimstidt 2009). The amount of lead varies in
ammunition based on the type of firearm and size of the shell, shot, bullet, or
pellet. More specifically, the amount of lead varies with the shotgun gauge, the
length of the shell used, and the size of the shot and with rifles, pistols, and air
guns, the caliber, the type of bullet or pellet, and the grains (weight) of the bullet
or pellet used. Risks associated with lead ammunition vary depending upon the
type of ammunition used to take the swine. The 00 shot used to remove swine is
relatively large (over 8mm in diameter). The size of the shot is likely to reduce
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 213
risks of accidental ingestion by smaller birds seeking grit. Shot is also unlikely to
fragment on contact compared with some types of bullets (Cruz-Martinez et al.
2012). Consequently, it may be easier for scavengers to detect and avoid lead
than other ammunition. Large shot and bullet fragments are also more likely to be
regurgitated (cast) with other undigested food items such as hair, feathers and
bone fragments. Rifle bullets vary in the extent to which they break apart upon
contact with the animal (frangibilty), but can result in distribution of much
smaller fragments in the carcass than shot.
Lead can cause a variety of adverse health effects in people, terrestrial wildlife
and aquatic organisms including death (ATSDR 2007, Rattner et al. 2009,
Kossnett 2009, Pain 2009, Pokras and Kneeland 2009). More information is
available on the impacts of lead on humans than wildlife, particularly in regards to
low dose chronic affects (Pokras and Kneeland 2009). However, available
information indicates most vertebrate systems respond in a similar fashion to lead
(Pokras and Kneeland 2009). Lead affects the neurological, cardiovascular, renal,
immune, hematological, reproductive, and developmental systems. Lead can also
affect other systems including hepatic, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal,
respiratory, and endocrine systems (EPA 2013c). Effects of lead exposure can
have rapid onset and be acute or occur chronically. The primary risks of human
exposure to lead from the proposed action would be through the consumption of
lead ammunition fragments in feral swine meat. Risks of lead toxicity to humans
from ammunition used to remove feral swine can be mitigated through careful
preparation of meat. Most state wildlife and/or health agencies provide
recommendations on practices to reduce risks from hunting (e.g., NYSDEC
2014). Furthermore, APHIS does not propose to donate feral swine to food
charities.
Impacts of Lead on Terrestrial Species: Studies focusing on body burdens of lead
for mammals that forage in areas contaminated by lead from industrial practices
have revealed lead body burdens that have the potential for adverse effects to a
variety of small and large mammal species (The Wildlife Society 2008).
However, impacts of lead ammunition on populations of scavenging mammals are
less clear. Rogers et al. (2011) investigated blood lead levels in large carnivores
[grizzly bears , (Ursus arctos); black bears (Ursus americanus); gray wolves
(Canis lupus), and mountain lions (Puma concolor)] in the Yellowstone
ecosystem and whether lead levels varied during hunting season. They did not
detect a spike in blood lead levels during the fall hunting season typical of lead
ammunition ingestion. However, the authors noted that their data did not
preclude exposure to lead in ammunition. Bears, particularly grizzly bears,
exhibited elevated blood lead levels, while blood lead levels were low for
mountain lions and wolves. Observed patterns of blood lead levels in bears
(particularly grizzly bears) may have resulted from a variety of factors including
indirect lead exposure from other environmental sources (e.g., indirect exposure
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 214
to mine tailings), exposure to carcasses of smaller animals (e.g., rodents) taken
throughout the year, or differences in the physiology of the bears.
Bird sensitivity to lead from exposure to ammunition such as lead shot, bullets, or
bullet fragments has been more extensively studied than in free-ranging
mammals. Clinical signs of lead poisoning in birds are observed when blood lead
concentrations reach 20 to 50 µg/dL while severe clinical signs are observed at
concentrations exceeding 100 µg/dL. Clinical signs of lead poisoning include
wing droop, anemia, and weakness in affected birds (The Wildlife Society 2008).
The effects of the ingestion of lead shot have been noted in various avian species.
Pain et al. (2009), in a review regarding the impacts of lead shot and bullets on
terrestrial birds, documented impacts to 33 raptor species and 30 other species
including, but not limited to, ground nesting birds, cranes, and upland game birds.
Lead impacts from spent ammunition have also been noted in numerous
waterfowl species (Trannel and Kimmel 2009). Cruz-Martinez et al. (2012)
evaluated data on 1,277 bald eagles admitted to the University of Minnesota
Raptor Rehabilitation Center from January 1966 to December 2009. Of the birds
admitted 334 were identified as elevated lead cases (322 live, 12 dead). They
detected significantly increased odds for elevated lead levels based on season (late
fall and early winter), deer hunting rifle zone and age of bird (adult birds). Eagles
recovered from hunting zones where rifles were used were at a higher risk of
elevated lead levels than eagles from hunting zones where only shotguns were
permitted. The difference was attributed to the fact that rifle bullets were more
likely to fragment into small pieces that would be more readily ingested by eagles.
Similar seasonal patterns in lead exposure corresponding with hunting season
have been reported for ravens (Craighead and Bedrosian 2008). An individual
lead pellet has been shown to result in lead toxicosis in waterfowl and ground
nesting birds. Lethal and sublethal impacts have been noted with the experimental
ingestion of 2000 mg (10 pellets of Number 4 lead) of lead in bald eagles (Eisler
1988).
Sublethal impacts to birds are similar to those observed in mammals and other
vertebrates. Depending on the dose and exposure time lead can exert deleterious
effects on a range of physiological and biochemical functions. Reproductive
impacts include effects to the testes, sperm count, egg shell thickness, reduced
hatching, as well as numerous embryo-related impacts in various avian test
species. Other physiological impacts include decreased red blood cell (RBC)
survival and function and altered heme
19
production, immune suppression, and
impacts to the central nervous system among other effects. Behavioral effects
including depressed locomotion, reduced migratory movement, impaired ability to
thermoregulate, and reduced ability to avoid predation have also been noted in a
variety of test species (Burger 1995).
19
Heme is the red, oxygen-carrying component of hemoglobin.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 215
Effects from lead shot have been observed in reptiles, especially from chronic
exposures. Lance et al. (2006) reported reproductive impacts to captive American
alligators (Alligator mississippiensis) that were fed nutria containing lead shot.
This supports previous work regarding the detection of lead in captive alligators
that were related to ingestion of nutria containing lead shot (Camus 1998). Lead
blood levels of 280 µg/dL with no apparent lead toxicosis suggests that reptiles
may be less sensitive to the effects of lead. Hammerton et al. (2003) made similar
observations with the estuarine crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) that had high
lead blood levels from consuming prey contaminated with lead ammunition.
A majority of the published literature regarding lead and terrestrial invertebrates
focuses on the potential residues that could occur in these organisms in areas that
are adjacent to industries related to lead use or production. EPA (2005b)
established ecological soil screening levels (Eco-SSL) that can be used as an
effect threshold based on the available toxicity data. The Eco-SSL in this case
was based on the geometric mean of the maximum allowable toxicant
concentration (MATC) using the collembolan (Folsomia candida) and
reproduction as the endpoint. The value estimated from these studies was 1,700
mg/kg dry weight (dw). Soil pH ranged from 4.5 to 6.0 with an organic matter
content of 10% in all studies. Other toxicity studies assessing lead effects to
nematodes and earthworms did not meet the criteria for estimating the Eco-SSL
but still provide information regarding lead sensitivity for other soil borne
terrestrial invertebrates. In these studies, median lethality values for the nematode
(Caenorhabditis elegans) ranged from 11.6 to 1,434 mg/kg dw with higher
toxicity at lower pH and organic matter values. Median lethality for the
earthworm (Eisenia fetida) was reported at 3,716 mg/kg dw with reproductive
effects noted between 1,629 and 1,940 mg/kg dw.
Impacts on aquatic organisms: Although lead from spent ammunition and lost
fishing tackle is not readily released into aquatic and terrestrial systems, under
some environmental conditions it can slowly dissolve and enter groundwater
(USGS 2014). Risks of this type of impact are greatest near some shooting ranges
and at heavily hunted sites, particularly those hunted year after year. APHIS-WS
FSDM shooting activities are not conducted with the frequency or intensity likely
to result in these types of elevated concentrations of lead ammunition in the
environment.
The toxicity of lead to aquatic resources such as invertebrates and vertebrates is
dependent upon the species tested, endpoint evaluated, and water chemistry. Lead
can occur in various forms in aquatic systems based on water and sediment
chemistry parameters that can significantly alter the toxicity to non-target species.
Water hardness, pH, and temperature are just a few of the water quality
parameters that can impact the toxicity of lead to aquatic biota. Lead will also
partition to sediment where sediment chemistry parameters such as acid-volatile
sulfide levels, organic matter and redox potential all impact the bioavailability and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 216
toxicity of lead to aquatic invertebrates and vertebrates. Lead can concentrate in
aquatic organisms in particular in filter feeders and algae but has not been
reported to bioaccumulate (Eisler 1988).
Aquatic invertebrates appear to be more sensitive to the effects of lead with lethal
and sublethal effects noted as low 0.1 µg/L to greater than 16, 000 µg/L.
Freshwater cladoceran and amphipods appear to be the more sensitive group of
aquatic invertebrates to the effects of lead based on available literature (Eisler
1988, EPA 2006, EPA 2013c). Adverse effects to fish occur at concentrations
ranging from 3.5 µg/L to 29,000 µg/L with coldwater species such as the rainbow
trout (Salmo gardneri) being one of the more sensitive species to the effects of
lead (Eisler 1988, EPA 2006, EPA 2013c). The range of fish sensitivity appears
similar to the range of sensitivities for amphibians based on available data (Eisler
1988; EPA 2006; EPA 2013c). Median lethality values for amphibians range in
the low part per million to greater than 12,500 µg/L in pore water, or interstitial
sediment water
20
, for the northern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), while no
observable effect concentrations were reported as low as 10.0 µg/L (Eisler 1988,
Chen et al. 2006). A variety of sublethal effects have been noted in lead
exposures to aquatic vertebrates. Similar to mammals, sublethal lead exposures
can impact multiple physiological and biochemical functions in aquatic
vertebrates that can lead to reduced reproduction and growth, and the inability to
avoid predators and forage for prey items (The Wildlife Society 2008, Eisler
1998).
Exposure and risk to non-target animals would be greatest for wild and domestic
animals that consume feral swine carcasses containing lead ammunition from
APHIS-WS FSDM actions. There is also the potential for lead exposure to non-
target mammals and birds from consumption of lead bullet fragments in the soil.
The potential for lead exposure and risk to these types of scavengers would be
reduced in situations where carcasses are removed or otherwise rendered
inaccessible to scavengers through burial or state, territory, or tribally-approved
carcass disposal practices. Lead exposure and risk would also be further reduced
in cases where the use of lead-free shot can be effectively, safely, and humanely
used to remove feral swine.
Exposure and risk of lead to aquatic organisms such as fish and aquatic
invertebrates is expected to be negligible. Exposure to aquatic organisms would
occur if a lead bullet degrades and enters the water column or partitions to
sediment. Both the long half-life of lead ammunition in water, soil, and sediment,
combined with the minor amounts of lead that would be used in the program,
reduce the potential for significant water exposure from lead discharged directly
20
Water occupying the spaces between sediment particles. Interstitial water might occupy about 50% (or more) of
the volume of a silt-clay sediment. The interstitial water is in contact with sediment surfaces for relatively long
periods of time and therefore, may become contaminated due to partitioning of the contaminates from the
surrounding sediments. (USEPA 2001).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 217
into aquatic systems or from runoff from soil where lead ammunition may be
present (Jorgensen and Willems 1987, EPA 2005b). Any dissolved lead that
would occur during terrestrial and aquatic degradation would have reduced
bioavailability due to site-specific water and soil/sediment conditions that would
further reduce the risk to aquatic biota.
The APHIS-WS program has specific ammunition and firearm requirements to
maximize performance, safety and humaneness similar to those for other wildlife
damage management applications (Caudell et al. 2012). Precision performance of
bullets is essential for project efficacy, safety, humaneness (shot placement to
result in rapid death) (McPherson 2005, Caudell et al. 2009), and shot placement
to preserve tissues for animal health monitoring. Direction of
ricochet/passthrough is difficult to predict (Burke and Rowe 1992) and is a safety
concern especially at airports, in areas near residences, areas with rocky substrate,
and for APHIS-WS personnel in aerial shooting teams. Ammunition which
conveys it’s full energy to the target animal and which results in low or no pass
through is needed for reasons of humaneness (instant or near-instant
incapacitation) and to reduce safety risks associated with wounded animals
traveling from the project site. When removing feral swine, aerial shooting crew
members target the space directly behind the feral swine’s ear, and the
ammunition (primarily shot) must be able to penetrate the “shield” (thick skin)
located in this region.
For all programs, APHIS-WS uses lead-free ammunition when practical,
effective, and available to mitigate and/or minimize the effects of its use of lead
ammunition on the environment, wildlife, and public health and in compliance
with federal, state, territory or tribal regulations on the use of lead ammunition.
Current challenges associated with lead-free ammunition include that some types
of lead-free ammunition are harder than lead ammunition and more likely to
ricochet off hard surfaces, increasing the odds of hitting aircraft, personnel, or
other unintended targets and presenting unacceptable risks to human safety
(APHIS 2012). APHIS-WS has also in tested bismuth ammunition for aerial
operations but found the product too frangible for safe and effective use.
Increased wounding has been associated with lighter bullets (Aebischer et al.
2014). Lead-free alloys require longer bullets to obtain comparable bullet
weights. Terminal performance (the performance of the bullet upon striking the
target animal) is, in part, determined by bullet weight. Ballistically, a faster rate
of twist is usually necessary to stabilize longer bullets, though individual firearm
performance varies. In some calibers (i.e., .22 rimfire and centerfire), accuracy of
non-lead ammunition is less than accuracy of lead ammunition in many of the
firearms presently in use by WS. While non-lead ammunition is available in
many calibers, their suitability and accuracy in all firearms is not universally
equal to lead ammunition. Harder lead-free rifle ammunition is more likely to
result in "non-frangible bullet pass-through," and failure of the bullet to convey its
full energy to the target animal, although similar problems also exist with some
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 218
types of lead rifle ammunition. In addition to the increased risk of hitting an
unintended target, non-frangible through also increases the likelihood that the
target animal may not be rapidly or instantly killed by the shot and may be
considered less humane (APHIS 2012).
Lead-free ammunition is often more expensive than equivalent ammunition using
lead. For example, the Hevi-Shot® discussed below as suitable for use in FSDM,
is currently approximately four times as expensive as the lead alternative.
Although, the cost of management may sometimes be secondary because of
overriding environmental, legal, human health and safety, animal welfare, or other
concerns, it is still an issue. Under this alternative, cooperators usually pay
operational program costs, and may be unwilling to pay the additional
ammunition costs in areas where it is otherwise legal to use lead ammunition.
Additionally, under this alternative, individual state programs independently
purchase ammunition needed to meet their needs. Although federal purchasing
mechanisms exist that help negotiate improved prices for ammunition, some
economies of scale which could occur with a large ammunition purchases to meet
national program needs are not realized. With small purchases for individual state
programs it is also difficult to negotiate special orders for ammunition to meet
program needs beyond what would ordinarily be produced by the manufacturer.
APHIS-WS does not use lead ammunition in areas where it is prohibited by law
or where prohibited by the landowner/manager (e.g., National Park Service).
APHIS-WS uses lead-free shot when using shotguns to remove birds for MBTA
permitted activities, including activities in waterfowl production and wintering
areas. APHIS-WS also uses lead-free shot during aerial shooting activities when
appropriate conditions allow for its safe and effective use, such as locations where
problems with ricochets and pass through are not likely to occur. In addition,
APHIS-WS uses lead-free rifle ammunition in deer culling activities, except in
certain situations where concerns regarding ammunition performance and safety
are limiting factors (e.g., shooting from greater distances or situations such as
suburban and airport projects where risk of ricochet/pass through is a particular
concern). When allowed by regulations and landowners, WS may give preference
to lead shot for aerial shooting in rocky terrain where aerial shooting is involved.
APHIS-WS evaluates new lead-free ammunition alternatives as they become
available. For FSDM, APHIS-WS has determined that Hevi-Shot® 00 buck, a
tungsten, nickel and iron alloy, meets performance requirements. The shot is in
limited use for some APHIS-WS applications and no safety concerns with the use
of Heavy-Shot® have been identified. Hevi-Shot® does not pose a risk of
ricochet during aerial operations even in rocky terrain.
APHIS-WS aims to use the fewest number of shots on targeted animals. Lead
ammunition use by APHIS-WS for wildlife damage management activities is
minimal compared to lead use at firing ranges and use for hunting, fishing, and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 219
shooting sports. APHIS-WS’ total FY08 - FY012 total estimated lead use in all
program activities including FSDM is approximately 5.87 tons (12,948 lbs) with a
yearly average of 1.174 tons (2,588 lbs). The average yearly total amount of lead
used in all states by APHIS-WS (FY08-FY12) is small (0.0017%) compared to
the U.S. use of lead from ammunition, shot, and bullets based on data from 2011
(USGS 2011). APHIS-WS lead use in individual states varies with the most use
in Texas (2,963 lbs) and least use in California, Washington, DC, Delaware, and
New Hampshire (0 lbs). In Texas, APHIS-WS estimated that 2.2 ounces of lead
over one square mile (97 mg/acre) was used for wildlife damage management
activities between 2006 and 2008 (APHIS-WS 2013).
At the current rate of use, lead ammunition by WS may have the potential to
adversely impact individual non-target animals, particularly animals which
scavenge carcasses and birds which may inadvertently pick up lead shot when
seeking grit for their crop. However, APHIS-WS total program use of lead
ammunition, including ammunition used for FSDM is only a small fraction of
lead ammunition use by other entities (e.g., hunting, target shooting). APHIS-WS
adheres to all applicable laws governing the use of lead ammunition in APHIS-
WS activities and landowner/manager desires for lead-free ammunition in their
projects. Additionally, the APHIS-WS program is working to shift to lead-free
ammunition as new lead-free alternatives that meet WS standards for safety,
performance, and humaneness are developed and become reliably available in
adequate quantities for program use. Use of lead ammunition by the APHIS
program, is anticipated to decrease over time. Consequently, cumulative impacts
of APHIS-WS use of lead ammunition would be very low. Given that the
majority of lead ammunition is used by non-WS entities, the decisions made by
states, territories, tribes, federal regulatory agencies, and land management
agencies regarding use of lead ammunition will be the greatest factor affecting the
cumulative contribution of lead in the environment.
Beneficial Effects on Non-target Species
As discussed in Chapter 3 Section C, many non-target species could benefit from
FSDM, including ground nesting birds, some reptiles, amphibians, and small
mammals, if the goal of the FSDM was eradication of feral swine from areas
where they had the potential to impact such species. For example, feral swine
may consume the eggs of ground-nesting birds if a nest is stumbled upon (Henry
1996, Tolleson et al. 1993). Removing feral swine would benefit the ground-
nesting bird by reducing the potential for predation, while other native predators
may be benefitted by the reduced competition for a food source. Migratory birds
would benefit from reduced habitat damage as a result of a FSDM program.
Reducing larval mosquito habitat generated by feral swine rooting could reduce
the potential for rapid spread of mosquito-borne avian diseases (USGS 2009).
Some species may benefit from using feral swine as carrion. Removal of feral
swine has the potential to reduce competition for available resources; reduce
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 220
predation on the nests of ground-nesting birds and small mammals, reptiles and
amphibians; reduce habitat damage and changes in successional stage and
composition of plant communities; and reduce risk of disease transmission to
native wildlife. APHIS-WS’ implementation of a FSDM program may also
reduce the unwise or illegal use of methods to reduce feral swine damage. Illegal
or unwise activities could result in negative, but unknown, impacts on non-target
wildlife.
Under this alternative, APHIS-WS would continue to use an integrated approach
to develop the most effective site-specific strategies to resolve and prevent
damage to native flora and fauna in cooperation with agency partners, tribes, and
private organizations and individuals. The current program has been effective in
reducing local damage, and collaborative efforts in at least one state, Nebraska,
have been successful in eliminating a feral swine population. In some states,
collaborative efforts have helped to prevent feral swine from becoming
established. Unfortunately, despite localized successes, the nationwide range and
size of the feral swine population has been increasing and is expected to continue
to increase. The increase in population would result in more adverse impacts on
native species and their habitats from feral swine.
Conclusions
Methods available to resolve and prevent damage or threats when employed by
trained, knowledgeable personnel are highly selective for feral swine, but
unintentional take does occur. The established SOPs and other measures and
consultation with the FWS and/or NMFS, states, territories, tribes, and
landowners/managers enable APHIS-WS to minimize impacts. APHIS-WS’
implementation of a FSDM program may negatively affect some non-target
species over the short term due to take, which includes such things as accidental
by-catch or localized and temporary habitat displacement; however such potential
negative effects are far outweighed by the beneficial effects on non-target species
from swine population reduction or eradication associated with the
implementation of a FSDM program. APHIS-WS monitors take of non-target
species to ensure that the activities and methodologies used in FSDM do not
adversely affect non-target species populations. APHIS-WS would report to the
managing agency, as appropriate, any non-target animals lethally removed to
ensure removal by APHIS-WS was considered as part of management objectives
established for those species. Based on the information above, the Current FSDM
Program is not having a significant adverse impact individually or cumulatively
on non-target species populations.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
The impacts on non-target species from implementing the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2) would be expected to be similar in nature to the Current
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 221
FSDM Program (Alternative 1). However, there would be increases in overall
FSDM activity under the Integrated FSDM Program, and APHIS-WS’ use of
some methods (e.g., ground and aerial shooting, cage/corral traps) is likely to
increase. Additionally, GonaCon™ injections could be used under this alternative
with appropriate approvals and registration.
Research into toxicants (e.g., sodium nitrite) and feed-based reproductive
inhibitors is ongoing and would be prioritized under this alternative. APHIS-WS
believes that these methods may be important for program delivery in the future
and, based on available information, these products could be made available in the
future. Operational use of sodium nitrite and feed-based reproductive inhibitors
are not proposed under this alternative or any of the other proposed alternatives in
this EIS because insufficient information is available at this time for decision-
making and planning for programmatic use. Proposals to use these products, if
registered for use, would be subject to additional NEPA review when and if the
products are developed and registered for field use.
Under this alternative, the concentration of funding will affect the frequency and
intensity of application of FSDM methods. The most funding and, consequently,
the most intense and frequent FSDM work, will occur in states and territories with
more feral swine, those states and territories deemed priorities for national feral
swine population management, and those states and territories with strategic local
projects. In the short term, impacts to non-target animals may be proportionately
greater in these specific areas until program goals are achieved or new priorities
are established. On the other hand, the proportion of swine taken through use of
aircraft and corral traps is also anticipated to increase under this alternative,
because these are the two general strategies that have proven most effective in
eradicating or substantially reducing feral swine populations. These are also the
two methods with relatively low risks of adverse impacts on non-target species.
APHIS-WS would continue to monitor the take of non-target species to ensure
program activities or methodologies used in nationally coordinated FSDM
program do not adversely affect non-target species populations.
APHIS-WS state programs could potentially work with cooperating agencies,
tribes, private organizations, and individuals in where FSDM had not been
conducted previously. Risks to T&E species and eagles may change with when
FSDM is provided in these new locations. As these activities are identified,
APHIS-WS would consult with the FWS at the state and territory level to address
potential risks (Appendices E and F) in new areas.
Risks Associated with Ammunition Used for FSDM
Environmental risks associated with lead ammunition and APHIS-WS
ammunition safety, performance and humaneness requirements remain as
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 222
described for the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Alternative 2 would
substantially increase the number of feral swine taken for FSDM and the use of
aerial shooting as a tool for FSDM. Unlike the Current FSDM Program, under
this alternative APHIS-WS would have additional funding for FSDM and would
not have to pass all increased costs of lead-free ammunition to cooperators. The
funding provided for an APHIS FSDM program enables APHIS-WS to accelerate
ongoing efforts to increase use of lead-free ammunition.
APHIS-WS estimates that roughly 42% of feral swine under the no action
alternative over the period of FY 2008-2012 were taken by aerial shooting
(Chapter 4 Section B.1.a). As noted (Chapter 2 Section B.1.b) APHIS-WS use of
aircraft is anticipated to increase under this alternative. Swine taken by aerial
shooting are also among the animals most likely to be left on site (Chapter 2
Section E.11.a). The combination of these factors and the fact that an acceptable
lead-free ammunition option has been identified for this purpose (Hevi-Shot® 00
buck; Chapter 4 Section C.2.a above) makes the aerial shooting program a key
point for focusing efforts to reduce use of lead ammunition. Consequently, under
Alternative 2, APHIS-WS would work to incorporate lead-free ammunition into
all aerial shooting activities to the maximum extent practicable within the
constraints of performance, availability, and cost through placement of large
national orders for ammunition. The APHIS-WS program has determined that
100,000 rounds of Hevi-Shot® ammunition may be obtained for use in aerial
operations by negotiating a special manufacturing run by the supplier. This
should be sufficient to cover a year’s shotgun use for aerial shooting at levels
anticipated in the early years of FSDM but may not be sufficient if take with
aerial shooting increases, as may occur when the national priorities for operational
activities shift to states with higher feral swine populations. Meetings with
ammunition manufactures indicate that future availability of sufficient quantities
of this shot is uncertain. Until such time as supply reliably meets demand or
alternative non-toxic ammunitions are identified, some use of lead ammunition
for aerial applications could occur, but would be substantially lower than current
levels, even with the increase in the total number of swine removed using aerial
shooting.
Because of the overall increase in FSDM activity nationwide, the National FSDM
Program would increase the use of lead ammunition for ground shooting. As
noted in Chapter 4 Section C.2.a, APHIS-WS is working to reduce use of lead
ammunition within the constraints of performance, availability, and cost. Lead-
free ammunition would be used in the National FSDM Program where practical
and effective or where required by land use policy or state or local laws (SOPs,
Section 2.E). Landowners or land managers would continue have the option to
limit the use of lead ammunition on their property, and APHIS-WS will work
with those entities to determine an acceptable plan, however this may result in
additional resources (e.g., time, money) being necessary to achieve management
goals. This use of non-toxic ammunition would reduce the amount of lead that
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 223
would be available to non-target species. Any lead ammunition that may be used
could become deposited in soil or water is not expected to result in levels that
would pose a threat to non-target populations. The cumulative amount of lead
used by APHIS-WS in all wildlife damage management activities, including feral
swine, is minor in comparison with the amount of lead used in recreational
hunting. States, federal regulatory agencies, tribes and land management agencies
make decisions about whether or not lead can be used and under what
circumstances. State, territory, tribal and federal regulations are the greatest factor
affecting the cumulative contribution of lead in the environment.
As a federal agency, APHIS takes a cautious approach to ensuring that adverse
program effects are minimized by complying not only with applicable federal,
state and local laws and regulations for the protection of the environment, but also
with landowner/land manager agreements (Directive 2.210). However, because
APHIS and others are concerned about the effects of lead in the environment,
APHIS is committing to utilize lead-free ammunition options above and beyond
those required at national, state, local and landowner levels, within the constraints
discussed above. In this way, APHIS would be taking steps to protect non-target
animals and the environment equal to or in excess of levels set by agencies and
regulators with jurisdiction over wildlife management and the use of lead
ammunition.
Beneficial Effects on Non-target Species
This alternative provides a balance between the need for site specific damage
management and the need to control the national feral swine population.
Increased baseline funding and funding for national and strategic local projects
would improve the capacity of APHIS-WS state programs and cooperators to
conduct local damage management projects to protect non-target species.
Although less funding would be provided for baseline capacity and strategic local
projects than under the Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3), this alternative
does provide the national-level improvements in efficacy, outreach, international
coordination, and methods development. This alternative is also expected to
reduce the national feral swine population and, unlike the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1), capacity to address local projects is not expected to be exceeded
by long-term increases in the size and range of the feral swine population.
Therefore, the overall benefits to non-target animals that are negatively affected
by feral swine damage is expected to outweigh negative effects under this
alternative.
Conclusions
Methods available to resolve and prevent damage or threats when employed by
trained, knowledgeable personnel are highly selective for feral swine, but
unintentional take does occur. The established SOPs and other measures and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 224
consultation with the FWS and/or NMFS, states, territories, tribes, and
landowners/managers enable APHIS-WS to minimize impacts. APHIS-WS’
implementation of a FSDM program may negatively affect non-target species
over the short term due to take, which includes such things as accidental by-catch
or localized and temporary habitat displacement; however such potential negative
effects are far outweighed by the beneficial effects on non-target species from
swine population reduction or eradication associated with the implementation of a
FSDM program. APHIS-WS monitors take of non-target species to ensure that
the activities and methodologies used in FSDM do not adversely affect non-target
species populations. APHIS-WS would report to the managing agency, as
appropriate, any non-target animals lethally removed to ensure removal by
APHIS-WS was considered as part of management objectives established for
those species. Alternative 2 would increase the amount of FSDM conducted and
would result in expanded effects on non-target species. However, like Alternative
1, the possible effects on non-target species are outweighed by the beneficial
effects of feral swine removal on the environment and the potential that
Alternative 2 has to obtain this goal. Based on the information above, the
Integrated FSDM Program would not have a significant adverse impact
individually or cumulatively on non-target species populations. However, this
alternative does have the greatest potential for positive impacts on species that are
adversely affected by feral swine damage.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Under this alternative, APHIS-WS managers would continue to have access to the
range of FSDM methods discussed for the Current FSDM Program (Alternative
1) to develop integrated site-specific FSDM strategies. Baseline resources for
FSDM would be distributed to APHIS-WS state programs and would be available
for cost-share with other agency, tribal, and private partners to address local
FSDM problems. Funding would be reallocated from research, international
coordination and outreach, and education to operational management.
Consequently, the potential risks from FSDM methods under this alternative to
non-target species, including migratory birds and eagles, could be greater than the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), because this alternative would see the
greatest level of operational activity based on funding availability. APHIS-WS
could still employ the use of all methods currently available under the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alterative 2) and, given a similar use pattern and measures to
minimize risks, impacts on non-target animals would also be expected, in general,
to be similar.
In some states, territories, or tribal lands, the increase in baseline funding
resulting from the elimination of national or strategic local projects may be
sufficient for that state/territory/tribe to eliminate feral swine and, thus, effects on
non-target species would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 225
2). It is possible that any effects on non-target species could occur sooner under
this alternative than under Alternative 1, as more operational control will be
conducted from the start. Under this alternative, states and territories with
moderate to large feral swine populations would likely receive more operational
funding than they would receive with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative
2). This increased funding would likely be associated with improvements in
capacity to provide local benefits to non-target species in the early years of FSDM
under this alternative. However, there would be insufficient funds to stabilize and
reduce feral swine in all states and territories with feral swine and there would be
no funds reserved to respond to feral swine detections in states believed to be free
of feral swine. In these areas, feral swine populations are likely to continue to
increase, as would associated adverse impacts on non-target species and their
habitats. Overall efficacy of operational efforts may be reduced from that in the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) because of the lack of research,
outreach and education, and international FSDM coordination.
Risks Associated with Ammunition Used for FSDM
Environmental risks associated with lead ammunition and APHIS-WS
ammunition safety, performance and humaneness requirements remain as
described for the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Like the Integrated
APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 2), this alternative would substantially
increase the amount of operational FSDM conducted by APHIS-WS. However,
this alternative would result in more operational activity and ammunition use than
the Integrated APHIS FSDM Alternative, in part, because program funds
allocated to national research, education, disease monitoring or international
coordination projects under Alternative 2 would be allocated to operational
FSDM under this alternative. The number of swine taken under this Alternative
may also be higher than the Integrated APHIS FSDM Program because of the
way the resources will be allocated. Under Alternative 2, some funds for
operational FSDM will be allocated to achieve the national goal of reducing the
size and range of the national feral swine population. Priority would be given to
eliminating feral swine populations in states where feral swine populations are
recently introduced and/or low. More effort and resources are needed to locate
and remove each animal in low feral swine populations than in states with
moderate or high populations. Under the Baseline FSDM Program, resources will
be allocated to states based on the size of the feral swine population. States with
moderate or high feral swine populations would likely receive more funds for
FSDM in the early years of the program than under the Integrated APHIS FSDM
Program (Alternative 2) and National and Strategic Local Projects Program
(Alternative 4).
Like the Integrated APHIS FSDM Program alternative (Alternative 2), the
funding provided for an APHIS FSDM program enables APHIS-WS to accelerate
ongoing efforts to increase use of lead-free ammunition. APHIS-WS estimates
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 226
that roughly 42% of feral swine taken under the no action alternative over the
period of FY 2008-2012 were removed through the use of aerial shooting
(Chapter 4 Section B.1.a). Swine taken by aerial shooting are also among the
animals most likely to be left on site (Chapter 2 Section E.11.a). The combination
of these factors and the fact that an acceptable lead-free ammunition option has
been identified for this purpose (Hevi-Shot® 00 buck; Chapter 4 Section C.2.a
above) makes the aerial shooting program a key point for focusing efforts to
reduce use of lead ammunition. Consequently, under this Alternative, APHIS-
WS would work to incorporate lead-free ammunition into all aerial shooting
activities to the maximum extent practicable within the constraints of
performance, availability, and cost through placement of large national orders for
ammunition. The APHIS-WS program has determined that 100,000 rounds of
Hevi-Shot® ammunition may be obtained for use in aerial operations by
negotiating a special manufacturing run by the supplier. This would likely be
sufficient to cover a year’s shotgun use for aerial shooting at levels anticipated for
the Integrated APHIS FSDM Program, but it is unclear whether it is likely to meet
needs for the increased take likely to occur under the Baseline FSDM Program.
Future availability of a sufficient quantity of the shot is uncertain. Until such time
as supply reliably meets demand or alternative non-toxic ammunitions are
identified, some use of lead ammunition for aerial applications may occur, but
will be substantially lower than current levels, even with the increase in the total
number of swine removed using aerial shooting.
Because of the overall increase in FSDM activity nationwide, the Baseline FSDM
Program would also increase the use of lead ammunition for ground shooting. As
noted in Chapter 4 Section C.2.a, APHIS-WS is working to reduce use of lead
ammunition within the constraints of performance, availability, and cost. Use of
ammunition for ground shooting and associated impacts would be similar in
nature but slightly greater in magnitude than described for the Integrated APHIS
FSDM Program (Alternative 2) because of the increase in the number of feral
swine likely to be removed under this Alternative. As with Alternatives 2 and 4,
under this alternative, APHIS is committing to utilize lead-free ammunition
options above and beyond those required at national, state, local and landowner/
land manager levels, within the constraints discussed above. In this way, APHIS
would be taking steps to protect non-target animals and the environment well
beyond levels set by agencies and regulators with jurisdiction over wildlife
management and the use of lead ammunition.
Beneficial Effects on Non-target Species
This alternative provides emphasis on baseline operational capacity. Increased
baseline funding would improve the capacity of APHIS-WS state programs and
cooperators to conduct local damage management projects to protect non-target
species where states were sufficiently funded. National-level improvements that
supported long term efficacy would not be realized. Beneficial effects on non-
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 227
target species would be expected to be greater than the current program, but over
time, less than the Integrated FSDM.
Conclusions
Under Alternative 3, FSDM has a greater potential to affect non-target species
due to the increased level of operational FSDM activities compared with other
alternatives. APHIS-WS’ implementation of this alternative may negatively
affect non-target species over the short term due to take of individual animals or
localized groups, e.g., by accidental capture or by localized and temporary
displacement. Such potential negative effects are expected to be minor and are
expected to be outweighed by the beneficial effects from swine population
reduction or eradication. APHIS-WS monitors take of non-target species to
ensure that the activities and methodologies used in FSDM do not adversely affect
non-target species populations. APHIS-WS would report to the managing
agency, as appropriate, any non-target animals lethally removed to ensure
removal by APHIS-WS was considered as part of management objectives
established for those species. This alternative is likely to be less effective than
alternative 2 in reducing the range and size of the national feral swine population
and associated negative impacts on the environment. The Baseline FSDM
Program would not have a significant adverse impact individually or cumulatively
on non-target species populations.
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
Under this alternative, APHIS-WS managers would continue to have access to the
range of FSDM methods discussed for the Current FSDM Program (Alternative
1) to develop integrated site-specific FSDM strategies. This alternative is similar
to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), but involves no baseline
funding. All funding under this alternative would be committed to national and
strategic local projects. Risks associated with FSDM would be similar to the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), but more unevenly distributed. States
and territories which are not a priority for national feral swine population
management efforts or strategic local funds may receive little or no federal FSDM
funding. FSDM activities would still be conducted in these areas with cooperator
funds. In the short term, this alternative would be less responsive to requests for
local damage management assistance than the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2) and the Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3). Under this
alternative, it is likely that FSDM with the potential to impact non-target species,
including migratory birds and eagles, would be less than that associated with the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) and similar to the current FSDM
program (Alternative 1), if the specific location is not identified as a priority for
national of specific local projects. Conversely, areas identified as priorities for
National or strategic local projects may temporarily be subject to greater impacts
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 228
as FSDM methods are focused on those areas until eradication or other goals for
that specific location are met. While risks to individual animals may increase
slightly, the implementation of SOPs would result no expected adverse effects on
populations of non-target species.
Risks Associated with Ammunition Used for FSDM
Environmental risks associated with lead ammunition and APHIS-WS
ammunition safety, performance and humaneness requirements remain as
described for the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Like the Integrated
APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 2), this alternative would substantially
increase the amount of operational FSDM conducted by APHIS-WS. However,
this alternative could result in slightly less take of feral swine and associated
ammunition use in the early years of the program than the Integrated APHIS
FSDM Alternative, or Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3). All funds for
operational FSDM will be allocated to achieve the national goal of reducing the
size and range of the national feral swine population and conducting strategic
local projects. All states and territories with feral swine populations will not
receive funds for baseline operational capacity to conduct FSDM. Consequently,
some states and territories with moderate or large feral swine populations will
likely receive less funding for FSDM than under Alternatives 2 and 3 until
management objectives are achieved in higher priority states and territories. More
effort and resources are needed to locate and remove each animal in low feral
swine populations than in states with moderate or high populations, so the total
number of animals removed and associated ammunition use is expected to be
lower in the initial years of the program than under Alternatives 2 and 3. Long
term use of ammunition and associated impacts are likely to be similar to
Alternative 2.
As discussed for the Integrated APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 2) and
Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3), the funding provided for an APHIS
FSDM program enables APHIS-WS to accelerate ongoing efforts to increase use
of lead-free ammunition. Under this Alternative, APHIS-WS would work to
incorporate lead-free ammunition into all aerial shooting activities to the
maximum extent practicable within the constraints of performance, availability,
and cost through placement of large national orders for ammunition. APHIS
would use Hevi-Shot® in shotguns for aerial shooting under this Alternative, but,
as with the Integrated APHIS FSDM Program, supplies may not be sufficient
once program activities shift to states and territories with higher feral swine
populations. Ammunition manufacturers have indicated that the availability of a
sufficient quantity of the shot for increased future use is uncertain. Until such
time as supply reliably meets demand or alternative non-toxic ammunitions are
identified, some use of lead ammunition for aerial applications may occur, but
will be substantially lower than current levels, even with the increase in the total
number of swine removed using aerial shooting.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 229
Because of the overall increase in FSDM activity nationwide, this alternative
would also increase the use of lead ammunition for ground shooting. As noted in
Chapter 4 Section C.2.a, APHIS-WS is working to reduce use of lead ammunition
within the constraints of performance, availability, and cost. In the initial years of
the program, use of ammunition for ground shooting and associated impacts
would be similar in nature but slightly lower in magnitude than described for
Alternative 2 and the Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3) because of the
decrease in the number of feral swine likely to be removed. Long-term impacts
are likely to be similar to Alternative 2 but still slightly lower in magnitude than
the Alternative 3. As with Alternatives 2 and 3, under this alternative, APHIS is
committing to utilize lead-free ammunition options above and beyond those
required at national, state, territorial, tribal, local and landowner/ land manager
levels, within the constraints discussed above. In this way, APHIS would be
taking steps to protect non-target animals and the environment well beyond levels
set by agencies and regulators with jurisdiction over wildlife management and the
use of lead ammunition.
Beneficial Effects on Non-target Species
Because this alternative may make it possible to achieve national feral swine
population objectives more quickly than under other alternatives, overall benefits
to non-target species from managing feral swine damage may also be expected
more quickly, especially in those states where feral swine populations can be
eliminated or substantially reduced.
Conclusions
Methods available to resolve and prevent damage or threats when employed by
trained, knowledgeable personnel are highly selective for feral swine, but
unintentional take does occur. The established SOPs and other measures and
consultation with the FWS and/or NMFS, states, territories, tribes, and
landowners/managers enable APHIS-WS to minimize impacts. APHIS-WS’
implementation of a FSDM program may negatively affect non-target species
over the short term due to take, which includes such things as accidental by-catch
or localized and temporary habitat displacement; however such potential negative
effects are far outweighed by the beneficial effects on non-target species from
swine population reduction or eradication associated with the implementation of a
FSDM program. APHIS-WS monitors take of non-target species to ensure that
the activities and methodologies used in FSDM do not adversely affect non-target
species populations. APHIS-WS would report to the managing agency, as
appropriate, any non-target animals lethally removed to ensure removal by
APHIS-WS was considered as part of management objectives established for
those species. This alternative has the potential to reach national goals more
quickly, which would cause a more immediate effect on non-target species.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 230
However, the effects would be of shorter duration. In states that are of low
priority, negative impacts on non-target species from feral swine damage would
continue or increase until such a time as resources can be allocated to low priority
states.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
This alternative would distribute FSDM funding to states, territories, tribes, and
others through a grant program to meet national FSDM objectives and local needs
similar to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). APHIS-WS would not
be involved in any FSDM except for coordination and supervision of work
conducted under grants. Grant recipients would be expected to adhere to the same
SOPs as the APHIS-WS when implementing FSDM and research as a condition
of the grants. Less federal funding would be available for operational FSDM
because more funding would be needed to administer the program. Risks to non-
target species from implementation of FSDM should be similar to or slightly less
than the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) assuming grant recipients
adhered to APHIS-WS SOPs. If SOPs are not uniformly adhered to by all grant
recipients, risks to non-target species would increase.
NWRC would not be involved in research under this alternative. Loss of NWRC
research and product registration infrastructure and experience would likely slow
the development of new methods such as toxicants and reproductive inhibitors.
Benefits and risks associated with these methods would take longer to be realized.
Risks Associated with Ammunition Used for FSDM
Under this alternative, all operational FSDM activities including use of lead
would be conducted by recipients of APHIS grants. Environmental risks
associated with lead ammunition remain as described for all other alternatives.
Grant recipients are expected to use lead-free ammunition when required by
federal, state/territorial, tribal and local law. In addition, grant recipients would
have the same or similar ammunition safety, performance and humaneness
requirements as described for the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1)
(Caudell et al. 2012). They would also likely face similar or greater challenges as
APHIS with cost and availability of lead-free ammunition.
Allocation of resources for FSDM (e.g., National, baseline and strategic local
projects) would be similar to the Integrated APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative
2). However, because of increased administrative costs, less total FSDM would
be conducted under this alternative than under Alternative 2, so fewer feral swine
are likely to be taken per year and less ammunition used. Grant recipients would
be expected to adhere to the same SOPs as the APHIS-WS when implementing
FSDM and research as a condition of the grants. Risks to non-target species from
lead ammunition used for FSDM should be similar to or slightly less than the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 231
National FSDM Program (Alternative 2) assuming grant recipients adhered to
APHIS-WS SOPs. If SOPs are not uniformly adhered to by all grant recipients,
risks to non-target species would increase. Risks may also increase, depending
the on the ability of grant recipients to obtain lead-free ammunition. APHIS-WS
would not be arranging for national purchases of lead-free shot for aerial
applications. Any cost benefits realized by placing one large ammunition order
may not be realized, although it is possible that grant recipients (e.g., states and
territories) may work together to place similar orders. As with the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1), with smaller purchases, it is also difficult to negotiate
special orders for ammunition to meet program needs beyond what would
ordinarily be produced by the manufacturer.
Beneficial Effects on Non-target Species
Overall, because less funding would equate to less operational FSDM, benefits
from feral swine removal would probably be lower than under the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternatives 2), the Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3),
and National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects (Alternative 4). The ability to
reduce negative effects caused by feral swine to other wildlife species and their
habitats, including T&E species, would be variable and would be based upon the
skills and abilities of the entity implementing damage management actions under
this alternative.
Conclusions
Methods available to resolve and prevent damage or threats under this alternative
would be those outlined in the EIS under Alternatives 1 through 4. However, the
persons implementing the methods would not be APHIS-WS personnel and the
skills and abilities of those persons may vary. Effects on non-target species
would be expected to be the same or less than the Integrated FSDM Program,
assuming grant recipients adhered to the SOPs in this EIS. APHIS-WS would
have limited resources to monitor implementation and ensure compliance. Risk
and benefits to non-target species from feral swine removal would be slowed or
reduced due to the grant administration process and costs.
3. Impact on Soils, Vegetation, and Water Quality
This section discusses the potential effects of FSDM on soils, vegetation and water
quality. Effects on plants and critical habitats protected under the ESA are considered
separately under Section 4.C.1.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
FSDM actions within the Current FSDM Program that have the potential to
disturb soils and vegetation include vehicle use, minor digging associated with
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 232
setting traps, digging post holes to install permanent fencing, and the use of corral
traps. Leaving carcasses on site, composting carcasses, and excavation for on site
carcass burial would have the greatest potential to impact soils and could also
adversely affect water quality. The use of lead ammunition could potentially
contaminate soil and water. No other methods are currently proposed that would
have the potential to adversely affect water quality.
All feral swine eventually die even if there is no FSDM and their bodies remain
above ground until they decompose or are consumed by scavengers. At present,
leaving carcasses to decompose on site is the most commonly used carcass
disposal method for APHIS-WS. Carcasses are only left on site after consultation
with the landowner/manager to ensure that the landowner does not have another
intended purpose for the swine (e.g., personal use as food) and that there are no
regulatory, environmental, human health, aesthetic, or other public concerns that
would preclude use of this method. Carcasses of swine removed through aerial
shooting are usually left in place which results in them being scattered across the
property. Carcasses of swine removed by ground shooting or those animals shot
after being caught in drop nets, or cage or corral traps would be grouped in one
area. When these capture methods are used, APHIS-WS scatters the carcasses in
the area surrounding the trap site to minimize any potential environmental risks
associated with a concentration of carcasses in one spot. Decomposing carcasses
would provide food for scavengers and some soil nutrients. Vegetation and soil
characteristic around the carcasses would remain and would help to reduce risks
that material from decomposing carcasses could wash away and contaminate local
water supplies. Carcasses would not be left in or near public water supplies, or
isolated water sources although some carcasses may be left near large wetland or
swamp habitats if that is the primary habitat used by the swine. Impacts on soil,
vegetation, and water quality from leaving carcasses to decompose on site would
be similar to the status quo in which feral swine would die and decompose or be
preyed upon by predators and scavengers. This method has reduced risk of
adverse impacts associated with soil disturbance caused by burial.
Landfill burial is used in some states. APHIS-WS only takes feral swine
carcasses to those landfills approved to accept animal carcasses. Because landfills
are regulated, permitted, and monitored by both the EPA and the states and
territories for environmental protections, this option is considered to have
negligible adverse environmental impacts and will not be analyzed further.
Prior to conducting FSDM, APHIS-WS coordinates with agency partners, tribes
and landowners/managers to identify sensitive areas (e.g., areas with fragile soil
types, sensitive vegetation, and water resources) to ensure that FSDM actions do
not create unnecessary problems. Vehicles, including Off-road Vehicles (ORVs),
stay on designated roads or trails in most cases and do not drive off road in
protected sensitive areas. If access to sensitive areas is necessary, efforts are
made to use methods and schedule removals to minimize risks to soils and water.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 233
Most capture equipment, including cage traps and corral traps, is set in previously
disturbed areas, including agricultural lands or other areas where feral swine have
already caused damage. Setting traps and snares is negligible in terms of soil
disturbance.
Fence construction and carcass burial is typically conducted by the landowner or
land manager. APHIS-WS may provide technical assistance for these activities.
Surface soil disturbance and soil loss from installing permanent fence posts would
be limited to the immediate area of the posts, and soil loss up to a depth of 3 feet
would be a long-term effect, although minor in scope. In some limited cases,
APHIS-WS may bury carcasses if requested or as required by law. Currently,
APHIS-WS buries feral swine carcasses in relatively few states including
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and New York. In most states with large feral swine
populations, including Texas, California, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Oklahoma,
APHIS-WS does not bury carcasses on site.
The size of on site burial pits (or trenches or graves) is based largely on the
number of animals killed in one location. States and territories may regulate
livestock burial but only Arkansas considers feral swine to be livestock
(Appendix D, Table 1). Where livestock burial is concerned, pit size and depth
also depend upon applicable state, territorial and tribal laws or local ordinances or
policies which can dictate minimum or maximum depth and amount of cover
material (soil) that must be placed over the carcass(es). Other conditions such as
soil type, depth to bedrock, and climate can influence the volume of the soil that
must be excavated. Under the Current FSDM Program, individual burial sites
generally accommodate few individual feral swine in shallow graves, and those
graves have been on previously disturbed soils.
Various authors report different excavation volumes needed to bury five hogs
(commercially raised swine) ranging from 1.2 to 3 cubic yards (Engel 2004). On
average, feral swine would tend to be smaller than commercial hogs, in part,
because dispatched feral swine include all life stages including very small
animals. Thus, lower volumes of soil would be needed to bury five average feral
swine. Sounders
21
commonly have 9-10 swine, but, depending upon
environmental conditions such as droughts, may have as many as 40 or 50
animals (Chapter 3 Section A.3.a). The number of swine to be disposed of at one
location would depend, in part, on the size of the sounder and on the method used
to remove the swine. Feral swine removed using aerial shooting or hunting with
dogs are dispersed over the landscape, so relatively few individuals need to be
buried in a given site. In contrast, when using corral traps and drop nets,
managers strive to capture all of the sounders at one time.
21
A sounder is a group of swine, usually adult females with their sub-adult and juvenile offspring.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 234
When APHIS-WS is directly involved in on site burial, measures are taken to
conserve soil and protect vegetation and water quality. These measures can
include removing and replacing topsoil, mounding sites to allow for settling to
avoid ponding, and, as needed, recommending revegetation to landowners or land
managers. Larger, existing burial trenches are sometimes excavated by livestock
managers for routine livestock carcass disposal programs. In this case, state,
territorial, tribal and local regulations dictate site restrictions. These restrictions
can include minimum cover depth, depth to high water table, and distances to
wetlands, floodplains, wells, ponds, and other water sources.
Where on site feral swine carcass burial is used for disposal and state, territorial,
tribal and local regulations address feral swine, APHIS-WS follows these rules or
recommends that landowners do so as well. However, as noted above, only one
state currently regulates feral swine as livestock. In other states and territories,
there is often uncertainty as to which set of disposal regulations (livestock,
wildlife, or something else) should apply. The lack of regulatory clarity is related
to the legal status of feral swine, which varies from among states and territories.
Feral swine status ranges from wildlife, to game, to exotic species, to livestock,
and no status. Status can even change from private to public lands or otherwise
depend on the location, ownership/use and management of feral swine. Appendix
E, Table 1 shows the variations in legal status of feral swine among states and
territories. Because current carcass disposal needs have been relatively low based
on limited operational programs and based on other viable options, this issue has
not been problematic. However, the lack of feral swine carcass disposal rules in
some states highlights an emerging issue which will be discussed in the next
section, under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alterative 2). Because many states,
territories, and tribes lack comprehensive regulatory controls for feral swine
burial, burial site selection, size, depth and cover, any feral swine burial would be
planned with local resource authorities to reduce the risk of water and soil
contamination. Burial site remediation would include soil conservation measures
to protect soils, vegetation, and water quality.
If chemical euthanasia is used, APHIS-WS personnel would comply with
procedures outlined in the APHIS-WS Field Operations Manual for Use of
Immobilizing and Euthanizing Drugs (June 2006) and APHIS-WS Directive
2.430, Controlled Chemical Immobilization and Euthanizing Agents. Feral swine
euthanized with drugs that may pose secondary hazards to scavengers must be
disposed of according to federal, state, territory, county, and local regulations, and
drug label instructions, or lacking such guidelines, by deep burial, incineration, or
at a landfill approved for such disposal.
On-farm composting is a method for dealing with routine animal mortalities that
is receiving increasing attention and use by the livestock industry. Properly
conducted, temperatures in compost piles reach high enough temperatures to kill
disease organisms such as salmonella. Environmental concerns associated with
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 235
composting include runoff from compost piles and contamination of soil beneath
piles. Most state departments of agriculture provide training and regulations for
safe and effective use of this method including location and construction of
compost sites and proper use of resulting material to minimize risk of runoff from
fields to nearby waterways. APHIS-WS would not establish new compost sites
for its projects, but it may take advantage of compost piles established by
producers to dispose of carcasses from their livestock operations. Conducted in
accordance with agency regulations and guidance, composting is not anticipated
to adversely impact soils and water.
Soil disturbance, including mixing, trampling and compaction in corral traps,
could be expected from concentrating feral swine, as might occur in corral traps.
However, corral traps would most often be placed in areas where swine have
already damaged soils and vegetation. Posts for corral traps are typically
temporary and do not require digging. Other physical attributes within the corral,
such as soil layering, clay/sand/loam content, water, and organic matter content
are not expected to cause long-term impacts to the area where the trap is placed.
After APHIS-WS removes corral traps, the landowner or land management
agency may attempt to remediate the area if necessary to return it to its previous
use. Some soils may recover more successfully than others with amendments or
plantings, and vegetation may return on its own or be replanted. Fragile, thin,
soils found in arid and semi-arid locations are not likely to recover easily. Corral
traps are placed in areas that have already experienced feral swine damage;
therefore, soil productivity would be expected to improve over time after feral
swine are removed.
Baits used to attract feral swine to capture sites and equipment would be carefully
selected with land managers input when necessary to help ensure that undesirable
plant species are not introduced in the course of FSDM activities. Depending on
the nature of the site, cleaning vehicles and footwear of specialists when entering
and leaving sites may be needed to prevent introduction of invasive species.
Removal of feral swine would eliminate their damaging effects on vegetation
from: direct browsing and rooting, spreading weed seeds in their feces, and
disturbing soils, all of which can facilitate invasions of introduced plant species
that can out-compete native plants.
Water erosion and sedimentation would not likely be a concern in most places
where corral traps are set because they would be placed in areas with little to no
slope, they are temporary, and most often, they would be located in wooded
locations or areas that otherwise have sufficient vegetative cover to buffer any
possible effects. Trap location is always coordinated with land managers or
owners.
APHIS-WS often uses non-lead ammunition where practical and effective or
where required by land use policy or state, territorial, tribal or local laws (SOPs,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 236
Section 2.E). Any of the potential exposure pathways are expected to result in
minimal loading of lead in aquatic environments because large numbers of shot or
bullets, and any fragments, would not be anticipated to be deposited directly in
those types of environments for most APHIS-WS activities. In addition, the
environmental fate of lead ammunition is such that bioavailability would be very
low even under environmental conditions that would promote degradation and
bioavailability. Lead from spent ammunition that would occur in runoff from soil
would also be extremely low. Degradation rates for lead pellets and bullets to
more soluble or bioavailable forms in soil are variable depending on soil type, and
other site-specific factors; however, half-lives for pellets have been shown to
range from 40 to 70 years (Jorgensen and Willems 1987). In addition the amount
of lead that becomes soluble in soil is usually very small (0.1-2.0%) (USEPA
2005). Efforts to identify and acquire non lead ammunition would be coordinated
at the national level.
The Current FSDM Program would not provide national coordination or increase
in scope of FSDM. Therefore, the direct and indirect impacts from feral swine on
soils, vegetation, and water quality (Section 3.D.1) would continue or increase at
current baseline rates along with anticipated growth in the feral swine
populations. Damage from feral swine is likely to spread to new locations where
no feral swine currently exist. The negative effects on soils, vegetation, and water
quality from feral swine trampling, browsing, rooting, and wallowing would be
expected to increase as feral swine populations continue to expand and increase
under the Current FSDM Program. Where populations of feral swine are
successfully removed locally, related additional feral swine damages would be
interrupted or halted, but relief would only be temporary if new swine are released
at the site or swine immigrate from surrounding populations.
Section 2.E describes the SOPs that are used to minimize or avoid negative
impacts on soils and vegetation. Overall, the benefit to soils, vegetation, and
water quality from feral swine removal is expected to outweigh any minor
negative effects.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
This alternative would increase operations using the same methods as the Current
FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Capture methods would have similar negligible
effects on soils, vegetation, and water quality because the same SOPs would be
applied to minimize risks. As the number of feral swine that would be killed
under this alternative increases, the disposition of carcasses would become a
greater issue.
Of the carcass disposal methods available under the Integrated FSDM Program,
on site burial, leaving on site, and composting could potentially adversely affect
soils, vegetation and/or water quality. In some circumstances, APHIS-WS would
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 237
employ the use of on site burial, either directly or indirectly, via land owners or
land managers, as discussed under the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1).
As with the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), in most instances, APHIS-
WS could use composting systems already established by producers. However,
the number of carcasses generated in one location could justify the construction of
on-farm compost piles to dispose of feral swine. All on-farm composting would
be conducted in accordance with state, territorial, tribal and local regulations or
guidance. Risks of soil and water contamination may be minimized through the
use of liners for the compost area, but otherwise, the risks would be similar to or
less than the risks associated with carcass burial.
Landfill burial would also continue to be an option for carcass disposal. This
option requires moving swine to the landfill, however, that may be prohibited in
some areas because of the diseases which feral swine may carry. Because landfills
are regulated, permitted, and monitored by both the EPA and the states, territories
and tribes for environmental protections, the impacts of using landfills as a
disposal method on soils, vegetation, and water quality will not be analyzed
further.
Traditionally, routine on site carcass burial has been considered to have minimal
environmental impact when used sparingly by relatively small livestock
operations. However, concerns have grown about the potential that ground and
surface water could be adversely affected by pathogen and chemical
contamination via soil leaching (CAST 2008, Engel 2004). In comprehensive
assessments, Engel et al. (2004) and CAST (2008) reviewed these concerns and
found that environmental risks from burial included contamination of soil and
shallow groundwater with nitrogen, chloride, and coliform bacteria. Ground and
surface water contamination from the chemical byproducts of carcass decay have
been identified as the primary risk factor from carcass burial (McDaniel 1991,
Crane 1997). Gwyther (2011) found no studies linking adverse effects of routine
livestock burial to adverse effects on ground or drinking water, but studies
evaluating the effects of livestock burial have focused more on mass emergency
burials than routine burials and even those studies are relatively few in number
(Freedman and Fleming 2003).
Like the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), on site feral swine carcass
burial, if used, would typically involve the disposal of relatively few individual
animals; however, two scenarios may become more likely under this alternative
and could create greater risks of indirect and cumulative impacts on soil and water
quality. These scenarios would occur if feral swine carcasses were added to
existing trench sites used for routine livestock burial (cumulative effects, Section
H), or if land or resource managers of larger properties with high numbers of feral
swine decided to transfer and concentrate feral swine carcasses in a common
burial site (indirect impact).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 238
Decomposition is influenced by different factors including the number of animals
in the burial site, soil properties, and climate influences. When used as a disposal
method, on site burials under the Integrated FSDM Program may typically
accommodate about 1,000 pounds of carcasses, or the equivalent weight of five
200-pound adult feral swine (considering that whole sounders would be targeted,
which averages more animals, but includes young). Glanville (2000) reported that
livestock carcass degradation releases about 20 pounds of nitrogen into the soil
for every 1,000 pounds of carcass. Extrapolating this number up can create
nitrogen loads in excess of rates used agronomically and which could contaminate
groundwater, potentially affect well water, or create problems for fish in
groundwater dependent streams, especially if carcasses are buried below the root
zone where nitrogen cannot be utilized by plants. Feral swine pathogens could
also be a concern. Many factors affect the movement of pathogens through soil to
groundwater, including soil type, permeability, water table depth, and rainfall, but
soil processes and microbial predation can also significantly reduce the amount of
pathogens eventually reaching underlying groundwaters (Beal et al. 2005). The
addition of hydrated lime to the base of burial trenches or pits has been shown to
reduce the survival and transfer of pathogens in the soil (Sanchez et al. 2008).
Routine on site livestock burial is addressed by state, territorial and local
authorities. Thus, if feral swine carcasses were added to existing trenches used
for routine livestock carcasses disposal, they would be regulated by states and
territories, and sometimes counties, and those entities would evaluate/regulate the
environmental effects. However, feral swine are not regulated as livestock in
most states and territories, and livestock burial requirements often don’t apply.
State laws and local guidance often differ on required livestock burial practices.
Trench site selection, depth of burial, allowable maximum numbers of animals
per pit, total weight per acre per year, required depth of cover material, depth of
pit floor above groundwater, and minimum distance to water sources such as
floodplains, wetlands, wells, and ponds are some factors that can be specified in
local regulations and policies. APHIS-WS would not typically be in a position to
select sites for trench excavation, but because state, territorial and local laws can
change over time, local planning must include consultation with
state/territorial/tribal officials and wildlife, environmental quality, and/or
agriculture officials (e.g. State Veterinarian) to ensure that local guidelines on
carcass burial are considered and potential contamination concerns are mitigated.
APHIS-WS’ local environmental reviews (e.g., Environmental Assessments or
documented Categorical Exclusions, Section 3.E.) may be issued to implement
decisions made from this EIS and would include more local analysis of impacts
on soil, vegetation, and water quality where on site burial is a proposed disposal
option.
Some states limit the number of livestock carcasses that may be buried in one site
or per acre. For example, Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality issued
a policy ranking on site burial as a last resort of disposal options, and restricting
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 239
burial to 2,000 pounds per acre per year (Golden 2009). Iowa has set limits on the
number of livestock carcasses that can be buried to 44 swine per acre per year
(Glanville 2008). Despite the fact that these rules are not directed at feral swine,
this information should be considered when planning larger feral swine burials
since the intent of the state and local regulations and policies is to protect
environmental quality.
A key factor germane to the discussion of the Integrated FSDM Program effects
on soil and water quality is that feral swine are dispersed and not concentrated in
large numbers like typical livestock operations. Barring human-caused mortality,
such as damage management and hunter harvest, if feral swine do not fall to
predation, they naturally die in place on the landscape. Burial reduces or
eliminates the potential for scavenging as a method for cycling back into the food
chain. Still, typical on site feral swine carcass burial would involve few animals
in shallow graves placed away from water sources and would not be expected to
increase water contamination risks substantially over those occurring from
naturally fallen swine. Larger numbers of feral swine, such as more than one
sounder, or especially large sounders buried in one site would require additional
evaluation at the local level to consider ground and surface water risks. Because a
variety of carcass disposal options are available to APHIS-WS and partner
agencies depending on local rules, burial would not be expected to be a widely
selected option in any case.
Soil conservation should also be considered with on site carcass burial. Soil
disturbance can be calculated based in part on the number of swine that would be
buried. For on site burial, unless carcasses would be transported to a common pit,
the greatest number of feral swine carcasses that would be placed in a pit or
trench under the Integrated FSDM Program would likely be from corral trapping
and euthanization of whole sounders. A site selected to bury an average sized
sounder of 9 or 10 individuals (Mayer 2009e, Mapston 2004, Graves 1984) would
likely fall within the 1.2 to 3 cubic yard range reported by different authors in
Kastner et al. (2004) for burying 5 hogs. Compared to commercial hogs, a
sounder would include a number of younger and smaller animals. Thus, soil
volumes needed for burial could be estimated at the lower end of the range. More
individual feral swine could be removed at some sites which would increase
excavation requirements. Soil volume would also depend on its depth, distance to
bedrock, and other properties. Finally, where state laws specified, soil volume
could also vary in the amount of cover material (depth of soil from carcass to
natural ground level). Similar to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), if
APHIS-WS uses on site burial as a direct disposal method, or if it is used by
cooperators, APHIS would use or recommend management practices that
minimize adverse effects on soils and vegetation including removing and
replacing topsoil, mounding soil to allow for settling to avoid ponding, and as
needed, installing erosion control structures (e.g. berms to divert surface water),
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 240
and recommending revegetation. These measures would further reduce the
potential for adverse impacts on soil, vegetation, and water quality.
The Integrated FSDM Program would increase the use of lead ammunition for
shooting in the short term. As noted in Section 4.C.2, APHIS-WS is working to
reduce use of lead ammunition within the constraints of performance, availability,
and cost. Non-lead ammunition would be used in the Integrated FSDM Program
where practical and effective, or where required by land use policy or state or
local laws (SOPs, Section 2.E). This would reduce the amount of lead that could
occur in the environment from widespread use. As with the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1), any lead ammunition that may be present and could
occur in soil or water is not expected to result in levels that could impair water
quality or result in lead levels beyond the range of baseline soil concentrations
that have been reported in the United States. Lead deposited in either of these
environments would be subject to slow degradation over time and based on site-
specific conditions would have variable bioavailability further reducing the
potential for any impact on soil and water.
The general lack of regulatory controls over on site feral swine carcass burial, and
the soil and water contamination risks from potential larger on site burials, is a
concern that should be resolved with local resource experts. On site burial is
expected to be used infrequently and burial of more than one sounder would
probably be more infrequent still. Other carcass disposal methods would have
minimal adverse effects on soils, vegetation, and water quality with use of SOPs.
By effectively removing and reducing feral swine populations (Section 4.B.1), the
Integrated FSDM Program would be likely to provide widespread and long term
benefits to soils, vegetation and water quality.
Based on the review of the ability of the alternatives to achieve management goals
and objectives, this alternative would be the most effective in reducing feral swine
damage while balancing the need for local damage management and a nationally-
coordinated population control effort. Long-term reduction of feral swine damage
to soil, water and vegetation as presented in Chapter 3 Section C.1.a would be
greatest under this alternative.
In conclusion, this alternative provides a balance between the need for baseline
FSDM capacity to address local feral swine damage to vegetation, soils, and water
and the need to stabilize and reduce the national feral swine population so that
problems do not increase in scope and magnitude over the long-term. Adverse
effects on soils, water, and vegetation under this alternative would be similar in
nature to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) because the same methods
would be used; however, impacts would be greater in scope because of the
increase in FSDM.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 241
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Alternative 3 provides baseline funding only and would initially result in the
greatest level of operational activity of all the alternatives. The number of swine
removed for a given amount of effort is likely to be highest in areas with high
feral swine populations. Consequently, this alternative may generate the highest
number of feral swine carcasses of any of the alternatives because it allocates
money based on the size of the feral swine populations. The discussion of
potential effects on soils, vegetation, and water would be similar to the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 1). However there would be increased potential for
negative effects on soils, vegetation, and water quality in the short term if burial
were used more frequently, or if larger burial sites were used. Lower program
efficacy, as compared to Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), would require
that efforts to manage feral swine may continue on a longer timeframe. SOPs to
protect soils, vegetation, and water quality would be similar to the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2) and would be likely to reduce impacts to
negligible levels.
This alternative would benefit soils, vegetation, and water quality well above the
Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) since substantially more feral swine
removals and local population elimination would occur. Compared with the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), it would more immediately benefit
soils, vegetation and water quality with all emphasis in field operations at the
local level. However, in the long term, without the support of national level
projects to enhance efficacy and without strategic local level projects to target
complete local populations, this alternative is likely to be less effective in
eliminating feral swine and reducing local damages than the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2). Therefore, cumulative long-term benefit to soils,
vegetation, and water quality would be expected to be lower than for the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
This alternative would not provide baseline capacity funding for states with feral
swine. Consequently, some state/territory/tribal lands with high feral swine
populations, and/or which do not intend to eradicate feral swine populations (Figs.
2-2, 4-4; Appendix D, Table 2), may not receive any federal funding for FSDM.
In those cases, effects on soils, vegetation, and water quality would be similar to
the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Where states receive funding for
strategic local projects and work to achieve national feral swine management
goals, focused, intensive operations would be implemented to eradicate feral
swine. In general, more time and effort is needed per animal to remove swine
from a small population and/or the last few swine from a population. Total swine
taken per year under this alternative may be similar to or lower than the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2) and the Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3),
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 242
but would still be greater than for the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1).
Risks to soils, vegetation, and water and associated SOPs would be similar to
those described for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Based on these
SOPs, risks to soils, water, and vegetation are expected to be low.
This alternative would have less capacity to address local feral swine damage in
the short term. Damage to soils, water, and vegetation in states which are not
identified as priorities for national feral swine population reduction or national
and strategic local projects may increase until such time as resources are freed to
address damage in their area. However, because this alternative would apply
more funding to national projects (e.g., research, national-level education, and
outreach programs and materials) than any other alternative, it would likely
provide beneficial effects based on long-term efficiency and efficacy in stabilizing
and reducing the national feral swine population. More states would be cleared of
feral swine and associated damage in a shorter period of time under this
alternative than under the other alternatives.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
APHIS-WS would not directly affect soils, vegetation, or water quality under this
alternative since it would not implement FSDM operations. The FSDM Grant
Program would require that a substantial amount of funding be committed to
oversight, compliance, and monitoring. Because the FSDM Grant Program would
require that grant recipients implement SOPs to reduce adverse effects on soils,
vegetation, and water quality, the success of the measures would be related to the
degree that grant recipients followed protocol established for resource protections.
Overall, because less funding would equate to less operational FSDM, benefits to
soils, vegetation, and water quality from feral swine removal would probably be
lower than under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternatives 2), the Baseline
FSDM Program (Alternative 3), and National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
(Alternative 4). Whether or not this alternative might provide similar benefits
than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) would depend greatly on the
efficiency of the grant recipients or their agents who deliver FSDM services. This
alternative is not likely to provide as much potential benefit to soils, vegetation,
and water quality that are harmed by feral swine because fewer feral swine would
likely be eradicated or removed in both the near and long term.
4. Impact on Odor/Air Quality
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
The Current FSDM Program utilizes a variety of methods for the disposal of feral
swine carcasses. The primary carcass disposal method used by the Current
FSDM Program is leaving the carcasses on site. Proximity to residential locations
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 243
and recreational sites is taken into consideration when determining an appropriate
carcass disposal method. The methods of carcass disposal would depend on, and
be influenced by, regulatory requirements, site accessibility/feasibility, individual
site circumstances, land owner or land manager preference, and operational
cost/cost effectiveness.
All carcasses would be disposed of in accordance with APHIS-WS Directive
2.515, Disposal of Wildlife Carcasses. As such, all carcasses of feral swine
removed by APHIS-WS would be disposed of in a manner that is consistent with
applicable federal, state, territorial, tribal, county, and local regulations. APHIS-
WS personnel would make a reasonable effort to retrieve and dispose of carcasses
when leaving them on site is not environmentally preferred or included in
agreements. In many situations, where limited numbers of feral swine would be
taken over a large geographic region with limited access, carcasses would be left
on site. All disposals would be made in a manner that demonstrates APHIS-WS’
recognition of the public’s sensitivity to the viewing of wildlife carcasses.
As discussed in Chapter 2 Section 11, death of animals is a natural part of any
ecosystem. Allowing carcasses to remain on site offers several advantages in
comparison to other disposal methods. These include lower disposal costs,
providing a food base for scavengers, and lowering the potential for disease
transmission to off-site locations. Feral swine carcasses would be allowed to
remain on site with landowner permission and in compliance with all federal,
state, territorial, tribal, and local laws and regulations. APHIS-WS expects the
impacts on air quality form this methods of disposal to be low, given limited
human habitation. APHIS-WS expects that leaving carcasses to decompose on
site will have short-term aesthetic impacts on air quality. However, impacts on
people are likely to be minimal because this method would not be used in areas
where people are likely to encounter the carcasses and associated odor. Particular
effort will be made to avoid using this method in areas where carcasses are likely
to be encountered by recreationists.
In areas with close human habitation and/or where odor from decomposing
carcasses left on site may be problematic (e.g., feral swine removed from golf
courses), carcasses may be disposed of by other approved methods.
Other approved methods with the potential to create odor and affect air quality
include landfill disposal, composting, incineration, chemical digesters, alkaline
hydrolysis and rendering. Of these methods, only landfill burial and incineration
have been used under the current program, and APHIS has used these options
infrequently. The remaining methods have not been used, or are not expected to
be used widely based on their limitations (Appendix H). State, territory, tribal
and federal regulations on landfill burial, incineration, chemical digesters and
alkaline hydrolysis are expected to address air quality and odor issues to
acceptable standards.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 244
On site and landfill burial
On site (or trench burial) involves excavating a trough into the earth and placing
carcasses into the trench and covering with excavated material (backfill). On-
farm burial of routine mortalities typically is done using the trench method, which
involves excavating a narrow and relatively shallow trench with a backhoe,
placing a single layer of carcasses in the trench, and covering them with
excavated soil (CAST 2008). Traditionally, burial is considered to be a
convenient method for routine mortality disposal with minimal environmental
impact when used sparingly by relatively small livestock operations (CAST
2008). In some circumstances, APHIS-WS would employ the use of on site
burial for feral swine carcasses where necessary, feasible, and practical.
In the aftermath of the 2001 UK FMD outbreak, the UK Environmental Agency
(2001 in NABCC 2004) published an interim assessment of the environmental
impact of the outbreak. The most notable environmental pressures associated
with burial included odor from mass burial sites and landfills and burial of items
such as machinery and building materials during the cleansing and disinfection
process. The interim environmental impact assessment concluded that no
significant negative effects on air quality had occurred, and no evidence on public
health was observed.
Modern landfills are required to meet design and operating standards outlined in
the federal Subtitle D regulations (Subpart 257 and 258, Title 40, Federal Code of
Regulations). Key features of landfill design include composite liners, leachate
22
containment systems, and gas collection systems (NABCC 2004). The purpose of
a landfill is to effectively contain waste such that the components of waste and/or
the by-products of decomposition do not escape into the environment. The
primary by-products resulting from decomposition of waste in the landfill are
leachate and landfill gas.
The anaerobic decomposition of organic materials in a landfill generates a
combination of gases, collectively called landfill gases. Landfill gas is composed
of approximately 50% methane and 50% carbon dioxide (NABCC 2004). Passive
gas control systems (relying on natural pressure and convection mechanisms to
vent gas to the atmosphere) are becoming less common due to the unpredictable
nature of gas movement in landfills. Active systems employ gas recovery wells
or trenches and vacuum pumps to control migration of landfill gas, and may even
allow capture of gas for energy recovery.
In 2001, monitoring of air quality near a mass burial site in Lockerbie, Scotland
was performed to determine the presence of compounds that may be injurious to
22
Leachate is a liquid that percolates through a substance, and may contain some of the material or contaminates of
the material through which is passed.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 245
human health (Glasgow Scientific Services Colston Laboratory 2001 in NABCC
2004). The monitoring regime included total volatile organic compounds,
flammable and other bulk gases, individual volatile organic compounds, and
hydrogen sulfide. It was concluded that although odor causing compounds were
identified, the concentration of contaminants were within air quality guidelines
and, although a source of annoyance, were not expected to result in adverse health
effects. Because feral swine are distributed over the landscape and not
concentrated as with livestock operations, mass burials of feral swine are not
expected and odor effects would be minor in comparison.
Composting
On-farm composting has evolved more recently as a disposal method for domestic
swine mortality (CAST 2008). APHIS-WS’ use of composting would involve
pre-established compost sites. APHIS-WS would not construct new compost sites
to dispose of feral swine. Composting is not expected to be a widely used
disposal method.
Carcass composting is a natural biological decomposition process that takes place
in the presence of oxygen. Under optimal conditions, during the first phase of
composting, the temperature of the compost pile increases, the organic materials
break down into relatively small compounds, soft tissue decomposes, and bones
soften partially. In the second phase, the remaining materials (mainly bones)
break down fully and the compost turns to a consistent dark brown or black soil or
“humus” with a musty odor containing primarily non-pathogenic bacteria and
plant nutrients (NABCC 2004).
Disposal of animal carcasses may generate different environmental and health
hazards. Various agricultural agencies (Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural
Development 2002; AUSVETPLAN 1996 in NABCC 2004) indicated that
improper carcass disposal procedures might cause serious environmental and
public health problems, including odor nuisance resulting from the anaerobic
breakdown of proteins by bacteria, which could reduce the quality of life and
decrease property values of nearby residences.
Among other site selection criteria, composting facilities should be located
downwind of nearby residences to minimize potential odors or dust being carried
to neighboring residences by prevailing winds. Choosing an appropriate
composting site would help prevent negative reactions from neighbors and
decrease nuisance problems. Fermentation and oxidation of carcasses during
composting produces unpleasant gases (CO
2
, NH
3
, H2
S
, etc.) and odors associated
with the liquid or solid biomass. Different methods have been suggested to
neutralize the unpleasant effects of these gases. Some researchers suggest that
wood ash be used as an absorption medium. Rosenfeld and Henry (2001 in
NABCC 2004) studied the use of activated carbon and wood ash to neutralize
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 246
odors produced from wastewater, compost, and biosolids. A properly covered
compost pile that is biodegrading carcasses under anaerobic conditions should
generate little to no odor (NABCC 2004).
A good composting operation would not generate an offensive odor (NABCC
2004), and there has been significant progress on biological and chemical
deodorization of compost gases. Currently, odor absorption units use multistage
chemical scrubbing to reduce offensive odors (Haug 1993 in NABCC 2004).
Biofilters are widely used in many compost facilities.
Rendering
Rendering has historically been defined as separation of fat from animal tissues
by the application of heat. Rendering of animal carcasses involves conversion of
carcasses into three end products: carcass meal (proteinaceous solids), melted fat
(tallow), and water by using mechanical processes (e.g., grinding, mixing,
pressing, decanting, and separating), thermal processes (e.g., cooking,
evaporating, and drying) and sometimes chemical processes (e.g., solvent
extraction) (NABCC 2004).
Because carcasses are typically not refrigerated for preservation prior to
rendering, they begin to putrefy and give rise to odorants. Due to this, rendering
is often perceived by the public as unpleasant and smelly (NABCC 2004). A
significant environmental issue for the rendering industry is controlling various
odors generated during pre-rendering, rendering, and post-rendering processes.
Considerable progress has been achieved in manufacturing very high efficiency
odor neutralizing units (NABCC 2004)). Odor control equipment systems include
condensers, scrubbers, afterburners, and bio-filters. Strong odors are generated
during cooking and drying processes, and are carried in the steam emitted by
rendering plants (NABCC 2004). Condenser units wash the cooking steam with
cold water and then liquefy all condensable material. This process reduces the
temperature of the noncombustible substances to around 35-40
o
C (95-104
o
F) and
transfers the heat (Fernando 1995 in NABCC 2004). The cooling water removes
up to 90% of odors and recovers heat energy from the cooking stream. Scrubbers
are used to absorb chemical compounds. A condenser followed by a two-stage
scrubbing unit can provide up to a 99% odor reduction (NABCC 2004).
Afterburners are used to burn gases released from the exhaust of a scrubber.
According to Fernando (1995 in NABCC 2004), a test on the composition of the
gases released from the exhaust of the afterburner showed that it was completely
free of hydrogen sulphide, mercaptans, and amines. Condensers, scrubbers,
afterburners, and bio-filters can be used in a combined system or individually.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 247
A satisfactory odor abatement system in a rendering facility would reduce
odorants to levels below those that can be detected by humans (Fernando 1995 in
NABCC 2004). Rendering processes can be carried out without being a public
nuisance as long as fresh or stabilized raw materials are used and appropriate odor
control devices are employed for plant emissions (NABCC 2004).
Advantages associated with rendering for disposal of routine domestic swine
mortality could also apply to the disposal of feral swine carcasses are that
rendering is closely regulated to be environmentally safe, the end product is
considered biosecure, and in some instances, rendering allows for process cost
recovery (CAST 2008).
Rendering is not expected to be used widely by APHIS-WS due to the limitations
of this option (Appendix H).
Incineration
Open burning would be avoided due to potential fire hazards except when this
method is required by regulations and can be conducted safely (APHIS-WS
Directive 2.515). APHIS-WS Directive 2.515 allows for carcasses to be
incinerated in approved facilities that comply with federal, state, territorial and
local regulations. Open-air carcass burning includes burning carcasses in open
fields, on combustible heaps called pyres, and with other burning techniques that
are unassisted by incineration equipment (NABCC 2004). Generally, a permit is
required prior to initiating an open-air burn and open-air burning is not allowed in
all areas (APHIS 2003, p. 2707 in NABCC 2004). Fixed-facility incinerators
include small on-farm incinerators, small and large incineration facilities,
crematoria, and power plant incinerators. Fixed-facility incineration is wholly
contained and, usually, highly controlled. Fixed-facility incinerators are typically
fueled by diesel, natural gas, or propane. In some states, regulations stipulate that
permitted mortality incineration equipment must contain a secondary burn
chamber or “afterburner” to decrease particulate matter (i.e., “fly ash”) and other
emissions (CAST 2008). Newer designs of fixed-facility incinerators are fitted
with afterburner chambers designed to completely burn hydrocarbon gases and
particulate matter exiting from the main combustion chamber (Rosenhaft 1974 in
NABCC 2004). Many incinerators are fitted with afterburners that further reduce
emissions by burning the smoke exiting the primary incineration chambers
(Walawender 2003 in NABCC 2004).
Air-curtain incineration involves large-capacity fans driven by diesel engines
which deliver high-velocity air either down a metal refractory box or a burn pit
(trench), thereby creating a turbulent environment in which incineration is greatly
accelerated (Ford 1994 in NABCC 2004) and is a relatively new technology for
carcass disposal (Brglez 2003, Ellis 2001 in NABCC 2004). Air-curtain
incinerators have been used for carcass disposal in the wake of natural disasters in
the United States (Ellis 2001 in NABCC 2004). Air curtain incinerators have
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 248
been used in Colorado and Montana to dispose of animals that were infected with
chronic wasting disease (APHIS 2003 in NABCC 2004). Air-curtain incinerators
have met regulatory approval in the U.S. and around the world (Ford 2003 in
NABCC 2004). If placed far from residential centers and the general public, they
are generally not nuisances (APHIS 2002 in NABCC 2004).
Open-air burning cannot be recommended for routine on-farm mortality disposal
for a number of reasons, most notably the potential to generate excess pollutants
in the form of smoke and odor, the possibility of creating a public nuisance, the
risk of causing unintended fires, and the violation of regulatory restrictions
(CAST 2008). Most regulatory agencies do not permit open-air burning for
routine disposal of livestock mortality (Henry, Wills, and Bitney 2001; Morrow,
Ferket, and Middelton 2000 in CAST 2008).
It is generally accepted that open-air burning pollutes. The nature of open-air
burning emissions hinges on many factors including fuel type. The fear of dioxin
and smoke inhalation, along with generally poor public perception of pyres,
eventually compelled the discontinuation of the use of mass burn sites in the UK
(Scudamore et al. 2002 in NABCC 2004). However, pollution levels never
exceeded levels in other (urban) parts of the UK, did not violate air quality
regulations, and were deemed to have not unduly affected the public health
(Cumbria Foot and Mouth Disease Inquiry Panel 2002, Hankin and McRae 2001,
McDonald 2001, UK Department of Health 2001a and 2001b in NABCC 2004).
In contrast to open-air burning, properly operated fixed-facility and air-curtain
incineration pose fewer pollution concerns. During the UK 2001 foot and mouth
disease outbreak, air-curtain incinerators offered conspicuous environmental
advantages over open-air burning (Ford 2003 in NABCC 2004). Air-curtain
technology in general has been shown to cause little pollution (Ford 2003 in
NABCC 2004). If operated in accordance with best practices and existing
environmental regulations, both small and large afterburner-equipped incinerators
should not pose serious problems for the environment. In addition, APHIS-WS
does not expect to use this method frequently.
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion, sometimes referred to as biomethanization and biodigestion,
is a method of carcass disposal available to APHIS-WS under this alternative,
however there are few of these facilitates available. Anaerobic digestion involves
the transformation of organic matter by a mixed culture bacterial ecosystem
without oxygen. It is a natural process that produces a gas principally composed
of methane and carbon dioxide.
There are several environmental advantages to anaerobic digestion. Among other
benefits, the process reduces greenhouse gas problems. While the public
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 249
generally accepts biodigesters, they should still be located away from residential
areas to minimize odor problems (NABCC 2004). APHIS-WS would not be
expected to use digesters commonly. Digesting facilities are regulated by federal
state and territorial entities, so APHIS-WS use of such facilities is not expected to
have any negative impacts in the environment.
Alkaline Hydrolysis
Alkaline hydrolysis uses sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide to catalyze
the hydrolysis of biological material into a sterile aqueous solution consisting of
small peptides, amino acids, sugars, and soaps and is another method available to
but not currently used by APHIS-WS for FSDM. The process releases no
emissions into the atmosphere and results in only minor odor production
(NABCC 2004). The end product is a sterile, coffee-colored, alkaline solution
with a soap-like odor that can be released into a sanitary sewer in accordance with
local and federal guidelines regarding pH and temperature (Kaye 2003 in NABCC
2004).
Lack of access to incineration, rendering, alkaline hydrolysis and anaerobic
digestion facilities is a current limitation with regard to feral swine carcass
disposal. Based on the information above, the Current FSDM Program has a
negligible effect on air quality.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
Implementing an Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) is not expected to add
appreciatively to the effects of feral swine carcass disposal on odor issues or air
quality. Feral swine carcasses would increase under this alternative; however,
based on the fact that feral swine are dispersed across the landscape, disposal
needs would similarly be dispersed and not typically concentrated as is generally
the case with livestock. The majority of feral swine carcasses would be left in
place to be quickly scavenged and decompose. In addition, by working with land
owners and land managers to ensure that carcass management does not create an
odor nuisance, and by complying with federal, state, territorial, or tribal
regulations and statues as well as APHIS-WS Directive 2.515, the impacts on
odor and air quality would remain negligible under the Integrated FSDM
Program.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Initially, this alternative could result in the removal of more feral swine and
subsequently more feral swine carcasses requiring disposal. However, because
feral swine are dispersed across the landscape, disposal needs would similarly be
dispersed and not typically concentrated. The majority of feral swine carcasses
would be left in place to be quickly scavenged and decompose. In addition, by
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 250
working with land owners and land managers to ensure that carcass management
does not create an odor nuisance, and by complying with APHIS-WS Directive
2.515 and federal, state, territorial, and tribal regulations and statues pertaining to
the disposal of carcasses, APHIS-WS’ impact on odor and air quality would be
negligible under this alternative.
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
Under this alternative, the removal of feral swine, and thus the need for carcass
disposal would likely be less than under the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2) if a specific location has not been identified as a priority for
national of specific local projects. Conversely, those sites identified as priorities
may temporarily see higher levels of feral swine removal and be subject to greater
carcass disposal needs. As with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2),
impacts of this alternative on odor and air quality issues would be negligible.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
Grant recipients would be expected to follow the same protocol for carcass
disposal as discussed under the other alternatives. Overall, fewer feral swine
would be removed; however, the potential for odor and air quality effects would
be related to the degree with which grant recipients or their agents complied with
these conditions. Odor and air quality issues are expected to be negligible.
5. Impact on Recreation
This section discusses the potential effects of the FSDM alternatives on recreation
including effects on sport hunting feral swine, hunting other game species, the public’s
aesthetic enjoyment of the natural environment, and operational FSDM disturbance to
recreationists.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
Effects on Feral Swine Hunting
The Current FSDM Program likely has a limited or low level effect on the
public’s opportunities to hunt feral swine. Under the Current FSDM Program,
impacts of APHIS-WS actions on hunting opportunities vary depending upon the
size of the feral swine population, available funding, and state, territorial, and
tribal management regulations and management objectives for the species. State
and territorial management objectives and regulations for feral swine hunting are
listed in Appendix D, Tables 2 and 3, respectively. In states with well-established
moderate or high feral swine populations and established hunting traditions,
APHIS-WS feral swine removals are typically focused on resolving damages on
individual properties or in specific damage situations where hunting is restricted
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 251
(e.g. protecting private cropland or an endangered species on public land where
hunting is not allowed). Alabama, California, West Virginia (select counties),
Florida, Guam, Puerto Rico (Mona Island), and Hawaii manage feral swine as a
game mammal. APHIS-WS reports all feral swine lethally removed to game
management officials in these states and territories. This helps to ensure that
APHIS-WS removals are incorporated into population and harvest management
objectives. Under the Current FSDM Program, the magnitude of lethal removal
combined with other known sources of mortality, is low when compared with the
known populations (where populations or trends are estimated); and all sources of
mortality are unlikely to limit populations in these areas (USDA 2014a, 2014b,
2013a, 2008). For all of these reasons, APHIS-WS removal of feral swine has
likely had no effect on hunter harvest opportunities in states that manage feral
swine as game mammals. Impacts on hunting opportunities would be similar in
almost all of those states that do not manage feral swine as a game mammal, but
have well established feral swine populations and allow hunting (Appendix D,
Table 2).
In states, territories, and tribal lands with low or newly established feral swine
populations, APHIS-WS and cooperating agency cumulative actions have the
potential to impact hunting opportunities. Actual impact depends on the
management objective of the state, territory, or tribe and whether existing
regulations permit swine hunting. The greatest single factor influencing feral
swine hunting opportunities are state/territorial/tribal regulations. In states,
territories, and tribal lands where the goal is to maintain a small population for
recreational or cultural purposes, APHIS-WS actions and impacts on the
recreational opportunities would be conducted in much the same manner as
described above for states with moderate or high populations. However, in areas
where the management objective is to eradicate or substantially reduce the
population, the collective action of APHIS-WS and all other entities may result in
the eradication of feral swine from all or a substantial portion of a state, territory,
or tribal lands. Impact on feral swine hunting opportunities would depend on
whether or not feral swine hunting is allowed in the area. If hunting is not
permitted, eradication of the population would not change the environmental
baseline conditions. Elimination of feral swine at the state, territory, or tribal
level in areas which allow hunting has the potential to adversely impact local feral
swine hunting opportunities. Hunters could seek feral swine hunting
opportunities in others states that still have free-ranging feral swine or use
enclosed hunting preserves where permitted, but there would likely be substantial
increase in the travel time and expense involved.
In areas that do not currently have feral swine populations, APHIS-WS may also
work with partner agencies and tribes to prevent feral swine and associated
hunting opportunities from becoming established. APHIS-WS actions in these
areas would help to prevent the establishment of hunting opportunities. However,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 252
many of the areas that do not have feral swine have, or are working on,
regulations to prevent swine from being used or managed as a game species.
As noted in Section B.1 above, the amount of area affected by feral swine
nationwide has generally been increasing, although there have been some
successes at reducing or eliminating feral swine populations (e.g., Nebraska,
Illinois, New York). There are many other obstacles to controlling feral swine.
Inadequate funding, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, partnerships, outreach
and education, and access problems on private property are cited as reasons that
state and territorial management objectives have not been met (Table 3).
Consequently, limitations of the Current FSDM Program have resulted in an
increase in feral swine hunting opportunities. The APHIS-WS New Mexico pilot
project program is the only program under the Current FSDM Program that is
likely aggressive enough to substantially reduce a well-established and abundant
feral swine population. Feral swine hunting is allowed in New Mexico, but the
state does not manage feral swine as a game animal. Instead, the state’s goal is
eradication. While eradication is not likely to be achieved under current program
efforts, recreational hunters and others who benefit from feral swine could be
affected by a reduction in feral swine populations.
Ironically, interest in feral swine hunting is believed to be a significant factor
contributing to the relatively rapid spread of feral swine in recent years. Some
states, including New Mexico, have allowed swine hunting (Appendix D) in an
effort to help with population control, but this has led to widespread intentional
releases to improve local hunting opportunities (Bevins et al. 2014, Anderson and
Yoest 2012, Zivin et al. 2000, Cox 1999, Waithman et al. 1999, Mayer and
Brisbin 1991).
Inadequate funding, regulatory mechanisms, partnerships, outreach and education,
and access problems on private property were cited by states and territories in an
informal 2013 APHIS-WS questionnaire as reasons that FSDM management
objectives, whether they are broad scale or more localized eradication, have not
been met. Executive Order (EO) 13443- Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and
Wildlife Conservation directs federal agencies that have activities that have a
measurable effect on outdoor recreation and wildlife management, to facilitate the
expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of
game species and their habitat. It directs federal agencies to cooperate with states
to conserve hunting opportunities. Under current regulatory and management
conditions, feral swine populations have increased in number and distribution.
For these reasons, there is likely to remain an abundant and growing population of
feral swine that can be hunted under the Current FSDM Program. In addition,
APHIS-WS has no effect on state, territorial or tribal laws governing hunting of
feral swine.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 253
Effects on Hunting Other Game Animals
Feral swine can adversely impact the abundance and distribution of other game
species. Effects on other game animals were described in Chapter 3, Sections C.1
and 3.F and the effects of program alternatives on wildlife were compared in
Chapter 4 Section C.2. Feral swine removal from habitats that support game
species, such as wild turkey, quail, and white-tailed deer, would benefit such
species and would be in accordance with the direction provided in EO 13443 -
Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation. The Current FSDM
Program is not comprehensive enough to have more than localized benefits where
local populations of feral swine are removed. As long as feral swine populations
are not completely removed, predation, competition, habitat degradation, and
displacement threats can be expected to return and/or continue (Bach and Conner
2013). Negative effects on individual game animals from FSDM methods are
negligible and do not affect populations.
Effects on the Aesthetic Enjoyment of the Natural Environment
As noted in Chapter 3, Section 4. B, perceptions of aesthetic values vary among
individuals depending upon their values and experiences. The animal one person
sees as a recreational benefit may be perceived as a deterrent to recreation by
another. For example, some people may enjoy viewing feral swine or feeding
them at parks or picnic areas. However, feral swine have a reputation for
aggressive behavior. Feral swine that habituate to developed public recreation
sites such as campgrounds or trail heads may be removed as a precaution to
protect human safety.
When feral swine are in parks, other public lands, or any place where people
enjoy nature, they reduce the aesthetic benefits of non-consumptive recreation
(e.g., hiking, photographing nature, and wildlife watching) because they destroy
native vegetation, soils, water quality, and both game and nongame wildlife.
Feral swine damage can also adversely impact the historic character and aesthetic
nature of a site by damaging property and vegetation (e.g., disturbing civil war
grave sites, damage to historic landscapes and living history sites).
Existence values are a component of aesthetic values. For some individuals, the
knowledge that native ecosystems and recreational areas are being damaged by an
invasive species is a negative impact on their aesthetic values. For others who
value the rights and existence of individual animals regardless of their status or
impacts, removal of feral swine would be an adverse impact on their aesthetic
values.
Localized FSDM actions may be effective in alleviating these negative effects
temporarily or within limited areas where removal is successful. The Current
FSDM Program is not comprehensive enough to have more than localized
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 254
benefits in most areas, many of which may be temporary. Similar to the effects
on hunting other game animals, as long as feral swine populations are not
completely removed, damage can be expected to continue or return in the absence
of ongoing management efforts.
In states, territories, and tribal lands where feral swine populations are abundant
and growing even when local populations are removed, feral swine are still likely
to be enjoyed as “watchable wildlife” in other areas of the state. As noted in
Chapter 3, it is unlikely that wildlife photographers or observers seek feral swine
as a primary recreational goal. In those states where eradication is a goal, the
positive aesthetic values of feral swine would be eliminated. The loss of the
positive aesthetic value of feral swine would be traded for the removal of an
invasive species and resultant benefit to the natural environment, including native
wildlife and plant species that may be suppressed or displaced by the presence of
feral swine.
Disturbance to Recreationists from FSDM
Some members of the public may be concerned that FSDM activities could
conflict with their recreational enjoyment of an area where control actions occur.
Some areas could potentially be closed while FSDM actions are being conducted
for the protection of human safety. Aerial shooting involving low flying fixed
wing aircraft or helicopters has the potential to temporarily disturb some
recreationists due to the noise and visibility of the aircraft. Aircraft would also be
used for monitoring and to provide logistical support for ground based swine
removal operations.
Aircraft disturbance would be temporary and of short duration. Aerial FSDM is
highly effective and efficient and would be visible and audible, but for a shorter
period of time as compared with other more labor intensive methods. Aircraft are
commonly used to access remote locations where few people would potentially be
disturbed; however, they can also be used in areas where more people would see
and hear them. When APHIS-WS flies over public lands, planning and
coordination with the land management agency identifies recreational issues.
APHIS-WS also complies with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
regulations pertaining to overflights (500 foot buffer). Bigger buffers may be
used at the request of the applicable landowner/manager (e.g., for NPS lands) as
appropriate. Because federal, state, territorial, and tribal land managers are
consulted in planning, potential effects on the public in high use recreational areas
or other sensitive areas can be minimized.
Traps, snares, and shooting may also cause some individuals to be concerned if
they are aware of FSDM operations in the area. Some individuals would likely
encounter warning signs posted at prominent locations that indicate that
equipment has been set in the area. These concerns are likely to be primarily for
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 255
human and pet safety. Human safety and potential non target animal effects are
discussed in Chapter 4 Sections C.7 and C.2, respectively, which conclude that
the risks to humans and pets from FSDM methods are low.
Current FSDM Program activities have limited, and short-term effects on outdoor
recreational use of public lands. Land and resource management agencies
typically minimize closures and recreation is allowed to continue during FSDM.
However short-term closures of limited extent could occur during aerial and
ground hunting operations which would temporarily exclude public access and
recreation activities to protect public safety and minimize disturbance. Closures
are typically minimal in high use recreation areas, particularly during weekends
and holidays. FSDM work is typically scheduled to coincide with times of low
use to avoid closures or minimize their impacts. Noise from helicopters and fixed
wing aircraft, gunshots, and dogs may be heard by the recreating public during
project implementation.
Corral traps set for feral swine are generally placed in locations not visible from
recreation facilities, roads, or trails and are not expected to negatively affect
outdoor recreation. Short spans of temporary fencing used to enhance removal
efforts would be placed away from recreation facilities and out of public view
wherever possible. A 500-foot buffer around open developed recreation facilities
would be established for aerial shooting operations to further reduce noise
impacts.
As feral swine become more abundant and occupy new habitats, they have
become established on protected lands, federal wilderness areas and other
important natural areas used for recreation. Parks, Wilderness, and Wilderness
Study Areas, are examples of protected natural areas that are managed by federal
agencies, states, territories, tribes, and local agencies for their important natural
and cultural, scientific, and recreational values. APHIS-WS coordinates all
proposed FSDM work with land management agencies to avoid conflicts with
land use objectives including recreational uses. For example, high-use
recreational areas are designated on maps associated with work plans to help
APHIS-WS avoid unintentional adverse impacts on recreation. High-use hunting
areas are also delineated by the land management agency so that APHIS-WS can
remove FSDM equipment before the hunting season. High use recreational areas,
like other sensitive areas, are identified at a site specific level in APHIS-WS work
plans, maps, or as new damage situations arise.
APHIS-WS has Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with both BLM and
USFS which outline processes for FSDM coordination and cooperation. For
Wilderness Study Areas (lands that are being considered for Wilderness
designations), APHIS-WS conforms to Revisions and Clarifications to H-8550-I,
Interim Management Policy for Lands Under Wilderness Review (March 19,
2002 memorandum (No. 2004-140) from BLM and USFS Acting Director to
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 256
BLM and USFS Washington and Field Office Officials). APHIS-WS FSDM
actions have no effect on wilderness characteristics other than temporary
disturbance as discussed above. Because of the limited and temporary nature of
FSDM in any specific area, and because APHIS-WS coordinates all planning with
appropriate federal, state, territorial, and local land managers prior to working in
any protected areas, land use conflicts are minimized and land use plans are
followed, which helps to ensure that APHIS-WS has negligible negative impact
on any special management area uses, including recreation.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
Effects on Feral Swine Hunting
Feral swine that are subject to heavy damage control or hunting pressure become
increasingly difficult to locate and remove, in part because low densities make
them more difficult to find. Attempted control also alters the behavior of feral
swine, making them more wary of control methods. Behavioral changes also
include adapting activity patterns from afternoon to nighttime under heavy
hunting pressure (Mansfield 1978). When lower densities and behavioral change
are combined with access challenges such as extensive tracts of private lands or
complex land ownership patterns, or heavy vegetation or rugged or remote terrain,
hunting opportunities for feral swine are likely to be adversely affected.
California, Florida, Guam, and Hawaii would likely continue to manage feral
swine as a regulated game mammal and, therefore, hunting opportunities are not
likely to be adversely affected for the same reasons discussed under the Current
FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Alabama regulates feral swine as a game animal,
but has a long term eradication goal. In the states where eradication is a state
management objective (Table 4-2 and Appendix D Table 2), the Integrated FSDM
Program would work with partner agencies to either eliminate or substantially
control feral swine populations (Figure 2). In many of these states, feral swine
hunting is allowed, and therefore, recreational hunting opportunities would likely
be reduced. Shooting feral swine is sometimes incidental to hunting for other
species. Because hunting feral swine in many states is allowed year round, as
compared with regulated game hunting (which has restricted seasons (Bach and
Conner 2013)), the ability to hunt this “big game” animal year round would be
eliminated in some states or reduced in others.
As discussed under the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), many states
implemented open hunting on feral swine as a method to control populations.
While this has not gone far to eliminate populations, it has created more hunting
opportunities, and these are the very hunting opportunities that would be most
negatively affected. The degree of effect on opportunities for hunting feral swine
would be negatively correlated to the relative efficacy and success of the
Integrated FSDM Program where state objectives are elimination. Any effects on
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 257
opportunities for hunting feral swine, whether regulated or not, would be
determined by state, territorial, and tribal regulations, management plans, and
policies and objectives. Like the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), the
single greatest influence over feral swine hunting remains state, territorial, and
tribal regulations and management objectives (Appendix D). APHIS would have
increased ability to provide technical assistance to states, tribes, and territories
that are developing regulations on feral swine which may impact long term
opportunities for feral swine hunting. By conducting FSDM activities in
accordance with state, territorial, and tribal management objectives for the
species, including maintenance of feral swine as a game species, where desired,
APHIS actions are consistent with the direction of EO 13443- Facilitation of
Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation. Although feral swine hunting
opportunities may be diminished in some areas, these reductions would be
consistent with state management objectives and would be balanced by beneficial
impacts on hunting opportunities for other species (see Effects on Hunting Other
Game Animals below).
Research and baseline capacity under this alternative would increase the ability of
APHIS programs to provide technical assistance and data for state, territorial, and
tribal officials, and local agencies and legislators who are developing regulations
on feral swine. APHIS review of existing federal regulations may identify areas
for improvement in existing regulations or potential new regulations which can
facilitate effective feral swine management. Education and outreach under this
alternative would include information and data to discourage hunters from
moving feral swine. Discussions on the effects on feral swine hunting businesses
can be found in Section 4.C.9.
Effects on Hunting Other Game Animals
The Integrated FSDM Program would alleviate the direct and indirect negative
effects of feral swine on game animals in those states where feral swine can be
eliminated. It would be more beneficial than the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1) in those states where feral swine populations are substantially
reduced or eliminated in localized areas. Feral swine removal from habitats that
support other game species would benefit such species, assist the states,
territories, and tribes with meeting game management objectives, and indirectly
benefit hunters consistent with the direction provided in EO 13443 - Facilitation
of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation.
Negative effects on individual game animals from the use of FSDM management
methods would be negligible as discussed under Section 4.C.3, Impacts on Non-
target Animals.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 258
Feral Swine and the Aesthetic Enjoyment of the Natural Environment
When feral swine are present or have caused destruction of natural areas, their
removal would benefit those areas. Agencies or individuals involved in
restoration efforts would be able to restore areas without immediate threats of
feral swine returning. Compared with the Current FSDM Program (Alternative
1), the Integrated FSDM Program would be likely to provide benefits where
swine are eliminated from states, or populations are substantially reduced or
locally eliminated.
Viewing feral swine would still occur to some extent in those states where
populations are well established, where feral swine are managed as a game
species, or where eradication is not feasible or desired. People who enjoy the
intrinsic value of feral swine would know that they still exist in the environment.
Obviously, because feral swine would be eliminated in some states and population
size and distribution would diminish, the interest of people who enjoy seeing feral
swine or knowing they exist in nature would be adversely affected. The intrinsic
value of feral swine needs to be weighed against the enormous damages they
inflict on other aspects of the environment, including the aesthetic quality of the
environment.
Similar to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), FSDM activities may
reduce the aesthetic enjoyment of natural areas temporarily as discussed below
under “Disturbance to Recreationists from FSDM.” Compared with the Current
FSDM Program (Alternative 1), carcass disposal may be more evident to
members of the public because more individual animals would be killed. Odor
may be a temporary factor in some places if large numbers of feral swine are left
to decompose naturally, although care would be taken to avoid leaving carcasses
in areas commonly used by recreationists. The loss of the positive aesthetic value
of feral swine would be traded for the removal of an invasive species and resultant
benefit to the natural environment, including native wildlife and plant species that
may be suppressed or displaced by the presence of feral swine.
Disturbance to Recreationists from FSDM
Compared with the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), control actions would
increase substantially under the Integrated FSDM Program, which would increase
the potential for disturbance in more areas. Because aerial shooting is particularly
effective and efficient under certain conditions when compared with other
management methods, the recreating public may potentially be exposed to more
aircraft disturbance where states, land owners, and managers desire removals.
Many wildlife damage management programs in the west already use aircraft to
control damaging wildlife, and some states in the east may add aircraft to their list
of FSDM options. Like the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), aircraft
would also be used for monitoring and to provide logistical support for ground
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 259
based feral swine removal operations. APHIS-WS estimates approximately 1500
hours of flight time, primarily helicopter, would be added above current aircraft
use nationally. Put in perspective, the contiguous United States is about 3.1
million square miles of land and water area. Even if only 25 percent of this area
were subject to potential aircraft disturbance for FSDM, it would be a negligible
addition at the average rate of about twelve minutes per square mile, per year.
Furthermore, only some of the aerial work would be noticeable by the public.
Like the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), any aircraft disturbance would
be temporary and of short duration. Aircraft use would be planned in
coordination with land management agencies that identify locations or times when
flying should be avoided. Because federal, state, territorial, and tribal land
managers are consulted in planning, aircraft use in high use recreational areas or
other sensitive areas can be avoided. Depending on the state, oftentimes aerial
work would occur in remote locations.
Compared with the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), individuals are more
likely to encounter warning signs associated with the placement of traps and
snares, and this may disturb some members of the public. These signs are for the
public’s protection and their placement is temporary. Concerns are likely to be
primarily for human and pet safety. This issue is discussed in Chapter 4, Section
C.7. Like the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), corral and cage traps
would be set in locations not visible from recreation facilities, roads, or trails, but
because their use, like other FSDM methods, would increase, some individuals
may hear or see the traps.
Where feral swine are present in high use recreation areas, land management
agencies would be more likely to close some sections of parks or other recreation
areas while FSDM removal operations take place. These closures would be
temporary, and in some cases, it may provide an opportunity to educate the public
about feral swine damage to the ecosystem.
As discussed under the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), APHIS-WS
coordinates all proposed FSDM work with land management agencies to avoid
conflicts with land use objectives including recreational uses. While efforts
would increase, planning and coordination at the local level would continue to
ensure that negative effects, such as closures and disturbance, are minimized.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Effects on Feral Swine Hunting
This alternative provides the greatest amount of funding for baseline FSDM.
Local impacts on feral swine hunting opportunities are likely to be greatest under
this alternative in the short term. This alternative would not be as effective in
stabilizing and reducing the national feral swine population, so hunting
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 260
opportunities are likely to persist in many areas. Like the Current and Integrated
FSDM Programs (Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively), the single greatest influence
over feral swine hunting remains state, territorial, and tribal management
objectives and regulations (Appendix D). Without National programs including
research and national outreach efforts, assistance to states, territories, and tribes
would rely only on baseline capacity to provide technical assistance and data for
local agencies and legislators who are developing regulations on feral swine
management, including opportunities for the public to hunt feral swine. Local
APHIS-WS state programs would provide information and data to states,
territories, and tribes to discourage hunters from moving feral swine. APHIS’s
ability to provide technical assistance for use in development of feral swine
regulations would be lower than the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2)
but greater than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1).
Effects on Hunting Other Game Species
This Baseline FSDM Program would place all funding in operational FSDM. This
would be likely to have the greatest initial local benefits to game species that are
negatively affected by feral swine where states receive baseline funding and target
affected areas. Without national population management efforts and strategic
local projects, this alternative would be expected to be less effective over time as
compared with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). The negative
effects of FSDM methods on individual game animals would be negligible as
discussed in Section.C.2, above (Effects on Non-target Species).
Effects on the Aesthetic Enjoyment of the Natural Environment
The effects of the Baseline FSDM Program on aesthetic enjoyment of the natural
environment would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
Positive and negative impacts associated with local FSDM projects would
increase in states with moderate to large feral swine populations because the
amount of funding for FSDM would likely increase in these areas.
In areas with low or new populations that would have been identified as priorities
for the national feral swine population control, funding for FSDM may decrease.
In some areas, available funds may still be sufficient to eradicate swine, although
it may take longer to achieve management objectives. In these areas, impacts
would be identical to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). In other
areas, resources may not be sufficient to do more than address local damage
problems. Viewing feral swine would still occur to some extent in those states
where populations are well established, where feral swine are managed as a game
species, or where eradication is not feasible or desired. Similar to the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2), people who enjoy the intrinsic value of feral
swine would know that they still exist in the environment. Obviously, because
feral swine would be eliminated in some states and population size and
distribution would diminish, the interest of people who enjoy seeing feral swine
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 261
or knowing they exist in nature would be adversely affected. The intrinsic value
of feral swine needs to be weighed against the enormous damages they inflict on
other aspects of the environment, including the aesthetic quality of the
environment. Opportunities to enjoy benefits of feral swine would remain, but
adverse impacts from feral swine would likely increase.
Disturbance to Recreationists
Similar to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), activities would only be
conducted where requests for assistance are made, and only per agreements with
land managers and landowners. The loss of positive aesthetic values of feral
swine would be traded for the removal of an invasive species and resultant benefit
to the natural environment, including native wildlife and plant species that may be
suppressed or displaced by the presence of feral swine.
This alternative would increase operational control actions over the Current and
Integrated FSDM Programs (Alternative 1 and 2, respectively), which would
increase the potential for disturbance to the public in more areas. Because aerial
shooting is particularly effective and efficient under certain conditions when
compared with other management methods, the recreating public may potentially
be exposed to the most aircraft disturbance under this alternative where states,
land owners, and managers desire removals. Many wildlife damage management
programs in the west already use aircraft to control damaging wildlife and some
eastern states may add aircraft to their list of FSDM options. This alternative
could exceed the Integrated FSDM Program’s (Alternative 2) estimated flight
time, but because of low use, often occurring in remote areas, avoidance of
sensitive and high use areas, and the temporary and short duration that potential
exposure would inflict, public exposure to disturbance from aircraft use would
still be expected to be minimal.
Compared with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), individuals are
somewhat more likely initially to be aware of FSDM activities. Some people may
encounter warning signs associated with the placement of traps and snares and
this may disturb some members of the public. These signs are for the public’s
protection and their placement is temporary. Concerns are likely to be primarily
for human and pet safety, which is an issue that is discussed in Section 4.C.7.
Like the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), corral and cage traps would be
set in locations not visible from recreation facilities, roads, or trails, but because
their use, like other FSDM methods, would increase, some individuals may hear
or see the traps.
Similar to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), where feral swine are
present in high use recreation areas, land management agencies would be more
likely to close some sections of parks or other recreation areas while FSDM
removal operations take place. These closures would be temporary and, in some
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 262
cases, it may provide an opportunity to educate the public about feral swine
damage to the ecosystem.
Overall impacts would be similar to, but slightly greater in magnitude to, those
described for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Coordination with
cooperating agencies and precautions to reduce risk of disturbance to
recreationists would be conducted in the same manner as for the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2). Although operational management efforts would
increase, planning and coordination at the local level would continue to ensure
that negative effects such as closures and disturbance are minimized.
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
Effects on Feral Swine Hunting
This alternative would not provide baseline capacity funding for states with feral
swine and, consequently, potential impacts would only occur in states with
strategic local project and states identified as priorities for the national feral swine
population and damage control effort. Impacts in areas where FSDM does occur
may be more intensive because more resources may be allocated to these areas
than under the Integrated FSDM Program, the Baseline FSDM Program and the
Federal FSDM Grant Program (Alternatives 2, 3, and 5, respectively). As
resources and funding move from areas cleared of swine damage to new areas
over time, more states, territories and tribes would see some effects. National
feral swine population stabilization and eradication objectives and associated loss
in feral swine hunting opportunities may be achieved more rapidly than under
other action alternatives. In the case of national priority states, efforts would
initially be focused on small or new populations and would not affect established
hunting in areas with the largest populations until earlier objectives are met or
when and where strategic localized projects may be focused. Individuals who
may have been anticipating new feral swine hunting opportunities from small or
emergent populations may be adversely affected. Over time, the effects would be
focused increasingly on states with large and established populations. Like the
other alternatives, the single greatest influence over feral swine hunting remains
state, territorial, and tribal management objectives and regulations (Appendix D).
This alternative would emphasize national efforts to provide information to states,
territories, and tribes to inform agencies and legislators developing regulations on
feral swine management, including opportunities for the public to hunt feral
swine. Baseline capacity would not be available to assist locally. The education
and outreach under this alternative would include information and data to
discourage hunters from moving feral swine.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 263
Effects on Hunting Other Game Species
In states which are identified as priorities for national feral swine population
management, eradication of feral swine and associated benefits would likely
occur more rapidly than under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
Because this alternative would apply more funding to national projects (e.g.
research, national-level education, and outreach programs and materials) than any
other alternative, it would likely provide beneficial effects based on long-term
efficiency, efficacy, and ultimate success of FSDM. Most types of national
projects would not directly affect game species but, similar to other species
affected by feral swine, the potential for benefits would be a reasonable
conclusion and could be correlated with the overall success of the program.
This alternative would have less capacity to address local adverse impacts on
game species in states which are not priorities for national feral swine population
management. No federal funding would be available for this type of project in
low priority states unless the state or territory receives funding for strategic local
projects. Some state/territory/tribal lands with high feral swine populations
and/or which do not intend to eradicate feral swine populations (Appendix D,
Table 2) may not receive any funding for additional operational work. In those
cases, benefits to game species that are negatively affected by feral swine would
be similar to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Negative effects on
individual game animals from FSDM methods would be negligible and would not
affect populations.
Effects on the Aesthetic Enjoyment of the Natural Environment
Impacts of this alternative would vary depending on whether or not the state,
territory, or tribe is an area identified as a priority for national feral swine
population management or if it receives funding for strategic local projects. In
states, territories, and tribal areas identified as priorities for national population
management, impacts would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2). The loss of the positive aesthetic value of feral swine in those
locations would be minimal compared with the benefit to the natural environment
from removing this invasive species. The potential for the public to encounter
warning signs for equipment or hear or see aircraft associated with FSDM would
be similar to or less than other alternatives since baseline funding would not be
available to control feral swine in states with large populations. Carcass disposal
effects in terms of odor and air quality are discussed in Section 4.C.4
In state, territories and tribal areas that are not identified as national priorities, but
which receive funding for strategic local projects, local impacts in the project
areas would be intermediate to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) and
Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), but overall impacts would be more
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 264
similar to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Impacts in all other areas
would be similar to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1).
Because this alternative would apply more funding to national projects (e.g.
research, national-level education, and outreach programs and materials) than any
other alternative, it would likely provide beneficial effects based on long-term
efficiency, efficacy, and ultimate success of FSDM
Disturbance to recreationists
States, territories, and tribal lands identified as priorities for national projects
would experience impacts similar to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative
2). Impacts in the remaining areas would be similar to the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1) although there may be some increases in impacts in areas
where strategic local projects are conducted. Impacts in strategic local project
areas would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). SOPs
discussed under the Current and Integrated FSDM Programs (Alternatives 1 and
2, respectively) would limit potential exposure and disturbance to the recreating
public.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
APHIS-WS would not directly affect feral swine hunting, other game animals,
aesthetic enjoyment of the natural environment, or disturb recreationists under
this alternative since it would not implement FSDM operations. The FSDM
Grant Program would require that a substantial amount of funding be committed
to oversight, compliance, and monitoring. Because the grant program would
require implementation of SOPs and other measures to minimize negative effects,
the impacts would be related to the degree that grant recipients followed protocol
established for resource protections.
Effects on Feral Swine Hunting
Overall, because less operational funding would result in a less effective program,
it is likely that fewer feral swine would be removed, and the negative effects on
feral swine hunters and hunting businesses (Section 4.C.9) would be lower than
the Integrated FSDM Program, the Baseline FSDM Program, and National FSDM
and Strategic Local Projects (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, respectively), but greater
than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Like the other alternatives, the
single greatest influence over feral swine hunting remains state, territorial, and
tribal management objectives and regulations (Appendix D). This alternative
would not emphasize National or baseline efforts to provide information to states,
territories, and tribes to inform agencies and legislators developing regulations on
feral swine management, including opportunities for the public to hunt feral
swine. Grant recipients could potentially provide education and outreach to
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 265
agencies and legislators about regulations that affect hunting and the
consequences of moving feral swine to increase hunting opportunities, but it
would not be likely to be widely or systematically applied.
Effects on hunting other game species
Benefits to hunters of other game species would probably be lower than under the
Integrated FSDM Program, the Baseline FSDM Program, and National FSDM
and Strategic Local Projects (Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, respectively) but greater
than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), commensurate with the efficacy
of this alternative and effects on feral swine populations, which is discussed under
Section 4.B.1.
Effects on the aesthetic enjoyment of the natural environment
Whether or not this alternative might provide more benefits than the Current
FSDM Program (Alternative 1) would depend on the efficiency of grant recipients
that deliver FSDM services. This alternative is not likely to provide as much
potential benefit to the natural environment that is harmed by feral swine because
fewer feral swine populations would likely be eliminated compared with the other
alternatives.
Disturbance to recreationists
Disturbances to recreationists would depend on the individual practices of grant
recipients and the ability of APHIS to control implementation of SOPs and other
measures such as those may be required by land and resource management
agencies. Assuming full compliance, recreationists would not be disturbed more
than under the Current or Integrated FSDM Programs (Alternatives 1 and 2,
respectively).
6. Climate Change Impacts
The State of the Climate in 2012 (Blunden and Arndt 2013) report indicates that since
1976, every year has been warmer than the long-term average. Global surface
temperatures in 2012 were among the top 10 warmest years on record with the largest
average temperature differences in the United States, Canada, southern Europe, western
Russia, and the Russian Far East (Osborne and Lindsey 2013). Impacts of this change
would vary throughout the United States, but some areas would experience air and water
temperature increases, alterations in precipitation, and increased severe weather events.
The distribution of a plant or animal species is often dictated by temperature and
precipitation. According to the EPA (2013), as temperatures continue to increase, the
habitat ranges of many species are moving into northern latitudes and higher altitudes. In
the case of feral swine, this facilitates range expansion. While feral swine do not impact
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 266
climate change directly, the cumulative impact of damage from feral swine in a growing
number of ecosystems already stressed from climate change may cause irreversible
ecological changes. Climate change, habitat degradation, and pollution are stressors that
contribute to species extinction (Fischlin 2007). In Hawaiian native forests, researchers
determined that feral swine influence soil respiration, which can subsequently impact
terrestrial carbon cycling (USDA 2013). Additionally, the warming trend in the United
States could further influence the reproductive success of feral swine by ensuring
abundant food sources in an increasing number of areas.
APHIS recognizes that climate change is a concern of the public. FSDM has the
potential to produce criteria pollutants (pollutants for which maximum allowable
emission levels and concentrations are enforced by state agencies) while working in the
office, during travel from office to field, travel in the field (vehicles or ATV), and from
short-term aircraft activities.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
The CEQ has advised federal agencies to consider whether analysis of the direct
and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their proposed actions may
provide meaningful information to decision makers and the public (CEQ 2014).
Based on their review of the available science, CEQ advised agencies that if a
proposed action would be reasonably anticipated to cause direct emissions of
25,000 metric tons or more of CO
2
-equivalent GHG emissions on an annual basis,
significant impacts on the environment from the action were possible and the
agencies should consider that a quantitative and qualitative assessment may be
meaningful to decision makers and the public. APHIS has assessed the potential
GHG impacts from the current and proposed actions in context of this guidance.
The average person in a home produces 4 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (CDEs; includes CO
2
, NO
x
, CO, and SO
x
) annually (EPA 2010).
APHIS has 170 district and state offices, and this includes district offices with
only one staff person. Each state office would likely produce fewer CDEs
annually than the average home because little electricity is used at night and on
weekends. APHIS cannot predict the fuel efficiency of each ATV used in the
field nor can it predict how often an ATV would be used. However, if a
conservative estimate of 20 miles per gallon is used and consideration is given to
total mileage being substantially less than the mileage calculated for normal
vehicular use, the effects of ATVs on air quality would be negligible. APHIS also
cannot predict the fuel efficiency of each vehicle used to conduct FSDM;
however, APHIS will use the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA)
estimated average combined fuel economy of cars and light trucks of 21.5 miles
per gallon (mpg) in the discussion of alternatives.
APHIS vehicles are used for a multitude of wildlife management projects,
including Current FSDM Program activities. To establish baseline data for
comparison to the other alternatives, APHIS calculated the CDEs from its current
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 267
fleet of passenger vehicles (1,665 leased and owned vehicles) using the average
vehicle miles traveled per year as calculated by FHWA (2012).
23
APHIS used the
ratio of CO
2
emissions to total greenhouse gas emissions (CDEs) for passenger
vehicles to complete the calculation.
24
Current APHIS vehicle use for all wildlife
management programs can contribute approximately 8,058 metric tons (MT) of
CDEs each year.
25
Helicopters are the preferred aircraft for feral swine aerial management activities;
however, fixed wing piston engine aircraft also will be operated for FSDM.
APHIS either owns or leases 10 different types of helicopters; their average fuel
consumption is 24.88 gallons per hour (gph). Helicopters with this average fuel
consumption emit approximately 0.24 MT/hr of CO
2
emissions.
26
APHIS also
owns or leases 6 different types of fixed-wing aircraft. Average fuel consumption
rates for fixed wing piston engine aircraft is 12.9 gph (FAA 2012). Average CO
2
emissions for piston engine aircraft are 0.11 MT/hr (Conklin and de Decker
2014). Less than 1 percent each of NO
x
, CO, SO
x
, and other trace components
are emitted from aircraft engine emissions (FAA 2005).
APHIS flew 10,426 hours (helicopter and fixed wing combined) in FY13. APHIS
flew an additional 4,225 hours under contract. If all flight hours were attributed
to fixed wing planes, the estimated CO
2
emissions would be 1,612 MT/year. If all
flight hours were attributed to helicopters, the estimated CO
2
emissions would be
3,516 MT/year. Given that feral swine activities do not comprise all aerial
program activities in a year, estimated yearly CO
2
emissions from the feral swine
program would be less than the range of 1,612 – 3,516 MT for the entire aerial
operations program.
Combining vehicle, aircraft, office, and ATV use for FY13 and potential new
vehicle purchases, the range of CDEs is likely to be 10,350 – 12,254 MT or less
per year, which is below the CEQ’s suggested reference point of 25,000
MT/year
27
.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
APHIS does not expect the number of offices to increase substantively under this
alternative because the program would give emphasis to reallocation of existing
personnel. New personnel would likely be located in existing facilities.
23
11,493 miles per vehicle per year.
24
0.985
25
(8.92 × 10
-3
metric tons/gallon of gasoline)*(19,135,845 miles traveled by WS)*(1/21.5 mpg)*(1/0.985)
26
Conklin and de Decker Aviation Information (https://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/CO2Calc.aspx)
27
CEQ (2014) issued a memorandum to heads of federal agencies and departments on providing revised draft
guidance on when and how to analyze the environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change
under NEPA. A suggested 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from the proposed action
would trigger the need for a quantitative analysis.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 268
Current APHIS vehicle use for all wildlife damage management programs can
contribute approximately 8,058 metric tons (MT) of CDEs each year.
28
If,
however, APHIS purchased a new vehicle as a result of FSDM in each state and
territory with feral swine, 43 new vehicles could be purchased. The estimated
CDEs from the hypothetically expanded fleet of vehicles are approximately 8,266
MT. Mileage per vehicle is expected to stay the same or slightly increase, and
there would likely be a negligible increase of ATV use under the Integrated
FSDM Program.
The Integrated FSDM Program is estimated to increase the flight time by
approximately 1,500 hours
29
which would increase the range of CO
2
emissions
from aircraft to 1,777 – 3,876 MT/year. An additional two helicopters also would
likely be purchased under this alternative. The cumulative range of CDEs for the
program under the Integrated FSDM Program is likely to be 10,723 – 12,822 MT
or less per year. This range also is less than the suggested reference point from
CEQ of 25,000 MT/year.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Under this alternative, all funding would be allocated to baseline operational
FSDM. This is likely to result in a slight increase in the use of vehicles over that
predicted for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Preliminary
estimates indicate that funding to states for operational FSDM could increase 10-
20% from levels predicted for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
This level of increase in operational FSDM would not elevate the cumulative
national CDE output beyond the CEQ suggested reference point of 25,000
MT/year.
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
Under Alternative 4, the cumulative CDEs would be similar to the emissions
under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Aircraft usage would likely
stay the same as the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) since the aerial
program is used most often in high priority areas. Vehicle use may decrease if
some APHIS-WS state programs do not receive funding until management
objectives are achieved in high priority areas. ATV and office usage would
remain the same.
28
(8.92 × 10
-3
metric tons/gallon of gasoline)*(19,135,845 miles traveled by WS)*(1/21.5 mpg)*(1/0.985)
29
We estimated that in addition to current aircraft use, three additional aircraft would be used under the Integrated
FSDM Program. The three additional aircraft are expected to fly 500 hours per year each, which includes ferry time
to project locations.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 269
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
Under this alternative, more money would be allocated to administration and less
to operational management. Administrative tasks are expected to have a lower
carbon footprint than operational management. Additionally, cumulative CDEs
under this alternative would likely be less than CDEs in the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2) because the lack of national support would make it more
challenging for states, territories, and tribes to acquire aircraft to conduct aerial
operations.
7. Effects on Human Health and Safety
FSDM has the potential to affect human health and safety whether implemented
by APHIS-WS, other agencies, or the public. Impacts resulting from
implementing FDSM methods can range from direct injury to indirect impacts
(e.g., impacts to water quality). As noted in the need for action (Chapter 1
Section, Chapter 3 Section ), FSDM is also conducted in some areas to reduce
risks to human and pet health and safety from feral swine-vehicle collisions,
transfer of zoonotic diseases and aggressive feral swine. APHIS-WS incorporates
many measures as SOPs (Section 2.E.) to minimize or nullify risks to the public.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
FSDM methods which may pose risks to human health and safety include
firearms, use of aircraft for shooting and monitoring, snares, leg-hold traps,
pyrotechnics for hazing, cage traps, drugs, the reproductive inhibitor GonaCon™
injectable (if registered for use in feral swine), and handling feral swine carcasses.
When used by APHIS-WS, the proposed FSDM methods pose minimal threat to
human health and safety. No adverse effects on human health and safety have
occurred or have been reported to occur from APHIS-WS’ use of FSDM methods
from FY09 through FY13. FSDM operations are implemented only by request,
and only as specified in MOUs, cooperative service agreements, or similar
documents developed in coordination with land owners and managers. APHIS-
WS employees who conduct FSDM activities are knowledgeable in the safe and
effective use of the methods described in Chapter 2, Section F, the SOPs
described in Section 2.G, and relevant APHIS-WS Directives. Safety
considerations are always considered in the decision making process as outlined
in the APHIS-WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992; Figure 2-1, Chapter 2,
Section C). Safety risks depend not only on the method used, but also on the
location and timing of use. Property ownership or jurisdiction and land use are
considered in assessing safety risks. For example, private property in a rural area
with limited or controlled access would raise fewer safety concerns with FSDM
methods than would a public park. In both cases, close coordination with either
the land owner or land managers helps to ensure that human safety risks are
minimized. Some measures to reduce risks on public lands include avoiding high
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 270
use areas, working in closed areas, or timing operations to occur when the public
is not present (off-season, at night, or early morning). Another routine precaution
taken regardless of land ownership is posting warning signs at access points. The
risks and additional precautions specific to the methods are discussed below.
An MOU, CSA, or similar document would list the methods the cooperator
agreed could potentially be used on property owned or managed by the
cooperator. At the time the agreement is prepared, and as needed thereafter,
APHIS-WS would consult with the landowner regarding any risks which may be
associated with the proposed methods and strategies to reduce or prevent risks.
Non-chemical Methods
Shooting: Shooting with shotguns or rifles is used to reduce feral swine damage
when lethal methods are determined to be appropriate. Shooting is selective for
target species. To help ensure safe use and awareness, APHIS-WS employees
who use firearms during official duties are required to attend an approved firearm
safety-training course and to remain certified for firearm use in accordance with
the APHIS-WS Directive 2.615. As a condition of employment, APHIS-WS
employees who carry and use firearms are subject to the Lautenberg Domestic
Confiscation Law (18 USC § 922(g)(9)), which prohibits firearm possession by
anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. A
safety assessment based on site evaluations, coordination with cooperating and
local agencies (if applicable), and consultation with cooperators would be
conducted before firearms are deemed appropriate to alleviate or reduce feral
swine damage and threats to human safety at a site. APHIS-WS would work
closely with cooperators to ensure all safety issues were considered before
firearms would be included in agreements and used.
The use of lead ammunition during shooting activities has the potential to impact
human health and safety. The toxicity of lead to humans has been well
documented due to its widespread historical and current use. Lead affects the
neurological system, cardiovascular system, renal system, immune system,
hematological system, and developmental system in humans and other mammals.
The body integrates lead into its composition by substituting lead for other
essential elements or nutrients, such as calcium which is used in many different
processes in the body. Children are especially vulnerable since they are able to
absorb lead more efficiently and are in contact more with media that may be
contaminated with lead. Prolonged lead exposure in children may cause damage
to the brain and nervous system, behavioral problems, anemia, liver and kidney
damage, hearing loss, hyperactivity and developmental delays. Lead is also a
probable human carcinogen and is considered mutagenic.
Lead exposure and risk to human health from FSDM activities is not expected to
result in significant risk to any subgroups of human populations (such as APHIS-
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 271
WS personnel, and the general public, including minority populations, children,
and hunters). There is potential for exposure and risk to APHIS-WS personnel
who handle lead ammunition. However, exposure and risk is expected to be low
because firearms are used outdoors reducing inhalation exposure from lead fumes
and dust that may occur during firing. In addition, APHIS policies and practices
for APHIS-WS personnel handling firearms would reduce the potential effects of
lead exposure as well as reduce the potential for injuries related to discharging a
firearm.
Subgroups of the public that could be exposed to lead ammunition from FSDM
activities are people who consume feral swine that have been wounded or shot by
APHIS-WS personnel. Lead exposure can cause serious health problems,
particularly for pregnant women and children. Because of the Meat Inspection
Act requirements for pre and post mortem inspections of swine prior to entering
the public food supply (e.g., food banks), feral swine collected by APHIS-WS
personnel from lead shooting would not be donated to food banks. Swine taken
by APHIS-WS could be donated to and consumed by the landowner/manager.
Risks to these individuals are expected to be similar to risks hunters experience
when consuming game meat that they harvest. In a 2008 study by the CDC and
North Dakota Departments of Health, Agriculture, and Game and Fish, blood lead
levels were checked in 738 volunteers who made varying use of wild game
harvested with lead bullets (Iqbal 2008). Study results indicated that there was a
slight elevation in blood lead levels in individuals who ate a lot of wild game, but
no participant had blood lead levels higher than the CDC recommended threshold
of 10 g/dl – the level at which CDC recommends case management.
Additionally, the mean blood level for the study population was lower than for the
overall U.S. population.
Feral swine that are killed by APHIS-WS personnel and left on site could
potentially be obtained and consumed by individuals other than the
landowner/manager. This is not expected to be a significant exposure pathway
because carcasses left in the field would typically be away from roads or other
public areas and would not be fit for human consumption due to rapid scavenging
and decomposition of the carcass. Feral swine that are wounded during shooting
by APHIS-WS personnel could occasionally be harvested later by hunters. In this
scenario, there is the potential for lead exposure from bullets or fragments to be
present in tissue that could be used for human consumption. However, this type
of exposure is expected to be minor for several reasons. First, the goal of APHIS-
WS personnel when using ammunition is efficient and effective lethal control,
ensuring a quick, humane death. Secondly, areas where fragments of lead may
occur would be noticed by hunters and those fragments removed during
preparation of the meat for consumption. Finally, the potential for lead exposure
would be reduced in cases where APHIS-WS personnel can use non-lead
ammunition. Over time, the use of lead ammunition is expected to decrease as
non-toxic shot becomes more readily available (as discussed under Section 4.C.2).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 272
Therefore, the low potential for lead exposure from activities related to FSDM is
expected to result in negligible risk.
Use of Aircraft: In many areas in the west, aerial operations primarily occur in
relatively remote areas with no or very low human presence on the ground;
however, eastern states with more dense human populations may increase their
use of aircraft. Low-level flights introduce hazards such as power lines and trees,
and the safety margin for error during maneuvers is diminished compared to high-
level flights. Accidents have been associated with APHIS-WS aerial operations
and are a concern to APHIS-WS because of risks to personnel. Some of APHIS-
WS’ accidents have involved pilot error while others have been directly related to
mechanical failure. APHIS-WS developed the APHIS-WS Aviation Training
Center with the goal of reducing pilot error accidents to zero. The APHIS-WS
Aviation Training Center provides safety training, individual instruction and
aviation consultation to all aviation programs in APHIS-WS. The Center trains
pilots to effectively respond to different types of mechanical failures and other
safety concerns associated with low-level flight. APHIS-WS complies with all
FAA issued Service Bulletins, Airworthiness Directives, aircraft manufacturing
recalls, and similar documents.
In 2007 and 2008, APHIS-WS conducted a programmatic safety review to assess
and improve employee safety (USDA 2008). The review covered nine APHIS-
WS program areas including the aviation program. The review of the aviation
program was conducted by the Interagency Committee on Aviation Safety. The
review team concluded that the APHIS-WS aviation program is being operated in
a safe, efficient, and effective manner and that the program met the Interagency
Committee on Aviation Safety requirements for the Gold Standard Certificate for
Excellence. At the time of the review, the APHIS-WS program was the only
USDA aviation program to be awarded this certification. APHIS-WS program
pilots and contractors are highly skilled with commercial pilot ratings and have
passed proficiency tests in the flight environment encountered by APHIS-
WS. APHIS-WS pilots are trained in hazard recognition and monitoring flights
would only be conducted in safe environments. Federal aviation regulations
require pilots to fly a minimum distance of 500 feet from structures and people,
and all employees involved in these operations are mindful of this. Lower
altitudes are allowable for helicopters (14 CFR 91.119). Although the goal of the
aviation program is to have no accidents, accidents may still occur. However, the
protective measures implemented by APHIS-WS keep the risk of aircraft
accidents and injuries to the public and aircraft crew low. Other analyses of
aircraft accidents by APHIS-WS concluded that the accident rate for APHIS-WS
pilots and aircraft is not significantly different from the rates reported for general
aviation and that the risk of harming any member of the public is exceedingly low
(USDA 2011a, USDA 2011b).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 273
APHIS-WS’ safety measures and training for aerial sharpshooting are the same as
those for aircraft used in monitoring with the addition that the individuals
conducting the shooting also have specialized training in the safe and effective
use of sharpshooting from aircraft. APHIS-WS’ employees must have a clear
view of the animal before shooting, so there is no risk of accidentally shooting a
person. Aerial operations used in FSDM are not expected to present any
significant risk to human health or safety.
Aerial wildlife operations, like any other flying, may result in an accident.
APHIS-WS pilots and crewmembers would be trained and experienced to
recognize the circumstances that lead to accidents and have thousands of hours of
flight time. The national APHIS-WS Aviation Program has increased its
emphasis on safety, including funding for additional training, the establishment of
an APHIS-WS Flight Training Center and annual recurring training for all pilots.
Still accidents may occur and the environmental consequences should be
evaluated. Although fires could result from aircraft-related accidents, no such
fires have occurred from aircraft incidents previously involving government
aircraft and low level flight.
Tracking/Trailing Dogs: In some situations, APHIS-WS employs the use of
tracking/trailing dogs to locate or pursue feral swine. APHIS-WS State Directors
will maintain a list of approved personnel permitted to use trained dogs to track or
trail feral swine during damage management activities. APHIS-WS approved
personnel are aware of and will abide by APHIS-WS Directive 2.445, which
requires that APHIS-WS personnel handle and maintain trained dogs such that the
dogs do not pose a threat to people or domestic animals. Dogs would only be
used in areas where APHIS-WS has landowner or land manager permission to use
the technique. The use of well-trained dogs by experienced handlers is not
expected to result in adverse impacts on human health or safety.
Carcass Disposal: The risks to human health and safety stemming from feral
swine carcass disposal would be negligible based on the limited number of
carcasses and their distribution (Section 4.B.1) along with the various methods of
disposal available (Section 2.F.11). Feral swine carcasses that are left on site
would pose only a very limited disease risk to human health and safety. The
putrefaction process would destroy most disease causing agents and, although this
process is slower in colder climates, most carcasses of any size will undergo
necrosis quickly (T. Gidlewski, NWRC, pers. comm. 2014). Further, the process
of putrefaction and decay produce an environment that is toxic to most pathogens.
Most disease agents require a live host for maintenance and propagation and fail
to survive when their host dies. Although prion diseases are known to be
particularly persistent in the environment, they are not known to occur in feral
swine (T. Gidlewski, NWRC, pers. comm. 2014). Feral swine carcasses infected
with anthrax may leave disease causing spores in the environment, but because
feral swine are relatively resistant to anthrax, infection of feral swine is likely
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 274
associated with the consumption of infected ruminant carcasses that have already
contaminated the environment (T. Gidlewski, NWRC, pers. comm. 2014). As per
APHIS-WS Directive 2.515, all carcass disposals will be made in a manner that
demonstrates APHIS-WS’ recognition of public sensitivity to the viewing of
wildlife carcasses. As such, feral swine carcasses left in the field would generally
not be left in locations frequented by the general public and would only be left
with landowner permission. The potential for the general public to encounter a
feral swine carcass would be expected to be extremely remote.
In general, very little information is available regarding the length of time disease
agents persist in the burial environment or the potential for dissemination from the
burial site. Concerns stem from the fact that burial, unlike some other disposal
methods such as incineration or rendering, serves only as a means of eliminating
carcass material, but does not necessarily eliminate disease agents that may be
present (NABCC 2004). The question arises as to the possibility that disease
agents could disseminate from the burial site and pose a risk to human health
(NABCC 2004). Although APHIS-WS has identified that carcasses of feral swine
removed during FSDM activities may be left on site, buried on site, or buried in
approved landfills, the number of carcasses disposed of in any given area would
be minimal. The potential for carcasses to harbor diseases may be unknown
unless the feral swine were specifically targeted for disease monitoring. In any
case, feral swine that are host to a disease agent would have died in place and/or
may have spread the disease to other swine or other animals if not removed in
FSDM. Thus, overall risks from on site burial or composting may not exceed the
status quo as long as carcass numbers are not concentrated.
Carcasses may be kept by the landowner/manager for their use and use by family
and employees. However, there are risks to human health from consuming feral
swine that may not necessarily occur with domestic swine. Feral swine are
known to carry diseases, such as swine brucellosis, which have been eradicated
from the commercial swine herds in the U.S. or which are uncommon in meat
from domestic swine due to biosecurity and handling and production practices
(Louisiana Office of Public Health 2013, Pederson et al. 2014, CDC 2009, 2014).
People can contract these diseases and others through contact with animal body
fluids and tissues while processing carcasses and/or through improperly cooked
meat. When landowners request to keep feral swine for their use, APHIS-WS
will inform them of the health risks associated with handling and consumption of
feral swine and proper precautions to minimize risks (e.g., Davis and Ivey 2011,
CDC Undated).
Traps and Snares: The use of live-capture traps, foothold traps, and snares has
been identified as a potential issue. Live-capture traps available for feral swine
would typically be walk-in style traps where feral swine enter, but are unable to
exit. Live-traps, foothold traps, and snares would typically be set in areas where
human activity was minimal to ensure public safety. Those methods rarely cause
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 275
serious injury and would only be triggered through direct activation of the device.
Human safety concerns associated with live-traps, foothold traps, and snares
would require direct contact to cause bodily harm. Signs warning of the use of
those tools in the area would be prominently posted to increase awareness that
those devices were being used and to avoid the area. Therefore, if left
undisturbed, risks to human safety would be minimal. However, there have been
incidents of individuals injured while freeing companion animals from foothold
traps. Given the placement of warning signs, coordination with landowners/
managers, adherence to APHIS-WS directives on the use of traps, and the fact
that foothold traps are not a preferred method for FSDM (Section, B.1.a above)
risks of this type of injury are very low.
Chemical Methods
The human health concerns relative to using chemical methods in FSDM
generally involve the potential for human exposure either through direct contact
with the chemical or exposure to the chemical from feral swine that have been
exposed (i.e., eating feral swine that have consumed or been treated with a FSDM
chemical). Chemical methods currently available include immobilizing drugs and
euthanasia chemicals. The injectable formulation of the reproductive inhibitor
GonaCon™ could be used if registered with EPA.
Immobilization and Euthanizing Drugs: Under this alternative, immobilizing
drugs and euthanasia chemicals would be used infrequently. Immobilizing drugs
would be limited to situations where swine would be sedated to fit radio collars
and/or to collect samples and then be released. When euthanasia chemicals are
administered, immobilizing drugs would also be administered prior to the use of
euthanizing chemicals. Immobilization of feral swine minimizes stress to the
animal and reduces the likelihood of injury to the individual captured and for the
safety of personnel handling the swine. Immobilizing drugs would be
administered according to recommended methods and doses from published
sources. Immobilizing drugs used by APHIS-WS allow for a full recovery of the
sedated animals. A list and description of immobilizing drugs available for use
under the identified alternatives is available in Chapter 2, Section E.8.a. If feral
swine were immobilized for sampling or to be fitted with a radio collar and
released, risks could occur to human safety if harvest and consumption occurred
prior to the end of the withdrawal period for the drug. APHIS-WS marks animals
which have received immobilization drugs with a tag that provides a phone
number to contact before consumption. APHIS-WS personnel that may use drugs
for immobilization and euthanasia are certified through APHIS-WS and abide by
APHIS-WS policies and SOPs and applicable federal, state, territorial, tribal, and
local laws and regulations.
In general, due to the cost of the drugs, the need to handle each animal and
concerns regarding disposal, euthanizing chemicals would rarely be used as part
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 276
of FSDM. Euthanizing chemicals would be administered after live capture and
immobilization and under close monitoring. Euthanized feral swine are disposed
of in accordance with APHIS-WS’ Directives (2.430 and 2.515) and therefore,
would not be available for harvest and consumption.
GonaCon
TM
: Reproductive inhibitors are currently under investigation as a
potential nonlethal option to help reduce feral swine populations and associated
damage. However, at this time, no methods are currently approved by EPA or
FDA for feral swine control (Chapter 2 Section E.8.b). Of the methods currently
under investigation, the injectable formulation of GonaCon
TM
is the most likely to
be available for FSDM in the near future. Data on this type of use are sufficient
for analysis of risks associated with this method and are presented in this FEIS.
Consequently, in the event that an injectable formulation of GonaCon
TM
is
registered for use in feral swine, it could be available for use without additional
supplementation of this EIS. Because of the many issues that have not yet been
resolved regarding the impacts of feed-based reproductive inhibitors, these
methods would be subject to additional NEPA analysis prior to inclusion in any
APHIS FSDM operational program.
Available toxicity data for GnRH suggests the active ingredient is essentially non-
toxic to mammals. This is reflected in the lowest toxicity (Category IV) for acute
oral, dermal, inhalation, and ocular exposure routes determined by EPA/Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP) (USEPA 2009). The potential exposure to humans is
the greatest for workers; however, exposure and subsequent risk is expected to be
minimal based on label requirements and restrictions. Labeled requirements
regarding personal protective equipment (PPE) and prohibition of allowing
pregnant women from handling the product may reduce the exposure and risk to
this portion of the population. Additionally, GonaCon
TM
is classified as a
Restricted Use Pesticide and all users must be certified pesticide applicators, or be
under the supervision of a certified pesticide applicator. For both EPA/OPP
approved GonaCon™ labels for use in deer its use is further restricted to APHIS-
WS or state wildlife management agency personnel or persons working under
their authority. The product label for equines (wild horses and burros), is
restricted to employees of APHIS-WS and -VS, BLM, FWS, NPS, U.S.
Department of Defense, federally recognized native American tribes, state
agencies responsible for wild or feral horse and burro management, public and
private wild horse sanctuaries, or persons working under their authority. In
addition, both labels specify that applicators are not to use these products near
humans, domestic animals, and pets and the products are required to be registered
with states prior to use. A labelled use for feral swine would be anticipated to
have similar restrictions to those proposed for the current labels resulting in
minimal risk to workers and the general public.
The other subgroup of the population that could be exposed to GonaCon
TM
are
people who harvest and consume feral swine that are treated with GonaCon
TM
.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 277
The potential for exposure and risk to this part of the population is also expected
to be minimal. In addition, exposure to GnRH would only be anticipated for meat
that is consumed at the injection site immediately after dosing. The half-life of
GnRH is short (< 1 hour) and would degrade prior to the animal being harvested.
However, if a person does consume a treated game animal shortly after
administration, that person is unlikely to be adversely affected because the active
ingredient GnRH is a protein, which is digested into its component amino acids
instead of absorbed intact in the digestive tract of mammals.
SOPs employed by APHIS-WS to reduce risks are discussed in Chapter 2, Section
H. Meeting the requirements of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act
of 1994 (21 CFR 530) should prevent any adverse effects on human health with
regard to this issue. All APHIS-WS personnel who handle and administer
chemical methods would be properly trained in the use of those methods.
Training and adherence to agency directives (see APHIS-WS Directive 2.430)
would ensure the safety of employees applying chemical methods. Feral swine
euthanized by APHIS-WS or taken using chemical methods would be disposed of
in accordance with APHIS-WS Directive 2.515. All euthanasia would occur in
the absence of the public, whenever possible, which would minimize risks.
Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks, issued on April 21, 1997, requires each federal agency to
identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children as a result of agency actions. The proposed
feral swine management activities would use only legally available and approved
damage management methods; therefore, it is highly unlikely that children would
be adversely affected. Feral swine management activities, in contrast, may reduce
adverse environmental health or safety risks to children caused by feral swine.
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-income Populations, issued on February 11, 1994,
requires each federal agency to identify and address any disproportionate high and
adverse human health or environmental effects of programs, policies, and
decisions on minority, low-income, and tribal communities in the United States
and its territories and possessions. Feral swine attacks and vehicle collisions,
although infrequent, have occurred (Beasley et al. 2013, Mayer 2013, TAMU
2013); therefore, a reduction in feral swine populations in areas with low-income,
minority, and tribal communities would increase the safety of the people in these
communities as it would in any other community where similar FSDM activities
are conducted. The health of these communities also may be improved if they
rely on water sources in areas with large feral swine populations. Feral swine
increase sedimentation in water by damaging vegetation and increasing soil
erosion. Increased levels of pathogenic bacteria and fecal coliform have been
discovered in water bodies as a result of feral swine defecation in or near them
(Kaller et al. 2007).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 278
Feral swine represent a potential source of meat, but donations of feral swine as a
food source is not practical, feasible, or allowed in most cases. FSIS has ruled
that all swine are subject to the Federal Meat Inspection Act and even if donated
are considered to be in commerce; therefore, all animals must be processed under
inspection at an official establishment. Additionally, many states may require
additional clearances such as health certificates. Thus, based on these limitations,
feral swine are not likely to be donated to charities. Carcasses may be left with
individual property owners where the swine were killed for personal
consumption, if requested and allowed by law. In this case, information is
provided to the landowner on health risks and on precautions to take to minimize
risks while handling the carcass and cooking the meat. Hunting feral swine can
also be a source of low cost supplemental food for some families (Chapter 3
Section F.1.d). Feral swine populations are continuing to increase in many areas
under the Current FSDM Program. Consequently, impacts on use of feral swine
as supplemental food under this alternative are likely limited and localized.
Impacts of Feral Swine
APHIS-WS works with cooperators on a case-by-case basis to assess the nature
and magnitude of feral swine conflicts including providing information on the
limitations about what we know regarding health risks associated with feral
swine. In most cases, the risk of contracting a disease from feral swine is
relatively low. Although reports of human illness associated with feral swine are
rare, this may be due to the lack of reported human cases (Amass 1998). There
are likely illnesses contracted from swine that people may perceive as the
common flu that are left untreated, unreported, or misdiagnosed (Hutton et al.
2006). Cooperators may consider even a low level of risk to be unacceptable and
others may wish to eliminate or minimize risks before human illness occurs
because of conditions on their site.
While current biosecurity and herd health procedures minimize the occurrence of
disease in domestic swine herds, diseases such as rabies, brucellosis, plague,
tuberculosis, anthrax, and tularemia may occur sporadically in swine or other
domestic livestock species, and can be costly to treat. The potential for injury,
illness, or loss of human life as a result of human interactions with feral swine
have been described in Chapter 3, Section H.1.b FSDM, if successful, could
reduce the potential for zoonotic disease transmission between feral swine and
humans, reduce the number of swine-vehicle related accidents and injuries from
aggressive feral swine.
In conclusion, no adverse effects on human health and safety have occurred or
have been reported to occur from APHIS-WS activities conducted from FY09
through FY 13. The overall risks to human safety from the Current FSDM
Program are low. FSDM benefits human health and safety by reducing the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 279
potential for zoonotic disease transmission between feral swine and humans and
by reducing the potential for swine-vehicle related accidents and conflicts with
aggressive swine (Section 3.G).
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
The potential negative effects on human health and safety associated with the
Integrated FSDM Program would be similar to the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1). Even though operational activities using available methods
would increase, program SOPs would continue to minimize risks (Section 2.G).
Through a nationally coordinated effort, it is likely that feral swine populations
would be eliminated or significantly reduced in many areas over time (Chapter 4
Section B.1).
This alternative would include a nationally coordinated feral swine disease
monitoring program which will provide information on zoonotic diseases that
health agencies can use to better understand and address potential risks to human
health. Eliminating or reducing feral swine in areas would likely further reduce
the risk of zoonotic disease transmission from feral swine, including brucellosis,
trichinosis, tuberculosis, toxoplasmosis, E. coli, and leptospirosis. It would also
further reduce the risk of vehicle-swine collision and injuries from aggressive
swine as compared with the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). The
national educational outreach and education component of this alternative may
include materials to inform the public of measures they can implement to reduce
risks to human health and safety (e.g., safe handling of feral swine intended for
food use, practices which may reduce risk of incidents with aggressive swine).
With regard to the potential impacts on human health and safety from the use of
lead ammunition during FSDM activities, APHIS-WS made informal
recommendations to shift the use of lead ammunition in future FSDM programs
toward the use of non-toxic shot such as Hevi-Shot®. Hevi-Shot® is a tungsten,
nickel, and iron alloy, and is already in limited use by APHIS-WS field
operations. Currently, no safety concerns with the use of Heavy-Shot® have been
identified. Additionally, Hevi-Shot® does not pose a risk of ricochet during
aerial operations even in rocky terrain. Under this alternative, the APHIS national
FSDM program managers would try to work with manufacturers to place orders
for the shot needed for all FSDM activities in order to maximize potential for
economy of scale in ordering. The National FSDM Program is focusing on the
transition to nontoxic shot first because the majority of feral swine taken will be
taken from aircraft with shotguns and aerial shooting also likely constitutes the
greatest use of a single type of ammunition. Should other types of non-lead
ammunition be considered for use by APHIS-WS in the future, APHIS-WS would
first ensure that the product meets APHIS-WS safety and humane standards. At
this point in time, Hevi-Shot® is the only brand of non-lead ammunition that
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 280
meets both these requirements and provides an acceptable alternative to
traditional lead ammunition.
APHIS has considered whether project impacts occurring in minority and low-
income populations and to minority farmers and ranchers appreciably exceeds or
is likely to appreciably exceed those on the general public, and whether there
would be an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and
adversely affects an environmental justice population. APHIS-WS expects that
there would be no additional negative impacts under the Integrated FSDM
Program with regard to Executive Orders 13045 and 12898. Conversely, it would
be expected that a national FSDM program would have greater benefits to human
health and safety as discussed under the current FSDM program alternative
because of improved efficacy in meeting program objectives. FSDM would have
low risks to the public for the reasons explained above, and would only occur
where requested and authorized by landowners/managers and in accordance with
state/territorial and tribal management objectives for the species. These
provisions help to ensure that individuals and communities will have a say in if
and how FSDM is conducted in their area.
Feral swine attacks, although infrequent, have occurred (TAMU 2013), therefore,
a reduction in feral swine populations in areas with low-income, minority, and
tribal communities would increase the safety of the people in these communities.
The health of these communities also may be improved if they use water sources
in areas with large feral swine populations. Feral swine increase sedimentation in
water by damaging vegetation and increasing soil erosion. Increased levels of
pathogenic bacteria and fecal coliform have been discovered in water bodies as a
result of feral swine defecation in or near them (Kaller et al., 2007). However,
these benefits would likely also be realized by people in any community where
FSDM is needed and implemented. Noise associated with feral swine
management activities is not expected to have differing impacts between minority
and low-income populations and the general public.
Additionally, APHIS-WS would expect a nationally coordinated FSDM program,
such as under this alternative, to further reduce risks to the general public from
disease threats associated with the presence of feral swine and would better
protect public water sources by reducing or eliminating feral swine populations
from critical watershed areas.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Under this alternative, all resources would be allocated to APHIS-WS state
programs for baseline FSDM based on the size of the feral swine population in the
states, territories, and tribal lands served by the APHIS-WS. Impacts on public
health and safety from FSDM methods would be similar in nature to the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), but may be slightly greater in scope in
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 281
some areas because additional funds will be available for operational FSDM.
This alternative would likely be very effective in addressing local threats to
human health and safety. However, in the absence of a nationally coordinated
strategic allocation of resources to reduce the range and size of the feral swine
population, feral swine populations in some states and territories and associated
damage, will persist longer than under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative
2). Where populations are not eliminated, additional operations could be needed
when feral swine return to project areas or expand into new areas. Longer term or
more frequent operations would potentially increase risks over the Current and
Integrated FSDM Programs (Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively), but public health
and safety risks would still be expected to be low since SOPs are effective at
minimizing public exposure and risk.
The ability for coordinated disease monitoring as described in the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2) would not be increased without the National
projects, thus the benefits to public health would be lower in this regard.
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
This alternative is also similar to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2),
but involves no baseline funding. All funding under this alternative would be
committed to national and strategic local projects. This alternative would focus
all available resources on achieving national goals of containing and eradicating
feral swine, FSDM research, conducting feral swine disease monitoring and
working with international partners to address feral swine damage. APHIS-WS
state programs supporting states, territories, and tribes with feral swine would
only receive funding for FSDM when their state was identified as a priority for
the national management program.
Under this alternative, funding for FSDM projects would be focused on APHIS-
WS programs in states with feral swine which have been identified as a priority
for the national program. Some states, were feral swine eradication is not
feasible, may not receive any funding until program priorities and goals shift.
Conversely, impacts to human health and safety that result from FSDM methods
may be greater in high priority states receiving funding for FSDM. However,
these impacts would be expected to be similar or less than those associated with
the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
This alternative would distribute FSDM funding to states, territories, tribes, and
others through a grant program based on National FSDM management objectives
and local needs as described for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
Feral swine control actions would be implemented by grant recipient agencies or
their agents.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 282
The administrative burden for this alternative would result in less funding
available for FSDM. Although the amount of work conducted is likely to be less
than the alternatives discussed above, any work conducted is likely to be similar
to the current APHIS-WS activities and impacts to human health and safety from
FSDM methods would be similar or less than those analyzed under the Current
FSDM Program (Alternative 1).
Additionally, it is possible that less experienced personnel implementing FDSM
methods could lead to greater risk to human health and safety than the other
alternatives. As discussed above, under Alternatives 1 through 4, APHIS-WS
personnel are required to adhere to specific requirements for training and
certification in the use of several FSDM methods. Hazards to human health and
safety could be greater under this alternative if the personnel implementing do not
have the same level of training in FSDM methods as APHIS-WS personnel.
8. Socio Cultural Effects
This section evaluates and compares the effects of the alternatives on socio-cultural
resources and values. It is subdivided into three sections: 1) cultural resources, with
emphasis on compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 2) impacts
on tribes and traditional and cultural values (related to NHPA compliance but treated as a
unique issue), and 3) humaneness and ethical perspectives. These potentially affected
resources and values were identified and discussed in detail in Chapter 3, section D of
this EIS.
a. Alternative 1: Current FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
Cultural Resources
Consultations with states, territories, tribes, and other federal agencies are an
important part of ensuring that APHIS-WS considers cultural resources in project
planning, and is a requirement of the NHPA (NHPA, Public Law 89-665, 16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.). The term “cultural resources” covers a wide range of
resources including historic properties,
30
sacred sites, and archaeological sites not
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Cultural resources can exist
at or below the soil’s surface, can be obscured by vegetation, and their existence
may be previously unknown. APHIS-WS complies with Section 106 of the
NHPA by 1) determining if proposed projects have the potential to affect cultural
resources; 2) consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
30
“Historic properties,” as defined by the NHPA, means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure,
or object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the National
Park Service. This term includes artifacts, records, and material remains that are related to and located within such
properties. Properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian
organization may be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register (36 C.F.R. § 800.16(l)(1)).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 283
regarding the value and management of specific cultural, archaeological and
historic resources; and 3) consulting with appropriate American Indian tribes or
Native Hawaiian organizations to determine whether they have concerns for
traditional cultural properties in areas of these federal undertakings. APHIS-WS
combines NHPA planning with NEPA to include federal, state, territorial, tribal,
and public input. NHPA and state cultural resource laws may be triggered on any
land classification.
Most APHIS-WS operational FSDM methods described in Section 2.C. do not
cause major ground disturbance (Section 4.C.2), physical destruction or damage
to property, alterations of property or landscapes, and do not involve the sale,
lease, or transfer of ownership of any property. In general, such methods also do
not have the potential to introduce visual, atmospheric, or audible elements to
areas in which they are used that could result in effects on the character or use of
historic properties. In addition, the methods that are used by APHIS-WS under
the Current FSDM Program are applied on a short term and temporary basis.
When conducted in accordance with SOPs, other than excavation for on site
burial and building permanent fences, the Current FSDM Program generally does
not involve activities that have the potential to adversely affect historic properties.
Excavation for carcass burial has the potential to disturb historically important
objects or sites which can be known or not yet discovered. Permanent fence post
installation has the same potential and in addition, introduces a visual effect on
the landscape. These actions may be in previously disturbed and fenced areas
such as agricultural or other intensively managed lands but nonetheless, would
require continuation of Section 106 compliance procedures (36 C.F.R. §
800.3(a)(1)). In this case, the SHPO and in the case of tribal lands, the Tribal
Historic Preservation Office (THPO) or tribal representative would be contacted.
On federal and state lands, including public and non-public lands, coordination
with the land management agency through NEPA planning, work planning, and
agreements is also used to help identify and avoid cultural resource conflicts.
Identified conflicts would be likely to be resolved by relocating work sites to
avoid impacts.
Protecting historic sites or other cultural resources or properties from feral swine
damage can involve activities that may potentially indirectly or directly adversely
affect the resource; however, in most cases, adverse effects would be unlikely due
to the limited and temporary nature of the work. Benefits to the resource would
likely occur from removing swine to prevent or stop damages. In cases where
APHIS-WS may be requested to assist with the protection of cultural resources,
land managers, agency archaeologists, SHPO, THPO/tribal representative, and
other agency experts, as appropriate, would be included in coordination to
identify and resolve possible conflicts and to fully complete all steps necessary to
comply with the NHPA. On public lands and on other federal lands, the land
management agency requesting feral swine control could be designated as the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 284
lead agency for compliance with Section 106, and APHIS would cooperate in that
effort.
Consultations with tribes and partner agencies on NEPA planning, and public
outreach and monitoring is built into the Current FSDM Program. When and if
cultural resource concerns are identified, APHIS-WS would develop measures to
avoid or reduce harm to cultural resources and values. Where necessary, an
agreement with the SHPO/THPO or affected tribes would ensue. It is unlikely
that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation would be consulted in most
cases since FSDM actions are typically flexible enough that effects are likely to
be able to be completely avoided by either using methods that do not adversely
affect cultural resources, or avoiding sites or sensitive areas altogether. If there is
a potential adverse effect, the SHPO, THPO/tribe, and other interested parties
would have a chance to comment as required by Section 106. In addition, some
partner agencies also may have their own regulations or procedures for
compliance with NHPA. Appendix G contains a list of all potential FSDM
methods with the potential effects on cultural resources and whether or not
consultations with SHPOs, THPOs, and other agency personnel would be
necessary.
Impacts on Tribes, Traditional Cultures, and Ceremonial Values
As noted in Chapter 3, tribal response to and use of feral swine varies among
tribes and among individuals within tribes. Factors influencing tribal perceptions
of swine include the tribe’s history of interaction with the species, impact of feral
swine on the tribal economy and the finances of individual members, and impact
of swine on culturally important resources. Tribes experience many of the same
positive and negative impacts of feral swine on agriculture, health and safety, and
hunting opportunities as other members of the American public. As with other
members of the public, tribes may also have concerns pertaining to the perceived
waste of feral swine taken during damage management if the animals are not used
by the landowner. The primary difference for the tribes relates to the interface
between feral swine and cultural values and resources. For example, the damage
by a non-native species is likely to be particularly unwelcome in tribal sacred
sites. Tribes and tribal members with a deeply held sense of moral responsibility
for the health of native species and ecosystems may consider reducing adverse
impacts of feral swine a moral imperative. However, tribes in areas with a long
history of feral swine may have incorporated feral swine into tribal culture and
may wish to retain feral swine populations while minimizing potential adverse
environmental impacts. Some tribes may also perceive feral swine as an
economic and recreational asset because they provide a low-cost source of food,
hunting opportunities, and a potential source of revenue through the sale of feral
swine hunts and other swine-related businesses.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 285
Under this alternative, range and size of the feral swine population is anticipated
to continue to increase nationwide. Existing resources are unlikely to cause
substantial reductions or eliminate all swine from states, territories, and tribal land
with moderate to large feral swine populations, including areas where swine have
been established for a long time. However, localized reductions or elimination of
local feral swine populations are possible and could impact tribes. Eradication of
feral swine in states with low and isolated populations is also possible.
Tribes in areas with a long history with feral swine may be more likely to
perceive positive impacts of feral swine and favor management strategies which
maintain a balance between positive and negative impacts of feral swine on tribal
resources and values. However, additional feral swine population increases and
range expansion may strain the ability of existing mechanisms to maintain
balance between positive and negative impacts of swine. The cumulative impact
of increasing feral swine populations and other environmental stressors such as
climate change, other invasive species, and development may result in new
concerns regarding ecosystem health and the wellbeing of native species of
cultural concern. Ongoing range expansion of feral swine is likely to result in
new tribes seeking solutions to address feral swine concerns. There may also be
concerns that FSDM actions may result in movement of swine to adjacent tribal
lands where feral swine may not already be present and where resources to
address feral swine impacts may be limited.
Federal funds to conduct work in conjunction with tribes are limited and, in all
but a few instances, cooperator funding must be available before APHIS-WS
conducts FSDM on tribal lands. One noteworthy exception is the cooperative
FSDM project with the Mescalero Apache Tribe in New Mexico, which was
established as part of the pilot project to eradicate feral swine from the state.
The APHIS-WS program currently works to include tribes in development of
state-level NEPA analyses that guide the program’s damage management
activities. No work is conducted on tribal lands without the written consent of the
tribe. Management plans specifying the nature of the work to be done and the
methods to be used are developed with the applicable landowner/manager and
tribal leaders prior to initiating work to ensure that tribal and landowner concerns
and values are addressed. Coordination with tribes also reduces the risk that
FSDM actions, such as hunting with dogs and aerial shooting, do not disrupt tribal
religious practices.
Coordination and consultation with the tribes and compliance with the SHPO
discussed above helps to ensure that APHIS takes tribal management objectives
and issues into consideration and minimizes the risks of adverse impacts on tribes
from FSDM. Therefore, we conclude that risks of adverse impacts on tribes from
FSDM actions under this alternative are low. However, potential for positive
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 286
impacts from FSDM in situations where tribes are experiencing damage are
limited due to financial constraints.
The cultural importance of feral swine in Hawaii and some of the territories is an
issue that was discussed in Section 3.F.2. Similar concerns exist in Guam,
American Samoa, and CNMI. The State of Hawaii regulates feral swine as a
game mammal, and they are managed for sustainable populations in designated
public hunting areas. Under the Current FSDM Program, APHIS-WS does not
remove feral swine from public hunting areas. Feral swine are removed from
agricultural areas and private lands primarily where they are damaging crops,
property and other resources. As with other areas, some people may object to the
idea that the animals are destroyed but not donated for public food use. In
Hawaii, as in most places, feral swine that are killed on private lands are offered
to the landowners for their own personal use. Because of the state's management
objectives, feral swine would continue to be available for public hunting and thus
for cultural, religious, and ceremonial uses. However, there may be local areas
where feral swine are removed and would be less abundant or not available for
individuals to harvest and use on private properties. For additional discussion on
the availability of feral swine to hunters see the discussion on the effects on
recreation, hunting feral swine in Section 4.C.5.
Humaneness and Ethical Perspectives
General philosophies, approaches, and issues relating to the ethics of controlling
feral swine and animal welfare perspectives are discussed in detail in Chapter 3
Section E.1.f of this FEIS. The Chapter 4 analysis focuses on the ethical and
humaneness perceptions specific to the management alternatives.
Under this alternative, there would be no change to the current activities that are
being conducted to control feral swine in the United States. Current perspectives
on the ethics or humaneness of feral swine control activities would continue under
this alternative. APHIS would continue to follow all applicable policies,
guidelines, directives, and SOPs when conducting any future feral swine control.
Chapter 3 presents two general models for considering whether an action is
ethical. One model reviews the ethics of a project within the context of whether
the action is necessary and whether it is justified (Littin and Mellor 2005). A
second model reviews the action in context of 6 major criterion (Littin et al.
2004): 1) the goals, benefits, and impacts of action must be clear; 2) the action
should only be taken if goals can be achieved; 3) the most effective methods must
be used to achieve goals; 4) The methods must be used in the best ways possible;
5) the goals must be assessed; 5) once goals are achieved, processes should be in
place to maintain results.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 287
2-Factor Ethics Model (Littin and Mellor 2005): For this model, the question
of whether an action is necessary has two components. First, is whether or not
there is actually a need for FSDM. The second is whether there is actually a need
to use lethal methods to address the problem. Chapter 3 provides detailed
documentation that feral swine pose risks to human health and safety, and can
cause substantial damage to agriculture, natural resources, and property. Based
on this information and site-specific experiences, APHIS, the cooperating
agencies, and other federal, state, territorial, tribal and private partners currently
working with APHIS on FSDM have determined that there is a clear need to take
action to reduce damage and conflicts caused by feral swine. Furthermore, the
lead and cooperating agencies have reviewed and considered use of a wide range
of nonlethal and lethal methods as discussed in Section B. At present, exclusive
use of nonlethal methods would be insufficient to address damage concerns
relating to the ongoing increases in the feral swine population. Consequently, we
have determined that the proposed action, including the use of lethal methods, is
necessary.
We acknowledge that this determination is, in part, subjective in nature. The
determination is based on an acceptance of the idea that the needs of people
(human and pet safety, property, agriculture) will, at times, have priority over any
rights individual feral swine may have to exist free of manipulation or death by
humans. It also is based on a general philosophy that we have a responsibility to
protect native ecosystems and species from adverse impacts caused by an
introduced, invasive species. Individuals who have more biocentric perspectives
and who consider any harm to a living creature which may be avoided as immoral
or a violation of individual animal rights may not concur with the determination
that FSDM is necessary. They may feel that people created the situation and
people should have to live with damage that cannot be prevented through the
implementation of minimally invasive nonlethal methods. In its simplest form,
people, not feral swine, created the problem and the feral swine should not have to
pay for our errors. This interpretation is most likely in the context of damage to
agriculture and property. Individuals may have more nuanced interpretations in
regards to risks to human safety and impacts on natural resources. Some may
share the lead and cooperating agencies’ sense of responsibility for protection of
native species and natural resources.
There are individuals who may believe that feral swine have been present long
enough in some areas to be ‘naturalized’ and that ecosystems in these areas have
come into balance with the feral swine populations. From this perspective, FSDM
would not be perceived as necessary, or the situations where FSDM is necessary
would be very limited. The primary problem with this perspective is that it
assumes a relatively stable system. Feral swine populations continue to increase
in density and range including in some areas where they have been present for
years. Additionally, native ecosystems are subject to increasing stresses from a
variety of factors including climate change, development, fragmentation and other
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 288
invasive species. These impacts are likely to continue to increase over time.
Consequently, the impacts of a specific feral swine population can change over
time when considered in the context of cumulative impacts on the system.
Perceptions regarding whether or not one of the FSDM alternatives analyzed in
this FEIS and specific FSDM methods are justified will depend, in part, on
individual perceptions of the humaneness of the action. Individual perceptions of
humaneness can vary depending on a range of factors discussed in Chapter 3,
Section E.1.f., and can include the risk of harm to individual target animals, the
nature and duration of any adverse impacts on individual animals, and the
selectivity of the method (i.e., risk to non-target species).
Each of the alternatives is identical in terms of the methods that would be
available to state-level APHIS-WS programs. However, unlike the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2), National FSDM and Strategic Local Programs
(Alternative 4), and Federal FSDM Grant Program (Alternative 5), the Current
FSDM Program includes only limited resources for technical assistance to states,
territories, and tribes on development of regulations to address feral swine
conflicts. Similarly, less funding is available for research efforts to bring
additional nonlethal damage management alternatives into practical use and
improve the selectivity and humaneness of existing management methods under
this alternative than under the Integrated FSDM Program, National FSDM and
Strategic Local Projects, and the Federal FSDM Grant Program (Alternatives 2, 4
and 5, respectively). Additionally, although education and outreach on FSDM is
provided by state APHIS-WS programs with some assistance from the national
FSDM program, this project does not include the nationally coordinated outreach
and education effort that would occur under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5.
Consequently, this alternative may not be considered as humane as some of the
other alternatives that provide additional resources for nonlethal FSDM strategies.
In the context of impact on individual target animals, nonlethal methods are
commonly considered more humane than lethal methods. Individuals with the
more biocentric perspectives discussed above would likely prefer methods such as
frightening devices, repellents or fencing, and educational programs to discourage
people from moving swine to create hunting opportunities. However, these
methods would generally only be applicable to relatively limited areas and, except
for the educational programs, would not address the issue of an increasing
national feral swine population. Opinions regarding the ethics of reproductive
inhibitors would be mixed, with some individuals approving of the method
because it is a nonlethal strategy and others opposed because there is insufficient
information regarding risks to non-target species and/or perceptions that
interfering with reproduction is an unacceptable intrusion on individual animals’
rights and wellbeing. In terms of selectivity, risk of adverse impacts from
repellents and frightening devices are likely to be minimal, but depending on
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 289
design, fencing has the potential to impact movements or cause injury or mortality
in non-target animals.
Lethal methods which result in a quick, painless, and relatively stress-free death
are generally preferable in terms of humaneness (AVMA 2013). For example,
when using firearms as a control method, APHIS-WS personnel are trained to
place shots that result in quick death and minimize pain and suffering. In this
context, shooting would be considered to be among the most humane methods
available, although shooting from aircraft would be considered less humane than
other forms of shooting because of the potential stress to the animal during pursuit
and the decreased certainty in regards to shot placement. Additionally, risks to
non-target species are negligible. Foothold traps and snares would be considered
undesirable and inhumane by some because of the time between when an animal
is captured and its death and because of the potential to capture and injure or kill
non-target animals. Implementation of Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Best Management Practices (BMPs), when applicable, (AFWA 2006) helps to
ensure that the program minimizes the pain and suffering to individual target
animals, however there are no specific AFWA BMPs for feral swine. Because the
methods used are used in a highly target-specific manner, very few non-target
animals are captured by APHIS-WS. Most often, non-target animals that are
caught can be easily released unharmed (Sections C.1 and C.2 above).
Humaneness concerns associated with pursuit with dogs include risk of injury to
the dog or the feral swine and stress to swine during pursuit. Dogs would not be
used to kill swine and swine located through use of dogs would be killed via
gunshot. SOPs pertaining to use of dogs are provided in Chapter 2 Section G.9.
The disposition of animals lethally removed has also been identified by members
of the public as a factor in considerations regarding the humaneness and ethics of
FSDM. As noted above, some individuals will perceive lethal removal of animals
for any reason to be an inhumane and a morally unacceptable solution. However,
for other individuals, knowledge that the animals removed are put to a “good use”
may impact their acceptance of lethal methods. In sport hunting, lethal removal
that results in use of all or most of the animal for food, or cultural and religious
purposes generally has greater public acceptance than “trophy” hunting in which
only a portion of the animal is kept for display purposes. Similarly, in wildlife
damage management, projects that result in animals being donated to programs
which feed individuals in need are generally better accepted than programs that
only result in burial or other forms of animal disposal. APHIS-WS donates
animals taken during damage management efforts if permitted by state, federal,
territorial, and tribal regulations and if donation can be conducted in a safe and
practical manner. Unfortunately, the inspection requirements of the Meat
Inspection Act make donation of feral swine for human consumption prohibitively
expensive and impractical to implement in most situations. However, feral swine
are offered to landowners and managers for their personal use in accordance with
the Act. Although this will be considered a more appropriate disposition for the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 290
animals, concerns remain regarding diseases in feral swine that may not be
encountered in commercially available meat. (See impacts on human health and
safety above, Section 7).
In addition to the factors discussed above, the expected efficacy of the proposed
alternatives or specific method can also impact perceptions regarding the
humaneness of an action. For some individuals primarily concerned about the
wellbeing of livestock and wildlife, that may be preyed upon by feral swine, and
human health and safety, a FSDM alternative which is less effective in addressing
the increase in the national feral swine population or local damage problems may
be considered less humane than more effective alternatives. In this context, the
Current FSDM Program would be less acceptable than any of the other
alternatives because, although local damage problems can and are being
addressed, feral swine populations and associated conflicts continue to increase
nationwide.
6 Factor Ethics Model (Littin et al. 2004): This FEIS clearly presents the goals
and anticipated benefits of an effective FSDM program. Chapter 4 of the analysis
provides details on the anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed
alternatives. The efficacy of each of the alternatives and individual methods in
meeting project objectives is provided in Section B above. Based on the analysis
in Section B, this alternative may be less effective in meeting national project
objectives than some of the other alternatives presented. This alternative would
use the APHIS-WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992; Figure 2-1) and an
integrated management approach to develop the most effective site specific
management plans while minimizing adverse impacts on the human environment.
Factors considered in the decision model include, but are not limited to,
considerations of humaneness of individual methods and the varying philosophies
regarding the need for FSDM discussed above for the 2 factor ethics model.
APHIS-WS personnel are trained in the safe and effective use of FSDM methods
and use these methods as humanely as possible. APHIS-WS Directives
(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlifedamage) and the SOPs discussed in Chapter 2
Section G provide details on measures used to address concerns regarding the
humaneness of FSDM methods and measures to minimize the risk of adverse
impacts from FSDM. This alternative includes no national level assessment of
FSDM goals. However, the APHIS-WS Decision Model used for local projects
includes monitoring and assessment of project goals and impacts with
cooperators. Efficacy of FSDM efforts are also reviewed in communications
between APHIS-WS state programs and relevant state, territorial and tribal
regulatory agencies. Under this alternative, there are no nationally available
resources to respond to reports of swine in areas believed to be free of swine to
investigate swine reports in areas cleared of swine, or to investigate swine reports
where no swine have occurred; APHIS-WS is entirely dependent upon resources
from cooperators to respond to such reports.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 291
In summary, when considered in context of the models above, the Current FSDM
Program is ethical and humane at the local (state, territorial, tribal) level.
However, from the perspective of the 6-factor model, at a national level, it is not
as effective in meeting model criterion for an ethical program as some of the other
alternatives. This is due, in part, to reduced efficacy in addressing problems with
the expanding feral swine population, limited resources for some types of non-
lethal management strategies (e.g., research, education and outreach, and
technical assistance on local regulatory options), and reduced level of national
coordination and monitoring for the program. For any individual or group who
accepts the idea that feral swine are invasive species in the United States that are
destructive and require control, the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) is
likely to be acceptable or insufficient, based on knowledge about feral swine
damage and values that include preservation of the environment from destruction.
Groups or individuals who believe that human control of wildlife in any way is
wrong are not likely to find this alternative to be acceptable. Because no changes
to current approaches would be made, this alternative would also probably be
unacceptable to groups or individuals who specifically object to lethal or non-
lethal control of feral swine. In addition, any groups or individuals who generally
object to the ethics or humaneness of current APHIS activities would be likely to
continue to object to the choice of this alternative.
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
Cultural Resources
The Integrated FSDM Program would have similar effects on cultural resources
compared to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) since the same methods,
SOPs, and avoidance measures would be used. Increased feral swine removal, in
terms of numbers of animals and geographic scope, would potentially benefit
historic resources, but could also increase the potential for adverse effects by
increasing the need to use on site burial as a carcass disposal method. APHIS-WS
would coordinate siting with land owners and managers, SHPOs, THPOs, and/or
other cultural resource experts in accordance with Section 106. While it is highly
unlikely, should it not be possible to relocate excavation or work sites to avoid
cultural resource conflicts, additional compliance measures would be enacted to
review and mitigate adverse effects on cultural resources. This potential would
increase if partner agencies specifically request that APHIS-WS assist with
protecting important historic or other cultural sites from feral swine damage;
however, based on program flexibility for siting and methods, it is likely that most
adverse effects could still be avoided. Local NEPA processes may be used to
ensure that public involvement is considered as part of Section 106 compliance.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 292
Impacts on Tribes, Traditional Cultures, and Ceremonial Values
Under this alternative feral swine populations are expected to decrease
nationwide, with swine populations eventually eliminated from most states except
those where the state, territory or tribe does not desire to eradicate feral swine
and/or the population is of sufficient size that eradication is unlikely given current
technology and resources (Section 4.C.2). In states where feral swine
populations are retained, there would likely be increases in FSDM projects to
protect sensitive resources and associated increases in the number of areas within
the state where local feral swine populations are reduced or eliminated.
Additional resources would be available to assist tribes seeking to reduce feral
swine damage.
Impacts of FSDM on tribes would be similar to the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1), but they would have an increase in magnitude and scope.
APHIS-WS would obtain necessary authorization from tribes and develop work
plans for tribal lands in the same manner as for the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1). APHIS-WS would conduct additional outreach activities to
inform tribes of APHIS-WS’ increased capacity to form partnerships to address
feral swine damage with tribes, and to offer additional opportunities for
consultation on tribal concerns pertaining to FSDM. One of the objectives for the
FSDM program is to work with states, territories, and tribes to address feral swine
damage in a manner consistent with their objectives for the species. The policy
of working in accordance with the management objectives of states, territories and
tribes should enable tribes to maintain the positive values of feral swine if they
wish while also reducing feral swine damage. State goals to eradicate swine
could lead to potential conflicts with a tribe or tribes in the area that wish to retain
feral swine for their use. The consultation and outreach opportunities should
enable APHIS-WS to identify areas where this type of conflict may occur and
work with the affected parties to identify effective solutions.
Under the Integrated FSDM Program in Hawaii and the Pacific territories, where
feral swine have traditional importance, feral swine would be removed from more
areas and would be subject to more intensive and focused removals of ongoing
projects. New areas of focused work in Hawaii would include natural protected
areas with the purpose being to assist state agencies and other entities with
conservation work as they attempt to protect and restore native habitats.
Restoring and protecting native plants and habitats may provide benefit for other
traditional values. As under the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), feral
swine would not be removed from public hunting areas, and there would continue
to be a sustainable feral swine population as discussed in Section 4.C.1., which
would be available to hunters and thus available for traditional and ceremonial
uses. APHIS-WS would continue to offer feral swine that are killed on private
properties to the landowners for their personal use, which may include traditional
uses. Overall, more feral swine would be removed from the state than under the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 293
Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) and this would reduce their potential
availability in some areas outside of public hunting areas. Compared with the
Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), there may be additional localized
impacts based on reductions or eliminations of local feral swine populations.
Humaneness and Ethical Perspectives
2- Factor Ethics Model (Litton and Mellor 2005): In addition to the agency
and cooperator determinations that FSDM is necessary, Congress, through
appropriation of funds for FSDM has determined that development of a national
FSDM program of some sort is justified based on the scope of the problem and
the need for action.
Perceptions of the humaneness of specific FSDM methods remain as presented
for the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1); however, they may be heightened
based on increased operational work and program objectives. This alternative
will substantially increase the number of feral swine removed using lethal
methods and will likely be considered undesirable by people primarily concerned
about the fate of individual animals. The increase in funds may enable APHIS-
WS to access more efficient or effective methods, which are not currently
available, or are limited, because of costs. For example, additional funding may
enable APHIS-WS state programs to invest in remote monitoring and activation
systems for cage traps, or those programs may be able to use aircraft to conduct
monitoring for and remove feral swine. These shifts may impact individual
perceptions of the humaneness of the FSDM program. However, under this
alternative, additional funds would also be available for research on feral swine
damage and damage management methods, which can be used to make existing
methods more effective and selective. The availability of additional funds for
research will likely facilitate investigations into reproductive control methods and
toxicants that are already occurring under the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1). Most people are likely to perceive an effective and selective
reproductive control method as more humane than current lethal methods or
toxicants. As discussed for the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1),
individual perceptions of the humaneness of toxicants will be varied and will
depend on personal perspectives on the issue of lethal control, the need for
FSDM, and perceptions of toxicants in general.
This alternative also increases APHIS technical assistance to states, tribes, and
territories regarding development of state, territorial, and tribal regulations to
discourage behaviors that contribute to the feral swine problem. Funding will
also be available for a nationally-coordinated education and outreach effort to
inform the public of the impacts of feral swine, the need for FSDM, and things the
public can do to help address the feral swine problem.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 294
6-Factor Ethics Model (Littin et al. 2004): As noted for the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1) the FEIS presents the goals and anticipated benefits of
FSDM and provides details on the anticipated environmental impacts of the
proposed alternatives. This alternative would be the most effective in meeting the
combined need to address the national-level increase in the feral swine population
and associated damage and the need to address local damage conflicts. As with
Alternatives 1, 3,and 4 this alternative would use the APHIS-WS Decision Model
(Chapter 2, Section C) to develop the most effective site specific management
plans while minimizing adverse impacts on the human environment. Unlike the
Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), this alternative includes a formal process
for assessing program efficacy in meeting project objectives. In addition to
research on FSDM methods, this alternative may include research on methods to
assess the efficacy of FSDM programs. National-level resources would be
available to help APHIS-WS state programs respond to reports of swine in areas
believed to be free of feral swine and in areas cleared of feral swine by FSDM.
In summary, when considered in the context of the models above, this alternative
is likely to be the most ethical and humane alternative under consideration
because it has the greatest probability of meeting project objectives and combines
the ability to provide local assistance with national coordination in reducing the
range and size of the feral swine population. It also provides national support for
program components that may help reduce the need for lethal methods over the
long term (e.g., education and research). If this alternative is selected, depending
on the other agency partners and organizations that participate, issues relating to
ethics and humaneness may require further discussion among the partners at the
APHIS-WS state program level. If any of the agency partners and organizations
have specific guidance they follow to address these issues, they may be
incorporated into their respective projects.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Cultural and Historic Resources
The Baseline FSDM Program would provide additional funding to states,
territories, and associated tribes with high feral swine populations, thus the
potential for adverse and beneficial effects may be higher than the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Conformance to SOPs for coordination with land
managers, SHPOs, THPO/tribes, and other experts would help to identify and
avoid potential conflicts, and Section 106 procedures would be followed similar
to the Current and Integrated FSDM Program (Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively).
As discussed in Section 4.C.1, this alternative may ultimately be less effective or
take longer to eliminate feral swine from states with low or moderate populations.
Overall, compared with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), this
alternative may protect cultural resources more in the short term, where baseline
funding was provided. Long term, however, without the support of national level
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 295
projects to create more efficiencies, and without strategic local level projects to
target certain local populations, this alternative is likely to be less effective in
eliminating feral swine and thus less effective over time at reducing damages to
historic resources than the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
Impact on Tribes, Traditional Cultures, and Ceremonial Values
This alternative differs from the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2)
primarily in the distribution of FSDM activities and the long-term impacts on
feral swine populations and damage. Under this alternative, all FSDM funds
would be distributed to APHIS-WS state and territorial programs for baseline
damage management and only limited funds would be held for national
coordination. No funds would be withheld for national priority projects including
disease monitoring, research, international coordination, or national outreach and
education programs. Fund allocation would be based on the size of the swine
population in the state. For states, territories and associated tribes with high feral
swine populations, this could potentially mean that additional resources would be
available to work with these entities to reduce damage by feral swine. Increases
in FSDM funding would be most likely in states and territories which did not have
a goal of eradicating feral swine damage because, under the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2), these states would only qualify for baseline funding and
potentially some funding for strategic local projects.
As discussed in Section 4.C.1, this alternative may ultimately be less effective or
take longer to eliminate feral swine from states with low or moderate populations,
which could adversely affect tribes in these areas who wish to eliminate feral
swine and associated damage. APHIS-WS programs in states which would have
been identified as priority candidates for feral swine eradication under the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) may receive more money for baseline
damage management, but less total funding because they would not be receiving
national priority program funds for swine eradication. Provisions for outreach
and consultation with tribes would be the same as for the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2), and requirements for authorization to work on tribal
lands would remain the same as for the Current and Integrated FSDM Programs
(Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively).
The management objectives for Hawaii and the territories with feral swine are to
manage for sustainable feral swine populations while also minimizing local
damage and conflicts with feral swine. Consequently, as noted above in the
discussion for tribes, additional funds may be available for baseline damage
management in these areas. Magnitude and intensity of feral swine removals and
other damage management efforts would likely be highest for this alternative.
New areas of focused work in Hawaii would include natural protected areas and
the purpose would be to assist state agencies and other entities with conservation
work as they attempt to protect and restore native habitats. All other facets and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 296
impacts of increased FSDM activities would be as described for the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
Humaneness and Ethical Perspectives
2- Factor Ethics Model (Litton and Mellor 2005): Assessment of the necessity
of the Baseline FSDM Program would be similar to that stated for Alternative 2.
This alternative would increase the amount of funding available to APHIS-WS
state programs to conduct FSDM. Because this alternative allocates the most
resources to operational FSDM, it is likely to include lethal removal of more feral
swine than any of the alternatives under consideration. This alternative will
substantially increase the number of feral swine removed using lethal methods
and will likely be considered undesirable by people primarily concerned about the
fate of individual animals. The increase in funds may enable some APHIS-WS
programs to access more efficient or effective methods which are not currently
available, or are limited, because of costs. These shifts may impact individual
perceptions of the humaneness of this alternative.
This alternative would not provide increased funding for research, or outreach and
education programs, or national coordination regarding technical assistance for
state, territorial, and tribal governments who are developing feral swine
regulations. Overall, research into new methods would be similar to the Current
APHIS FSDM Program (Alternative 1). National involvement in outreach and
education and technical assistance would also be similar to the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1), but, APHIS-WS state operational programs may choose
to allocate some of their operational funding to increase their education and
outreach programs and technical assistance on regulatory issues.
Based on the analysis in Section B above, this alternative would likely be less
effective in addressing national project objectives than the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2), but it would provide increased assistance for local
damage management projects for some states, territories, and tribes. For
individuals primarily concerned about the fate of individual feral swine, the
potential for lethal removal of the greatest number of feral swine of any of the
alternatives, and the lack of national funding for increased research, outreach and
education, and technical assistance on regulatory issues may result in the ranking
of this alternative as less humane than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative
1). Individuals who are concerned about the need to reduce adverse impacts of
swine may rank this alternative as intermediate to the Current and Integrated
FSDM Programs (Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively).
6-Factor Ethics Model (Littin et al. 2004): As noted for the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1) and the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), the
FEIS presents the goals and anticipated benefits of FSDM and details the
anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives. This alternative
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 297
would be less effective in meeting the combined need to address the national-level
increase in the feral swine population and associated damage and the need to
address local damage conflicts than the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative
2), but more effective than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). This
alternative would not have the same potential to benefit from increases in research
to improve the selectivity and efficacy of FSDM methods as the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2). There would be the same formal process for assessing
program efficacy in meeting national and local project objectives as the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2), but national funds would not be available for
research into improved methods for assessing project efficacy. Like the Current
FSDM Program (Alternative 1), no national resources would be available to help
APHIS-WS state programs respond to reports of swine in areas believed to be free
of feral swine or in areas cleared by FSDM.
In summary, from the agency perspective, when considered in the context of the
models above, this alternative would be an improvement over the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1), but less desirable than the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2). This determination is based on the improvement in capacity to
address feral swine damage at the local level and the improvement in monitoring
of national program impacts, but the lack of or only minimal increase in research,
outreach and education and technical assistance on local regulatory alternatives.
As with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), if this alternative is
selected, issues relating to ethics and humaneness may require further discussion
among the partners at the APHIS-WS state program level. If any of the program
partners have specific guidance they follow to address these issues, they may be
incorporated into their respective projects.
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
Cultural Resources
This alternative would not provide baseline capacity funding for states with feral
swine. Consequently, some states, territories, or tribal lands with high feral swine
populations, and/or which do not intend to eradicate feral swine populations
(Appendix D, Table 2), may not receive any funding for additional operational
work. In those cases, potential FSDM adverse effects on cultural resources would
be similar to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Where states receive
funding for national projects, focused, intensive operations would be implemented
to eradicate feral swine; there, benefits to cultural resources may be realized and
project Section 106, of the NHPA, consultations to address potential adverse
effects on historic resources may be necessary. In the case of strategic local
projects, efforts would be focused on small or new populations and therefore
operations and effects would be more focused and limited in terms of geographic
scope and the potential for disturbance to cultural resources. Benefits to these
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 298
cultural resources would be based on the level of existing and potential feral
swine activity.
Because this alternative would apply more funding to national projects (e.g.
research, national-level education and outreach, and materials) than any other
alternative, it would likely provide beneficial effects based on long-term
efficiency, efficacy, and ultimate success of FSDM. Most types of national
projects would not have the potential to cause adverse effects on cultural
resources so would not require further Section 106 consultation. Long term
benefits to cultural resources (from removing damaging feral swine) would be
based on the efficiency and efficacy of FSDM with emphasized national support.
Impacts on Tribes, Traditional Cultures, and Ceremonial Values
Under this alternative, all FSDM funds would be allocated to national projects
intended to stabilize and eventually reduce the size and distribution of the feral
swine populations in the U.S. and strategic local projects. No funds would be
available for baseline damage management. Consequently, APHIS-WS state
programs which are not identified as priorities for FSDM would, at most, only
receive funds for strategic local projects until such time as the national feral swine
population management objectives are met and funds are re-allocated to address
remaining local damage management needs.
As discussed in Section 4.C.1, this alternative may be able to stabilize and
eventually reduce the range and overall size of the feral swine population more
quickly than under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) which would be
beneficial to tribes in these areas who wish to eradicate swine. Adverse effects of
swine eradication on tribes in these areas would be similar to, but occur more
quickly, than under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Less funding
is likely to be available to assist tribes with FSDM in states which are not
identified as national priorities for FSDM, although funds for strategic local
projects may be available to tribes to protect important cultural resources and
sites. Provisions for outreach and consultation with tribes would be the same as
for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), and requirements for
authorization to work on tribal lands would remain the same as for the Current
and Integrated FSDM Programs (Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively).
Hawaii and the territories with feral swine are managing for sustainable feral
swine populations and to address local damage and conflicts with feral swine.
Funds for FSDM in these areas would be limited to strategic local projects
intended to protect sensitive species and high priority conservation areas. The
overall increase in FSDM and associated positive and negative impacts would be
greater than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), but less than the
Integrated FSDM Program and Baseline FSDM Program (Alternatives 2 and 3,
respectively). All other facets and impacts of increased FSDM activities and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 299
associated SOPs would be as described for the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2).
Humaneness and Ethical Perspectives
2- Factor Ethics Model (Litton and Mellor 2005): Perceptions of the ethics
and humaneness of this alternative would be similar to those described for the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Assessment of the necessity of a
national FSDM program would be similar to that stated for Alternative 2. Some
states and territories which are lower priority in terms of achieving national feral
swine population control objectives may not receive any FSDM funding or only
limited funding for strategic local projects in the early years of the program.
Consequently, some people may consider this alternative less desirable because it
provides reduced assistance for local FSDM and is less humane to animals and
people negatively impacted by feral swine damage in the low priority areas.
Others may consider the increase in capacity to achieve national feral swine
population management goals to be more important than the short term reduction
in funding for operational FSDM in states and territories which are not identified
as priorities for national feral swine population management. This alternative
may be considered preferable to Alternative 3 because it includes nationally
coordinated education and research efforts which may help decrease the need for
lethal methods over the long term.
6-Factor Ethics Model (Littin et al. 2004): As noted for the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1) and the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), the
FEIS presents the goals and anticipated benefits of FSDM and details the
anticipated environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives. This alternative
would be less effective in meeting the need to address local damage and conflicts
in low priority states than Alternatives 1 – 3. However, this alternative would be
equal or greater in effectiveness in meeting the need to address the national-level
increase in the feral swine population and associated damage as Alternatives 1-3.
There would be the same formal process for assessing program efficacy in
meeting national and local project objectives as Alternative 2 and 5 including
research into improved methods for assessing project efficacy.
In summary, from the agency perspective, when considered in the context of the
models above, this alternative would be an improvement over the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1), but less desirable than Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2). This determination is based on the improvement in capacity to
address feral swine damage at the national level and the improvement in research
and education. However, some areas would receive less support for local FSDM
until such time as populations are controlled or eradicated in higher priority states
and territories.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 300
As with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), if this alternative is
selected, issues relating to ethics and humaneness may require further discussion
among the partners at the APHIS-WS state program level. If any of the program
partners have specific guidance they follow to address these issues, they may be
incorporated into their respective projects.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
Cultural and Historic Resources
APHIS-WS would not directly affect cultural resources under this alternative, but
it would still be responsible for NHPA compliance as the grantor of funding
depending upon agreements with other federal agencies that may be grant
recipients. Adverse effects on cultural resources could be avoided similar to the
other alternatives considered, and while APHIS-WS would be responsible for
monitoring program effects, the ultimate effect would be related to the degree that
grant recipients followed protocol established for resource protections. Overall,
because less funding would equate to less operational FSDM, benefits to cultural
resources from feral swine removal would be greater than the current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1), but lower than under the other alternatives. Whether or
not this alternative might provide more benefits than the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1) would depend largely on the efficiency of grant recipients who
deliver FSDM services. This alternative is not likely to provide as much potential
benefit to cultural resources that are harmed by feral swine because fewer feral
swine would likely be eliminated locally and on a state/territory scale.
Impacts on Tribes, Traditional Cultures, and Ceremonial Values
Like the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), this alternative substantially
increases the level of FSDM that would be conducted. This alternative would
fund most of the same types of projects as under the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2), but the work would be conducted by states, territories, tribes,
Universities and other entities working under grants from APHIS. Less FSDM
would be conducted under this alternative than under the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2), because of the inefficiencies in the alternative discussed
in Sections 4.C.1 and the Economic Impacts section below. States, territories,
tribes and research institutions would be able to submit requests for grants to
conduct research; disease monitoring; and baseline, national priority, and strategic
local FSDM projects. Application requests for projects involving partnerships
among agencies and tribes would be encouraged. Under this alternative, because
APHIS-WS would not be conducting operational FSDM, or disease monitoring or
research, APHIS-WS would not have the capacity or direct involvement in FSDM
at the local level to support provisions for coordination and consultation with the
tribes established for Alternatives 2-4. Coordination with affected tribes would be
a condition of the grants, and tribes could submit applications on their own.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 301
However, some tribes may be concerned that fair treatment and access to
resources may be more difficult when working with territories and states than
when working with a federal agency with a commitment to engaging the tribes in
management and decision making (See Executive Order 13175 Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments and APHIS Directive 1030.3
Relationships with Native Americans and Tribal Governments).
Hawaii and the territories generally manage for sustainable feral swine
populations in at least a portion of the lands under their jurisdiction to
accommodate recreational and/or traditional uses and values. Local eradication
and/or damage management may occur in some areas including all or portions of
National Park Service Lands and National Wildlife Refuges to protect sensitive
species and ecosystems. As with tribes noted above, Native Hawaiian
organizations and organizations representing native people in the territories would
be able to apply for FSDM grants in cooperation with the state and territories or
for their own projects to balance the positive and negative impacts of feral swine.
Humaneness and Ethical Perspectives
This alternative would contain the same components as the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2), so ethical and humaneness considerations for this
alternative would be similar. The primary difference is that less funding will be
available for all facets of FSDM (operational management, research, education
and outreach, and technical assistance) because of the costs of administering and
monitoring the grant program. Based on the analysis in Section 2 above, there
will also be some inefficiencies inherent in this alternative that would likely make
it less effective in meeting national and local project objectives than the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2). Consequently, some individuals may consider
this alternative less desirable from an ethics perspective than the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2).
9. Economic Impacts
This section provides a review of the economic costs and benefits of the FSDM
alternatives. Case studies assessing damage to specific components of the affected
environment are provided in Chapter 3. Information regarding the costs and relative
efficiency of individual FSDM methods are included in the evaluation of the efficacy of
the alternatives in Chapter 4, Section C.1.
a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)
Under this alternative, APHIS-WS has been conducting wildlife damage
management to address local and/or state level concerns on a case-by-case basis.
Although effective in addressing local issues, nationwide, the feral swine
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 302
population and associated costs from damage and risks to human and animal
health is increasing (Chapter 3). Current APHIS FSDM efforts lack the national-
level coordination and strategic allocation of resources needed for long term large
scale management of damage. Biologists with state programs opportunistically
collect samples from feral swine for disease monitoring, which is coordinated
nationally through the APHIS-WS National Wildlife Disease Program, but there
is only limited use of targeted sampling to monitor for diseases of national
concern. However, some targeted sampling may occur for projects funded by
cooperating agencies and research institutions, including NWRC, depending upon
the availability of funds. National and state level outreach and education
programs are conducted within the constraints of available resources.
In the absence of specific allocations for FSDM, APHIS-WS uses general
appropriated funds for state and NWRC operations. In FY12, APHIS-WS spent
$2,604,620 in appropriated funds for FSDM (Table 4-5). Cooperators provide
additional funding for FSDM. In FY12, approximately half the total funding for
FSDM ($2,773,000) was provided by cooperators. Cooperators may also provide
support in the form of staff to assist with work, or provide facilities and
equipment for APHIS-WS use.
Table 4-5. FY12 Funding for APHIS-WS FSDM Activities.
Wildlife Services Appropriated Funding FY12 Cooperative Funding FY12
Eastern Region $50,000 $1,019,928
Western Region $1,187,000 $1,559,539
National Wildlife Research
Center
$1,367,620 $193,489
Total $2,604,620 $2,772,956
The dependence upon cooperator funding limits the ability of APHIS-WS to work
to limit feral swine populations and provide long term solutions to feral swine
damage. Efforts to manage damage and eradicate or substantially limit feral
swine populations require working with multiple landowners/managers.
However, not all of these landowners/managers may be willing or able to
contribute to the funding needed to address feral swine on their property. At
present, APHIS-WS ability to assist low income landowners and communities is
primarily limited to what can be accomplished with funding from other agencies
and cooperators with a shared interest in managing feral swine and swine damage
on a larger scale than the individual properties under their management.
Feral swine are fast breeders and resilient survivors. These characteristics make
them extremely troublesome pests. But their large and growing population, high
level of adaptability, and favorable game meat characteristics make them popular
targets of recreational hunters and individuals seeking supplemental food.
Businesses have been created or enhanced in response to the opportunities that
feral swine hunting present, although their total number is not known. These
businesses include feral swine hunting guides and excursions, FSDM services,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 303
and businesses which provide supplies for FSDM. Landowners with free-ranging
swine on their property may also sell hunting opportunities.
Hunting (all species combined) contributes substantially to the United States
economy. According to a 2012 study, there are 13.7 million hunters in the United
States. In 2011, $38.3 billion was spent on hunting supplies, equipment, and
other costs. Hunting by individuals supported 680,000 jobs in the United States
and generated $11.8 billion in tax revenues (Southwick Associates 2012). The
portion of the overall industry impacts attributable to feral swine hunting has not
been determined. Of the states and territories that responded to an informal
APHIS questionnaire in 2013, 33 explicitly allowed the hunting of feral swine,
while 14 did not. Thirty-five states had codified restrictions on the hunting of feral
swine, including 19 that have some licensing requirement. Sixteen states have
essentially no restrictions on the hunting of feral swine. Feral swine damage to
other game species is expected to grow as their populations persist and expand.
Thus, the economic benefits from feral swine hunting would have the reverse
effect on revenues generated in other hunting pursuits since feral swine adversely
affect a number of other important game species through predation, competition,
displacement, and habitat damage.
Twenty-six states have hunting preserves that include hunting feral swine. These
preserves are not affected by the Current FSDM Program because of its limited
effects on feral swine populations. Similarly, 24 states allow the selling of feral
swine hunts on private land, with variation among the states in restrictions on the
use of fences.
The number of businesses involved in private feral swine control is unknown and
difficult to quantify. As an example though, the Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries maintains a list of private operators involved in pest control
in the state. Louisiana, which has a high population of feral swine that damage
sugar cane and other crops as well as levees and lawns, has 146 registered private
wildlife control operators in its database. Of these, 104 do not specifically
exclude feral swine as a species for which they are willing to provide pest control
services. Sixteen of the operators specifically mention feral swine as a specialty.
These figures are not necessarily comprehensive, nor can they be generalized to
all states with a feral swine population, but they are indicative of the potential
number of businesses that currently see some economic benefit from the existence
and spread of feral swine (LWLF 2014).
Those who benefit from feral swine related businesses are not likely to be
adversely affected by current feral swine removal rates since populations are
generally continuing to expand in most areas.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 304
b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)
Under this alternative, the proposed feral swine program would be funded through
an annual congressional appropriation for the APHIS-WS program. Current
appropriations are anticipated to be $20 million per FY. Under this alternative,
APHIS-WS funding would be used to improve baseline damage management
response capacity in all states with feral swine (e.g., funding for personnel and to
supply FSDM equipment such as cage traps); provide increased funding and
support for states identified as priorities to meet the national goal of eradicating
feral swine populations in all areas where populations are limited or newly
established; outreach and educational programs and materials; research; national
disease monitoring; and international project coordination. APHIS-WS
appropriations are not intended to provide all the money needed for FSDM.
Instead, APHIS-WS funds would be combined with funds from agency partners,
tribes, organizations, and individuals in cost share programs and other
partnerships to provide for a more effective and comprehensive program than any
one entity could provide on its own. The extent to which APHIS-WS funding
would be met or even exceeded by funding from cooperating entities is unclear,
but is anticipated to be similar to other APHIS-WS programs. Nationwide, in
FY13 approximately 69% of APHIS-WS funding came from cooperators, with
cooperator funding ranging from 16% to 100% of individual state or territory
program funds (APHIS-WS Program data reports;
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlifedamage).
Congressionally appropriated funds can vary among years as can cooperator
contributions to program actions. The program objective of eradicating feral
swine populations in all areas where populations are limited or newly established,
and the federal, state, territorial, or tribal entities that are working to eradicate
swine is expected to take years to accomplish (Chapter 4 Section C.1). Increases
in funding are likely to reduce the time needed to achieve project objectives.
Relatively minor decreases in funding would be spread across all projects and
would likely increase the amount of time needed to achieve project objectives.
Larger-scale decreases would result in eventual omission of strategic local
projects, reductions in baseline and national program funding and eventual
consolidation of funds to states, territories, and tribes of greatest strategic
importance for project objectives. Work could continue to be conducted in other
areas if cooperator funding is available as under the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1).
Feral swine are highly adaptive and fast breeders, and therefore, the resources
required to eliminate an emerging population grow exponentially the longer a
response is delayed. However, some increases in difficulty and expense are
expected in the last stages of swine eradication from an area because of the
challenges in locating and removing the last few animals. This alternative
systematically applies available resources to eradication of swine in strategically
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 305
identified areas while also providing baseline assistance to all areas with feral
swine. This strategy should help stabilize feral swine populations and associated
damage and protect particularly sensitive areas and species in areas which are not
immediately targeted for feral swine population eradication because of resource
limitations. This alternative would also allow for significantly more robust
emergency response to newly discovered populations of feral swine in states
previously considered to be free. Robust and rapid emergency response to newly
established populations may require more resources in the short term, but the
long-term benefits of eliminating a new population early and minimizing future
prolonged damages would be substantial.
Under this alternative, APHIS would have substantially increased resources to use
for FSDM and to use to establish cost-share partnerships to increase the collective
capacity of agencies, tribes, and landowners, and managers to address feral swine
damage. Under this alternative, APHIS-WS would have increased capacity to
conduct FSDM in areas where landowners and communities are unable to provide
all the funding needed for FSDM. Consequently, APHIS-WS would have greater
ability to conduct effective large scale damage management or feral swine
population eradication efforts across multiple land ownerships without some of
the funding obstacles. However, challenges inherent with working with
individuals who may have differing feral swine management objectives would
remain.
In contrast to the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), the proposed FSDM
features closer cooperation with Canada and Mexico. Coordinating efforts with
these two countries would increase the likelihood of successfully controlling feral
swine populations and migrations along our borders. Projects near the borders
could be rendered moot if the feral swine populations roam freely from one
country to the other. Attempts to eliminate small populations near country
borders could prove to be the most costly (per head) operation, and ultimately
unsuccessful if such populations can be reestablished by cross-border migrations.
Cooperation with Canada and Mexico would also enhance the tracking and
monitoring of populations not targeted for near-term elimination. Data generated
from such cross-border efforts would contribute to the success of the program as a
whole.
Increased research on feral swine management and removal methods supported
under this alternative has the potential for positive long-term economic impacts
through increases in efficiency and efficacy of program activities. A
breakthrough in chemical control methods, in particular, would significantly
impact efforts to manage feral swine populations.
Education and outreach efforts can help discourage behaviors which contribute to
the feral swine problem (e.g., moving swine), and aid development of effective
regulations to address/prevent establishment of feral swine and associated
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 306
damage. Combined with operational management and international coordination
on swine management, effective research and outreach can help reduce the long
term costs of FSDM.
This alternative also provides for national monitoring and evaluation of program
performance. The resulting data would yield much-needed comprehensive and
accurate performance baseline for making project management decisions.
Efficiency gains would likely be small initially, but would rapidly grow as
monitoring and evaluation data are gathered and analyzed and the program is
adjusted accordingly.
Table 4-6 - Illustrative differences between the Current and Integrated FSDM Program (Alternatives 1 and 2).
Estimate of feral swine taken under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) is an estimate for purposes of
comparison only. Actual number of swine taken per year under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) could
be higher or lower depending upon the relative density of swine in project areas and the stage of the project. More
effort is generally needed per swine to remove the last few animals from a population than to remove animals from
areas with high populations.
Alternative 1 – Current
FSDM Program
Alternative 2 – Integrated FSDM
Program
Number of feral swine
assumed to be eliminated per
year
30,000 70,000 to 100,000
Agricultural damage costs
prevented by removing
swine.
1
$7,050,000 $16,450,000 to $23,500,000
Emergency response to new
populations in otherwise
feral swine-free states
Very limited capacity. Relies
on cooperator initiation and
funding.
Yes. Resource allocation for
emergency response would be
provided based on national and
strategic local projects.
Research NWRC ongoing Increased development of new control
and monitoring technology
Partnering with Canada and
Mexico
No Coordinate with Canada and Mexico to
address feral swine along borders
Funding prioritization for
removals.
No national funding. Priorities
largely established by
requesting agencies and
others.
National projects would focus on
systematically eliminating feral swine
from key states. Baseline programs
would fund damage management in all
states with feral swine, with levels
dependent upon feral swine population
levels. Strategic local projects would
focus resources in specific areas to
help achieve national goals.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 307
Alternative 1 – Current
FSDM Program
Alternative 2 – Integrated FSDM
Program
Evaluation and monitoring Monitoring for operations is
conducted at the APHIS-WS
state level for compliance with
NEPA and all regulatory and
policy requirements. Feral
swine population monitoring is
either not done, or is done
opportunistically based on
cooperator funding.
APHIS would monitor program
adherence to conditions specified in
the EIS, Record of Decision (ROD).
Population monitoring is included
under this alternative. APHIS would
also develop performance
measurements that are consistent with
long-term strategic goals and
objectives. Program monitoring and
performance reports would guide and
refine management practices in
accordance with adaptive management
practices.
1
(assumes $235/swine in 2012 dollars)
Feral swine sport hunting excursions, FSDM businesses, private pest control
operators, and individuals who use feral swine for supplemental food in areas
where feral swine populations are eliminated or substantially reduced could be
negatively impacted in the long term by a national feral swine control program.
Hunters in these areas who wish to continue to hunt swine are likely to incur
greater costs to travel to other areas with free ranging swine or pay for hunting
opportunities in fenced preserves. Impacts may be greatest in the states,
territories, and tribal lands which do not require licenses or regulate harvest of
animals which may be taken because there are no regulatory costs associated with
feral swine hunting or limits on the number of swine which may be removed. On
the other hand, FSDM in areas affected by the program would support hunters and
associated business that utilize other game species that are or would have been
adversely affected by feral swine. Thus, the adverse effects on these businesses
may be reversed where revenues can be generated in hunts for other game animals
such as wild turkey, other ground nesting birds, and deer since predation pressure,
competition, displacement, and habitat damage from feral swine would be
reduced and in many areas would be eliminated.
Impacts of increased agency efforts to reduce or eliminate feral swine populations
on businesses which provide damage management supplies (e.g., cage traps)
would vary over time. Initially, these businesses may benefit from agencies
increasing FSDM efforts. Over the long term, success in limiting the feral swine
population would limit business opportunities.
In areas where the state/territory/tribe is working to eliminate or substantially
reduce the feral swine population, hunting preserves and farmers raising swine in
pastures may have increased requirements for fencing and monitoring to ensure
that swine do not escape. Some states, territories, and tribes may seek to limit or
eliminate hunting preserves as part of efforts to reduce or eliminate feral swine
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 308
populations. Conversely, reduction or elimination of state, territorial, or tribal
feral swine populations may benefit fenced hunting preserves in areas where these
facilities are still permitted because of increased business from individuals who
had hunted free-ranging feral swine, or because they can increase the price of
hunts in the absence of free or low cost opportunities to hunt feral swine. State,
territorial, and tribal regulation of these entities varies significantly, and the
impacts of a national control program would similarly vary depending on the
locale.
c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program
Like the proposed Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), this alternative
would be funded through an annual congressional appropriation for the APHIS-
WS program. Under this alternative, all FSDM actions would be committed to
baseline program activities based on the number of swine in the state, territory or
tribal areas. No funds would be allocated for strategic local projects, nor would
there be funding for national program activities including targeting specific states
for swine eradication, research, national outreach and education efforts, nationally
coordinated disease monitoring, additional aircraft, or nationally directed
coordination with Canada and Mexico. Some of these things may continue to
happen to a lesser extent on the local level if APHIS-WS state directors and
cooperators choose to allocate funds for these purposes in a manner similar to the
Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1).
In some states, territories, and tribal areas, the increase in baseline funding
without the national and strategic local projects may be sufficient to enable the
state/territory/tribe to meet swine eradication goals. In areas with moderate or
high populations (Figure 7), baseline funding may never be sufficient to achieve
the level of removals needed to meet eradication and containment goals, or
funding may not be sufficient until such time as swine are eradicated from other
areas and funds are freed to support states/territories/tribes which still have swine.
Allocation of funds based strictly on size of existing feral swine populations could
cause problems because we anticipate it would take more time and effort per
swine to locate and eliminate the last few swine in an area. Under the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2), this dilemma is addressed through the allocation
of national and strategic local funds, but it could only be addressed under the
Baseline FSDM Program if the formula for allocating baseline funds is adjusted to
increase funding in areas with only a few remaining feral swine.
Additionally, under this alternative, money would likely be unavailable for rapid
response to new detections of feral swine in states until the next funding cycle.
Delays in responding to swine detections would likely increase cost of removal
efforts.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 309
The Baseline Funding Program (Alternative 3) would also differ from the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) on the important issue of feral swine
population monitoring. The Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) would
provide baseline funding for increased monitoring in states that have confirmed
populations of feral swine. It would also provide funding for special monitoring
projects at the national, state, or local level, to monitor and control emerging
populations as needed. The Baseline Funding Program (Alternative 3), would
lack the capacity to support these additional monitoring projects, and would only
provide for expanded population monitoring in states with confirmed populations.
This lower level of monitoring is more likely to result in emerging populations
growing significantly before a response can be effectively executed, leading to
increased control costs and reduced program efficiency.
Research activities under this alternative are likely to be similar to the Current
FSDM Program (Alternative 1). Research and efforts to register new chemical
methods would be substantially slowed or nonexistent under this alternative
depending on alternative sources of funding. The NWRC has extensive
experience in evaluation, development, and registration of toxicants and
reproductive control methods for damage management. Under this alternative,
the ability of the NWRC to use these skills in partnership with other research
institutions would be extremely limited unless outside funding was provided by
the partner institution or other cooperators.
Similarly, the Baseline FSDM Program offers significantly lower capacity for
disease monitoring than the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). As
described in Chapter 3 Section B.b, one of the largest potential costs of
uncontrolled feral swine populations is the risk of disease transmission. Improved
disease monitoring capacity is important, but Alternative 3 would not provide for
any disease monitoring above that which is performed under the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1).
Funding increases above the $20 million per year could increase the number of
states and territories which receive a sufficient level of baseline funding to
achieve swine eradication objectives. Relatively minor decreases in funding
would be spread across the programs and would likely increase the amount of
time it would take to meet project objectives. Substantial decreases in funding
could result in re-allocation of baseline funds such that some states may not
receive any baseline funding in some years. Work could continue to be conducted
in other areas if cooperator funding is available as under the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1).
Economic impacts of this alternative on swine hunting, hunting preserves, damage
management businesses, and individuals who use swine for supplemental food
would be greater than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) and somewhat
similar to Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), but probably lower based on
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 310
the difficulty of eradicating feral swine from some areas. Without National
education, outreach, and technical assistance to states with assessing the efficacy
of their regulations relating to feral swine, individuals may be more likely to
continue to take legal and/or illegal actions to ensure that feral swine hunting
opportunities continue, which would contribute to persistence of feral swine
populations. Impacts would be greater in states/territories/tribes with large feral
swine populations because these areas would receive more funding for damage
management under this alternative. Impacts may be more gradual in states where
swine populations are limited and eradication is desired because it may take
longer to eliminate feral swine from some areas under this alternative.
Crop damages alleviated would be greater than the Current FSDM Program
(Alternative 1), and could be greater at first compared with the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2) since funding would not be allocated to National
priorities that focus beyond immediate damage control. In the long term,
efficiencies gained under that Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) would
make that alternative more effective at reducing crop damages, while the Baseline
FSDM Program would become less efficient and effective.
Baseline programs would support hunters and associated businesses that utilize
other game species that are adversely affected by feral swine. Increases in
revenues over time could be generated from hunting other game animals such as
wild turkey, other ground nesting birds, and deer since predation pressure,
competition, displacement, and habitat damage from feral swine would be
reduced. Relief from feral swine damage with associated potential increases in
revenues from other game hunting expenditures are likely to be lower than the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), but greater than the Current FSDM
Program (Alternative 1)
Under this alternative, the APHIS-WS state programs would have more resources
to use for FSDM and to establish cost-share partnerships to increase the collective
capacity of agencies, tribes, and landowners/managers to address feral swine
damage. The increase in FSDM resources may enable APHIS-WS to assist in
situations where the low-income individuals and communities do not have the
resources to fund FSDM. This would increase the capacity of APHIS-WS state
programs to aid low-income individuals and communities. However, this increase
in baseline funding comes at the cost of national-level activities which would
support effective FSDM program implementation on a national scale and could
delay or make it extremely difficult to achieve feral swine eradication goals in
some areas. As with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), challenges
inherent with working with individuals who may have differing feral swine
management objectives would remain.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 311
d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects
Like the proposed Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2), this alternative
would be funded through an annual Congressional appropriation for the APHIS-
WS program. Under this alternative, program funds would only be allocated to
meet the national program objective of eradicating feral swine populations in all
areas where populations are limited or newly established and for strategic local
projects. As these areas are cleared of swine, emphasis would be placed on
states/territories/tribes which have a goal of eradicating swine, but which have
larger feral swine populations. This alternative would not provide baseline
capacity funding for all states with feral swine. Consequently, some
state/territory/tribal lands with high feral swine populations and
states/territories/tribes which do not intend to eradicate feral swine populations
may not receive any funding or may only receive funding for strategic local
projects until such time as swine are eradicated from other higher priority areas
(e.g., areas with emerging, low, or isolated populations) and funds are freed to
address new locations.
FSDM activities would still be conducted at the state/territorial/tribal level with
cooperator funds. However, in general, this alternative would be less responsive
to requests for local damage management assistance than the Integrated FSDM
Program (Alternative 2) and the Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3). The
advantages of a more comprehensive approach proposed under the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2), including the strategic apportionment of
management resources for the containment of feral swine populations in areas
where they cannot be eliminated in the near term, would not be realized.
This alternative makes more funds available per year for eradication of feral
swine from strategic areas than the Integrated FSDM Program and Baseline
FSDM Program (Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively), and therefore, it would be to
take less time to eradicate swine from locations identified as priorities for feral
swine eradication efforts which would have the greatest long-term benefits of
eliminating priority populations and minimizing future damages and associated
control costs. Unlike the Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3), funds would
be available for rapid response to new swine detections in state/territories/tribal
lands without swine populations. Rapid response funds would be greater than all
the alternatives, even higher than the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2)
since no baseline funding would be used. This would provide long-term benefits
by minimizing future population expansions into new areas, thus minimizing
future associated damage and control costs.
More funds would be available for research, national-level education and outreach
programs and materials, national disease monitoring, and national and
international project coordination than for the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2) or any of the other alternatives. This would enhance long term
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 312
efficiencies beyond what could occur in the Baseline FSDM program (Alternative
3) but also beyond what may be available under the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2) since program funds would be used in baseline operations.
However, the lack of baseline funding in areas which are not identified as
priorities for eradication could hinder efforts to stabilize or reduce damage.
Consequently, efforts to reduce or eliminate swine populations in these areas
could be more difficult and expensive if and when these areas eventually become
priorities for damage management.
Funding increases above the $20 million per year could decrease the time required
to achieve national feral swine eradication and containment objectives. Relatively
minor decreases in funding would be spread across all program activities and
would likely increase the amount of time it would take to meet project objectives.
Substantial decreases in funding would initially result in elimination of funding
for strategic local projects and reduce the number of states where APHIS is
working to achieve national program objectives at any one time.
Economic impacts of this alternative on swine hunting, hunting preserves, damage
management businesses, and individuals who use swine for supplemental food
would be greater than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) and differ from
the other alternatives in that it would be more focused on National priorities for
elimination and for strategic local projects than the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2), but would be the least likely of the alternatives to reach some
areas where feral swine populations are highest. Like the other alternatives,
negative effects on feral swine hunting related businesses would have a reverse
effect on hunting related business for other game species that are adversely
affected by feral swine.
Under this alternative, although there would be additional funding for FSDM,
baseline funding would not be available for all APHIS-WS programs in states
with feral swine. In some states, FSDM funds would be limited to strategic local
projects. Consequently the ability of APHIS-WS to form cost-share partnerships
and aid low income individuals and communities in these areas would be greater
than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), but less than the Integrated
FSDM Program (Alternative 2) or the Baseline FSDM Program (Alternative 3).
However, in states, territories and tribes which are identified as priorities for the
feral swine removal, there would likely be more funding available than under the
Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) and Baseline FSDM Program
(Alternative 3) because management efforts and available resources would be
focused on these sites.
The number of feral swine removed, and the associated avoided crop damages
would be greater than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), but lower than
the other alternatives in the short term since it is more costly initially to eliminate
populations and since more funds would be allocated to non-operational control
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 313
projects like research, education, outreach, and monitoring. However these
activities would increase long term program efficiencies and increase avoided
losses but probably not reach Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) levels
based on the difficulty in treating long-term damages in areas with larger feral
swine populations.
e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program
Under the Federal FSDM Grant Program, no new FSDM funds would be
available for operational APHIS-WS FSDM and the APHIS-WS program would
discontinue current FSDM efforts. Like the Integrated FSDM Program
(Alternative 2), this alternative would be funded through an annual congressional
appropriation for the APHIS-WS program. Local entities currently providing
funding to APHIS-WS for assistance with FSDM would be referred to the
appropriate state, territorial, tribal, local, or private entity assuming the tasks
currently conducted by APHIS-WS. Grant topics and approval would be set to
address the same project areas as for the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative
2). This alternative has several requirements and inefficiencies that would
substantially reduce the amount of funding available for FSDM activities.
APHIS-WS would use funds for the grant administration process and to monitor
grant projects for project results and to ensure that grant recipients are adhering to
SOPs and mitigations established by the APHIS program and adopted by the
Record of Decision. This monitoring would likely take more time and effort than
similar programs needed to allocate resources and monitor program actions
internally. Additionally, public accountability and reporting is expected.
Collating information from the various grants would take more time and effort
than recording and reporting data through use of the existing APHIS-WS MIS
system. It is also anticipated that grant recipients would need to use some money
for overhead and project management and reporting. The ultimate result of these
factors is that more money would be spent on overhead and less available for
operational management than under Alternatives 2-4. This alternative would still
have increased funding levels and would consequently still result in more positive
outcomes than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1). But relative to
Alternatives 2-4, feral swine control, animal elimination, and program response
would all be less successful.
We expect that Agency partners and tribes would be capable of conducting
FSDM, however, there would likely be some economies of scale which could be
more readily achieved under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) than
by individual states/territories and tribes. Additionally, some of the activities
proposed under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) are unlikely to be
conducted by state/territorial and tribal contractors under grants, including
national-level coordination with Canada and Mexico, national-level outreach and
education, and targeted national-level disease monitoring in swine. These actions
could be conducted at the local level, but may not be as efficient or effective as
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 314
national projects. Funding for this alternative is likely to be allocated to grant
applicants at the beginning of the year, so additional funding is unlikely to be held
in reserve to respond to detections of swine in areas which were previously
believed to be free of feral swine, similar to the Baseline FSDM Program
(Alternative 3).
Depending on local conditions, aerial shooting can be a very efficient means of
locating and removing feral swine. However, aerial shooting requires specific
types of aircraft and specially-trained pilots and crews. Some states/territories
and tribes may not have access to these resources and would need to contract with
experienced teams or do without the use of aircraft. Similarly, the NWRC has
extensive experience in the development and registration of pesticides for wildlife
damage management which would not be available for use under this alternative.
Local entities such as universities could fulfill these needs, but time and money
may be lost during the learning process.
In addition to less effective elimination and control of feral swine, Alternative 5
would also likely result in reduced levels of monitoring of both feral swine
populations and disease prevalence, in comparison to the other alternatives.
APHIS would not undertake additional monitoring; additional monitoring
activities would be determined by the entities receiving funding and limited to
areas under their management.
Economic impacts of this alternative on swine hunting, hunting preserves, damage
management businesses, and individuals who use swine for supplemental food
would be greater than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) and less than
the Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 due to reduced program efficiencies and reduced long-
term success. Like the other alternatives, negative effects on feral swine hunting
related businesses would have a reverse effect on hunting related business for
other game species that are adversely affected by feral swine, as long as feral
swine populations were successfully controlled in these areas.
Changes in available funding under this alternative would have similar impacts as
with the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) with the exception that some
national-level activities would be unavailable no matter how much funding is
provided to the program. In all instances, administrative costs and operational
inefficiencies are likely to result in less FSDM being conducted with a set amount
of funds than under the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2). The overall
decrease in operational funding is likely to increase the long-term time and costs
needed to achieve project objectives compared with the other action alternatives
(Alternatives 2-4).
The number of feral swine removed, and the associated crop damages avoided
would be greater than the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), but lower than
the National and Baseline FSDM Programs (Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively)
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 315
since efficiencies would be substantially reduced. This alternative could at least
initially prevent more crop damage than National FSDM and Strategic Local
Projects (Alternative 4) since that alternative would focus the most efforts on
states with smaller populations of feral swine. The relative effects on crop
protection are difficult to determine since would-be grant recipient objectives for
projects are unknown at this time, and priorities for crop producing areas may
differ in different states, with differing pressures from farmers and agricultural
agencies. Since funds would not be assured for research, education, outreach, and
monitoring, long term efficiencies are less likely and crop damages would be
expected to continue and even expand in many areas.
D. Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity
Pursuant to NEPA (Section 101), the alternatives evaluated in this EIS “us[e] all practicable
means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to
foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which humans
and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other
requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” Feral swine are a threat to the
productivity and balance of the human environment. The preferred action and alternatives were
created to reduce that threat by guiding the development of FSDM planning and resource
allocation to meet program goals to reduce feral swine damage. Specific short-term impacts on
the human environment from implementing the alternatives are discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
Mitigation to reduce potential adverse short term impacts and to help ensure long term
productivity was built into the alternatives as SOPs.
E. Unavoidable Adverse Effects
The five alternatives provide a programmatic direction for how APHIS would focus FSDM
assistance to the agencies, tribes, organization and others who may request assistance, and how it
would support national goals for FSDM. Regardless of which alternative is selected, subsequent
local or National decisions would determine how, where, and to whom assistance is provided, so
long as that assistance falls within the parameters specified in this EIS. FSDM decisions under
any alternative would not remove any applicable legal protections in place for the protection of
the environment, and APHIS would adhere to all applicable SOPs (Section 2.C.E.). As discussed
under the analysis of Environmental Consequences for each alternative (Section 4.C.), the
environmental effects may differ somewhat, but none of the alternatives was found to result in
unavoidable adverse effects on the human environment.
F. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
The analysis shows there is not an irreversible commitment of resources since future options for
the evaluated resource would not be lost. Effects on nonrenewable resources include cultural
resources and soils; however, effects were determined to be negligible based in part on the ability
to identify conflicts in planning stages, the flexibility of the program to make adjustments to
project locations to avoid or minimize adverse effects, and SOPs which serve to minimize
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 316
adverse effects under any selected alternative. In contrast, by reducing feral swine damage to
nonrenewable resources, such as historic or cultural sites, and preventing damage to rare
ecosystems and species, the proposed action is expected to reduce existing irreversible and
irretrievable impacts on resources. Soils and cultural resources would benefit from any of the
alternatives.
Feral swine could be expected to be removed completely from some states with small or
emergent populations. States that desire to keep and manage feral swine would still do so under
their regulatory authorities. Therefore, there is no irretrievable commitment of resources (e.g.
loss of use of feral swine) identified in this proposal. Given the adaptability and reproductive
capacity of feral swine, in the improbable event that an area was to later regret eradication of
feral swine, the animals could be readily and rapidly reintroduced to the system. Adverse
biological effects would be minor or completely eliminated based on SOPs built into all program
alternatives (e.g., effects on endangered species, other non-target animals and vegetation).
Effects would benefit natural resources by removing a destructive, invasive species.
No construction is proposed and no other aspects of the alternatives involve major commitments
of resources. The only irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources would be the use
of fossil fuels for normal maintenance and operations, with variation in the fuels used to operate
aircraft and vehicles. The level of use of fossil fuels was evaluated under Section 4.C.6, Climate
Change.
G. Incomplete or Unavailable Information
CEQ regulations (40 CFR S. 1502.22) state that an EIS should be clear about lacking
information if the EIS identifies reasonably foreseeable significant adverse effects on the human
environment. Significant adverse effects have not been identified in this EIS. Throughout the
analysis, the FEIS identifies areas where research, further NEPA and other compliance, and
information that is currently unavailable, would help to meet program goals, enhance program
delivery, improve efficiencies, or communicate site-specific environmental analyses. These areas
where information is needed include:
1. A comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of FSDM.
2. Comprehensive data on the effects of feral swine hunting and associated businesses.
3. Data on the effects of feral swine hunting on the ability to achieve agency FSDM goals.
4. Regulatory oversight over feral swine carcass burial. State agency regulations on feral
swine management vary widely, but only one state has addressed feral swine burial in terms
of protection of water quality. Where feral swine are buried on site as part of routine
livestock disposal practices, the analysis shows that the cumulative effects of this action on
water quality are not precisely known because routine livestock burial regulations are not
necessarily based on scientific analysis.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 317
5. Scientific analysis on the indirect effects of on site feral swine burial on water quality,
human health and safety, and non-target effects as relates to survival of pathogens and
chemical leachate from carcass decomposition.
6. local analyses in the form of environmental assessments or other records tp address site
specific impacts would be completed to ensure that local programs are consistent with the
adopted alternative, and SOPs from this EIS. In addition, local analyses would include
any additional substantive local issues that were not addressed in this EIS.
7. Communication and outreach is essential to influencing public attitudes about the
acceptability of moving feral swine for hunting opportunities. Assessments of the efficacy
of communication and outreach programs is needed.
8. Fencing is not always effective in keeping domestic swine from escaping to become feral
swine or in preventing contact between feral and domestic swine. Research is needed on
economical and effective fencing alternatives.
H. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative effects are “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental
impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR § 1508.7). The
existing environment discussed in Chapter 2 identifies and defines the potentially affected
environmental issues and resources raised during scoping. The existing environment represents
the aggregate impacts of past actions. When proposed, present and reasonably foreseeable future
actions are added to the aggregate impacts of past actions, the cumulative effects can be
estimated. The cumulative effects are discussed in this section where they could be identified,
commensurate with the potential for significance (CEQ 2005).
The alternatives are nationwide in scope and could extend, in theory, to any location where feral
swine may occur presently or in the foreseeable future, and on lands with any ownership or
management scheme. While the scope of the EIS is national (including territories and tribal
lands), the actual individual project locations would be relatively small and widely dispersed
since they are based on the location and dispersal of feral swine across the landscape. The
preferred action would guide resource allocation and establish a plan of actions to achieve
nationally established goals and objectives for FSDM (Section 1.H.). The individual operational
control actions would be small scale, of short-duration, and would be temporary. Most actions
would be beneficial, and any harm is most often negligible.
Most individual feral swine damage management operational projects typically have minimal
impacts because they are widely dispersed, on a small scale individually, are of short-duration,
and most impacts are temporary. Temporary effects are not considered to be significant
(Mendelker 2009, 8:51). These types of projects and impacts are not expected to contribute
significantly to cumulative effects and do not require detailed analysis in an EIS (Mendelker
2009; 8:51, 10-147). Furthermore, the potential for adverse effects on the environment has
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 318
already been mitigated through adherence to applicable laws, regulations, program policies,
SOPs, and through cooperation with resource management experts. Numerous laws apply to the
actions and that have been evaluated. These laws have been enacted to protect specific
environmental resources (Section 3.E). Federal laws include ESA, MBTA, BGEPA, NHPA, and
FIFRA. APHIS-WS program policies and directives and SOPs further minimize the potential for
adverse effects. In addition, because APHIS-WS does not manage affected resources or feral
swine, it conforms to applicable state, territorial, and tribal government laws for environmental
protection. Finally, when APHIS cooperates with other federal agencies, it follows cooperating
and partner agency policies and rules for environmental protection as defined in MOUs, work
plans, and other agreements.
1. Threatened and Endangered Species
The analysis of effects in Chapter 4 on T&E species has shown that operational APHIS-
WS programs, including FSDM programs, have not resulted in jeopardy and most often
result in findings of “no effect” or “not likely to adversely affect” for species that are
federally protected by the ESA. FSDM actions could occur any place that feral swine are
found, as long as assistance is requested and the actions are allowed by federal, state,
territorial, tribal, and local laws. In some cases, this may be where feral swine are
causing direct damage to listed species or their habitats. Because potentially affected
listed species are already protected by ESA based on their vulnerability to extinction
from different sources, they are particularly sensitive to adverse cumulative effects.
Other federal agencies must consult with FWS or NOAA under Section 7 of the ESA
when their actions may affect listed species. The ESA contains other provisions for
public agencies and private and other entities to conserve listed species and not adversely
modify or destroy their critical habitats. The ESA is a substantive statute implemented
and enforced by FWS and NOAA. It is intended to ensure that T&E species are
conserved and extinctions do not occur (16 U.S.C. §1531(b)). FWS and NOAA work
with APHIS as they work with others to evaluate and mitigate significant adverse
individual and cumulative effects on listed species. APHIS-WS and federal partner
agencies are bound to protective measures in the ESA which require them to consult with
FWS/NOAA to ensure that any actions resulting from decisions associated with this EIS
(i.e. any actions “authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency. . . is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. . . . “ (16
U.S.C. §1536(a)(2)). The cumulative effects of effective FSDM to protect plants,
animals, soils, and water, may provide benefit to species that are or could be directly or
indirectly adversely affected by feral swine activity because removing feral swine
removes the potential for future or continued damages. Feral swine removal is integral to
native ecosystem restoration and effective removal or elimination would facilitate such
efforts. For these reasons, significant adverse cumulative effects from FSDM are not
expected.
2. Non-target Animals
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 319
The analysis of effects on non-target animals in Chapter 4 demonstrated that APHIS-WS
FSDM activities would not have a negative effect on non-target species’ populations, and
beneficial effects from the removal of feral swine to protect native habitat is expected to
outweigh any negative effects of non-target take. APHIS-WS’ historic non-target take is
generally a very small percentage of both the non-target species populations and the
overall APHIS-WS target species take. Non-target species that are most often associated
with FSDM activities are generally common species, often game animals or other species
monitored by state, territorial or tribal natural resources agencies, such as coyotes or deer.
Nationwide, populations of such species are generally stable, and associated with other
forms of regulated mortality, such as hunting and trapping, without adverse effects on the
populations. Effects on non-target species are assessed at the state, territorial, tribal, or
regional level, where local resource management agencies can help to provide data on
population size, trends, and other sources of known take. Effects on non-target species
populations are typically negligible and are temporary. APHIS environmental
assessments on FSDM and on wildlife damage management continue to demonstrate
repeatedly that no significant adverse effects have occurred at the local level (i.e., state,
regional, or territorial levels), the level at which non-target species are managed.
Significant cumulative effects at the programmatic level are not expected since non-target
take from FSDM methods is low, take would not be concentrated in any one area, non-
target take is typically of species that are widespread and abundant, and no population
effects are seen. APHIS-WS works with state, territorial, or tribal natural resource
managers, communicating the risks of FSDM and evaluating effects on non-target species
to further ensure that cumulative take of any species would not have negative effects on
the population. For these reasons, there would not be adverse cumulative effects on non-
target species populations.
Risks Associated with Lead Ammunition
Chapter 4 contains an evaluation of the risks of lead from APHIS-WS FSDM shooting
activities on the environment and on public safety and health. Lead has wide-ranging
adverse effects on most biological systems in humans and non-target animals. Exposure
and risk to non-target animals would be greatest for wild and domestic animals that
consume feral swine carcasses containing lead ammunition. There is also the potential for
lead exposure to non-target mammals and birds from consumption of lead bullet
fragments in the soil. Exposure and risk to the public and to aquatic organisms such as
fish and aquatic invertebrates is expected to be negligible.
The cumulative sources of lead include other APHIS programs beyond FSDM. Non-
APHIS sources including firearms, hunting, and shooting activities as well as airborne
emissions from metals industries (such as lead smelters and iron and steel production),
manufacturing industries, and waste incineration are large sources of lead. USEPA
estimates that approximately 72,600 metric tons of lead shot and bullets are deposited in
the U.S. environment each year at outdoor shooting ranges (USEPA 2001). The reported
lead accumulation rates on individual shooting ranges are between 1.4 to greater than 15
metric tons per year (The Wildlife Society 2008). Recent data from USGS (2011) shows
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 320
that U.S. use of lead from ammunition, shot and bullets was 69,200 metric tons. An
approximated 3,977 metric tons of lead fishing sinkers are sold in the United States
annually (The Wildlife Society 2008). In comparison, average lead use in all APHIS-WS
programs is approximately 1.174 metric tons per year. The average yearly total amount
of lead used in all states by APHIS-WS (FY08-FY12) was small (0.0017%) compared to
the U.S. use of lead from ammunition, shot, and bullets based on data from 2011 (USGS
2011).
APHIS-WS adheres to all applicable laws governing the use of lead ammunition, as well
as to all lead use restrictions posed by landowners/manager. Because APHIS and others
are concerned about the effects of lead in the environment, APHIS is committing to
utilize lead-free ammunition options in FSDM above and beyond those required at
national, state, local and landowner levels, whenever supplies that meet WS standards for
safety, performance, and humaneness are developed and become reliably available in
adequate quantities for program use. In this way, APHIS would be taking steps to protect
non-target animals and the environment well beyond levels set by agencies and regulators
with jurisdiction over wildlife management and the use of lead ammunition. Given that
the majority of lead ammunition is used by non-WS entities, the decisions made by states,
territories, tribes, federal regulatory agencies, and land management agencies regarding
use of lead ammunition will be the greatest factor affecting the cumulative contribution
of lead in the environment.
Because APHIS-WS’ contribution of lead to the environment is minor, because the
FSDM program would incorporate non-lead ammunition to the maximum extent
practicable, and because APHIS-WS is working to reduce the use of lead ammunition
program wide, the cumulative effects from APHIS-WS FSDM program are anticipated to
be incrementally negligible.
3. Water, Soils, and Vegetation
Most FSDM actions assessed in Chapter 4 would not have the potential for significant
adverse effects on water, soils, and vegetation. Many factors can contribute to adverse
effects on water, soils, and vegetation including development, agriculture, and climate
change. Feral swine are one of the factors that contribute to adverse effects as discussed
in Chapter 3. Without FSDM, negative effects are expected to continue to grow over time
and expand to new areas. Of the FSDM actions, carcass burial could potentially
contribute to adverse cumulative effects if larger burial pits were used or if existing pits
or trenches for routine livestock carcass disposal were used and appropriate measures
were not taken to protect soils and water quality. APHIS does not anticipate that it would
use burial in most states or territories. It is unknown if cooperating agencies requesting
FSDM may choose this disposal option over other options in the foreseeable future.
Burial of feral swine carcasses, if used as a disposal method, would be on a small scale,
would not typically involve more than one sounder, and therefore would involve a
relatively small amount of excavation. Thus, the individual projects would be few and far
between, and these projects would be small in size.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 321
Nationally, these effects would not contribute to significant adverse effects on water
quality, soils, or vegetation. Assessing cumulative effects on soils and water quality
would require local site specific analysis because site locations cannot be determined
until local projects are proposed. However, because siting is flexible and can often avoid
sensitive areas (such as shallow water tables, near other water sources, or occurring in
fragile soils), the potential to cause more than a short term disturbance is not expected.
SOPs for soil conservation include preservation of topsoil, and erosion control and
revegetation. Avoiding cumulative effects on water quality can be done by assessing
sites and consulting with land and resource management authorities. Therefore, national
and local adverse significant cumulative effects are not expected to occur from carcass
burial. Overall, the effect of FSDM on soils, water and vegetation would be to provide
short and long term benefit, most notably in areas where feral swine can be eliminated or
populations can be substantially reduced. For these reasons, there are no adverse
cumulative effects on soils, water, or vegetation expected nationally or locally from
FSDM.
4. Odor/Air Quality
Odor associated with feral swine carcass management would not be likely to contribute
significantly to cumulative effects on air quality for several reasons. Feral swine carcass
management would be dispersed and each disposal action would represent at most a
small scale project with short term, temporary odor effects. Odor from feral swine is not
considered a health risk. APHIS would only leave feral swine carcasses on site where
land uses, agreements with landowners and land managers, and local regulations indicate
and allow. Carcass odor is also a temporary issue and would not contribute to significant
cumulative air quality or odor issues. The cumulative effects of disposal at approved
landfills and licensed rendering or incineration facilities would not contribute
substantively to existing and future odor problems because of the minor and temporary
contribution of FSDM generated carcasses, and because these regulated facilities have
odor mitigation measures in place. Composting may be used by landowners for feral
swine and routine livestock disposal, but proper composing would not generate offensive
odors. Finally APHIS-WS would not use open burning unless it was required by
regulations and it could be conducted safely. Anaerobic digesters are a potential disposal
option that could generate odors. The possibility of their use is low in the foreseeable
future. Alkaline hydrolysis may produce only minor odors however this option is
unlikely to be used. For these reasons, there are no adverse cumulative effects expected
nationally or locally to Odor/Air Quality from FSDM.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 322
5. Recreation
Feral Swine Hunting
As discussed in Chapter 3, the past actions of feral swine hunters, along with state and
local regulations that allow feral swine hunting have exacerbated feral swine populations
and increased hunting opportunities in many areas. The cumulative effects on feral swine
hunting would primarily be determined by state, tribal, or territorial management
agencies as they implement, add and/or enforce feral swine hunting regulations. APHIS
would contribute to the cumulative effects on feral swine hunting opportunities through a
number of different actions including direct FSDM assistance, by supporting cost share
opportunities that increase operations, through outreach and education efforts, and
through research that may result in more effective operational control methods in the
future. For those states and territories that choose to maintain regulations for managing
feral swine as a game animal, the cumulative effects on feral swine hunters would not be
great because feral swine would continue to be readily available for hunters in those areas
where the appropriate regulatory areas desired. Feral swine hunters in other states in
which feral swine populations are well established would not experience cumulative
effects because feral swine populations would not be eliminated. Shooting feral swine is
sometimes incidental to hunting for other species. As discussed under cumulative effects
on “Hunting Other Game Animals” (directly following this subsection), it is likely that
success in FSDM would increase hunting opportunities for some other game animals.
Thus, adverse cumulative effects on feral swine hunters may be offset for some hunters.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Section 5.b., feral swine become more difficult to hunt as
damage control pressures increase. Thus there are several considerations regarding the
cumulative effects on feral swine hunters. Because states, territories and tribes establish
the regulations and management objectives for hunting and feral swine populations,
APHIS would work under those guidelines in partnership to achieve these results. In
those states, tribes, and territories choose to eliminate feral swine, feral swine hunting
opportunities would be reduced or eliminated. However, these effects are considered to
be minor because feral swine hunting traditions in these areas may not exist, are not well
established, or are not widespread. Significant adverse cumulative effects nationwide are
not expected because regulations would guide FSDM, however, some localized hunter
groups could be adversely affected by both the actions of APHIS, states and land
managers with goals of eliminating feral swine.
Hunting other Game Animals
Like feral swine hunting opportunities, the cumulative effects on hunting opportunities
for other game animals is likewise dependent upon regulatory actions and enforcement by
state, tribal and territorial agencies that oversee feral swine management. Many factors
affect populations of other game animals including habitat changes, disease, predation
and management actions. As discussed in Chapter 4, Section 5.b., removing feral swine
would be expected to contribute indirectly as potential benefit to some populations of
game species. Adverse effects from feral swine through habitat destruction or predation
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 323
would be reduced in some areas, and eliminated in others. While some individual game
animals may be adversely affected by FSDM operational methods, no population level
impacts are expected, and the net effect on any species adversely affected by feral swine
would be positive. Most game management agencies and many hunters favor FSDM as a
benefit to sound game management practices. FSDM would not contribute to adverse
cumulative effects on hunters of other game animals.
Aesthetic Values
Successful FSDM program implementation would assist land and recreation management
agencies and others involved in protecting the aesthetic values of sites from feral swine
damage, especially where feral swine populations are eliminated or substantially reduced.
Some that value feral swine for intrinsic purposes would be adversely affected, especially
where feral swine were eliminated by APHIS and partner agencies. In balance, the long
term aesthetic quality of the environment would be enhanced by FSDM and would not
contribute to adverse cumulative effects on aesthetic values.
Disturbance to Recreationists
As discussed in Chapter 4, Section C.4.b., FSDM may have infrequent, short term,
temporary impacts on recreationists. Most people would not be aware of FSDM
activities based on the low frequency and geographic extent of operations, and based on
coordination with management agencies to minimize exposure to recreationists. FSDM
would not contribute to negative cumulative effects on disturbances in recreation.
6. Climate Change
FSDM does not involve a national policy decision on any activities that would generate
substantial GHG impacts. The contribution of the combined FSDM and APHIS wildlife
damage management programs to the APHIS-WS cumulative level of GHG (in CO
2
equivalents) is below the reference point of 25,000 MT/year suggested by CEQ for
detailed analysis in an EIS. FSDM involves the use of vehicles for routine operations to
transport personnel and equipment to work sites. Vehicle use would not increase
substantially over current APHIS levels, in part because personnel and equipment would
be transferred within the agency from other operations. For example, existing vehicles are
being redirected to the FSDM program, and additional purchases and use would be
minimal. Conversely, FSDM may provide an important benefit to ecosystems that have
been, are and may be stressed by climate change. As changes in temperature and
precipitation contribute cumulative stressors on ecosystems, FSDM would provide some
relief to those species and systems that are adversely affected by feral swine. Without a
coordinated national FSDM approach, feral swine populations would be expected to
continue to expand their range into more northern latitudes and into higher elevations,
and to continue to increase in number overall. FSDM is expected to reverse the trend of
expansion and eliminate populations in many areas. This would indirectly benefit
resources that are expected to experience significant cumulative stressors from climate
change impacts. The FSDM program would benefit resources that may experience
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 324
adverse effects from climate change, but would not contribute meaningfully to significant
adverse cumulative effects on climate change.
7. Human Health and Safety
The analysis in Chapter 4, Section C.7.b. indicates that the effects of FSDM actions on
public health and safety are expected to be negligible for many reasons including safety
policies, training and certification, coordination and agreements with landowners and
land managers, adherence to regulations and other program SOPs, and timing and
location of the use of methods to minimize public exposure. Safety risks are greatest for
APHIS-WS personnel implementing FSDM methods, however safety protocol minimize
adverse events. For these reasons, FSDM would not contribute to cumulative adverse
effects on human health or safety. Short and long term benefits to the public may be
achieved by reducing the potential for zoonotic disease transmission, swine-vehicle
accidents, and aggressive encounters with feral swine.
8. Sociocultural Resources
Cultural Resources.
With the exception of carcass burial and digging holes to install permanent fence posts,
most program actions, as implemented according to SOPs, are not the type that would
typically adversely affect historic properties
31
. Carcass burial and post hole digging
would not be widely used by the FSDM program, but where used, coordination with land
management agencies and landowners, consultations with SHPO, THPO or other tribal
representatives as needed, and making local siting decisions to avoid adverse effects are
SOPs that are in place would mitigate any potential for contributing adverse cumulative
effects on properties that are either included in, or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. As discussed in Chapter 3, feral swine can inflict damage to
historic and other cultural resources. When APHIS-WS responds to requests by resource
managers to protect historic or other cultural resource sites from feral swine damage,
APHIS-WS would coordinate as appropriate with SHPOs, tribes, and requesting agency
experts to ensure that NHPA requirements are met. In most cases, no adverse effects
would be anticipated because actions in vulnerable sites could be avoided. While historic
properties may be subject to adverse cumulative impacts over time from natural (e.g.,
weather) and human induced (e.g., development) influences, the FSDM program would
not add to these adverse effects. The net effect is likely to be that historic properties may
benefit by removals of feral swine, especially in areas where populations can be
eliminated or substantially reduced. For these reasons, the FSDM program would not
contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on cultural resources, and may provide benefit
by removing feral swine that may damage historic sites or objects or other culturally
important resources.
31
The term "historic property" is defined in the NHPA as: "any prehistoric or historic district, site, building,
structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register"; such term includes artifacts,
records, and remains which are related to such district, site, building, structure, or object. 16 U.S.C. Section
470(w)(5).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 325
Tribes, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial Values
In states or territories where feral swine have traditional, ceremonial or other cultural
value, feral swine populations would be either eliminated or reduced. It is possible that
conflicts between tribes and states could arise where tribes and states have different
management objectives for feral swine. Expanded removals in Hawaii and other areas
where feral swine have important traditional uses would not affect public hunting because
of existing SOPs to preserve hunting opportunities on public lands. Efforts to protect
native and endangered species and their habitats would likely increase which may benefit
other traditional and cultural values.
Early outreach, coordination and consultation with tribes during the development of this
EIS, and APHIS-WS state and local level NEPA documents helps ensure that tribal
management objectives and issues are included in planning, and that adverse effects are
avoided or mitigated. FSDM is not expected to adversely affect tribes, traditional cultures
and ceremonial values and would not contribute to adverse cumulative effects.
Humaneness and ethical perspectives
Feral swine are by definition free-roaming animals and thus are not subject to cumulative
adverse humane treatment in the way that domestic animals in production, wild animals
in captivity or animals that are used for scientific purposes are handled and treated by
humans. In this sense, it is not likely that humans are having significant cumulative
effects on the humane treatment of individual feral swine. There may be a very limited
number of individual feral swine that could be captured and released (e.g., a Judas pig),
and then captured and killed again under the FSDM program. Or an individual feral
swine could be wounded in a private hunting or control incident and then later captured
and killed by the FSDM program. Most often, feral swine would not be subject to
cumulative effects from humans (other than the benefits of unintentional supplemental
feeding in the form of crops or livestock, or access to human created water resources).
Most disease sampling is taken from feral swine that are already killed for damage
management, thus this activity typically does not involve added capture or killing. The
methods used to capture and kill feral swine are not considered to be inhumane and are
considered to be ethically necessary. In the foreseeable future, toxicants and reproductive
inhibitors may be made available as a result of research, product development, and
registration, however at this time, no proposals have been made. These tools, if made
available, would likely influence the perceptions of humaneness and ethics. Some people
would be expected to oppose the use of toxicants, while others favor a more efficient
control method. Many people are expected to favor reproductive inhibitors as a humane
and ethical way manage feral swine damage. Agency partners and others who participate
in FSDM are likely to see a FSDM that could effectively manage invasive feral swine as
an ethical and necessary. Based on the ethics models assessed in Chapter 4, Section 8.b.,
the preferred alternative would be both ethical and humane, and would not result in
adverse cumulative effects.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 326
9. Economic Impacts
Cost share and efficiency
The preferred FSDM program is likely to contribute benefits to those who are or who
may be experiencing economic losses associated with feral swine damages and disease
threats. Until Congress directed funds for a national FSDM program, the ability of
APHIS to provide operational services to land and resource managers was largely
dependent upon cooperator funding. As long as dedicated federal assistance remains a
priority to Congress, some level of federal funding is expected be available to cost share
FSDM services. Funding is also expected to be available to help create efficiencies to
reduce the costs of FSDM over time. One efficiency that is expected to be associated with
funding in the foreseeable future would be the development of more cost effective
methods to control feral swine populations. The toxicant sodium nitrite, and a feed-based
formulation of the reproductive inhibitor GonaCon are not currently proposed for use, but
many experts expect there is a good chance that these products would be developed,
registered, and available for use in the future and they would contribute to increased
economic efficiencies.
Damage prevented
Crop damage prevented used the best available information for estimating economic
effects on crop producers. This was based on estimated damages that can be prevented.
As presented in Chapter 4, Section 9, the FSDM program in the recent past was estimated
to have prevented approximately $7.1 million in crop damages. Estimates for the
foreseeable future associated with the preferred FSDM program were estimated to be
between $16.4 million to $23.5 million in crop damage prevented per year. Benefits
would vary depending on a number of factors including the phase of the programs and
where they are located. Crop producers are expected to experience numerous challenges
to production including those directly and indirectly related to climate change. Examples
are expected to include temperature and precipitation changes, as well as indirect effects
from new or expanded ranges of pest species.
One distinct advantage of the Integrated FSDM Program would be to provide some
degree of economic relief via damages prevented by assisting low income landowners
and communities that experience feral swine damages. Assistance to these agricultural
producers would likely be increased over past and present levels, as states, tribes and
territories participate with APHIS in FSDM. The small and lower income producer has a
lower economic margin for absorbing losses from feral swine, therefore, relative benefits
would probably be higher than to larger operations. To the extent feral swine damages
may be diminished or prevented in some areas in the foreseeable future, the program
would provide benefits to crop producers of all income levels, and would not contribute
to cumulative adverse effects.
There are individual, local and state/territorial/tribal economies that seek economic gains
from feral swine in their states. These include state agencies that manage feral swine as a
game animal and thus receive hunting related revenues, those that own or manage
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 327
hunting preserves, those with other hunting related businesses, and private pest control
operators that control feral swine. Feral swine sport hunting businesses, private pest
control operators, and people who use feral swine for food could be negatively affected in
the long term except where feral swine populations are well established and where feral
swine are not managed as a game animal. On the other hand, businesses that supply
FSDM equipment and supplies would initially benefit from increased sales but long term
program success would reduce purchases over time. For the same reasons that are
discussed under Chapter 4, Section H. 5, the effects of the Integrated FSDM Program on
local and individual economies that benefit from feral swine would be dependent on state,
tribal and territorial regulations and management objectives for feral swine.
The education and outreach component described under the preferred FSDM program is
intended in part to indirectly affect human behaviors over time so that individuals,
agencies and lawmakers in some places trend towards increasing restrictions on activities
that exacerbate feral swine population growth and movements. This may include
increased compliance or enforcement with existing regulations restricting the movement
(spread) of feral swine, reduced feral swine hunting, reclassifying feral swine as a pest
species in need of focused management, preparing feral swine eradication plans, or
creating or changing regulations to limit or disallow hunting of feral swine.
Federal and state expenditures on feral swine damage management would be expected to
decrease over time as feral swine populations are eliminated or substantially reduced.
Formal cost benefit analyses of FSDM have not yet been developed, however the
preferred alternative includes economic research that would endeavor to develop these
kinds of data. The information would then be available to communicate with policy
makers and lawmakers to help make economic decisions on future FSDM.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 328
Table 4-7. Summary of Environmental Consequences.
Effect on Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitats
Alternative 1.
No Action
Alternative
(Current FSDM
Program)
The primary risks to ESA T&E animals are disturbance, the use of traps, snares, lead ammunition, and feral swine carcasses
attracting scavengers to areas with vulnerable species. The risk to plant species is primarily from minor ground disturbance
and in limited situations where burial may be used as a carcass disposal option. ESA Section 7 consultations between APHIS-
WS state programs and FWS have shown that FSDM activities, with the inclusion of SOPs and other measures at the
regional, state, or local level, are not likely to adversely affect most listed species, and would not jeopardize the continued
existence of others. The Current FSDM program does not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In some areas FSDM
programs are being conducted for the protection of T&E species.
Alternative 2.
Integrated FSDM
Program –
Preferred
Alternative
Based on the flexibility of how and where FSDM methods are used, and based on SOPs including coordination with land
management agencies and landowners, adverse effects on T&E species and critical habitats are not expected to increase
substantially over current program levels. Expanded and new programs may require supplemented or new Section 7
consultations but conclusions similar to the Current FSDM Program are expected. APHIS would not proceed with an action
that the FWS has determined could jeopardize the continued existence of any species. This alternative may provide the
greatest level of benefit to listed species and critical habitats based on efficacy projections.
Alternative 3.
Baseline FSDM
Program
Effects are expected to be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program. Although methods are the same for all alternatives, the
total operational FSDM conducted is expected to be greatest for this Alternative. Consequently, potential risks of this
alternative will be similar in nature but slightly greater in scope than for the Integrated FSDM Program. Potential benefits to
listed species and critical habitats would be greater than the Current FSDM Program but less than the Integrated FSDM
Program based on the efficacy analysis.
Alternative 4.
National FSDM
without Baseline
Funding
Effects would be similar in nature to the Current FSDM Program where no baseline funding was applied. Adverse effects
would be more localized based on national and local priority projects than the Integrated and Baseline FSDM Programs, and
potential benefits would likely be achieved more quickly under this alternative than under the remaining alternatives.
However, in the interim, states which are low priorities for FSDM will receive little additional support for projects to protect
endangered species and critical.
Alternative 5 -
Federal FSDM
Grant Program
APHIS-WS would not directly affect ESA listed species or critical habitats, but grants would be issued to support programs
similar to those under the FSDM Program. New ESA consultations would be necessary to implement grant programs. Grant
recipients would be expected to implement measures to minimize or avoid adverse effects on listed species. This alternative
has the lowest potential to benefit listed species and critical habitats due to inefficiencies associated with operational program
delivery, and from a loss of NWRC involvement in new product development.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 329
Effect on Non-target Animals
Alternative 1.
No Action
Alternative
(Current FSDM
Program)
Adverse impacts on non-target animals from the use of non-lethal methods are low. Some agencies are using
fencing extensively which can affect non-target animals. Neck or body snares may directly harm or kill non-target
animals. Indirect harmful effects on non-target animals may arise from consuming lead bullet fragments or shot
either in a carcass or in the environment, disturbance from aircraft, euthanasia chemicals and risk of pseudorabies
exposure from feral swine carcasses.
Compliance with regulations, consultations and agreements with resource management experts, program policies,
SOPs and the use of the APHIS-WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992) minimize risks. While there has been take
of individual animals, there have been no adverse direct or cumulative effects on any populations of non-target
species.
There has been no non-purposeful take of eagles by the FSDM program but there is some risk from the use of traps
and snares. APHIS consults with the FWS when activities may pose a risk to eagles.
Some populations of non-target species including ground nesting birds, some reptiles, amphibians and small
mammals may benefit from locally conducted FSDM by reducing feral swine predation. Other indirect benefits
include reduction of feral swine created mosquito habitat and the spread of mosquito-borne avian diseases, reduced
competition for available resources and reduced habitat damages.
Alternative 2.
Integrated
FSDM Program
– Preferred
Alternative
Non-target impacts would be similar in nature to the current program because this alternative uses the same
methods, program policies, SOPs and compliance with regulations to minimizes risk. However effects would be
expected to be greater in scope because of the increased level of FSDM and anticipated increases in the use of
aerial shooting and corral traps which present a low risk to non-target animals. No adverse effects on non-target
species populations are expected.
GonaCon
TM
injectable, if registered for use in feral swine and adopted into the program, is not expected to have
widespread use and would not adversely affect non-target animals.
Program effects would not contribute substantially to current conditions. Recreational lead ammunition use, where
allowed by state law, is the primary use. State and federal regulations have the greatest effect on lead use. APHIS-
WS is working to reduce its use of lead ammunition considering the constraints of availability, safety, efficacy and
cost.
The overall beneficial effects on non-target animals is expected to exceed any harmful effects. Benefits to species
negatively impacted by FSDM are likely to be balanced based on damage control and feral swine elimination.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 330
Alternative 3.
Baseline FSDM
Program
The potential for negative effects on non-target animals may increase because this alternative would likely have the
greatest level of operational FSDM, however general impacts would be similar to the FSDM Program.
Feral swine populations in some states that receive less or no baseline funding would be expected to increase,
therefore, negative effects on non-target animals associated with feral swine damage would be expected to
continue.
Alternative 4.
National FSDM
without
Baseline
Funding
Effects would be similar to the Current FSDM Program alternative, and lower than the Integrated FSDM Program
in locations not identified as priorities for national or strategic local projects. Areas identified as priorities for
National and strategic local projects may be temporarily subject to increased impacts because FSDM resources
would be concentrated for these areas. Effects would be minimized based on program practices including SOPs in
the same manner as the first three alternatives. No adverse effects on populations of non-target species are
expected.
Because this alternative may make it possible to achieve national feral swine population objectives more quickly
than under other alternatives, overall benefits to non-target species from managing feral swine damage may also be
expected more quickly, especially in those states where feral swine populations can be eliminated or substantially
reduced.
Alternative 5 -
Federal FSDM
Grant Program
Risks to non-target animals is expected to be similar to or slightly less than the Integrated FSDM Program
assuming grant recipients adhered to program SOPs. Risks and benefits associated with development of new
products would be slowed. Benefits to non-target animals would likely be lower than the other action alternatives
because the cost of program administration would reduce operational funds.
Efficacy in protecting non-target species and habitats from feral swine may be more variable depending on the
skills and abilities of grant recipients.
Effects on Soils, Vegetation, and Water
Alternative 1.
No Action
Alternative
(Current FSDM
Program)
Most FSDM methods pose little risk to soils, vegetation and water quality when conducted according to program
policies. Post hole digging for permanent fencing would permanently affect soils at the post sites, however APHIS-
WS would rarely build permanent fencing. Carcass burial causes temporary localized adverse effects on soils and
vegetation through disturbance. Carcass burial may also adversely affect soils and ground and surface water
quality with contamination of nitrogen, chloride, and coliform bacteria. Burial is currently used infrequently in only
a few states. Most states do not have regulations or guidelines for the safe burial of feral swine carcasses. APHIS-
WS minimizes adverse effects of carcass decomposition and water contamination by avoiding excavation of burial
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 331
sites above shallow groundwater or near other water sources. Measures to conserve topsoil and protect vegetation
and water quality would be implemented. Soil trampling and mixing from feral swine within in corral traps would
occur, but corral traps are typically located in areas that have already been disturbed by feral swine activity.
Bait selection and coordination with land management agencies would minimize the potential for introducing
invasive weed species into work sites.
Contamination of soils and aquatic environments with lead shot and bullets used for FSDM would be minimal.
Negative effects on soils, vegetation and water quality are minor and are outweighed by localized program benefits.
Direct and indirect damages from feral swine on soils, vegetation and water quality would be expected to continue
to increase along with the feral swine population.
Alternative 2.
Integrated
FSDM Program
– Preferred
Alternative
Risks would be similar in nature to Alternative 1 because the same methods would be used. However, impacts
would be greater in scope because of the increase in FSDM. Carcass management would become a greater issue as
removals increase. If burial is used more frequently, associated effects on soils and water quality would become a
more frequent issue. Burial would still be expected to be used infrequently and most burial would involve few
carcasses at any one location. Effects may increase if landowners or land management agencies with larger
properties use larger burial sites for greater numbers of carcasses. Cumulative effects are not expected to be
problematic if landowners use existing livestock burial or composting systems and are following local guidelines
for routine livestock disposal.
Lacking regulatory controls for feral swine burial, burial site selection, size, depth and cover would be planned
with local resource authorities to reduce the risk of water and soil contamination. Burial site remediation would
include soil conservation measures to protect soils, vegetation and water quality.
APHIS-WS would not establish new compost sties. Landowners or land managers that use on site composting in
accordance with state and local guidance would minimize risks of water contamination.
Lead ammunition use would increase but would not be expected to impair water quality or raise baseline soil
concentrations. Efforts to identify and acquire non lead ammunition would be coordinated at the national level.
This alternative would be likely to provide widespread and long term benefits to soils, vegetation and water quality
by effectively removing feral swine.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 332
Alternative 3.
Baseline FSDM
Program
Effects would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program but this alternative may have the highest the number of
carcasses for disposal and associated environmental risks because it allocates the most funding to operational
FSDM. SOPs identical to those in the two alternatives with National and strategic local projects would minimize
risks. Benefits to soils, vegetation and water quality from removing feral swine may be more immediate and
widespread than the Integrated FSDM Program with all emphasis in field operations. In the longer term, benefits
would be reduced in correlation with anticipated lower long term program efficacy.
Alternative 4.
National FSDM
without
Baseline
Funding
Effects on soils, vegetation and water quality would be similar to the Current FSDM Program in areas where
national and strategic local projects are not planned. Risks in national and strategic local priority areas would be
similar to The Integrated FSDM Program. Damages to soils, vegetation and water resources associated with feral
swine activity may worsen in the short term where areas are not targeted as priorities but may be addressed in the
long term.
Alternative 5 -
Federal FSDM
Grant Program
APHIS would have no direct effect on soils, vegetation and water quality. Grant recipients would be expected to
implement SOPs to minimize adverse effects. Risks would be related to the degree that grant recipients followed
protective protocols. Fewer benefits to soils, vegetation and water quality from FSDM are expected compared with
the other action alternatives because administrative overhead would reduce available operational grant funding.
Odor/Air Quality Effects
Alternative 1.
No Action
Alternative
(Current FSDM
Program)
Odor impacts are associated with carcass management. Odor from feral swine is not considered a health risk.
Leaving feral swine carcasses on site is the most common form of carcass disposal. Carcasses are typically
dispersed and not concentrated. Carcasses would be removed from locations where human habitation or use would
create a nuisance odor situation, or where landowners, land managers, or regulations indicate. Carcass disposal at
approved landfills would not contribute substantively to existing odor issues because of the relative scale of the
APHIS-WS contribution and because landfills already have odor mitigation measures in place. Composting would
not be directly implemented by APHIS but may be used by landowners for feral swine and routine livestock
disposal. Proper composing would not generate offensive odors. Rendering and other off-site carcass disposal
methods would only be done at regulated facilities where odors are controlled. APHIS-WS would not use open
burning unless it was required by regulations and it could be conducted safely.
APHIS Directive 2.515 allows for carcasses to be incinerated in approved facilities that comply with federal, state,
and local regulations for the management of odor and air quality. Incineration is not expected to be used as a
preferred disposal option, therefore, odor and air quality are not expected to be adversely affected. Anaerobic
digesters are a potential disposal option that could generate odors. The possibility of their use is low in the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 333
foreseeable future. Alkaline hydrolysis may produce only minor odors however this option is unlikely to be used.
The current FSDM program has a negligible effect on air quality.
Alternative 2.
Integrated
FSDM Program
– Preferred
Alternative
The Integrated FSDM Program would increase the need for carcass management. Methods and effects would be
similar in nature to the current program but greater in scope. Coordination with land owners and land managers to
avoid odor nuisance problems, compliance with regulatory and policy guidelines, and the dispersed nature of feral
swine would ensure that this alternative does not add appreciatively to odor issues. Odor and air quality impacts
would be negligible.
Alternative 3.
Baseline FSDM
Program
This alternative would likely produce the largest number of feral swine carcasses because it would allocate the
most funding to operational FSDM. For the reasons discussed under the Integrated FSDM Program, odor effects
and impacts on air quality would be negligible.
Alternative 4.
National FSDM
without
Baseline
Funding
Disposal needs and potential odor and air quality effects would be limited to national priority and strategic local
project areas but for the reasons discussed under the Integrated FSDM Program would be negligible.
Alternative 5 -
Federal FSDM
Grant Program
Odor effects and impacts on air quality could range from locally problematic to negligible depending upon the
entity implementing FSDM. Grant recipients would be expected to comply with APHIS-WS SOPs and other
established measures for odor management and protection of air quality, so impacts should be similar to The
Integrated FSDM Program.
Effects on Recreation
Alternative 1.
No Action
Alternative
(Current FSDM
Program)
Swine Hunting
The current program has limited effects on public hunting opportunities depending upon state management
objectives and other factors including funding. Where feral swine are managed as a game animal, impacts are
localized and coordinated with appropriate regulatory agencies to preserve hunting opportunities. State, territory
and tribal regulations, enforcement, and management objectives for feral swine are the single greatest influence
over feral swine hunting opportunities.
Hunters in states, territories and tribal lands that have well established feral swine populations and allow hunting
but do not manage feral swine as a game animal would not likely be adversely affected because damage
management is focused on properties requesting assistance and effects are localized. States with small or newly
established feral swine populations could affect some hunters if hunting was legal, but swine hunting traditions are
less likely to be well established in these areas. Feral swine populations and hunting opportunities have continued
to grow under the current program.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 334
Hunting other Game Animals
The current program may have some localized, limited or temporary benefits to game species that are negatively
affected by feral swine. However, feral swine populations and their adverse impacts on native game species
hunting opportunities would continue to increase under this alternative.
Aesthetic Values
The current FSDM program may temporarily and locally alleviate continued negative aesthetic effects from feral
swine damages. Conversely, there are some people who may view feral swine as having a positive aesthetic value
and prefer they remain in the ecosystem.
Disturbance to Recreationists
Disturbance to recreationists is minor, short term, temporary and infrequent. Some areas could be closed to
recreation temporarily for FSDM. Aircraft used for shooting and monitoring may disturb some recreationists due to
noise and sight of aircraft but for a short duration. High use recreational areas can be avoided or scheduled to
minimize potential disruption. Some recreationists may see warning signs for traps and snares and be concerned
about safety of pets. Public land use conflicts are minimized by coordinating projects with land and resource
management experts. Work in Special Management Areas such as parks and wilderness areas and other public
lands, is carefully planned and coordinated with land management agencies according to agreements, work plans,
guiding legislation and land management policies to minimize disturbance. FSDM has no effect on designated
wilderness suitability characteristics.
Alternative 2.
Integrated
FSDM Program
– Preferred
Alternative
Swine Hunting
Where hunting is allowed but eradication is a state, tribal or territory management goal, hunting opportunities are
likely to be reduced directly through reductions in swine densities and indirectly as animals becoming wary of
control/hunting actions. Hunting opportunities would ultimately be eliminated if eradication is achieved. In areas
where feral swine as a game mammal, hunting opportunities are not likely to be adversely affected for reasons
discussed under the current FSDM program.
State, territory and tribal regulations, enforcement, and management objectives for feral swine would remain the
single greatest influence over feral swine hunting opportunities. APHIS would have increased ability to provide
technical assistance to states, tribes and territories that are developing regulations on feral swine which may impact
long term opportunities for feral swine hunting.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 335
Hunting other Game Animals
This alternative would benefit other game species by reducing or eliminating feral swine populations that adversely
affect the species or their habitats. This may provide benefit to states, territories, tribes and others with meeting
game management objectives and indirectly benefit hunters. Negative effects on individual game animals from
FSDM methods would be negligible and would not affect populations.
Aesthetic Values
Successful program implementation would assist agencies and others involved in protecting the aesthetic values of
sites from feral swine damage, especially where feral swine populations are eliminated or substantially reduced.
Some that value feral swine for intrinsic purposes would be adversely affected, especially where feral swine were
eliminated. In balance, long term aesthetic quality of the environment would be enhanced.
Disturbance to Recreationists
Aerial operations are likely to expand over current levels but would still be temporary, of short duration, and low
frequency. Coordination with management agencies minimizes exposure to recreationists would continue.
Individuals would be more likely to encounter temporary warning signs about FSDM. Corral and cage traps would
only have minimal risk of disturbing the public because they would be set in locations not visible to recreational
facilities to the extent practicable. Temporary and short term closures of recreation areas may be more common in
some cases. Planning and coordination with land managers would ensure that disturbance and inconveniences
from closures are minimized.
Alternative 3.
Baseline FSDM
Program
Swine Hunting
This alternative would have greater adverse effects on feral swine hunting opportunities than the Integrated FSDM
Program in the short term because it allocates the most funding to operational FSDM. State territory and tribal
regulations, enforcement, and management objectives for feral swine would remain the primary factor influencing
feral swine hunting. APHIS’s ability to provide technical assistance for use in development of feral swine
regulations would be lower than the Integrated Program but greater than the Current Program.
Hunting other Game Species
Short term localized benefits to game species adversely affected by feral swine would be greater than the Integrated
FSDM Program but ultimately would have lower long term positive impacts because of lower efficacy in meeting
project objectives. Adverse effects on game animals would be negligible.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 336
Aesthetic Values
Program effects would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program but would be related to baseline funding
distribution. People who place intrinsic value on feral swine would be affected to the extent that populations are
eliminated, but viewing opportunities would still remain in states that manage feral swine as a game species, or
where eradication is not feasible or desired.
Disturbance to Recreationists
Increased operational control actions over the Current and Integrated FSDM Programs would increase the potential
for disturbance in more areas. The recreating public may see or hear aircraft more than with other alternatives,
however flight time and potential exposure is still estimated to be low. The public would have slightly more
exposure to temporary warning signs and equipment however for the reasons discussed under Current and
Integrated FSDM Programs, exposure is still expected to be low. Land management agencies may temporarily
close recreational facilities more frequently based on broader scale operations. Coordination with land managers
and use of protocol (SOPs) for minimizing disturbance would help to minimize disturbance to outdoor
recreationists.
Alternative 4.
National FSDM
without
Baseline
Funding
Swine Hunting
Potential impacts would only occur in states with strategic local project and states identified as priorities for the
national feral swine population and damage control effort. Impacts in areas where FSDM does occur may be more
intensive because more resources may be allocated to these areas than under the other action alternatives. As
resources and funding move from areas cleared of swine damage to new areas over time, more states, territories
and tribes would see some effects. Hunting opportunities in states that manage feral swine as a game mammal
would not generally be affected except in local areas if they received funding for strategic local projects.
State, territory and tribal regulations, enforcement, and management objectives for feral swine would remain the
primary influence over feral swine hunting opportunities. APHIS’s ability to provide technical assistance for use in
developing management plans and regulations would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program in priority states
and similar to the Current APHIS FSDM Program in the remaining states.
Hunting other Game Species
Benefits to hunting of other game species would occur more rapidly than under the Integrated FSDM alternative in
those states that were identified as priorities. Benefits overall would be based on long term efficiencies. States that
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 337
have high feral swine populations or which do not intend to eradicate them may see benefits similar to the current
program.
Aesthetic Values
In states, territories and tribal areas identified as priorities for national population management, impacts would be
similar to or greater than the Integrated FSDM Program. The loss of the positive aesthetic value of feral swine in
those locations would be minimal compared with the benefit to the natural environment from removing this
invasive species. In states, territories and tribal areas which are not identified as national priorities, but which
receive funding for strategic local projects, local impacts in the project areas would be Intermediate to the
Integrated FSDM Program and Current FSDM Program. Impacts in all other areas would be similar to the Current
FSDM Program.
Disturbance to Recreationists
States, territories and tribal lands identified as priorities for national projects would experience impacts similar to
the Integrated FSDM Program. Impacts in the remaining areas would be similar to the Current FSDM Program
although there may be some increases in impacts in areas where strategic local projects are conducted. Impacts in
strategic local project areas would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program. SOPs discussed under the current
and preferred alternatives would limit potential exposure and disturbance to the recreating public.
Alternative 5 -
Federal FSDM
Grant Program
Swine Hunting
APHIS-WS would not directly affect feral swine hunting. The negative effects on feral swine hunters and hunting
businesses (Section 4.C.9) would be greater than the Current FSDM Program, but lower than the other alternatives.
Hunting other Game Species
APHIS-WS would not directly affect other game animals. Benefits to hunters of other game species would
probably be lower than under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 but greater than the current program. State regulations,
enforcement, and management objectives for feral swine would remain the single greatest influence over feral
swine hunting opportunities. Information getting to those who influence legislation on feral swine management
would be lower than all other action alternatives because APHIS-WS would only be indirectly involved in FSDM
through issuance of grants.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 338
Aesthetic Values
APHIS would not directly affect the aesthetic enjoyment of the natural environment. This alternative would benefit
aesthetic aspects of the natural environment greater than the current program but less than the other alternatives.
Disturbance to Recreationists
APHIS would not cause direct disturbance to recreationists under this alternative. Because the grant program would
require implementation of SOPs and other measures to minimize negative effects, the impacts would be related to
the degree that grant recipients followed protocol established for resource protections.
Effects on Climate Change
Alternative 1.
No Action
Alternative
(Current FSDM
Program)
FSDM operations contribute a fraction of the 10,350 – 12,254 MT or less per year of CO
2
-equivalent greenhouse
gas emissions from all APHIS wildlife damage management programs. This is well below the Council on
Environmental Quality’s suggested reference point of 25,000 MT/year of direct emissions for detailed analysis and
potential mitigation in a proposed action.
Alternative 2.
Integrated
FSDM Program
– Preferred
Alternative
The Integrated FSDM Program would be likely to raise cumulative APHIS wildlife damage management program
CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions levels to 10,723 – 12,822 MT or less per year. However, this level
would still be below the 25,000 MT threshold for detailed review proposed by CEQ.
Alternative 3.
Baseline FSDM
Program
Increases in program operations from baseline funding allocations would increase emissions over the Integrated
FSDM Program but would not near the suggested reference point of 25,000 MT/year.
Alternative 4.
National FSDM
without
Baseline
Funding
Emissions would be similar or less than the Integrated FSDM Program.
Alternative 5 -
Federal FSDM
Grant Program
Emissions would be lower than the Integrated FSDM Program based on higher administrative functions, and lower
available resources for operational FSDM.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 339
Effects on Human Health and Safety
Alternative 1.
No Action
Alternative
(Current FSDM
Program)
Firearms, aerial shooting and monitoring, snares, leg-hold traps, pyrotechnics used for hazing, cage traps, chemical
repellants, carcass handling, and drugs have the potential to put some people at risk. Risks to the public are low for
many reasons including safety policies, training and certification, coordination and agreements with landowners
and land managers, adherence to regulations and other program SOPs, and timing and location of the use of
methods to minimize public exposure. No adverse effects on public safety have occurred from FY09 through
FY13. Safety risks are greatest for APHIS-WS personnel implementing FSDM methods.
Feral swine are not likely to be donated to food charities because of regulatory and logistical constraints, but
carcasses may be provided to landowners along with advice on precautionary measures to avoid health risks.
Information on risks from the injectable formulation of GonaCon
TM
was presented indicating low risk to the public.
Other reproductive inhibitors and toxicants may be added to the alternative pending further analysis and NEPA
decisions.
This alternative does not pose disproportionate risks to children (Executive Order 13045), or to minority and low-
income populations (Executive Order 12898). FSDM is likely to benefit the public by reducing the potential for
zoonotic disease transmission and swine-vehicle accidents.
Alternative 2.
Integrated
FSDM Program
– Preferred
Alternative
Risks associated with specific FSDM methods would be similar in nature to the Current FSDM program alternative
but greater in extent because more funding will be available for operational FSDM. Factors which would help to
minimize risks associated with FSDM methods would be similar to the Current FSDM Program but could be lower
if the increased research conducted under this alternative identifies means to improve safety and efficacy of FSDM
methods. Eliminating or reducing feral swine in many areas over time would further reduce the risk of zoonotic
disease transmission such as brucellosis, trichinosis, tuberculosis, toxoplasmosis, E. coli and leptospirosis and
further reduce risks of vehicle collision beyond current program.
Feral swine would not likely be donated to food charities but carcasses may be provided to landowners along with
advice on precautionary measures to avoid health risks.
APHIS-WS is recommending the use of non-toxic shot over lead to the extent practicable.
No disproportionate adverse risks on children or minority and low-income populations were identified.
This alternative would improve national coordination on monitoring for zoonotic diseases and would improve the
ability of health officials to identify and respond to disease risks.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 340
Feral swine would probably not be donated to food charities because of regulatory and logistical constraints, but
carcasses may be provided to landowners along with advice on precautionary measures to avoid health risks.
This alternative would increase baseline funding and associated benefits for all APHIS-WS state programs serving
states, territories and tribes with feral swine. Benefits include decreased risk of disease transmission, collisions with
vehicles, encounters with aggressive swine and contamination of watersheds. This alternative would also be
among the most effective in containing and reducing the national feral swine population and associated threats to
human health and safety.
Alternative 3.
Baseline FSDM
Program
Risks associated with specific FSDM methods would be similar in nature to the Current FSDM program alternative
but greater in extent because it would allocate the most funding to operational FSDM. However, this alternative
does not provide additional funding for research which may improve the safety and efficacy of FSDM efforts. This
program would also not provide national funding for outreach and education programs that could reduce health
risks.
There would be more operational FSDM and associated benefits to human safety under this alternative in the short
term. However, this alternative would be less effective in containing or reducing the national feral swine
population. Consequently, the need for FSDM is likely to persist longer than under alternatives that use a strategic
national approach to contain and reduce the feral swine population.
Feral swine would probably not be donated to food charities because of regulatory and logistical constraints, but
carcasses may be provided to landowners along with advice on precautionary measures to avoid health risks.
Alternative 4.
National FSDM
without
Baseline
Funding
Risks and benefits associated with specific FSDM methods would be similar in nature to the Current FSDM
program alternative but more uneven in extent because funding will only be allocated to APHIS-WS programs
serving national priority states and states with strategic local projects. Benefits associated with containing and
reducing the national feral swine population would likely be achieved more quickly under this alternative than
under the remaining alternatives. However, in the interim, states which are low priorities for FSDM will receive
little additional support for projects to protect human health and safety.
This alternative would have a nationally coordinated research component which could help to improve the efficacy
and safety of FSDM methods. It would also increase outreach and education efforts which could help inform the
public and agencies of ways to minimize safety risks associated with feral swine.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 341
Feral swine would probably not be donated to food charities because of regulatory and logistical constraints but
carcasses may be provided to landowners along with advice on precautionary measures to avoid health risks.
Alternative 5 -
Federal FSDM
Grant Program
Impacts of this alternative would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program but lower in magnitude because of
increased administrative costs and reduced funding available for FSDM. This alternative will also be less effective
in reducing feral swine threats to human safety because of reduced national coordination for FSDM activities and
international planning.
Feral swine would not likely be donated to food charities but carcasses may be provided to landowners along with
advice on precautionary measures to avoid health risks.
Sociocultural Effects
Alternative 1.
No Action
Alternative
(Current FSDM
Program)
Cultural Resources
Other than carcass burial and installing fence posts, the Current FSDM Program Alternative does not generally
have the potential to adversely affect historic properties. Consultations with SHPO, THPO or other tribal
representatives, may be necessary and sites would be relocated to avoid adverse effects on potential historic
resources. When APHIS-WS is requested by resource managers to protect historic or other cultural resource sites
from feral swine damage, APHIS-WS would coordinate with SHPO, tribes, and requesting agency experts to
ensure that NHPA requirements are met. Federal land management agencies may take the lead in Section 106
compliance.
Impacts on Tribes, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial Values
Tribal perspectives on feral swine vary but are similar to those of the general public. Early outreach, coordination
and consultation with tribes during the development of APHIS-WS state and local level NEPA documents helps
ensure that tribal management objectives and issues are included in planning, and that adverse effects are low. No
work is done on tribal lands without written approvals from the tribe. APHIS-WS is assisting the Mescalero
Apache Tribe in New Mexico in the statewide effort to eradicate feral swine. With few other exceptions, assistance
to tribes in managing feral swine damage under this alternative is limited due to financial constraints.
Feral swine have cultural, religious, and ceremonial importance in Hawaii and the Pacific Island Territories. In
Hawaii, feral swine are not removed from public hunting areas where they are managed as game mammals.
Removals could reduce availability on some private lands. Carcasses may be provided for personal use to private
landowners where the swine are killed.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 342
Humaneness and ethical perspectives
The analysis shows that the current FSDM program is both ethical and humane at the local (state, territorial, tribal)
level. At the National level, because of reduced efficacy and limited resources, is not as effective in meeting some
criteria used for evaluating ethics for the alternatives. The current FSDM program is likely to be acceptable or
insufficient to those who believe that feral swine are an invasive species that are destructive and require control.
Those who may object to the current program on the grounds of ethics or humaneness would include people who
believe that any wildlife control is wrong, those who object to lethal or nonlethal control, and those who object to
current APHIS activities.
Alternative 2.
Integrated
FSDM Program
– Preferred
Alternative
Cultural Resources
Adverse effects would be similar in nature to the current FSDM program because of similarity in methods and
SOPs, but would be more extensive because of increased FSDM activity.
Additional coordination is likely to be needed based on expanded work areas and the potential to increase the use
of on site carcass burial. Benefits to cultural resources from FSDM are likely to increase. Section 106 compliance
may be conducted in tandem with APHIS-WS state and local NEPA processes.
Impacts on Tribes, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial Values.
Additional resources beyond the current program would be available to assist tribes with reducing feral swine
damage and populations of feral swine would be either eliminated or reduced. Effects of FSDM on tribes would be
similar to the current program but outreach and coordination would increase in magnitude and scope. Conflicts
between tribes and states could arise where states wanted to eliminate feral swine but tribes within those states
wanted to retain them on tribal lands or vise versa. APHIS-WS would identify these conflicts in early project
planning to work with affected parties to identify solutions.
Expanded removals in Hawaii and other areas where feral swine have important traditional uses would not affect
public hunting because of existing SOPs to preserve hunting opportunities on public lands but could further reduce
availability on private lands over current FSDM program levels. Efforts to protect native and endangered species
and their habitats would likely increase which may benefit other traditional and cultural values.
Humaneness and ethical perspectives
People’s perceptions of the program would be as presented under the Current FSDM Program because of the
similarity in methods available but may be heightened based on increased activities. Research would accelerate the
development and possible registration of chemical methods. Most people would probably accept an effective and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 343
selective reproductive control method, but some would object to the use of toxicants being used in the future. This
alternative may be the most ethical and humane based on the models used for analysis. Agency partners and others
who participate with this alternative may request additional discussion based on state, territory or tribal regulations
and their respective program policies relating to humaneness and ethics, which could result in development of
additional guidance and APHIS-WS SOPs at the project level.
Alternative 3.
Baseline FSDM
Program
Cultural Resources
The potential for adverse and beneficial effects may be initially higher than the Integrated FSDM Program because
this alternative allocates more funds to operational FSDM. SOPs and Section 106 procedures would be similar to
Integrated program. Long term benefits to cultural resources are likely to be lower than the Integrated FSDM
Program because of the lack of a strategic national approach to address large scale feral swine population problems.
Impacts on Tribes, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial Values.
Additional resources beyond the Integrated FSDM Program may be available for working with tribes in states with
eradication goals, and those with large numbers of feral swine. Some states with low populations that might be
identified as national priority states under the Integrated, National without Baseline, and Federal FSDM Grant
Programs may get less funding under this alternative because funds are allocated based on the size of the feral
swine population. Consequently, FSDM is likely to take longer or be less effective in assisting tribes in states with
smaller and moderate feral swine populations. Other effects would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program and
outreach and coordination would expand accordingly.
Humaneness and Ethical Perspectives
This alternative would be more ethical and humane than the Current FSDM Program based on improved FSDM
capacity over the current program, but less than the Integrated FSDM Program based on lack or only minimal
research, outreach/education and technical assistance on local regulations. As with the Integrated FSDM Program,
agency partners and others who participate with this alternative may request additional discussion based on their
respective program policies relating to humaneness and ethics, and additional guidance may be added to APHIS-
WS SOPs at the project level.
Alternative 4.
National FSDM
without
Baseline
Funding
Cultural Resources
Some states with high feral swine populations which do not intend to eradicate feral swine may continue to
experience damages. Benefits would be seen where strategic local projects are funded. Adverse effects would be
low, similar to the Integrated FSDM based on SOPs. Long term benefits in terms of national feral swine population
control, would be highest based on overall efficiencies.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 344
Impacts on Tribes, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial Values.
Impacts on tribes would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program with the exception that resources will be
allocated to different areas. There may only be limited or no funds to work with tribes on FSDM in areas which are
not identified as national priorities. However, tribes could work with state APHIS-WS programs to apply for
strategic local project funding in the same manner as states and territories. Impacts in strategic local project areas
would likely be intermediate to Alternatives 1 and 2.
Humaneness and ethical perspectives
This alternative would be more ethical and humane than the current FSDM program based on improved FSDM
capacity over the current program and Baseline FSDM program, but less than the Integrated FSDM Program based
on reductions in efficacy associated with reductions in baseline FSDM capacity in all states with feral swine. As
with the Integrated FSDM Program, agency partners and others who participate with this alternative may request
additional discussion based on their respective program policies relating to humaneness and ethics, and additional
guidance may be added to APHIS-WS SOPs at the project level.
Alternative 5 -
Federal FSDM
Grant Program
Cultural Resources
APHIS would not directly affect cultural resources. APHIS would be responsible for ensuring that grant recipients
followed any applicable SOPs and Section 106 protocols. Adverse effects should be low as long as grant recipients
followed conditions of the grant. Benefits to cultural resources are likely to be greater than the Current FSDM
Program, but lower than all other alternatives.
Impacts on Tribes, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial Values.
Tribes would not work directly with APHIS-WS but partnerships among tribes and other agencies would be
encouraged. Tribal governments and Native Hawaiian organizations would be able to apply for grants to protect
their own resources.
Humaneness and ethical perspectives
Grants would be allocated to fund the same type of FSDM activities as described under the Integrated FSDM
Program. Consequently perceptions of the humaneness and ethics of this alternative will be similar to alternative 2
but may be less acceptable to some individuals because of the reduced efficacy of the alternative and because there
is some uncertainty regarding Grant recipient commitments to implementing the SOPs and other protective
measures outlined for APHIS-WS under alternatives 1-4.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 345
Economic Effects
Alternative 1.
No Action
Alternative
(Current FSDM
Program)
Damage management and eradication is largely dependent upon cooperator funding. Assistance to low income
landowners and communities is limited. Crop damage prevented is estimated to be approximately $7.1 million.
Hunting preserves, other hunting related business and private pest control operators that control feral swine see
some economic benefit from current feral swine populations. They are not likely to be adversely affected by current
feral swine removal rates.
Alternative 2.
Integrated
FSDM Program
– Preferred
Alternative
Increased funding, cost share, partnering, systematic program application, international coordination, research on
chemical methods, education and outreach and program monitoring would be likely to provide long term beneficial
economic effects from increased efficiencies in FSDM and reduced feral swine damages. Low-income landowners
and communities would receive more FSDM benefits than the Current FSDM Program.
This alternative may prevent between $16.4 million to $23.5 million in crop damage per year, but these benefits
would vary depending on a number of factors including the phase of the programs and where they are located.
Feral swine sport and hunting businesses, private pest control operators, and people who use feral swine for food
could be negatively affected in the long term except where feral swine are not managed as a game animal.
Businesses that supply FSDM equipment and supplies would initially benefit from increased sales but long term
program success would reduce purchases over time.
Legal fenced hunting preserves could benefit by having less competition from reduced or eliminated feral swine
populations nearby.
Alternative 3.
Baseline FSDM
Program
Baseline funding is allocated strictly on the size of the existing feral swine populations. Cost inefficiencies are
likely to result from lack of monitoring and population monitoring, funding delays, lack of projects to address
special local and national needs, the inability to adjust and increase resource allocations when few feral swine
remain in a state; and when rapid response is needed to control emerging populations. These factors would increase
the costs of removal efforts over time.
Research and registration of new effective and efficient chemical methods would not proceed above current
program levels.
Disease monitoring similar to the current program would continue with fewer benefits than the Integrated FSDM
Program.
Crop damages alleviated would be greater than the Current FSDM Program, and could be greater at first compared
with the Integrated FSDM Program because funding would not be allocated to National priorities that focus beyond
immediate damage control. In the long term, this alternative would be less effective at reducing crop damages
because it would be less effective in containing and reducing the national feral swine population.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 346
Economic impacts on swine hunting, hunting preserves, damage management businesses and individuals who use
swine for supplemental food would be greater than the current program, but slightly lower than the national FSDM
program, with the greatest impacts being in areas with large feral swine populations that receive the most funding.
Increased cost share partnerships that the state and territorial level would increase the capacity of agencies, tribes
and land owners/managers to address feral swine damage but because of reduced efficiencies, could make it
extremely difficult to achieve eradication goals in some areas.
Alternative 4.
National FSDM
without
Baseline
Funding
Long term efficiencies to support eradication would increase with this alternative as a result of the increased
funding for research, national-level education and outreach programs, national disease monitoring, and national and
international project coordination, and with eliminating feral swine from some key areas more rapidly than with
other alternatives.
Benefits of this alternative would be tempered by an inability to address ongoing damage or stabilize populations in
areas which do not receive national FSDM funding because they are not identified as strategic priorities for FSDM.
Economic impacts on swine hunting and associated revenues and benefits would be greater than the current
program in priority project areas, and least likely of the action alternatives to affect some areas with high
populations because most will initially be low priority for national population control efforts.
Negative effects on feral swine associated income and benefits would inversely correlate to economic effects from
hunting game species adversely affected by feral swine.
Crop damages avoided would be greater than the current program in priority project areas. In the short term there
will be less damage management in low priority states until FSDM objectives are achieved in other states and
funding shifts.
Alternative 5 -
Federal FSDM
Grant Program
Less effective and efficient elimination of feral swine would prolong damages and associated lost revenue and take
longer to meet national objectives. Some aspects of the national projects could be implemented by grant recipients,
but overall, the national efforts to increase efficiencies (research, education/outreach, monitoring and international
collaboration) would be reduced or eliminated and thus would provide less benefit while costing more over time
because of administrative expenses.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 347
Economic impacts on feral swine related hunting pursuits would be greater than the Current FSDM Program, and
less than the remaining alternatives, with inverse effects on hunting revenues and food related benefits from game
species adversely affected by feral swine.
Less funding would reach FSDM because overhead would be highest under this alternative. Long term costs would
be most likely to persist compared with the other action alternatives.
Crop damage avoided would be greater than the Current FSDM Program, and lower than the Integrated and
Baseline FSDM Programs. Compared with the Integrated FSDM Program without Baseline Funding, more crop
damage may initially be prevented, but over time it would be less based on reduced efficiencies.
Cumulative
Effects
The existing environment which identifies and defines the potentially affected environmental issues and resources
raised during scoping (Chapter 3) represents the aggregate impacts of past actions. The alternatives are nationwide
in scope and could extend in theory to any location where feral swine may occur presently or in the foreseeable
future. While the scope is national (including territories and tribal lands), the actual individual project locations
would be relatively small and widely dispersed because they are based on the locations and densities of feral swine
that are not desired by state/territorial/tribal or local authorities. The preferred action would guide resource
allocation and establish a plan of actions to achieve nationally established goals and objectives for FSDM (Section
1.H.).
Most individual feral swine damage management projects typically have minimal impacts that are of short-duration
and would not be expected to contribute significantly to cumulative impacts because the potential for adverse
effects on the environment has already been mitigated through following laws, regulations, program policies,
SOPs, and through cooperation with resource management experts. In addition, because APHIS does not manage
affected resources or feral swine, it conforms to applicable state, territorial and tribal government laws for
environmental protection. Finally, when APHIS cooperates with other federal agencies, it follows cooperating and
partner agency policies and rules for environmental protection as defined in MOUs, work plans and other
agreements. Specific cumulative effects for each affected resource are discussed under Section 4. H.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 348
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 349
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 350
This page left intentionally blank.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix A. Acronyms Page 351
Appendix A: Acronyms
AFWA Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
ANG Air National Guard
APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
APHIS-IS USDA International Services
APHIS-VS USDA Veterinary Services
APHIS-WS USDA Wildlife Services
ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act
AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CDC Center for Disease Control
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR U.S. Code of Federal Regulations
CNMI Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
CSF Classical Swine Fever
DEA U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
DOI United States Department of Interior
DOJ U.S. Department of Justice
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix A. Acronyms Page 352
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAD Foreign Animal Disease
FAO Food Agriculture Organization
FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FMD Foot and Mouth Disease
FSDM Feral Swine Damage Management
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
GPS Global Positioning System
HAID Hawaii Animal Industry Division
IAV-S Avian Influenza A in Swine
ISAC Invasive Species Advisory Committee
ISSG Invasive Species Specialist Group
IUCN World Conservation Union
IWDM Integrated Wildlife Damage Management
IVMS Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix A. Acronyms Page 353
LPA USDA Legislative and Public Affairs
LWLF Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries
MDC Michigan Department of Conservation
MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources
MSU Mississippi State University
NABCC National Agriculture Biosecurity Center Consortium
NASDA National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
NASS National Agricultural Statistics Survey
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NICS National Invasive Species Council
NISC National Invasive Species Council
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS National Park Service
NRCS USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWDP National Wildlife Disease Program
NWRC National Wildlife Research Center
NYSCEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
PEDV Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea Virus
PRV Pseudorabies Virus
ROD Record of Decision
SCWDS Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officers
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix A. Acronyms Page 354
SOP Standard Operational Procedure
TPW Texas Parks and Wildlife
UK United Kingdom
US United States
USC US Code
USDA US Department of Agriculture
USDI US Department of the Interior
USGS US Geologic Survey
USFS US Forest Service
USITC US International Trade Commission
USTR US Trade Representative
WDM Wildlife Damage Management
WWHC Western Wildlife Health Committee
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 355
Appendix B: Literature Cited
Adams, C. E., B. J. Higginbotham, D. R. Rollins, R. B. Taylor, R. Skiles, and M. Mapston. 2005.
Regional perspectives and opportunities for feral hog management in Texas. Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX, USA.
AFWA (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). 2006. Best Management Practices for
Trapping in the United States. http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/trapbmpsintro.pdf
AFWA (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). 2009. Modern snares for capturing
mammals: Definitions, mechanical attributes and use considerations. Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC, USA.
Aiello, S. E., and M. A. Moses (eds). 2013. Merck veterinary manual online.
http://www.merckmanuals.com/vet/generalized_conditions/fungal_infections_mycoses/cry
ptococcosis.html.
Air National Guard. 1997. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Colorado Airspace
Initiative. Air National Guard, National Guard Bureau; 3500 Fletchet Avenue, Andrews
AFB, MD 20762-5157. Vol. I, Vol. II.
Alberta Agriculture, Food, and Rural Development. 2011. Livestock mortality management
(Disposal). 20 pp. Agdex 400/29-1. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$Department/
deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex6081/$FILE/400_29-1.pdf
Alexander, S. J., D. Pilz, N. S. Weber, E. Brown, and V. A. Rockwell. 2002. Mushrooms, trees
and money: Value estimates of commercial mushrooms and timber in the Pacific
Northwest. Environmental Management 30:129-141.
Amass, S. 1998. Swine diseases that have affected humans. Purdue Animal Issues Briefing,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
AASV (American Association of Swine Veterinarians). 2013. AASV quick facts: Porcine
epidemic diarrhea virus. https://www.aasv.org/aasv%20website/Resources/Diseases/
PEDAASVQuickFacts.pdf.
American Samoa Historic Preservation Office. 2014. Cultural history of American Samoa.
http://ashpo.org/index.php/history.html
Ames, D. R., and L. A. Arehart. 1972. Physiological response of lambs to auditory stimuli.
Journal of Animal Science 34:997-998.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 356
An T. Q., Z. J. Tian, C. L. Leng, J. M. Peng, and G. Z. Tong. 2001. Highly pathogenic porcine
reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus, Asia. Emerging Infectious Diseases. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. 17:9.
Andersen, D. E., O. J. Rongstad, and W. R. Mytton. 1989. Response of nesting red-tailed hawks
to helicopter overflights. Condor 91:296-299.
Anderson, G., and C. Yoest. 2012. Implementation of Tennessee’s statewide wild hog
management plan. Tennessee Wildlife and Forestry Division.
APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). 2012. USDA letter to Director, Land and
Wildlife Program, Natural Resources Defense Council, regarding the use of lead
ammunition in wildlife damage management (WDM) activities. ATSDR (Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2007. Toxicological profile for lead. U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf.
APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service). 2013a. Environmental assessment for bird
damage management in Texas, Texas Wildlife Services Program, San Antonio, TX.
APHIS. 2013b. Parasitic diseases in feral swine. National wildlife disease program: Program
activity report. Published 3 June 2013.
Aplet, G. H., S. J. Anderson, C. P. Stone. 1991. Association between feral pig disturbance and the
composition of some alien plant assemblages in Hawaii Volcanos National Park. Plant
Ecology 95:55-62.
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA). 2006. Best management practices for
trapping in the United States. Available at http://www.fishwildlife.org/
files/Introduction_BMPs.pdf.
Atwill E. R., R. A. Sweitzer, M. G. Pereira, I. A. Gardner, D. van Vuren, W. M. Boyce. 1997.
Prevalence of and associated risk factors for shedding Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts
and Giardia cysts within feral pig populations in California. Applied Environmental
Microbiology 63:3946–9
AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). 2013. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia
of Animals: 2013 Edition. AVMA, Schaumburg, IL. 102 pp. Available at
https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf.
Awbrey, F. T., and A. E. Bowles. 1990. The effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on raptors:
a preliminary model and a synthesis of the literature on disturbance. Noise and Sonic Boom
Impact Technology, Technical Operating Report 12. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 357
Bach, J. P., and J. R. Conner. 2013. Texas Natural Wildlife: Economics and human interactions
of the wild hog in Texas. Texas A&M Agrilife Research, San Angelo, TX.
http://agrilife.org/texnatwildlife/feral-hogs/economics-and-human-interactions-of-the-wild-
hog-in-texas/.
Bach, J. P., and J. R. Conner. 1997. Economics and Human Interactions of the Wild Hog in
Texas. The Texas A&M University System. http://texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/feral/feral
13.htm.
Baker, J. K. 1975. The feral pig in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Hawaii Volcanoes National
Park, Hawaii Islands. http://www.tws-west.org/transactions/Baker.pdf.
Ballalri, S. A., and M. N. Barrios-Garcia. 2014. A review of wild boar Sus scrofa diet and factors
affecting food selection in native and introduced ranges. Mammal Review 44:124-134.
Baron, J. 1982. Effects of feral hogs (Sus scrofa) on the vegetation of Horn Island, Mississippi.
American Midland Naturalist 107:202-205.
Barrett, R. H., and G.H. Birmingham. 1994. Wild pigs. Pp. D65-D70 in S. Hygnstrom, R. Timm,
and G. Larsen, eds. Prevention and control of wildlife damage. Cooperative Extension
Service, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Barrett-Connor, E., C. F. Davis, R. N. Hamburger, and I. Kagan. 1976. A epidemic of trichinosis
after ingestion of wild pig in Hawaii. Journal of Infectious Diseases 133(4):473-477.
Barrios, E. 2007. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecological Economics
64:269-285.
Barrios-Garcia, M. N., and S. A. Ballari. 2012. Impact of wild boars (Sus scrofa) in its introduced
and native range. Biological Invasions. 14:2283-2300.
Beach, R. 1993. Depredation problems involving feral hogs. Pp. 67-75 In C.W. Hanselka and J.F.
Cadenhead, eds. Feral swine: a compendium for resource managers. Texas Agricultural
Extension Service, College Station.
Beal C. D., E. A. Gardner, C. Christiansen, and P. Beavers P. 2005. A review of on site
wastewater management practices in southeast Queensland. Water (Australia) 32(4):69-72.
Beasley, J. C., T. E. Grazia, P. E. Johns, and J. J. Mayer. 2013. Habitats associated with vehicle
collisions with wild pigs. Wildlife Research 40:654-660.
Beasley III, V. R., C. J. Shepard, A. Pettitt, M. Gill, and B. Torrell. 2009. Avon Park Air Force
Range. Phase I survey of selected areas and Phase II testing at sites.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 358
Beauchamp, T. L., and R. G. Frey, eds. 2011. The Oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford
University Press, New York.
Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1989. Response of staging greater snow geese to human disturbance.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:713-719.
Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic costs of man-induced disturbance to staging snow
geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:36-41.
Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. 2nd ed. Stackpole Books,
Harrisburg, PA. 544pp.
Belnap, J., and O. L. Lange. 2001. Structure and functioning of biological soil crusts: a synthesis.
Pages 471-479 in. J. Belnap and O. L. Lang (eds.). Biological soil crusts: structure,
function, and management. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Ger.
Bennett, C. 2013. At Lively Farms, wild hogs digging in for long-haul. Delta Farm Press,
October 3, 2013. Retrieved on January 14, 2014 from
http://deltafarmpress.com/corn/photoslively-farms-wild-hogs-digging-long-haul
Bevins, S. N., K. Pedersen, M. W. Lutman, T. Gidlewski, and T. J. Deliberto. 2014.
Consequences associated with the recent range expansion of nonnative feral swine.
BioScience Online 64:291-299.
Beyer, W. N., J. Dalgarn, S. Dudding, J. B. French, R. Mateo, J. Miesner, L. Sileo, and J. Spann.
2004. Zinc and lead poisoning in wild birds in the tri-state mining district (Oklahoma,
Kansas and Missouri). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 48:108-
117.
Billi, C. 2013. Tampa firefighter’s dog attacked by wild boar. 10 News wtsp.com. Information
obtained from: http://www.wtsp.com/default.aspx.
Bittner, A. 2004. An overview of the economic impacts associated with mandatory brucellosis
testing in Wyoming cattle. Wyoming Department of Administration and Information.
Cheyenne, WY.
Blunden, J., and D. S. Arndt, Eds. 2013. State of the climate in 2012. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological. Society 94 (8), S1-S238.
Boa, E. 2004. Wild edible fungi: a global overview of their use and importance to people. Non-
wood Forest Products Vol. 17. 147pp.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 359
Boden, E. 2001. Black’s veterinary dictionary 20th Edition. Barnes and Noble Books, Lanham,
MD.
Bodenchuk, M. J. 2008. Feral hog management: Typing performance measures to resources
protected. National Conference on Feral Hogs. April 13-15, St. Louis, MO.
Borg, E. 1979. Physiological aspects of the effects of sound on man and animals. Acta Oto-
laryngologica, Supplement 360:80-85.
Boughton, E. H., and R. K. Boughton. 2011. Modification by an invasive ecosystem engineer
shifts a wet prairie to a monotypic stand. Biological Invasions 16:2105-2114.
Bratton, S. P. 1975. The effect of the European wild boar, Sus scrofa, on gray beech forest in the
Great Smoky Mountains. Ecology 56:1356-1366.
Breshears, D. D., J. W. Nyhan, C. E. Heil, and B. P. Wilcox. 1998. Effects of woody plants on
microclimate in a semiarid woodland: soil temperature and evaporation in canopy and
intercanopy patches. International Journal of Plant Sciences 159:1010-14017.
Brisbin, I. L., and M. S. Sturek. 2009. The pigs of Ossabaw Island: A case study of the
application of long-term data in management plan development.
http://wildpiginfo.msstate.edu/ The%20Pigs%20of%20Ossabaw%20Island-
Case_Study.pdf.
Burger, J. 1995. A risk assessment for lead in birds. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health: Current Issues. 45(4): 369-396.
Burkhart, G. 2012. Wild hog blamed in attack on dog. krqe.com Information obtained from:
http://www.krqe.com/news/environment/wild-hog-blamed-in-attack-on-dogs.
Burns, R. 2009. Feral hog/vehicle collisions up. AgriLife News. February 17, 2009.
Http://agnews.tamu.edu/showstory.php?id=1040.
Burns, R., and J. Loven. 1998. Feral hogs causing increased damage to croplands, wildlife
habitat. Texas Animal Damage Control Service. pp. 139-147.
Cai, J., Z. Jiang, Y. Zeng, C. Li, and B. D. Bravery. 2008. Factors affecting crop damage by wild
boar and methods of mitigation in a giant panda reserve. European Journal of Wildlife
Research 54:723-728.
Campbell, T. A., and D. B. Long. 2007. Species-specific visitation and removal of baits for
delivery of pharmaceuticals to feral swine. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 43:485-491.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 360
Campbell, T. A., and D. B. Long. 2008. Mammalian visitation to candidate feral swine
attractants. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:305-309.
Campbell, T. A., and D. B. Long. 2009a. Feral swine damage and damage management in
forested ecosystems. Forest Ecology and Management 257:2319-2326.
Campbell, T. A., and D. B. Long. 2009b. Strawberry-flavored baits for pharmaceutical delivery to
feral swine. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:615-619.
Campbell, T. A., D. B. Long, and B. R. Leland. 2010a. Feral swine behavior relative to aerial
gunning in southern Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:337-341.
Campbell, T. A., M. R. Garcia, L. A. Miller, M. A. Ramirez, D. B. Long, J.-B. Marchand, and F.
Hill. 2010b. Immunocontraception in male feral swine treated with a recombinant
gonadotropin-releasing hormone vaccine. Journal of Swine Health and Production
18:118-124.
Campbell, T. A., D. B. Long, and G. Massei. 2011. Efficacy of the boar-operated-system to
deliver baits to feral swine. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 98:243-249.
Camus, A. C., M. M. Mitchell, J. E. Williams and P. L. H. Jowett. 1998. Elevated lead levels in
farmed American alligators, Alligator mississippiensis consuming nutria, Myocastor
coypus meat contaminated by lead bullets. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society
29(3): 370-376.
CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology). 2008. Swine carcass disposal options
for routine and catastrophic mortality. Issue Paper 39. CAST. Ames, Iowa.
Caudell, J.N., B. E. McCann, S. E. Backs, B. S. Schmit, R. A. Newman, R. A. Sweitzer, and R. B.
Simmons. 2013. Identification of putative origins of introduced pigs in Indiana using
nuclear microsatellite markers and oral history. Proceedings of the 15th Wildlife Damage
Management Conference, Clemson, SC.
Caudell, J. N., S. R. Stopak, and P. C. Wolf. 2012. Lead-free, high-powered rifle bullets and their
applicability in wildlife management. Human–Wildlife Interactions 6(1):105–111.
Caudell, J. N., B. C. West, B. Griffin, and K. Davis. 2009. Fostering greater professionalism with
firearms in the wildlife arena. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Management
Conference 13:95-99.
CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2012a. E. coli (Escherichia coli).
http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/general/index.html.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 361
CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2012b. Leptospirosis: Signs and
symptoms. http://www.cdc.gov/leptospirosis/symptoms/index.html
CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2012c. Hunters: Protect yourself from
brucellosis. http://www.cdc.gov/features/HuntersBrucellosis/.
CDC (U.S. Center for Disease Control). 2009. Brucella suis infection associated with feral swine
hunting --- three states, 2007—2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 58:618-621.
CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Undated. Wild hog hunting: Stay
healthy on your hunt! http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases
/brucellosis/brucellosis_and_hoghunters.pdf
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2014. Wild pig management.
https://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/pig/.
CEQ (Council for Environmental Quality). 2014. Revised draft guidance for greenhouse gas
emissions and climate change impacts in NEPA reviews.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/nepa_revised_draft_ghg_guidance_sea
rchable.pdf
CEQ (Council for Environmental Quality). 2005. Memorandum from James L. Connaughton,
Chairman to Heads of Federal Agencies Regarding Guidance on the Consideration of Past
Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Executive Office of the President, Council on
Environmental Quality. Washington, DC. 4 pp.
CEQ (Council for Environmental Quality). 1981. Forty most asked questions concerning CEQ's
National Environmental Policy Act regulations. (40 CFR 1500-1508) Fed. Reg.
46(55):18026-18038.
CFSPH (Center for Food Security and Public Health). 2009. Center for Food Security and Public
Health: Classical Swine Fever. Iowa State University. Institute for International
Cooperation in Animal Biologics. Ames, Iowa.
Chatfield, J., M. Milleson, R. Stoddard, D. M. Bui, and R. Galloway. 2013. Seroseruvey of
leptospirosis in feral hogs (Sus scrofa) in Florida. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine
44:404-407.
Chavarria, P. M., R. R. Lopez, G. Bowser, and N. J. Silvy. 2007. A landscape-level survey of
feral hog impacts to natural resources of the Big Thicket National Preserve. Human-
Wildlife Conflicts 1:199-204.
Chen, T. H., J. A. Gross and W. H. Karasov. 2006. Sublethal effects of lead on northern leopard
frog (Rana pipiens) tadpoles. Environmental Toxicology and Chemestry 25:1383-1389.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 362
Choquenot, D., B. Lukins, and G. Curran. 1997. Assessing lamb predation by feral pigs in
Australia's semi-arid rangelands. Journal of Applied Ecology 34:1445-1454.
Cintron, G. E. O. 2011. Home range, habitat use and survival of feral pigs in Mona Island Nature
Reserve. Metropolitan University. San Juan, Puerto Rico. May 19, 2011.
http://www.suagm.edu/umet/biblioteca/UMTESIS/Tesis_Ambientales/msem_manejo_cons
_recursos_naturales/2011/GOlivieris%202011.pdf.
Clancy, K. 2006. Greener eggs and ham. Union of Concerned Scientists.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/gre
ener-eggs-and-ham.pdf.
Clausen, J. L., and N. Korte. 2009. Environmental fate of tungsten from military use. Science of
the Total Environment 407:2887-2893.
Clavijo, A., A. Nikooienejad, M. S. Esfahani, R. P. Metz, S. Schwartz, E. Atashpaz-Gargari, T. J.
Deliberto, M. W. Lutman, K. Pedersen, L. R. Bazan, L. G. Koster, M. Jenkins-Moore, S. L.
Swenson, M. Zhang, T. Beckham, C. D. Johnson, and M. Bounpheng. 2012. Identification
and analysis of the first 2009 pandemic H1N1 Influenza virus from U.S. feral swine.
Zoonoses and Public Health: 60(5):327-35.
Cole, L., M. A. Bradford, P. J. Shaw, and R. D. Bardgett. 2006. The abundance, richness and
functional role of soil meso-and macrofauna in temperate grassland—A case study.
Applied Soil Ecology 33:186-198.
Cole, J. R., C. M. Litton, M. J. Koontz, and R. K. Loh. 2012. Vegetation recovery 16 years after
feral pig removal from a wet Hawaiian forest. Biotropica 44:463-471.
Collins, P. W., B. C. Latta, and G. W. Roemer. 2009. Does the order of invasive species removal
matter? The case of the eagle and the pig. PLoS ONE 4(9) e7005.
Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007005.
Colorado State University. 2012. CSU eXtesnion: Feral hogs.
http://www.extension.org/pages/63659/vehicle-collisions-with-feral-hogs. November 7,
2012.
Comer C. E., and J. J. Mayer, J. J. 2009. Wild pig reproductive biology. Pages 51-76 in J. J.
Mayer and I. L. Brisbin, Jr. eds. Biology, damage control techniques and management.
SRNL-RP-2009-00869. Savannah River National Laboratory. Aiken, SC.
Conklin and de Decker Associates. 2014. CO
2
Emissions and Offset Calculator. Online.
https://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/CO2Calc.aspx
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 363
Conomy, J. T., J. A. Collazo, J. A. Dubovsky, and W. J. Fleming. 1998. Dabbling duck behavior
and aircraft activity in coastal North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management
62(3):1127-1134.
Conover, M. R. 2002. Chemical repellents. Pages 249-262 In Resolving human-wildlife
conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management. Lewis Publisher, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Conry, P.J. 1988. Management of feral and exotic game species on Guam. 1988 Transactions of
the Western Section of the Wildlife Society. Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources,
Department of Agriculture. http://www.tws-west.org/transactions/Conry.pdf.
Cooley M., D. Carychao, L. Crawford-Miksza, M. T. Jay, C. Myers, C. Rose C. C. Keys, J. Farrar,
and R. E. Mandrell. 2007. Incidence and tracking of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in a major
produce production region in California. PLoS ONE 2:e1159
10.1371/journal.pone.0001159
Cook, M. 1990. Soil and water quality. AG-North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service,
North Carolina State University.
Corn, J. L., J. C. Cumbee, B. A. Chandler, D. E. Stallknecht, and J. R. Fisher. 2005. Implications
of feral swine expansion: Expansion of feral swine in the United States and potential
implications for domestic swine. PP. 295-297 In Proceedings of the 109th Annual Meeting
of the United States Animal Health Association. Hershey, PA. USA.
http://www.usaha.org/meeting/proceedings.sthml.
Corn, J. L., P. K. Swiderek, B. O. Blackburn, G. A. Erikson, A. B. Thiermann, and V. F. Nettles.
1986. Survey of selected diseases in wild swine in Texas. Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association. 189:1029-1032.
Corn, J., J. Tommy, and M. Madden. 2014. National feral swine mapping system. Center for
Remote Sensing and Mapping Science, University of Georgia. Slideshow.
http://www.wildpigconference.com/proceedings09/corn.pdf.
Costello, R. B. ed. 1992. Random House Webster’s College Dictionary. Random House, Inc.,
New York, NY.
Cowled, B. D., and C. O’Connor. 2004. A project that investigates current options for managing
feral pigs in Australia and assesses the need for the development for more effective and
humane techniques and strategies – Stage 3 Report. Pest Animal Control Cooperative
Research Centre, Canberra, Australia.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/feral-pig/stage3.html.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 364
Cox, G. W. 1999. Alien Species in North America and Hawaii: Impacts on natural ecosystems.
Island Press, Washington, DC and Corelo, CA.
Cozzens, T. W. 2010. Economic impact of feral swine transmitting foot-and-mouth disease to
livestock in Kansas. M.S. thesis, Department of Agriculture and Resource Economics,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Craighead, D. and B. Bedrosian. 2008. Blood lead levels of common ravens with access to big
game offal. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:240-245.
Cramer, S.D., G. A. Campbell, B. L. Njaa, S. E. Morgan, S. K. Smith II, W. R. McLin IV, B. W.
Brodersen, A. G. Wise, G. Scherba, I. M. Langohr, and R. K. Maes. 2011. Pseudorabies
virus infection in Oklahoma hunting dogs. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation
23(5):915-923.
Crane, N. 1997. Animal disposal and the environment. State Veterinary Journal 7(3):3-5.
Cruz, F., C. J. Donlan, K. Campbell, and V. Carrion. 2005. Conservation action in the Galapagos:
feral pig (Sus scrofa) eradication from Santiago Island. Biological Conservation 121:473-
478.
Cruz-Martinez, L. P. T. Redig and J. Deen. 2012. Lead from spent ammunition: a source of
exposure and poisoning in bald eagles. Human-wildlife Interactions 6:94-104.
Cunningham, W. P., B. W. Saigo, and M. A. Cunningham. 2001. Environmental science: A
global concern. McGraw-Hill Boston, MA.
Cushman, J. H., T. A. Tierney, and J. M. Hinds. 2004. Variable effects of feral pig disturbances
on native and exotic plants in a California grassland. Ecological Applications 14:1746-
1756.
Dakpa, P., U. Penjore and T. Dorji. 2009. Design, fabrication and performance evaluation of wild
pig repellent device. Bhutan Journal of Renewable Natural Resources 5:116-126.
Davidson, W. R., editor. 2006. Wild swine. Pages 105-134 In Field manual of wildlife diseases in
the southeastern United States. Second edition. Southwestern Cooperative Disease Study,
Athens, GA.
Davidson, W. R. and V. F. Nettles, editors. 1997. Wild swine. Pages 104-133 In Field manual of
wildlife diseases in the southeastern United States. Third edition. Southwestern
Cooperative Disease Study, Athens, GA.
Davis, J. and M. Ivey. 2011. Kill Feral Hogs, But Handle Them Carefully For Your Health and
Your Dogs’. Georgia Outdoor News. Online. https://www.gon.com/article.php?id=2866.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 365
Delaney, D. K., T. G. Grubb, P. Beier, I. L. Pater, and M. H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter
noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60-76.
Delgado-Acevedo, J., R. W. DeYoung, and T. A. Campbell. 2007. Landscape genetics of feral
swine and implications for management. Proceedings: Managing invasive species,
National Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, CO.
Diong, C.H., 1982. Population biology and management of the feral pig (Sus scrofa L.) in
Kipahulu Valley, Maui. PhD dissertation. Department of Zoology, University of Hawai‘i,
Manoa.
Ditchkoff, S. S., and J. J. Mayer. 2009. Wild pig food habits. Pages 105-144 In J. J. Mayer and I.
L. Brisbin, Jr. eds. Biology, damage control techniques and management. SRNL-RP-
2009-00869. Savannah River National Laboratory. Aiken, SC.
Ditchkoff, S. S., and D. B. Jolley, B. D. Sparklin, L. B. Hanson, M. S. Mitchell, and J. B. Grand.
2012. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:1235-1240.
Dunkell, D. O., G. L. Bruland, C. I Evensen, and C. M. Litton. 2011. Runoff, sediment transport,
and effect of feral pig (Sus scrofa) exclusion in a forested Hawaiian watershed. Pacific
Science 65:175-194.
Doupé, R. G., J. Mitchell, M. J. Knott, A. M. Davis, and A. J. Lymbery. 2010. Efficacy of
exclusion fencing to protect ephemeral floodplain lagoon habitats from feral pigs (Sus
scrofa). Wetlands Ecology and Management 18:69-78.
Dubay, S. A., G. D. Hayward, and C. Martinez del Rio. 2008. Nutritional value and diet
preference of arboreal lichens and hypogeous fungi for small mammals in the Rocky
Mountains. Canadian Journal of Zoology 86:851-862.
Eisler, R. 1998. Nickel hazards to fish, wildlife and invertebrates, a synoptic review. USGS
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Biological Science Report USGS/BRD?BSR-1998-
0001. Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 34. 95pp.
Eisler, R. 1988. Lead hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review. USGS
Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report No. 14. 94 pp.
Elsey, R. M., E. C. Moulton, Jr., and N. Kinler. 2012. Effects of feral swine (Sus scrofa) on
alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) nests in Louisiana. Southeastern Naturalist.
11(2):205-218.
Engel, B. A., K. J. Lim, J. Y. Choi, and L. Theller. 2004. Evaluating environmental impacts.
Chapter 14. In Carcass disposal: A comprehensive review. National Agricultural
Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University, Lawrence.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 366
Engeman, R. M., G. Massei, M. Sage and M. N. Gentle. 2013. Monitoring wild pig populations: a
review of methods. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 20:8077-8091.
Engeman, R. M., K. J. Couturier, R. K. Felix, Jr., and M. L. Avery. 2012. Feral swine disturbance
at important archaeological sites. Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
20:4093-4098.
Engeman, R. M., A. Duffiney, S. Braem, C. Olsen, B. Constantin, P. Small, J. Dunlap and J. C.
Griffin. 2010. Dramatic and immediate improvements in insular nesting success for
threatened sea turtles and shorebirds following predator management. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 395:147-152.
Engeman, R. M., J. Woolard, H. T. Smith, J. Bourassa, B. U. Constantin, and D. Griffin. 2007a.
An extraordinary patch of feral swine damage in Florida before and after initiating hog
removal. Human-Wildlife Interactions 1(2):271-275.
Engeman, R. M., A. Stevens, J. Allen, J. Dunlap, M. Daniel, D. Teague and B. Constantin. 2007b.
Feral swine management for conservation of an imperiled wetland habitat: Florida’s
vanishing seepage slopes. Biological Conservation 134:440-446.
Engeman, R. M., H. T. Smith, R. Severson, M. A. Severson, S. A. Shwiff, B. Constantin and D.
Griffin. 2004. The amount and economic cost of feral swine damage to the last remnant of
a basin marsh system in Florida. Journal for Nature Conservation 12:143-147.
Engeman, R. M., H. T. Smith, S. A. Shwiff, B. Constantin, J. Woolard, M. Nelson, and D. Griffin.
2003. Prevalence and economic value of feral swine damage to native basin habitat in
three Florida State Parks. Environmental Conservation 30:319-324.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013a. Water Quality Assessment and TMDL
Information: National Summary of State Information.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013b. Climate change: ecosystems
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/ecosystems.html#Range last
accessed Dec. 6, 2013.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2013c. Integrated science assessment for
lead, EPA/600/R-10/075F, Office of Research and Development, National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2013.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Pesticide fact sheet: Mammalian
gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), new chemical, nonfood use. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
September 2009.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 367
EPA. 2006. Air quality criteria for lead: Volume I of II [EPA Report]. (EPA/600/R-05/144aF).
Research Triangle Park, NC.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=158823.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2005a. Region 5 Superfund. Ecological
Toxicity Information. http://www.epa.gov/R5Super/ecology/ toxprofiles.htm#ni.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005b. Ecological soil screening levels for lead –
Interim final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-70. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, D.C. 242 pp.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Chapter 6: Collection of Interstitial
Water. In Methods for collection, storage and manipulation of sediments for chemical and
toxicological analyses. Technical Manual EPA 823-B-01-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, DC
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/sediments/cs/upload/ch6.pdf.
Extension. 2012a. Feral hog attacks on humans. Information obtained from:
http://www.extension.org/pages/63657/feral-hog-attacks-on-humans.
Extension. 2012b. Vehicle collisions with feral hogs. Information obtained from:
http://www.extension.org/pages/63659/vehicle-collisions-with-feral-hogs.
Extension. 2012c. Feral hogs in your backyard. Information obtained from:
http://www.extension.org/pages/63619/feral-hogs-in-your-backyard.
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration). 2005. Aviation and emissions – A primer. Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy. Washington, D.C. 25pp.
Fancy, S. G. 1982. Reaction of bison to aerial surveys in interior Alaska. Canadian Field
Naturalist 96:91.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2009. Major drive launched against FMD aims to
bring disease under progressive global control. News release, Media Centre, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/29028/icode. Accessed September, 2013.
Federal Highway Administration. 2012. Highway Statistics 2010. Office of Highway Policy
Information, Federal Highway Administration. Table VM-1.
Fernandez-Llario, P., J. Carranza, and S.J. Hidalgo de Trucios. 1996. Social organization of the
wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Doñana National Park. Miscellània Zoològica. 19, Number 2.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 368
FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2014. 2013-2014 Hunting
regulations. FFWCC Farris Bryant Building 620 S. Meridian St., Tallahassee, FL 32399-
1600. http://myfwc.com/hunting/regulations. Accessed on 2 February 2014.
Fischlin, A., G. F. Midgley, J. T. Price, R. Leemans, B. Gopal, C. Turley, M. D. A. Rounsevell, O.
P. Dube, J. Tarazona, and A. A. Velichko. 2007. Ecosystems, their properties, goods, and
services. Pages 211-272 In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P.
J. van der Linden and C. E. Hanson (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. U.K.
Florida Department of Health. 2011. Florida Morbidity Statistics Report 2010. Tallahassee, FL.
Forest, N. K. 1968. Effects of commercialized deer hunting arrangements on ranch organization,
management, costs, and income-Llamo Basin of Texas. M.S. Thesis, Texas A&M
University, College Station. TX. 135pp.
Forrester, D. J. 1991. Parasites and diseases of wild mammals in Florida. University of Florida
Press, Gainesville, FL.
Frederick, J. M. 1998. Overview of wild pig damage in California. Proceedings of the Vertebrate
Pest Conference. 18:82-86.
Freedman, R., and Fleming, R. 2003. Water Quality Impacts of Buying Livestock Mortalities. .
Livestock Mortality Recycling Project Steering Committee. Ridgetown College –
University of Guelph. Canada.
Fuller, M. R., and J. A. Mosher. 1987. Raptor survey techniques. Pages 37-65. In B. A. Giron
Pendleton, B.A Millsap, K. W. Cline, and D. M. Bird, edss. Raptor management
techniques manual. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, DC
FWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2013. List of migratory bird species protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act as of December 2, 2013.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/mbtandx.html
FWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2011. Golden Eagles: Status fact sheet.
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/FactSheets/Golden_Eagle_St
atus_Fact_Sheet[1].pdf.
FWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.
Online.
http://www.fws.gov/southdakotafieldoffice/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.pdf
Gabor, T. M., and E. C. Hellgren. 2000. Variation in peccary populations: landscape composition
or competition by in invader? Ecology 81:2509-2524.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 369
Gallagher, J. F. undated. Procedures for evaluating predation on livestock and wildlife. Texas
Agrilife Extension. 56pp.
Gaskamp, J., and J. Biermacher. 2013. BoarBuster™ thinks outside the box trap. Ag News and
Views.
Gaskamp, J., and K. Gee. 2011. Using drop nets to capture feral hogs. Ag News and Views. July.
http://www.noble.org/ag/wildlife/drop-nets/.
Gates, V. 2012. Hog wild: Feral pig population explodes in US. Chicago Tribune, June 22, 2012.
Chicago, IL.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2000. Ossabaw Island comprehensive management
plan. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division.
http://www.georgiawildlife.com/sites/default/files/uploads/legacy_assets/Documents/CMP.
pdf.
Geisser, H., and H. Reyer. 2004. Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage
by wild boars. Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 939-946.
Gentle, M. and A. Pople. 2013. Effectiveness of commercial harvesting in controlling feral-pig
populations. Wildlife Research 40:459-469.
Gieling, E. T., R. E. Nordquist, and F. J. van der Staay. 2011. Review: Assessing learning and
memory in pigs. Animal Cognition 14:151-173.
Giffin. J. G. 1978. Ecology of the wild pig on the Island of Hawaii. State of Hawaii, Dept. of
Land and Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Game, Honolulu, HI.
Giller, K. E., and K. J. Wilson. 2001. Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems, 2nd
Edition. C.A.B. International, Tuscon, AZ.
Gilmer, D. S., L. M. Cowardin, R. L. Duval, L. M. Mechlin, C. W. Shaiffer, and V. B. Kuechle.
1981. Procedures for the use of aircraft in wildlife biotelemetry studies. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Resource Publication 140.
Gilsdorf. J. M., S. E. Hygnstrom, and K. C. VerCauteren. 2003. Use of frightening devices in
wildlife damage management. Integrated Pest Management Reviews. 7:29-45.
Giuliano, W. M. 2010. Wild hogs in Florida: Ecology and management. University of Florida.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw322.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 370
Gladwin, D. N., D. A. Asherin, and K. M. Manci. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms
on fish and wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology Research Center
Report 88/30.
Glanville, T. 2000. Impact of livestock burial on shallow groundwater quality. Proc American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, Mid-Century Meeting. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Glass, C. M., R. G. Mclean, J. B. Katz, D. S. Maehr, C. B. Cropp, L .J. Kirk, A. J. McKeirnan nd J.
F. Evermann. 1994. Isolation of pseudorabies (Aujeszky’s disease) virus from a Florida
panther. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 30:180-184.
Graves, H. B. 1984. Behavior and ecology of wild and feral swine (Sus scrofa). Journal of
Animal Science. 58:482-492.
Greenbloom, S. L., P. Martin-Smith, S. Isaacs, B. Marshall, D. C. Kittle, K. C. Kain, and J. S.
Keystone. 1997. Outbreak of trichinosis in Ontario secondary to the ingestion of wild boar
meat. Canadian Journal of Public Health 88(1):52-56.
Golden, J. 2009. On site Burial of Routine Animal Mortality. Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality.
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Water/VirginiaPollutionAbatement/AGMortali
tyGuidance/2009-03_On_Farm_Animal_Burial.pdf
Groot Bruinderink, G., E., Hazebroek, and H. Von Der Voot. 1994. Diet and condition of wild
boar Sus scrofa without supplementary feeding. Journal of Zoology 233:631-648.
Grubb, T. G., D. K. Delaney, W. W. Bowerman, and M. R. Wierda. 2010. Golden Eagle
Indifference to Heli-Skiing and Military Helicopters in Northern Utah. Journal of Wildlife
Management 74:1275–1285.
Gurevitch, J., and D. K. Padilla. 2004. Are invasive species a major cause of extinctions? Trends
in Ecology and Evolution. 19:470-474.
Gwyther, C. L., A.P. Williams, P.N. Golyshin, G. Edward-Jones, and D.L. Jones. 2011. The
environmental and biosecurity characteristics of livestock carcass disposal methods: A
review. Waste Management. 31(4):767-78.
Haider, S., and K. Jax. 2007. The application of environmental ethics in biological conservation:
a case study from the southernmost tip of the Americas. Biodiversity Conservation 16:
2559-2573.
HAID (Hawaii Animal Industry Division), Animal Disease Control Branch. 2014. Pseudorabies.
Retrieved on January 14, 2014 from http://hdoa.hawaii.gov/ai/ldc/pseudorabies/.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 371
Hammerton, K. M., N. Jayasinghe, R. A. Jeffree and R. P. Lim. 2003. Experimental study of
blood lead kinetics in estuarine crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) exposed to ingested lead
shot. Archives of Environmental Contaminant Toxicology 45:390–398.
Hampton, J. O., P. B. S. Spencer, D. L. Alpers, L. E. Twigg, A. P. Woolnough, J. Doust, T. Higgs,
and J. Pluske. 2004. Molecular techniques, wildlife management and the importance of
genetic population structure and dispersal: A case study with feral pigs. Journal of Applied
Ecology. 41:735-743.
Hanson, L. B., M. S. Mitchell, J. G. Grand. D. B. Jolley. B. D. Sparklin, and S. S. Ditchkoff.
2009. Effect of experimental manipulation on survival and recruitment of feral pigs.
Wildlife Research 36:185-191.
Hayes, R., S. Riffell, R. Minnis, and B. Holder. 2009. Survival and habitat use of feral hogs in
Mississippi. Southeastern Naturalist 8:411-426.
Heijden, M. G. and I. R. Sanders. 2002. Mycorrhizal ecology. Springer Verlag.
Hellgren, E. C. 1993. Biology of feral hogs. Texas A&M. http://agrilife.org/texnatwildlife/feral-
hogs/biology-of-feral-hogs/.
Henry, D. J. 1996. Foxes: living on the edge. Minocqua: NorthWord Press, Inc.
Henry C., B. Wills, and L. Bitney. 2010. NebGuide: Disposal methods oflLivestock and poultry
mortality. University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension. EC-727. Lincoln, NE . 8pp.
Herrick, J. E. 2000. Soil quality: an indicator of sustainable land management? Applied Soil
Ecology 15:75-83.
Higginbotham, B. 2013. Wild pig damage abatement education and applied research activities.
Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Overton, TX.
Higginbotham, B. 2010. Outreach education effort summary: Feral hogs (2006-09). Texas
AgriLife Extension Service. Unpublished report.
Hirsch, J. 2013. Hunting wild pigs with drones. Modern Farmer. April 18, 2013.
http://modernfarmer.com/2013/04/hunting-pigs-with-drones/.
Holtfreter, R. W., B. L. Williams, S. S. Dtchkoff, and J. B. Grand. 2009. Effectiveness of the pilot
bounty program on wild pigs at Fort Benning, GA. Unpublished slide presentation from
Proceedings of the Wild Pig Converence. Auburn University Forestry and Wildlife
Sciences. Downloaded 6/11/14. http://www.wildpigconference.com/proceedings09/
holtfreter.pdf .
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 372
Hone, J. 2002. Feral pigs in Namadgi National Park, Australia: dynamics and impacts and
management. Biological Conservation 105:231-242.
Hone, J. 1983. A short-term evaluation of feral pig eradication at Willandra in Western New
South Wales. Australian Wildlife Research 10:269–275.
Hone. J., and H. Pederson. 1980. Changes in a feral pig population after poisoning. Proceedings
of the Vertebrate Pest Control Conference 9:176-182.
Hone, J., R. Pech, and P. Yip. 1992. Estimation of the dynamics and rate of transmission of
classical swine fever (hog cholera) in wild pigs. Epidemiology and Infection 108: 377-386
Hubalek, Z., F. Treml, Z. Juricova, M. Hundy, J. Halouzka, V. Janik, and D. Bill. 2002.
Serological survey of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) for tularemia and brucellosis in south
Moravia, Czech Republic. Vet. Med. – Czech, 47(2-3): 60-66.
Huff, M. H. 1977. The effect of the European wild boar, sus scrofa, on the woody vegetation of the
gray beech forest in the Great Smoky Mountains. Management Report No. 18
Hutton, T., T. DeLiberto, S. Owen, B. Morrison. 2006. Disease risks associated with increasing
feral swine numbers and distribution in the United States. USDA, APHIS, Wildlife
Services Report.
ISU (Iowa State University). 2014. Pseudorabies – PRV. College of Veterinary Medicine,
Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine. Retrieved June 2014 from
http://vetmed.iastate.edu/vdpam/new-vdpam-employees/food-supply-veterinary-
medicine/swine/swine-diseases/pseudorabies-prv.
Iqbal, S. 2008. Epi-aid trip report: Assessment of human health risk from consumption of wild
game meat with possible lead contamination among the residents of the State of North
Dakota. National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
IVMS (Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science). 2010. Assessing the humaneness and
efficacy of a new feral pig bait in domestic pigs. Report for the Australian Government
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Canberra, Australia.
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/pigs-ivms-
report.pdf.
Jay, M. T., M. Cooley, D. Carychao, G. W. Wiscomb, R. A. Sweitzer, and L. Crawford-Miksa.
2007. Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feral swine near spinach fields and cattle, central
California coast. Emerging. Infectious Disease. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/13/12/07-
0763.htm.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 373
Jay, M.T., and G.W. Wiscomb. 2008. Food safety risks and mitigation strategies for feral swine
(Sus scrofa) near agricultural fields. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. R.M.
Timm and M.B. Madon Eds. Univeristy of California Davis. 23:21-25.
Jolley, D. B., S. S. Ditchkoff, B. D. Sparklin, L. B. Hanson, M. S. Michell, and J. B. Grand. 2010.
Estimate of herpetofauna depredation by a population of wild pigs. Journal of Mammalogy
91:519-524.
Jørgensen, S., and M. Willems. 1987. The fate of lead in soils: the transformation of lead pellets
in shooting-range soils. Ambio 16(1):11-15.
Kaller, M. D., and W. E. Kelso. 2006. Swine activity alters invertebrate and microbial
communities in a coastal plain watershed. American Midland Naturalist 156:163-177.
Kaller, M. D., J. D. Hudson III, E. C. Achberger, and W. E. Kelso. 2007. Feral hog research in
western Louisiana, expanding populations and unforeseen consequences. Human-Wildlife
Conflicts 1:168-177.
Kaminski, G., Brandt, S., Baubet, E., and Baudoin, C. 2005. Life-history patterns in female wild
boars (Sus scrofa): mother-daughter postweaning associations. Canadian Journal of
Zoology 83:474–480. doi: 10.1139/ z05-019
Karlen, D., M. Mausbach, J. Doran, R. Cline, R. Harris, and G. Schuman. 1997. Soil quality: A
concept, definition, and framework for evaluation (a guest editorial). Soil Science Society
of America Journal 61:4-10.
Kastner, J., R. Phebus, T. Applegate, A. Nutsch, H. L. Thacker, W. Walawender. 2004. Carcass
Disposal: A comprehensive review. National Agricultural Biosecurity Center Consortium,
USDA APHIS Cooperative Agreement Project. http://krex.k-
state.edu/dspace/bitstream/2097/662/17/Chapter2.pdf (access date 09/04/2008).
Kellert, S. R. 1980. American's attitudes and knowledge of animals. Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 45:111–124.
Kellert, S. R. 1994. Public attitudes towards bears and their conservation. International
Conference on Bear Research and Management. Bears: Their Behavior, and Management.
9:43-50.
Kellert, S. and C. Smith. 2000. Human values towards large mammals. Pages 38-63 In S.
Demarais and P. Krausman, eds. Ecology and management of large mammals in North
America. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 374
Killian, G., L. Miller, J. Rhyan, and H. Doten. 2006. Immunocontraception of Florida feral swine
with a single-dose GnRH vaccine. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology
55:378-384.
Kliejunas, J., and W. Ko. 1976. Dispersal of Phytophthora cinnamomi on the island of Hawaii.
Phytopathology 66:457-460.
Koh, L. P., and S. A. Wich. 2012. Dawn of drone ecology: low-cost autonomous aerial vehicles
for conservation. Tropical Conservation Science 5:121-132.
Kostnett, M. J. 2009. Health effects of low dose lead exposure in adults and children, and
preventable risk posed by the consumption of game meat harvested with lead ammunition.
In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from
Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise,
Idaho, USA. http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-
lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm
Kotanen, P. M. 1995. Responses of vegetation to a changing regime of disturbance: effects of
feral pigs in a Californian coastal prairie. Ecography 18:190-199.
Krausman, P. R., and J. J. Hervert. 1983. Mountain sheep responses to aerial surveys. Wildlife
Society Bulletin 11:372-375.
Krausman, P. R., B. D. Leopold, and D. L. Scarbrough. 1986. Desert mule deer response to
aircraft. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:68-70.
Kushlan, J.A. 1979. Effects of helicopter censuses on wading bird colonies. Journal of Wildlife
Management 43:756-760.
Kreith, M. 2007. Wild pigs in California: The issues. University of California, Agriculture Issues
Center AIC Issues Brief No. 33. 6 pp.
KXAN. 2013. Family crashes into feral hogs on 130. LIN Television of Texas, LP.:
http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/family-crashes-into-feral-hogs-on-130.
Lacki, M. J., and R. A. Lancia. 1983. Changes in soil properties of forests rooted by wild boar.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies. 37:228-236.
Lance, V. A., T. R. Horn, R. M. Elsey, and A. de Peyster. 2006. Chronic incidental lead ingestion
in a group of captive-reared alligators (Alligator mississippiensis): Possible contribution to
reproductive failure. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C 142: 30-35.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 375
Lancia, R. A., C. S. Rosenberry, and M. C. Conner. 2000. Population parameters and their
estimation. Pages 64-83 in S. Demaris and P. R. Krausman, editors. Ecology and
management of large mammals in North America. Prentice-Hall Incorporated, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Lapidge, S., J. Wishart, L. Staples, K. Fagerstone, T. Campbell, and J. Eisemann. 2012.
Development of a feral swine toxic bait (Hog-Gone©) and bait hopper (Hog-Hopper™) in
Australia and the USA. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Management Conference
14:19–24.
Lapidge, S., and C. T. Eason. 2010. Pharmacokinetics and methaemoglobin reductase activity as
determinants of species susceptibility and non-target risks from sodium nitrite
manufactured feral pig baits. Risk Assessment: Invasive Animal Cooperative Research
Center, Adelaide Australia.
Lapidge, S. J., B. Cowled, and M. Smith. 2004. Ecology, genetics and socio-biology: Practical
tools in the design of target-specific feral pig baits and baiting procedures. Proceedings of
the Vertebrate Pest Conference 21:317-322.
LaPointe, D.A. (2006). Feral pigs, introduced mosquitoes, and the decline of Hawai'i's native birds.
USGS Fact Sheet FS-2006-3029.
Larson, G., T. Cucchi, M. Fujita, E. Matisoo-Smith, J. Robins, A. Anderson, B. Rolett, M. Spriggs,
G. Dolman, T. Kim, N. Thi Dieu Thuy, E. Randi, M. Doherty, R. Awe Due, R. Bolit, T.
Djubiantono, B. Griffin, M. Intoh, E. Keane, P. Kirch, K. Li, M. Morwood, L. M. Pedrina.
P. J. Piper, R. J. Ravett, P. Shooter, G. Vende Berg, E. West, S. Wickler, J. Yuan, A.
Cooper, and K. Dobney. 2007. Phylogeny and ancient DNR of Sus provides insights into
Neolithic expansion in Island Southeast Asia and Oceana. 2007. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science. 104:4834-4839.
Laurence, W. F., and G. N. Harrington. 1997. Ecological associations of feeding sites of feral
pigs in the Queensland wet tropics. Wildlife Research 24:579-590.
Leiser, O. P., J. L. Corn, B. S. Schmit, P. S. Keim, and J. T. Foster. 2013. Feral swine brucellosis
in the United States and prospective genomic techniques for disease epidemiology.
Veterinary Microbiology 166: 1-10.
Lipscomb, D. J. 1989. Impacts of feral hogs on longleaf pine regeneration. Southern Journal of
Applied Forestry 13:177-181.
Littin, K. E., D. J. Mellor, B. Warburton and C. T. Eason. 2004. Animal welfare and ethical
issues relevant to the humane control of vertebrate pests. New Zealand Veterinary Journal
52(1):1-10.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 376
Littin, K. E. and D. J. Mellor. 2005. Strategic animal welfare issues: ethical and animal welfare
issues arising from the killing of wildlife for disease control and environmental reasons.
Scientific and Technical Review of the Office International des Epizooties 24(2): 767-782.
Livestock Conservancy. 2014. Heritage Breeds. http://www.livestockconservancy.org
/index.php/heritage. Retrieved February 19, 2014.
Livia, A. 2011. The javelin breeding myth revealed. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. Retrieved
from: http://naturetourism.tamu.edu/2011/09/08/the-javelina-breeding-myth-revealed/
Lombardo, C. A., and K. R. Faulkner. 1999. Eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) from Santa
Rosa Island, Channel Islands National Park, California. Proceedings of the California
Islands Symposium 5:300-306.
Lowe, S., M. Browne, and S. Boudjelas. 2000. 100 of the world's worst invasive alien species : A
selection from the global invasive species database. Invasive Species Specialist Group,
Auckland, New Zealand.
Lowney, M. S., P. Schoenfeld, W. Haglan, and G. W. Witmer. 2005. Overview of the impacts of
feral and introduced ungulates on the environment in the eastern United States and the
Caribbean. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Management Conference 11:64-81
Luangtongkum, S., B. Sanuasoothjaree, T. Chalermchaikit, and K. Kortheerakul. 1986. Rabies in
swine: Natural infection in three cases. Thai Journal of Veterinary medicine 16(3): 159-
164.
LWLF (Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries). 2014. Feral Hog. Website.
http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/wildlife/feral-hog.
Mack, M. C. and C. M. D'Antonio. 1998. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance regimes.
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13:195-198.
MacPhearson, D. 2005. Bullet penetration: modeling the dynamics and incapacitation resulting
from wound trauma. Ballistic Publications, E. Segundo, CA.
Mansfield, T.M., 1978. Wild pig management on a California public hunting area. Transactions of
the Western Section of The Wildlife Society 14:187–201.
Mapston, M. E. 2004. Feral hogs in Texas. Texas Cooperative Extension. 26pp.
http://icwdm.org/publications/pdf/feral%20pig/txferalhogs.pdf.
Martin, J., H. H. Edwards, M. A. Burgess, H. F. Percival, D. E. Fagan, B. E. Gardner, J. G. Ortega-
Ortiz, P. G. Ifju, B. S Evers, T. J. Rambo. 2012. Estimating distribution of hidden objects
with drones: From tennis balls to manatees. Plos 1 7:e38882. 8pp.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 377
Mason, R. J. and P. J. Fleming. 1999. Serological survey for Brucella antibodies in feral pigs
from eastern Australia. Australian Veterinary journal 77:331-332.
Mayer, J. J. 2014. Estimation of the number of wild pigs in the United States. SRNL-STI-2014-
00292, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, Savannah River Site, Aiken South
Carolina. 8 pp.
Mayer, J. J. 2013. Wild pig attacks on humans. Proceedings of the 15th Wildlife Damage
Management Conference 15:17-35
Mayer, J. J. 2009a. Overview of wild pig damage. Pages 221-246 in J. J. Mayer and I. L. Brisbin,
Jr. eds. Biology, damage control techniques and management. SRNL-RP-2009-00869.
Savannah River National Laboratory. Aiken, SC.
Mayer, J. J. 2009b. Other control techniques for wild pigs. Pages 297-314 in J. J. Mayer and I. L.
Brisbin, Jr. eds. Biology, damage control techniques and management. SRNL-RP-2009-
00869. Savannah River National Laboratory. Aiken, SC.
Mayer, J. J. 2009c. Taxonomy and history of wild pigs in the United States. Pages 5-24 in J. J.
Mayer and I. L. Brisbin, Jr. eds. Biology, damage control techniques and management.
SRNL-RP-2009-00869. Savannah River National Laboratory. Aiken, SC
Mayer, J. J. 2009d. Wild pig population biology. Pages 157-192 in J. J. Mayer and I. L. Brisbin,
Jr. eds. Biology, damage control techniques and management. SRNL-RP-2009-00869.
Savannah River National Laboratory. Aiken, SC.
Mayer, J. J. 2009e. Wild pig behavior. Pages 77-104 in J. J. Mayer and I. L. Brisbin, Jr. eds.
Biology, damage control techniques and management. SRNL-RP-2009-00869. Savannah
River National Laboratory. Aiken, SC.
Mayer, J. J. 2005. Wild hog. Pages 374-379 in J.C. Kilgo and J.I. Blake, editors. Ecology and
management of a forested landscape: Fifty years on the Savannah River Site. Island Press,
Washington, DC
Mayer, J. J., and I. L. Brisbin, Jr. (eds.). 2009. Wild Pigs: Biology, damage, control techniques
and management. SRNLRP-2009-00869. Savannah River National Laboratory, Aiken,
SC. 400 pp.
Mayer, J. J., and I. L. Brisbin, Jr. 1993. Distinguishing feral hogs from introduced wild boar and
their hybrids: a review of past and present efforts. pp. 28-49, in Feral Swine: A
Compendium for Resource Managers (C. W. Hanselka and J. F. Cadenhead, eds.). Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, Kerrville, Texas. 169 pp. https://agrilife.org/texnatwildlife/
feral-hogs/distinguishing-feral-hogs-from-introduced-wild-boar/.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 378
Mayer, J. J., and I. L. Brisbin, Jr. 1991. Wild pigs in the United States: Their history, comparative
morphology, and current status. The University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 313 pp..
Mayer, W., and R. Hochegger. 2011. Discrimination of two alleles of the melanocortin receptor 1
gene to discern European wild boar (Sus scrofa scrofa) and domestic pig (Sus scrofa
domestica) in meat products by real-time PCR. European Food Research Technology,
Volume 232:687-692.
Mayer, J. J. and P. E. Johns. 2007. Characterization of wild pig-vehicle collisions. Washington
Savannah River Company, Aiken S.C. and Carolina Wildlife Consultants, New Ellentown,
SC.
Mayer, J. J., R. E. Hamilton, and I. L. Brisbin, Jr. 2009. Use of trained hunting dogs to harvest or
control wild pigs. Page 275-288 in Mayer. J. J. and I. L. Brisbin, Jr. eds. Wild pigs:
biology, damage, control techniques and management. SRNL-RP-2009-00869. Savannah
River National Laboratory, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC. Aiken, SC.
McCann, B. E. and D. K. Garcelon. 2008. Eradication of pigs from Pinnacles National
Monument. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1287-1295.
McCann, B. E., M. J. Malek, R. A. Newman, B. S. Schmit, S. R. Swafford, B. A. Sweitzer, and R.
B. Simmons. 2014. Mitochondrial diversity supports multiple origins for invasive pigs.
Journal of Wildlife Management 78:202-213.
McDaniel, H. A. 1991. Environmental protection during animal disease eradication programmes.
Revue scientifique et technique Office international des Épizooties. 10(3) 867-884.
MDNR (Michigan Department of Natural Resources). 2013. Feral swine in Michigan-a growing
problem. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-10370_12145_55230-230062--
,00.html
MDC (Michigan Department of Conservation). 2013. Feral hog control. http://mdc.mo.gov/your-
property/problem-plants-and-animals/invasive-animals/feral-hog-control.
Melis, C., P. A. Szafranska, B. Jedrzejewska and K. Barton. 2006. Biogeographical variation in
the population density of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in western Eurasia. Journal of
Biogeography 33:803-811.
Meng, X.J., D.S. Lindsay, and N. Sriranganathan. 2009. Wild boars as sources for infectious
diseases in livestock and humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 364:2697-2707.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 379
Mengak, M. 2012. Georgia wild pig survey final report. Warnell School of forestry and natural
resources. University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Mildenburg, D. 2012. Texas drivers, beware feral foe: ‘Those hogs are built solid’. Bloomberg
News. Published November 28, 2012. http://businessweek.com/news/2012-11-28/texas-
feral-hog-wrecks-mark-losing-battle-with-animals#p2.
Miller, B., and K. J. Mullette. 1985. Rehabilitation of an endangered Australian bird: The Lored
Howe Island woodhen Tricholimnas sylvestris (Sclater). Biological Conservation 34:55-
95.
Miller, R. S., and S. J. Sweeney. 2013. Mycobacterium bovis (bovine tuberculosis) in North
American wildlife: current status and opportunities for mitigation of risks of further
infection in wildlife populations. Journal of Epidemiology and Infection. 141(7):1357-70.
Millsap, B. A., G. S. Zimmerman, J. R. Sauer, R. M. Nielson, M. Otto, E. Bjerre, and R. Murphy.
2013. Golden eagle population trends in the western United States: 1968–2010. Journal of
Wildlife Management 77:1436–1448.
Mohr, D., L. W. Cohnstaedt and W. Topp. 2005. Wild boar and red deer affect soil nutrients and
soil biota in steep oak stands of the Eifel. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 37:639-700.
Mourits, M. C. M., M. A. P. M. van Asseldonk, R. B. M. Huirne. 2010. Multi criteria decision
making to evaluate control strategies of contagious animal diseases. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine 96: 201-210.
MSU (Mississippi State University). 2013. Wild pig info: Damage by pigs.
http://wildpiginfo.msstate.edu/damage-caused-by-pigs.html.
MSU (Mississippi State University). 2014. Behavior and Biology of Wild Pigs.
http://wildpiginfo.msstate.edu/ behavior-feral-pigs.html.
Mungal, E. C. 2001. Exotics. Pages 736-764 In S. Demarais and P.R. Krausman, editors. Ecology
and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Muńoz-Igualada, J., J. A. Shivik, F. G. Dominguez, L. Mariano Gonza´lez, A. Aranda Moreno, M.
Fernandex Olalla, and C. Alves Garcıa. 2010. Traditional and new cable restraint systems
to capture fox in central Spain. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:181–187.
NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.
(Accessed: May 30, 2014 ). Data provided by NatureServe in collaboration with Bruce
Patterson, Wes Sechrest, Marcelo Tognelli, Gerardo Ceballos, The Nature Conservancy-
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 380
Migratory Bird Program, Conservation International-CABS, World Wildlife Fund-US, and
Environment Canada-WILDSPACE.
NABCC (National Agricultural Biosecurity Center Consortium). 2004. Carcass disposal: A
comprehensive review. Prepared by the NABCC Carcass Disposal Working Group for the
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Cooperative Agreement 02-1001-
0335-CA. 717pp.
NASS - National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2014. Quick Stats Database.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/.
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. 2013. Sources of lead.
http://dhhs.ne.gov/publichealth/Pages/LeadSources.aspx.
Nettle, V. F., J. L. Corn, G. A. Erikson, and D. A. Jessup. 1989. A survey of wild swine in the
United States for evidence of hog cholera. Journal of Wildife Diseases 25:61-65.
Nielson, D. B., F. J. Wagstaff, and D. Lytle. 1986. Big-game animals on private range.
Rangelands 8(1). Feb, 1986.
NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2008. 2008-2012 National invasive species
management plan. http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/2008-
2012%20National%20Invasive%20Species%20Management%20Plan.pdf.
NISC (National Invasive Species Council). 2005. Five year review of Executive Order 13112 on
invasive species. http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/Five-
Year%20Review-FINAL%20PRINT%20VERSION.pdf
NISC (National Invasive Species Council. 2001. Invasive species national management plan.
http://www.invasivespecies.gov/home_documents/2001%20Invasive%20Species%20Natio
nal%20Management%20Plan.pdf.
Nogueira, S. S. C., S. L. G. Nogueira-Filho, M. Bassford. K. Silvius, and J. M. V. Fragoso. 2007.
Feral pigs in Hawaii: Using behavior and ecology to refine control techniques. Applied
Animal Behavior Science 108:1-11.
Nogueira-Filho, S. L. G., S. S. C. Nogueira, and J. M. B. Fragoso. 2009. Ecological impacts of
feral pigs in the Hawaiian Islands. Biodiversity Conservation 18:3677-3683.
NPS (National Park Service). 2014. A comprehensive review of ungulate management by the
National Park Service: Second century challenges, opportunities, and coherence. Natural
Resource Report NPS/NRSS/BRMD/NRR—2014/898. National Park Service, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 381
NPS (National Park Service). 2013. Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park final plan/EIS for
protecting and restoring native ecosystems by managing non-native ungulates. U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Servce, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii.
http://www.nps.gov/ havo/parknews/20130125_press_release.htm.
NPS (National Park Service). 2006. The Collared Peccary. U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service. Big Bend National Park. Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River.
NPS (National Park Service). 2003. Virgin Islands National Park final environmental assessment:
Sustained reduction plan for non-native wild hogs within Virgin Islands National Park.
April, 2003. http://www.nps.gov/viis/naturescience/ upload/nps_hogs_3002.pdf on March
4, 2014.
NPS (National Park Service). 1995. Report of effects of aircraft overflights on the National Park
System. USDI-NPS D-1062, July, 1995.
Nuńez, M. A., J. Hayward, T. R. Horton, G. C. Amico, R. D. Dimarco, M. N Barrios-Garcia, and
D. Simberloff. 2013. Exotic mammals disperse exotic fungi that promote invasion by
exotic trees. PLoS ONE 8(6):e66832 doi10.1371/journal.pone.0066832.
Nunley, G. L. 1999. The cooperative Texas wildlife damage management program and feral
swine damage management. Pages 27-30 In Proceedings of the Feral Swine Symposium.
Texas Animal Health Commission, June 2-3, 1999. Fort Worth, TX.
NYSDEC (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation). 2014. Ammunition:
Non-lead or lead? Information for big game hunters and meat processors.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/48420.html
Ober, H.K., G.R. Edmondson, W.M. Giuliano, D.L. Wright, J. Atkins, A. Andreasen, S. Eubanks,
L. Johnson, C. Brasher, G. Hicks. 2011. Farmer perceptions of wildlife damage to row
crops in north Florida. University of Florida IFAS Extension. WEC311.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/UW/UW35600.pdf. Accessed 9/19/2013.
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. Undated. How much meat? Oklahoma
Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Food Safety Division.
Osborne, S. and Lindsey, R. 2013. 2012 State of the Climate: Earth’s Surface Temperature.
NOAA. Online. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-
state-climate-earths-surface-temperature.
The Outdoor Foundation. 2013. 2013 Outdoor recreation participation. The Outdoor Foundation,
Boulder, CO. 63pp.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 382
Paarlberg, P. L., J. G. Lee, and A. H. Seitzingeer. 2003. Measuring welfare effects of an FMD
outbreak in the United States. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 35(1):53-65.
Paarlberg, P., J.G. Lee, and A.H. Seitzinger. 2002. Potential revenue impact of an outbreak of foot
and mouth disease in the United States. Journal of the Amererican Veterinary Medical
Association 220:988-992.
Pain, D. J., I. J. Fisher, and V. G. Thomas. 2009. A global update of lead poisoning in terrestrial
birds from ammunition sources. I 99 – 118 In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W.
G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife and
Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID, USA.
http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm
Parkes, J. P., D. S .I. Ramsey, N. Macdonald, K. Walker, S. McKnight, B.S. Cohen, and S.A.
Morrison. 2010. Rapid eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) from Santa Cruz Island,
California. Biological Conservation. 143:634-641.
Pavlov, P., and J. Hone. 1982. The behaviour of feral pigs, Sus scrofa, in flocks of lambing ewes.
Wildlife Research 9:101-109.
Pearson, E. W. 1986. A literature review of livestock losses to predators in the western U.S. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Final Report, Denver, CO.
Pech, R. P., J. C. McIlroy, M. F. Clough, and D. G. Greene. 1992. A microcomputer model for
predicting the spread and control of foot and mouth disease in feral pigs. Proceedings of
the Vertebrate Pest Conference 15:360-364.
Pech, R. P., J. C. McIlroy, M. F. Clough, and D. G. Greene. 1992. A microcomputer model for
predicting the spread and control of foot and mouth disease in feral pigs. Proceedings of the
Vertebrate Pest Conference 15:360-364.
Pederson, K., S. N. Bevins, J. A. Baroch, J. C. Cumbee, Jr., S. C. Chandler, B. S. Woodruff, T. T.
Bigelow and T. J. DeLiberto. 2013. Pseudorabies in feral swine in the United States,
2009-2012. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 49:709-713.
Pederson, K., S. N. Bevins, B. S. Schmit, M. W. Lutman, M. P. Milleson, C. T. Turnage, T. T.
Bigelow, T. J. DeLiberto. 2012. Apparent prevalence of swine brucellosis in feral swine
in the United States. Human-Wildlife Interactions 6(1):38 – 47.
Penn State Extension. 2011. Pigs on pasture. http://extension.psu.edu/business/start-
farming/news/2011/pigs-on-pasture.
Perry, D., and G. Perry. 2008. Improving interactions between animal rights groups and
conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 22(1):27-35.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 383
Pimentel, D. 2007. Environmental and economic costs of vertebrate species invasions into the
United States. In Witmer, G.W., W.C. Pitt, and K.A. Fagerstone, eds, Managing
Vertebrate Invasive species: Proccedings of an International Symposium. Fort Collins,
CO.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=nwrcinvasive
Pimental, D., L. Lach, R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2002. Environmental and economic costs
associated with nonindigenous species in the United States. Pp285-303 In D. Pimental,
editor. Biological invasions: economic and environmental costs of alien plant, animal, and
microbe species. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Pokras, M. A., and M. R. Kneeland. 2009. Understanding lead uptake and effects across species
lines: a conservation medicine based approach. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and
W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of Lead from Spent Ammunition: Implications for Wildlife
and Humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID.
http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm
Poteaux, C., E. Baubet, G. Kaminski, S. Brandt, F. S. Dobson, and C. Baudoin. 2009, Socio-
genetic structure and mating system of a wild boar population. Journal of Zoology,
278:116–125.
Powlson, D. S., A. P. Whitmore, and K. W. T. Goulding. 2011. Soil carbon sequestration to
mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to identify the true and the false.
European Journal of Soil Science, 62: 42–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01342.x
Rattan, J. M., B. J. Higginbotham, D. B. Long, T. A. Campbell. 2010. Exclusion fencing for feral
hogs at white-tailed deer feeders. The Texas Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources
23:83-89.
Rattner, B. A. J. C. Franson, S. R. Sheffield, C. I. Goddard, N. J. Leonard, D. Stang and P. J.
Wingate. 2009. Technical review of the sources and implications of lead ammunition and
fishing tackle on natural resources. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt
(Eds.). Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: implications for wildlife and humans. The
Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID, USA. http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-
lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm
Ray, J. C. 1988. Wild pigs in California: A major threat in California. California Native Plant
Society 16(1):3-8 http://agrilife.org/texnatwildlife/feral-hogs/depredation-problems-
involving-feral-hogs/.
Reidy, M. M., T. A. Campbell, and G. G. Hewitt. 2008. Evaluation of electric fencing to inhibit
feral pig movements. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1012-1018.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 384
Rejmánek, M. 1989. Invasibility of plant communities. Pages 369-388 In J. A. Drake, H. A.
Mooney, F. D. I. Castri, R. H. Groves, F. J. Rejmánek, M. Williamson (eds), Biological
invasions: A global perspective. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, U.K.
Richey, E. J. and C. D. Harrell. 1997. Brucella abortus disease in beef cattle. University of Florida
IFAS Extension.
Risch, A. C., S. Wirthner, M. D. Busse, D. S. Page-Dumroese and M. Schütz. 2010. Grubbing by
wild boars (Sus scrofa L.) and its impact on hardwood forest soil carbon dioxide emissions
in Switzerland. Oecologia 164:773-784.
Rollins, D. 1993. Statewide attitude survey on feral hogs in Texas. Pages 1-8 In C.W. Hanselka
and J.F. Cadenhead, editors. Feral swine: A compendium for resource managers. Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, Kerrville, TX.
Ruiz-Fons, F., J. Segales, and C. Gortazar. 2008. A review of viral diseases of the European wild
boar: Effects of population dynamics and reservoir role. Veterinary Journal 176:158-169.
Sallerni, E, L. GArdin, F. Baglioni and C. Perini. 2013. Effects of wild boar grazing on the yield
of summer truffle (Tuscany, Italy). Acta Mycologica 48:73-80.
Saliki, J. T., S. J. Rodgers, and G. Eskew. 1998. Serosurvey of selected viral and bacterial
diseases in wild swine in Oklahoma. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 34:834-838.
Samoylova, T. I., A. M. Cochran, A. M. Samoylov, B. Schemera, A. H. Breiteneicher, S. S.
Ditchkoff, V. A. Petrenko, and N. R. Cox. 2012. Phage display allows identification of
zona pellucida-binding peptides with species-specific properties: Novel approach for
development of contraceptive vaccines for wildlife. Journal of Biotechnology 162:311-
318.
Samuel, M. D., and M. R. Fuller. 1996. Wildlife radiotelemetry. Pages 370–418. In T. A.
Bookout, ed. Research and management techniques for wildlife and habitats. Fifth edition,
rev. The Wildl. Soc., Bethesda, MD.
Sanchez, R. 2011. Wild boars invade farms, attacks pets. Reuters Edition U.S. Information
obtained from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/29/us-wildboar-newyork-odd-
idUSTRE76S4DP20110729
Sanchez, M., J. L. Gonzalez, M. A. D. Gutierrez, A. C. Guimaraes, L. M. N. Gracia. 2008.
Treatment of animal carcasses in poultry farms using sealed ditches. Bioresource
Technology, 99:7369-7376.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 385
Santill, F., L. G. Alardi and C. Russo. 2005. Corn appetability reduction in wild boar (Sus scrofa)
in relationship to the use of commercial repellents. Annalifac. Med. Vet. Vol 58. Pages
213-218.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2013.
The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2014. Version
3.23.2100. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center, Laurel, MD.
Saunders, G., and H. Bryant. 1988. The evaluation of feral pig eradication program during
simulated exotic disease outbreak. Australian Wildlife Research 15:73–81.
Saunders, G., B. Kay and H. Nicol. 2003. Factors affecting bait uptake and trapping success for
feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in Kosciusko National Park. Wildlife Research 20:653-665.
Scandura, M., L. Iacolina, and M. Apollonio. 2011. Genetic diversity in the European wild boar
Sus scrofa: phylogeography, population structure and wild x domestic hybridization.
Mammal Review 41:125-137.
Scheetz, C.D. and J.D. Rimstidt. 2009. Dissolution, transport, and fate of lead on a shooting range
in the Jefferson National Forest near Blacksburg, VA, USA. Environmental Geology
58:655-665.
Scheuhammer, A. M. 2009. Historical perspective on the hazards of environmental lead from
ammunition and fishing weights in Canada. In R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W.
G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: Implications for wildlife and
humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID, USA.
http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm.
Scheuhammer, A. M., and S. L. Norris. 1995. A review of the environmental impacts of lead
shotshell ammunition and lead fishing weights in Canada. Canadian Wildlife Service
Occasional Paper 88. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, National Wildlife
Research Center, Hull, Quebec, 56pp
Schley, L., and T. J. Roper. 2003. Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular
reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal Review 33:43-56.
Schmidt, R. 1989. Wildlife management and animal welfare. Transactions of the North America
Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 54:468-475.
Schmidt, R. H. 1992. Why bad things happen to good animals. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest
Conference. 15:25-28.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 386
Schuyler, P. T., D. K. Garcelon and S. Escover. 2002. Eradication of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) on
Santa Catalina Island, California. Occasional Papers of the IUCN Species Survival
Commission. 27:274-286.
Scriver, J. H., D. A. Wade, G. E. Connolly, and L. C. Howard Jr. 1985. The effects of predation
on an Angora goat ranch. National Wool Grower 75:10-13.
SCWDS (Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study). 2004. Pseudorabies and brucellosis
problems in feral swine. SCWDS Briefs April 2004. 20(1): 6-7.
SCWDS (Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study). 1982. Feral/wild swine populations
1982. SCWDS, Athens Georgia. Map. 1 pp.
SEAFWA (Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). 2012. 2012 Annual state
summary report. SEAFWA Wild hog working group. 50pp.
Serrano, R., J. Lacasa, J. Velazquez, F. Ziad, and R. Aznar. 1989. Trichinosis: new epidemic
outbreak caused by ingestion of wild-boar sausage. Enferm. Infecc. Microbiol. Clin.
7(8):428-431.
Seward, N.W., K.C. VerCauteren, G.W. Witmer, and R.M. Engeman. 2004. Feral swine impacts
on agriculture and the environment. Sheep and Goat Research Journal 19:34-40.
Shaw, A. 2013. Across south Louisiana, feral hogs uproot sugar cane, rice fields—and levees.
NOLA.com. The Times-Picayune Greater New Orleans, LA. November, 27, 2013.
http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/11/
feral_hogs_uproot_sugar_cane_r.html.
Shivek. J. A. 2004. Non-lethal alternatives for predation management. Sheep and Goat Research
Journal 19:64-741.
Siemann, E., J. A. Carillo, C. A. Gabler, R. Zipp, and W. E. Rogers. 2009. Experimental test of
the impacts of feral hogs on forest dynamics and processes in the southeastern U.S. Forest
Ecology and Management 258:546-553.
Singer, F. J., W. T. Swank, and E. E. C. Clebsch. 1984. Effects of wild pig rooting in a deciduous
forest. The Journal of Wildlife Managementha. 48:464-473.
Singer, F. J, D. K. Otto, A. R. Tipton, and C. P. Hable. 1981. Home Ranges, Movements, and
Habitat Use of European Wild Boar in Tennessee. Journal of Wildlife Management.
45:343-353.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 387
Slate, D. A., R. Owens, G. Connolly, and G. Simmons. 1992. Decision making for wildlife
management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource
Conference 57:51-62.
Smith, S., and D. Read. 2008. Mycorrhizal symbiosis. 3rd. Academic Press, San Diego.
Smith, S. and D. Read. 1997. Mycorrhizal symbiosis 2. ed. San Diego, Academic Press.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and
interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook. 436pp.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051232.pdf
Southwick Associates. 2012. Hunting in America: An economic force for conservation. Produced
for the National Shooting Sports Foundation in partnership with the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies.
http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/HuntingInAmerica_EconomicForceForConservation.pdf
Sparklin, B. D., M. S. Mitchell, L. B. Hanson, D. B. Jolley, and S. S. Ditchkoff. 2009.
Territoriality of feral pigs in a highly persecuted population at Fort Benning, GA. Journal
of Wildlife Management 73:497-502.
Speich, S. M. 1986. Colonial waterbirds. Pages 387−405. In A. Y. Cooperrider, R. J. Boyd, and
H. R. Stuart, eds. Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat. USDI, Bureau of Land
Management Service Center, Denver, CO.
Spencer, P. B., S. J. Lapidge, J. O. Hampton, and J. R. Pluske. 2005. The sociogenetic structure
of a controlled feral pig population. Wildlife Research 32:297-304.
Stankus, T. 2014. Razorbacks: Feral pigs as agricultural pests, disruptors of ecosystems,
reservoirs of contagion, and favored game for sport and subsistence hunters: a review of
literature, 2005-2011. Journal of Agriculture and Food Information 13:283-301.
Sterle, J. 2000. From Pen to Plate: Carcass Composition of Market Hogs. Texas Cooperative
Extension. The Texas A&M University System. https://www.unce.unr.edu/4H/programs/
stem/files/pdf/SwineCarcassQualityTexas.pdf.
Stevens, R. L. 1996. The feral hog in Oklahoma. Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. Ardmore,
OK, USA.
Stone, C. P. 1985. Alien animals in Hawai’i’s native ecosystems: toward controlling the adverse
effects of introduced vertebrates. Pages 251-297 in C. P. Stone and J. M. Scott eds.
Hawaii’s terrestrial ecosystems: Preservation and Management. Proceedings of a 1984
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 388
symposium at Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.
http://hear.org/books/hte1985/#AdobeAcrobatInfo
Sweeney, J. R., J. M. Sweeney, and S. W. Sweeney. 2003. Feral hog. Pages 1164-1179 In G. A.
Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds. Wild mammals of North America.
Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Synatzske, D.R. 1993. The ecological impacts of feral swine. Pages 59-66 In C.W. Hanselka and
J.F. Cadenhead, editors. Feral swine: A compendium for resource managers. Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, Kerrville, TX.
Tanskanen, H., I. Kukkonen, and J. Kaija. 1991. Heavy metal pollution in the environment of a
shooting range. Geological Survey of Finland. Special Paper 12:187-193.
Taylor, R. B. 2003. The feral hog in Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin, Texas, USA.
Unnumbered publication. Accessed online at:
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/nuisance/feral_hogs.
Teel, T. L., R. S. Krannich, and R. H. Schmidt. 2002. Utah stakeholders’ attitudes toward selected
cougar and black bear management practices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(1)2–15.
Terrill, C. E. 1975. Game animals and agriculture. Journal of Animal Science 40(5):1020-1022.
Texas A&M. 2014. Feral hog statewide population growth and density. Institute of Renewable
Natural Resources: Fact Sheet. http://feralhogs.tamu.edu/files/2011/05/
FeralHogFactSheet.pdf.
Texas Wild Hog Relief. 2013. Feral hog accident reports and information. Information obtained
at: http://www.texaswildhogrelief.com/accidents.html.
The Economist. 2013. Death by dehogaflier. Nov 30, 2013. http://www.economist.com/news/
united-states/21590955-high-tech-way-hog-heaven-death-dehogaflier.
The Livestock Conservancy. 2014. Heritage Breeds. http://www.livestockconservancy.org/
index.php/heritage.
The Pig Site. 2012a. The Pig Site Quick Disease Guide – Tuberculosis.
http://www.thepigsite.com/diseaseinfo/127/tuberculosis.
The Pig Site. 2012b. The Pig Site Quick Disease Guide-Toxoplasmosis.
http://www.thepigsite.com/pighealth/article/429/toxoplasmosis-toxoplasma.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 389
The Merck Veterinary Manual. 2012. Leptospirosis in Pigs. Available at:
http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/generalized_conditions/leptospirosis/overview_of_
leptospirosis.html
The Wildlife Society. 2008. Sources and implications of lead ammunition and fishing tackle on
natural resources. Technical Review 08-01 June 2008. 68 pp.
Thompson, R.L. 1977. Feral hogs on national wildlife refuges. Pp11-15 In G.W. Wood, editor.
Research and management of wild hog populations. Belle Baruch Forest Service Inst. of
Clemson Univ., Georgetown, SC.
Thorne, E. T. 2001. Brucellosis. Pages 372–395 in E. S. Williams and I. K. Barker, editors.
Infectious diseases of wild mammals. Blackwell, Ames, IA.
Tiedje, J., J. Cho, A. Murray, D. Treves, B. Xia, J. Zhou, R. Rees, B. Ball, C. Campbell, and C.
Watson. 2001. Soil teeming with life: new frontiers for soil science. Pages 393- 425 in
Rees, R. M., Ball, B. C., Campbell, C. D., and Watson, C. A. eds. 2001. Sustainable
Management of Soil Organic Matter. CABI Publishing. New York, NY.
Tierney, T. A., and J. H. Cushman. 2006. Temporal changes in native and exotic vegetation and
soil characteristics following disturbances by feral pigs in a California grassland.
Biological Invasions 8:1073-1089.
Timmons, J., B. Higgenbotham, R. Lopez, J. Cahey, J. Mellish, J. Griffin, A. Sumrail, and K.
Skow. 2012. Feral hog population growth, density and harvest in Texas. Texas A&M
Agrilife Extention, Texas A&M Institute of Renewable National Resources. SP-472.
http://irnr.tamu.edu/media/355507/sp-472.pdf
Timmons, J., J. C. Cathey, D. Davis, N. Dictson, and M. McFarland. 2011. Feral hogs and disease
concerns. Texas AgriLife Extension Service Publication SP-421.
http://feralhogs.tamu.edu/files/2011/08/Feral-Hogs-and-Disease-Concerns.pdf.
Tolleson, D., W. Rollins, W. Pinchak, M. Ivy, and A. Hierman. 1993. Impact of feral hogs on
groundnesting gamebirds. Pages 76–83 In C. W. Hanselka and J. F. Cadenhead, editors.
Feral swine: a compendium for resource managers. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
College Station, TX.
Tolson, K. M., and J. M. LaCour. 2013. The reproductive potential of feral hogs in Louisiana and
their impact on forestry and agronomic activities. Pages 47-56 In T.F. Shupe and M.S.
Brown, eds. Proceedings of the Louisiana Natural Resources Symposium. Louisiana State
University AgriCenter. Baton Rouge, LA.
Tompkins, S. 2013. Texas losing war on feral hogs. Houston Chronicle, July 24, 2013.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 390
TPW (Texas Parks and Wildlife). 2013. Nuisance wildlife in Texas: Feral hogs.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/nuisance/feral_hogs/.
Tranel, M. A., and R. O. Kimmel. 2009. Impacts of lead ammunition on wildlife, the environment,
and human health—A literature review and implications for Minnesota. Pages 318-337 In
R. T. Watson, M. Fuller, M. Pokras, and W. G. Hunt (Eds.). Ingestion of lead from spent
ammunition: Implications for wildlife and humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID.
http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm.
Twigg, L. E., T. Lowe, G. Martin, and M. Everett. 2005. Feral pigs in north-western Australia:
basic biology, bait consumption and the efficacy of 1080 baits. Wildlife Research 32:281-
296.
Union of Concerned Scientists. 2006. The benefits of pasture-raised swine, poultry and egg
production.
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/gre
ener-eggs-and-ham.pdf .
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014a. Environmental assessment: Feral swine damage
and disease management in Louisiana.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nepa/2014_LA_Feral_Swine_EA_final.pdf
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014b. Environmental assessment: Feral swine damage
management by the Texas Wildlife Services Program
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/TXFeral%20Swine%20EA%20FINAL.p
df
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014c. USDA FY14 Budget Summary and Annual
Performance Plan. http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY14budsum.pdf.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2013a. Feral swine: Damage and disease threats.
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Program Aid No. 2086.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/content/printable_version/feral_s
wine.pdf.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2013b. Facts about brucellosis. USDA Animal and
Plant Inspection Service, Veterinary Services. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
animal_health/animal_diseases/brucellosis/downloads/bruc-facts.pdf.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2013c. Hawaii. Forest Service Research and
Development http://www.fs.fed.us/research/publications/briefing-
papers/fy2013/state/FY%202013%20Hawaii%20PSW.pdf last accessed Dec. 6, 2013.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 391
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2010. Status of Feral Swine in New York State. U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services.
Castleton, NY.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2008. Pseudorabies (Aujeszky’s disease) and its
eradication; A review of the U.S. experience. Technical Bulletin No. 1923. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary
Services. Des Moines, IA.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2006. Risk Assessment: Transmission of bovine
tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) from feral swine to cattle on the island of Molokai. U.
S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary
Services, Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health. Fort Collins, CO. 17pp.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2005a. National Animal Health Emergency
Management System Guidelines, Operational Guidelines: Disposal. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, 4700 River
Road, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2005b. Environmental Assessment: Predator Damage
Management in Colorado. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Inspection
Service, Wildlife Services, Denver, CO.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2002. Management of predation losses to state and
federally endangered, threatened and species of special concern; and feral hog management
to protect other state and federally endangered, threatened and species of special concern,
and candidate species of fauna and flora in the state of Florida. USDA Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, Gainesville, FL.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2014. Concerns rise over known and potential impacts
of lead on wildlife. USGS National Wildlife Health Center
http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2011. 2011 Minerals Yearbook for lead report
(http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lead/myb1-2011-lead.pdf) last
accessed 2/5/14
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2009. Jeepers creepers! Climate change threatens endangered
honeycreepers. Office of Communication. Reston, VA. Online.
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2224&from=rss_home#.VIZrjP6KBaQ
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 1992. Forest-wide animal damage management environmental
assessment for the Toiyabe National Forest U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service
Intermountain Region Report. 65 pp.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 392
USITC (United States International Trade Commission). 2014. Dataweb.
http://dataweb.usitc.gov/.
Van Leeuwen, J. M., and G. J. van Essen. 2002. Health risks between large herbivores, farm
animals, and man. Vakblad Natuurbeheer, (special issue) Grazing and grazing animals.
May 2000, pp 37-39.
Vassant, J. and B. Boisaubert. 1984. Bilan des experimentations enterprises en Haut-Marne pour
réduire les dégâts de sangliers (Sus scrofa) à l’encontre des cultures agricoles. Pages 187–
199 in F. Spitz and D. Pépin, technical coordinators. Symposium International sur le
sanglier (International Wild boar symposium), Toulouse, France. [In French.]
Vilardell, A., X. Capalleras, J. Budo, F. Molist, and P. Pons. 2008. Test of the efficacy of two
chemical repellents in the control of Hermann’s tortoise nest predation. European Journal
of Wildlife Research 54:745-748.
Vincent. A. L., W. Ma, K. Lager, B.H. Janke, and J.A. Richt. 2008. Swine influenza viruses: A
North American perspective. Pages 127-154 In K. Maramorosch, A. J. Shatkin, and F. A.
Murphy. Editors: Advanced in virus research. 72:127-154.
Vinton, M. A., and I. C. Burke. 1995. Interactions between individual plant species and soil
nutrient status in shortgrass steppe. Ecology 76:1116-1133.
Wade, D. A. and J. E. Bowns. 1985. Procedures for evaluating predation on livestock and
wildlife. Bulletin Number B-1429. Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Texas A&M
University, San Angelo, TX.
Waithman, J. D., R. A. Sweitzer, D. V. Vuren, J. D. Drew, A. J. Brinkhaus, I. A. Gardner, and W.
M. Boyce. 1999. Range expansion, population sizes, and management of wild pigs in
California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 63:298-308.
Wall, D. H., R. D. Bardgett, V. Behan-Pelletier, J. E. Herrick, T. H. Jones, K. Ritz, and J. Six.
2012. Soil ecology and ecosystem services. Oxford University Press.
Watts, A. C., J. H. Perry, S. E. Smith, M. A. Burgess, B. E. Wilkinson, Z. Szantoi, P. G. Ifju, and
H. F. Percival. 2010. Small unmanned aircraft systems for low-altitude aerial surveys.
Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1614-1619.
Weeks, P. and J. Packar . 2009. Feral hogs: Invasive species or nature’s bounty? Human
Organization 68: 280–292.
Wegan, M., D. R. Etter, J. R. Belant, D. E. Beyer, Jr., N. J. Svoboda, and T.R . Petroelje. 2014. A
cable neck- restraint to live-capture coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 38:160-164.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 393
Weisenberger, M. E., P. R. Krausman, M. C. Wallace, D. W. De Young, and O. E. Maughan.
1996. Effects of simulated jet aircraft noise on heart rate and behavior of desert ungulates
Journal of Wildlife Management 60:52-61.
West, B. C., A. L. Cooper, and J. B. Armstrong. 2009. Managing wild pigs: A technical guide.
Human-Wildlife Interactions Monograph 1:1-55.
White, C. M., and T. L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled
disturbance. Condor 87:14-22.
Whitehouse, D.B. 1999. Impacts of feral hogs on corporate timberlands in the southeastern
United States. PP. 108-110 in Proceedings of the Feral Swine Symposium June 2-3, 1999.
Ft. Worth, TX.
Wigley, A. 1995. The feral hog: Are they a damaging agent on Texas rangeland? Rangelands
17:189‐190.
Wilcox, J. T., and D. H. Van Vuren. 2009. Wild pigs as predators in oak woodlands in California.
Journal of Mammalogy 90:114-118.
Williams, E.S. and I.K. Barker. 2001. Infectious diseases of wild mammals. Iowa State
University Press. Ames, IA.
Wirthner, S. M. Schütz, D. S. Page-Dumroese, M. D. Busse, J. W. Kirchner and A. C. Risch.
2012. Do changes in soil properties after rooting by wild boars (Sus scrofa) affect
understory vegetation in Swiss hardwood forests? Canadian Journal of Forestry Research
42:585-592.
Wisely, S. 2014. Facts about pseudorabies. University of Florida Agricultural Services
Extension. WEC343
Witmer, G. W., R. B. Sanders, and A. C. Taft. 2003. Feral swine-are they a disease threat to
livestock in the United States? USDA National Wildlife Research Center-Staff
Publications. Paper 292. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwd,_usdanwrc/292.
Wolf, I. and J. Bartz. 2009. Hogs run wild: Feral pig population exploding in Florida and nation,
damaging property. Scripps Howard News Service.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/dec/27/hogs-run-wild-feral-pig-population-
exploding-flori/?print=1.
Wood, G. W. and R. H. Barrett. 1979. Status of wild pigs in the United States. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 7:237-245.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 394
Woodall, P. F. 1983. Distribution and population dynamics of dingoes (Canis familiaris) and
feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in Queensland, 1945-1976. Journal of Applied Ecology 20:85-95.
WWHC (Western Wildlife Health Committee). 2010. A model protocol for purchase, distribution
and use of pharmaceuticals in wildlife. Western Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies. http://www.wafwa.org/pdf/WWHCDrugPrtc2010.pdf.
Wyckoff, A. C., S. E. Henke, T. A. Campbell, D.G. Hewitt, and K.C. VerCaurteren. 2009. Feral
swine contact with domestic swine: A serologic survey and assessment of potential for
disease transmission. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 45(2):422-429.
Zivin, J., B. M. Hueth, and D. Zilberman. 2000. Managing a multiple-use resource: the case of
feral pig management in California rangeland. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 39:189–204.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 395
Appendix C
Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers
A. APHIS Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers
David A. Bergsten
Supervisory Biological Scientist
USDA/APHIS/PPD/ERAS
Riverdale, MD
B.S. Environmental Science
M.S. Entomology
M.P.H. Disease Control
Ph.D. Toxicology
Experience: Expertise in environmental toxicology, chemical fate, and pesticide research. More
than 26 years of experience with APHIS including environmental compliance, field operational
programs, and port inspection work. Experience in preparing environmental documentation for
major APHIS programs in compliance with federal statutes.
Michael J. Bodenchuk
State Director – Texas
USDA-APHIS-WS
San Antonio, TX
B.S. Wildlife Science
Post graduate Coursework NMSU
Experience: 24 years wildlife damage management experience with USDA-APHIS-WS including
17 years designing programs specific to predation management and feral swine management as a
State Director. Conducted feral swine projects in 3 states and in Australia as a visiting scientist. 7
years private sector experience in Texas including land management and consulting
biologist. Conducted wildlife management projects (including feral swine management) in Texas,
New Mexico and Sonora, MX. Experience preparing state-level NEPA analyses in South Dakota,
North Dakota, Utah and Texas.
Fred L. Cunningham
Supervisory Research Biologist, Field Station Project Leader
Starkville, MS
B.S. Animal Science
M.S. Animal Science, Swine Reproduction and Endocrinology
DVM
Experience: 14 years of experience as consultant for swine producers. Owned swine production
system with farms in 6 Midwestern states. 5 years as Clinical Instructor Mississippi State
University. Experience with domestic animal, livestock and wildlife disease management and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 396
epidemiological modeling, risk assessment, database development, RIA development, laboratory
research, and study development.
Paul Michael Darby
Economist
USDA/APHIS/PPD/PAD
Riverdale, MD
Ph.D. Agricultural Economics
Experience: Agricultural Economist with experience in natural resource and policy economics. Six
years of service working on multimillion dollar federal research grants at a land grant university
specializing in bioenergy, forest economics, and economic modeling. APHIS responsibilities
include assessing expected economic effects of proposed APHIS actions and providing economic
expertise, information, and analysis in support of the APHIS mission.
Samantha Bates Floyd
Biological Scientist
Environmental and Risk Analysis Services
USDA/APHIS/PPD/ERAS
Riverdale, MD
B.S. Biology
M.S. Environmental Science and Policy
Experience: Biological Scientist in Environmental and Risk Analysis Services with expertise in
pesticide research and regulatory policy. Over ten years of service with APHIS. Experience in
managing environmental compliance as it relates to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide
Act and prepares and provides assistance on environmental documents for APHIS programs.
Michelle L. Gray
Environmental Protection Specialist
USDA/APHIS/PPD/ERAS
Riverdale, MD
B.S. Biology
M.S. Zoology
Experience: Environmental protection specialist with expertise in wildlife biology and toxicology.
Eleven years of service in APHIS. Experienced in preparing environmental documents for APHIS
programs. Experienced in environmental compliance especially as it relates to the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
Experienced with tribal consultation, environmental justice, and the National Historic Preservation
Act.
Thomas C. Hall
Staff Wildlife Biologist
USDA-APHIS-WS
Fort Collins, CO
B.S. Biology (Natural History)
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 397
B.A. Psychology
M.S. Wildlife Ecology
Experience: Special expertise in wildlife biology, ecology, and damage management . Twenty
nine years of service in APHIS Wildlife Services including operations and research conducting a
wide variety of programs (bird damage research, livestock protection, invasive species
management, wildlife hazard management at airports, natural resource protection, and feral swine
and beaver damage management in the field and office. Experienced in preparing environmental
documents for WS programs to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Endangered Species Act.
Shannon M. Hebert
Staff Biologist, Project Co-lead
USDA-APHIS-WS
Portland, OR
B.S. Animal Science
M. S. Agricultural Science
Experience: 25 years professional experience in federal interdisciplinary environmental
compliance with focus on natural and agricultural resource management. 19 years with APHIS
WS as environmental coordinator with expertise in NEPA, ESA, and other environmental statutes,
regulations and policies governing wildlife damage management.
Beth E. Kabert
Staff Wildlife Biologist
USDA-APHIS-WS
Pittstown, NJ
B.S. Wildlife Biology
Experience: Expertise in wildlife damage management. Over 15 years of service with APHIS-
Wildlife Services. More than 9 years involved with field program wildlife damage management
operations including wildlife disease management and more the 6 years preparing and reviewing
National Environmental Policy Act compliance documents.
Dwight J. LeBlanc
State Director, Louisiana
USDA-APHIS-WS
Port Allen, LA
B.S. Wildlife Management,
M.S. Wildlife Biology
Experience. State Director, USDA Wildlife Services with in addressing wildlife conflicts. Over
35 years of experience with managing and conducting operational wildlife damage projects;
cooperating with state and federal regulatory agencies; field testing bird repellents and damage
management tools; and preparing environmental documents, including ESA Section 7 support
information. Certified Wildlife Biologist
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 398
Erica McDonald
Staff Biologist
USDA-APHIS-WS
Tacoma, WA
B.S. Wildlife Science
Experience: Wildlife biologist for 10 years with APHIS-WS program specializing in wildlife
damage management; including field programs such as wildlife hazard management at airports,
natural resource protection, and disease monitoring in the field. Experienced in the preparation of
environmental documents for WS programs to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
and the Endangered Species Act.
Vivian A. Miller
Environmental Protection Specialist
USDA/APHIS/PPD/ERAS
Riverdale, MD
B.S. Biology
M.Ed. Secondary Education, Biology
Experience: Environmental protection specialist with more than four years of experience in
preparing and reviewing NEPA compliance documents for APHIS.
Dale L. Nolte
Program Manager – APHIS National Feral Swine Damage Management Program
USDA/APHIS/WS
Fort Collins, CO
B.S. Range Ecology
M.S. Range Science
Ph.D. Range Science with emphasis on animal behavior
Experience: Wildlife biologist with experience developing animal damage techniques and
approaches to reduce damage to forest resources and aquatic mammal, conducted research to
address invasive species, WS/NWRC mammal research program manager, WS international
liaison, WS emergency management, WS Assistant Coordinator for NWDP with responsibility for
feral swine disease monitoring activities, coordinate APHIS feral swine operations, research, and
disease monitoring
Daniel L. Smith
Environmental Protection Specialist
USDA/APHIS/PPD/ERAS
Riverdale, MD
B.S. Biology
B.A. Chemistry
M.S. Environmental Science
Experience: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2000-2008. USDA-APHIS, 2008 to present with
experience in Geographic Information Systems and map preparation.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 399
Stephanie Holmes Stephens
Biological Scientist
Environmental and Risk Analysis Services
USDA/APHIS/PPD/ERAS
Park City, UT
B.A. Biology
M.S. Environmental Management
Experience: Biological Scientist in Environmental and Risk Analysis Services with expertise in
regulatory policy and environmental compliance. Twelve years of service with APHIS.
Experience in preparing and managing National Environmental Policy Act documents. Experience
in managing pesticide registration projects for conventional and biochemical pesticides.
Experience in managing animal drug approvals.
Kimberly K. Wagner
Staff Wildlife Biologist, Project Co-lead
USDA-APHIS-WS
Sun Prairie, WI
B.S. Wildlife Ecology
M.S. Wildlife Biology
Ph.D. Wildlife Ecology
Fellow – Berryman Institute for Wildlife Damage Management
Experience: Expertise in wildlife damage management. Over 5 years’ experience in wildlife
damage management research with USDA-APHIS-National Wildlife Research Center. Over 12
years’ experience preparing environmental documentation for APHIS-WS program in compliance
with federal statutes.
Fan Wang-Cahill
Environmental Health Specialist
USDA/APHIS/PPD/ERAS
Riverdale, MD
B.S. Biology
M.S. Hydrobiology
Ph.D. Botany (Ultrastructure/Cell Biology)
Experience: Joined APHIS in 2012, preparing human health risk assessments and providing
assistance on environmental compliance. Prior experience before joining APHIS includes 18 years
environmental consulting experience specializing in human health risk assessments for
environmental contaminants at Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and
state-regulated contaminated facilities.
Jim E. Warren
Environmental Toxicologist
USDA/APHIS/PPD/ERAS
Little Rock, AR
B.S. Forest Ecology
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 400
M.S. Entomology
Ph.D. Environmental Toxicology
Experience: More than seven years of experience working for APHIS preparing ecological risk
assessments and providing assistance on environmental compliance. Prior experience before
joining APHIS includes other government and private sector work regarding ecological risk
assessments related to various environmental regulations.
Tracy A. Willard
Ecologist
USDA/APHIS/PPD/ERAS
Riverdale, MD
B.S. Biology
M.S. Entomology
Ph.D. Entomology
Experience: Ecologist in Environmental and Risk Analysis Services. Thirteen years of service
with APHIS. Experience in environmental compliance, especially as associated with the
Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
B. Cooperating and Consulting Agency Contributors and Reviewers
Assistant Chief Wildlife and Forestry Division
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency
PO Box 40747
Nashville, TN 37204
Troy Bigelow, DVM
Staff Veterinarian
USDA/APHIS/VS/SPRS
Des Moines, IA
210 Walnut Street
Des Moines, IA 50309
Bob Duncan
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
Executive Director
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
4016 West Broad Street
PO Box 11104
Richmond, VA 23230
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 401
Andree Duvarney
National Environmental Coordinator
USDA-NRCS
14th and Independence Ave, SW
Room 6158-S
Washington, DC 20250
Doug Eckery, Ph.D.
Project Leader – Fertility Control
National Wildlife Research Center
USDA APHIS Wildlife Services
4101 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Hank Henry, Certified Wildlife Biologist®
East Region Wildlife Biologist
NRCS - East National Technology Support Center
2901 East Lee Street, Suite 2100
Greensboro, NC 27401
John Klavitter, M.Sc.
National Invasive Species Coordinator
Branch of Wildlife Resources, National Wildlife Refuge System
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Headquarters
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
John J. Mayer, Ph.D.
Manager, Environmental Sciences
Savannah River National Laboratory
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC
Savannah River Site, Bldg. 773-42A
Aiken, SC 29808
Toni Piaggio, Ph.D.
Research Scientist, Wildlife Genetics
National Wildlife Research Center
USDA APHIS Wildlife Services
4101 LaPorte Ave.
Fort Collins, CO 80521
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 402
This page left intentionally blank.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 403
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management
APHIS seeks to reduce feral swine damage to agriculture, natural resources, property, animal health, and human health and safety in
the United States and Territories in a manner consistent with state, territorial and tribal management objectives for the species.
However, variation among states and territories in regulations and management practices for feral swine also complicates efforts to
reduce or eliminate feral swine populations. In, 2013, APHIS-WS asked states for information on their regulations and other feral
swine management practices to aid our understanding of the status of feral swine in the country and the issues which will need to be
addressed by a national feral swine management program. Responses were provided by a combination of state agencies and APHIS-
WS state personnel. * Denotes states which submitted updated information during the comment period for the DEIS
Table 1. State and Territorial Regulations Relevant to Feral Swine Management
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
Alabama Feral swine on the hoof in the wild
regulated by Alabama Department of
Game and Fish; Feral swine in
personal possession or trapped
regulated by Alabama Department of
Agriculture and Industries
Game animal until dead or
trapped, then livestock
All pigs outside captivity
considered wild pigs
Yes
Alaska
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
(ADFG)
Deleterious exotic wildlife State regulations 5 AAC
92.029. Owner has 48 hours
to capture escaped animals.
After 48 hours, owner must
obtain permit from ADFG. If
animals cannot be caught,
ADFG will most likely
destroy them or try to.
No; any Sus scrofa can be
moved if contained in a pen.
Border inspectors would not
be able to tell the difference
between domestic and feral
swine.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 404
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
Alaska (cont.)
Sections (a), (b), and (d)
mostly relate to feral swine.
Pigs (Sus scrofa var.) may be
possessed, imported, etc. and
kept on private land, but not
released to the wild without a
permit from ADFG.
American
Samoa
No Response (NR) (NR) (NR) (NR)
Arizona Arizona Department of Agriculture
(ADA);
Tribes
Excluded from livestock
list
No ADA regulation only states
“swine” which is interpreted
as including feral swine
Arkansas Arkansas Livestock and Poultry
Commission; Unofficially enforced
by Arkansas Game and Fish (ARGF);
ARGF regulates hunting (not backed
by regulatory authority)
Livestock Yes, state laws Yes, state laws & APHIS
regulations
California California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Game mammal Once escaped, considered
wild pigs
APHIS regulations on
interstate movement of
"domestic" swine; California
Department of Food and
Agriculture regulations for
intra-state movement of
swine
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 405
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
Colorado
Colorado Parks and Wildlife;
Colorado Department of Agriculture
No official status Title 35 Article 43-125. No
swine allowed to run at large.
Owner is responsible for three
times the cost of damage plus
fine.
Yes
Connecticut Connecticut Department of
Agriculture
Domestic species State has the authority to
dispose of feral swine under
CGS 22-278.
Yes, CGS 22-278
Delaware Delaware Division of Fish and
Wildlife; Delaware Department of
Agriculture
Invasive Yes, Title 7 -3900 Wildlife
Section 23.2.2 Feral Swine
Yes, Title 7 -3900 Wildlife
Section 23.2.2 Feral Swine
Florida Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission: Florida
Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
Wildlife with no
restrictions on private
land. Some wildlife
management areas have
restrictions/regulations
No Yes, must be registered as a
feral swine dealer and carry
an ID card, keep thorough
records, and follow several
regulations
Georgia Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, Wildlife Resources
Division; Georgia Department of
Agriculture
Feral swine generally
considered invasive
species in Georgia;
however legal definition is
as follows:
O.C.G.A. § 27-1-
2 (28) "Feral hog" means
any hog which is normally
considered domestic but
which is living in a wild
state and cannot be
claimed in private
ownership
Escaped domestic swine fall
under statute O.C.G.A. § 4-3-
1 through § 4-3-12. Feral
swine are not addressed.
Yes, Georgia Department of
Agriculture rule 40-13-2-.09
and statute O.C.G.A. § 27-2-
31
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 406
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
Guam Guam Department of Agriculture -
Division of Aquatic & Wildlife
Resources
Game and invasive Yes, GCA and Title 9 GAR
Chapter 11, hunting
regulations
Yes, territorial vet issues
permits for any entry into
Guam.
Hawaii Hawaii Department of Land and
Natural Resources - Division of
Forestry and Wildlife
Game especially within
state-owned public
hunting areas. Often
treated as unregulated
nuisance on private lands
and invasive especially in
designated natural areas,
national parks and private
preserves.
No regulations that govern
controlling the wild type
swine. HRS Chapter 142
address livestock fencing,
being at large, etc.
SOH-DOA Quarantine
Order No. 54-A (2002): no
feral swine shall be
permitted to leave any
island, or enter any domestic
swine facility for any
purpose; SOH-DOA
Quarantine Order No. 87
(2000) and 87-A (2008):
(concerns of bovine
tuberculosis transmission)
no live feral swine or axis
deer originating from east of
Kamalo Stream, Molokai,
shall be permitted to move
out of this area without the
prior written authority of the
State Veterinarian.
Idaho Idaho State Department of
Agriculture; Idaho Department of
Fish and Game
Invasive Species Yes, Idaho State Department
of Agriculture and Idaho
Department of Fish and Game
Yes, Idaho State Department
of Agriculture and Idaho
Department of Fish and
Game
Illinois Illinois Department of Natural
Resources
Damaging Invasive Yes Yes, state allowed with
permit and health certificate
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 407
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
Indiana Indiana Department of Natural
Resources - Fish & Wildlife Division
Indiana Board of Animal Health
Exotic mammal, invasive
species
Yes – Department of Natural
Resources has regulations.
No regulations from Board of
Animal Health.
Yes
Iowa Iowa Department of Natural
Resources
Non-game, invasive
species
Yes Yes
Kansas Kansas Department of Agriculture Feral Livestock Yes, 47-1809 Yes, 47-1809
Kentucky Kentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
Resources
No formal legal
classification but
considered invasive pest
Yes Yes
Louisiana Louisiana Department. of Wildlife
and Fisheries (LDWF); Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and
Forestry (LDAF) has jurisdiction on
interstate movement
Outlaw Quadruped
(LDWF); Considered
livestock if in enclosed
pen. Depends on
definition. Widely
accepted feral hog
definition is they’re feral if
they lived any part of their
life living free.
Only regulations are that it is
illegal to release swine into
the wild and LDAF law
makes it illegal to free-range
domestic swine. (LRS 3:
2891)
No intrastate
restrictions. LDAF law
requires ID, negative
brucellosis and pseudorabies
test and certificate of
veterinary inspection prior to
entry into state. Can’t
release in wild. (LRS 56:20)
Maine Maine Department of Agriculture,
Conservation and Forestry (MDA)
Stray Livestock Yes, MDA Rules Chapter 223 Yes, need permit for
interstate movement, MDA
Rules Chapter 206
Maryland Maryland Department of Natural
Resources; Maryland Department of
Agriculture
Livestock, pets No, not directly No, not directly
Massachusetts Massachusetts Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife
None Yes, Massachusetts
Department of Agriculture
Yes, importation permit
required
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 408
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
Michigan* Michigan Department of Natural
Resources and Michigan
Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development
Nuisance invasive species Yes, Animals Running at
Large Act 328 of 1976,
Section 433.14a
Yes, state law prohibits feral
swine from entering
Michigan
Minnesota Minnesota Department of Agriculture Eurasian wild pigs and
hybrids thereof are a
"restricted species"
Minnesota Statute 346.16
Running at large is defined
and prohibited; Owner fined
three times cost of damage.
Permits needed for import,
production or movement of
restricted species
Mississippi Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries and Parks
Nuisance No Yes
Missouri Missouri Department of Agriculture Non-game, invasive
species
Yes Yes
Montana Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Illegal if Eurasian origin
or hybrid thereof, no status
if feral domestic
Montana Code Annotated 81-
4-201 outlaws swine running
at large
Yes, Administrative Rules of
Montana 12.6.1541
Nebraska Nebraska Game and Parks; Nebraska
Department of Agriculture
Nongame /Nuisance Yes, state game laws Yes, state game laws
Nevada Nevada Department of Agriculture Stray livestock Yes, Nevada Revised Statute
569
Yes, Nevada Revised Statute
569
New
Hampshire
New Hampshire Department of
Agriculture, Markets and Food; New
Hampshire Fish and Game
Department
No defined status for feral
swine but boar are defined
as "Animals running at
large" or escaped private
property
No designation for feral
swine but yes for escaped
boar
No
New Jersey New Jersey Division of Fish and
Wildlife
No official classification
yet established
Yes, New Jersey Statutes
Annotated 23:4-63.3 and 63.4
Yes, New Jersey Statutes
Annotated 23:4-63.3 and
63.4
New Mexico New Mexico Livestock Board (only
enforces current law)
No official designation Yes, New Mexico Statute 77-
18-6
Yes, New Mexico Statute
77-18-6
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 409
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
New York* New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation,
Division of Fish, Wildlife and Marine
Resources
Not a domestic pig,
invasive species
Free ranging animals
recognized as Eurasian boar
are addressed in NYS ECL
11-0514
NYS ECL 11-0514 prohibits
importation of Eurasian boar
North Carolina North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission; North Carolina
Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
Wild animal/ nongame
animal
Yes, if the release is
deliberate, G.S. 113-291.12
applies
G.S. 106-798 requires all
swine being transported on a
public road to be tagged.
15A NCAC 10B .0101
requires and importation
permit for any wild animal
brought into the state. G.S.
113-274 requires a
transportation permit for
wild animals.
North Dakota North Dakota Board of Animal
Health; Feral Swine Working Group:
USDA-Wildlife Services, USDA-
Veterinary Services, USDA-Forest
Service, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, North Dakota Department of
Agriculture, North Dakota Game and
Fish Department, North Dakota
Department of Health
Stray livestock or illegally
released/escaped non-
traditional livestock
Yes. North Dakota Century
Code Title 36 Chapter 11
"Trespass of Livestock" ;
North Dakota Administrative
Code 48-12-01.1
"Nontraditional Livestock" ;
North Dakota Century Code
Title 36 Chapter 26 "Feral
Swine"
Yes. North Dakota Century
Code Title 36 Chapter 26
"Feral Swine"
Northern
Marianas
Islands
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana
Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife
Game animal and feral
animal
Feral animal control is
permitted, hunting of feral
swine is permitted all year.
Yes, animal import/export
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 410
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
Ohio Ohio Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Wildlife;
Ohio Department of Agriculture
Game Quadruped All free ranging Sus scrofa in
Ohio are referred to as Feral
Swine, gray areas do exist
with known domestic escapes
or pot-bellied pigs
Yes, OAC Chapter 901:1-17
Importation and Health of
Animals: Non-domestic
animals OAC 901:1-17-12 A
(7) and Requirement for
intrastate movement OAC
901:1-11-07 D (1-7)
Oklahoma Oklahoma Department of Agriculture,
Food, and Forestry
Invasive Yes, any swine species
"running at large or free
roaming" is legally
considered feral swine (Title
2, Chapter 1, Article 6,
Section 6-603 of Oklahoma
Statutes)
Import of live feral swine is
prohibited unless moving
directly to slaughter by
permit. Live feral swine
may only be transported
intrastate by licensed
transporters and may only be
moved to a temporary
holding pen, a licensed
handling facility, licensed
sporting facility, or slaughter
plant (Title 2, Chapter 1,
Article 6, Section 6-608 and
6-609 of Oklahoma
Statutes).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 411
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
Oregon Oregon Department of Agriculture;
Oregon Department of Fish &
Wildlife
Predatory Animal per
Oregon Revised Statutes
610 statute, feral swine are
on the top 100 worse
invasive species list
Yes, additional information
and guidelines are available
in the Oregon Feral Swine
Action Plan and several
Oregon Administrative
Regulations (OARs) and
Oregon Regulatory Statutes
(ORSs) OAR 635-058-0000
OAR 635-058-010 OAR
635-058-0020 ORS-510-
Fencing Against Hogs
Yes, Oregon Revised
Statutes 498.052
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture (inside fences);
Pennsylvania Game Commission/
Division of Natural Resources
(outside fences)
Inside fence:
livestock/agriculture;
Outside fence: invasive
nuisance species
No formal regulations, but
new regulations pending.
APHIS regulations but no
state regulations for intra- or
interstate movement
Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Department of Natural
and Environmental Resources; Puerto
Rico Department of Agriculture;
Puerto Rico Department of Health
Exotic invasive species No regulation to penalize
owner for damages caused by
escaped animal
Airport/harbor USDA
regulations
Rhode Island Not formally established. Department
of Environmental Management,
Division of Agriculture and Division
of Fish and Wildlife
Unknown Yes. Rhode Island General
Law 4-14-1 and Rhode Island
General Law 4-15-4
Unknown
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 412
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
South Carolina South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources
Unclassified South Carolina Code 47-7-10
et sec (dealing with estrays),
South Carolina Code 50-16-
25 (release, transport, etc),
50-11-710 (night hunting)
Yes, South Carolina Code
50-16-25
South Dakota South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks
(GFP); South Dakota Animal Industry
Board (AIB)
Not defined No, but GFP's position to kill
any of these animals.
Yes. South Dakota
Administrative Rule
12:68:18:03.
Tennessee Tennessee Wildlife Resources
Agency; Tennessee Department of
Agriculture
Species Deemed
Destructive/Nuisance
No Yes
Texas* Texas AgriLife Extension authorized
to cooperate with federal offices and
agencies for control of Russian Boars
(synonymous with feral swine));
Texas Animal Health Commission
(for disease control purposes)
regulates feral swine holding facilities
and movement of feral swine to
prevent spread of disease); Texas
Parks and Wildlife (requires general
hunting license to take swine, issues
aerial hunting permits, does research
on swine impacts to wildlife); Texas
Department of Agriculture (provides
funding to Texas AgriLife Extension,
funds bounty programs implemented
by some counties); Texas Soil and
Water Conservation Districts (manage
on their properties and control swine
Exotic Livestock Uncontained swine are
"exotic livestock" and
managed in the same way as
truly feral swine
Yes. 4 Tex. Admin. Code
§51.14 (relating to interstate
movement of swine)
4 Tex. Admin. Code §55.9
(relating to intrastate
movement of feral swine)
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 413
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
impacts to soil and water)
Utah None Stray Livestock, invasive
species
No No
Vermont Vermont Fish and Wildlife
Department; Vermont Agency of
Agriculture, Food and Markets
Invasive species No current, but in planning
stages
Yes, Vermont Fish and
Wildlife Department Statue
4709
Virginia Virginia Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services; Virginia
Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries
Livestock, Nuisance
species, pest, agricultural
animal, animal, non-
commercial swine,
domestic animal.
No Yes
Virgin Islands Virgin Islands Department of
Agriculture; Department of Natural
Resources
Stray livestock Yes Yes
Washington WA Department of Fish & Wildlife
(WDFW)
Invasive Species No No
West Virginia West Virginia Division of Natural
Resources (DNR) (hunting); West
Virginia Department of Agriculture
(WDA) (transporting in and out of
state). Wild boar established in the
1970s by stocking Russian boar in
southwest West Virginia managed by
the DNR as a game animal in four
counties; all other swine, feral or
domestic, are regulated by WDA
Wild boar considered
game animals with an
established firearms and
archery hunting season.
Feral swine considered
nuisance animals.
Yes, West Virginia State Law
Chapter 19, Agriculture -
Article 18: General Stock
Law. WDA regulations only
if they have proof of
ownership
Yes, Title 61 Legislative
Rule - Department of
Agriculture - Series 1 -
Animal Disease Control:
Section 61-1-7.16 refers to
Swine and regulates the
importation of swine into the
state
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources;
and Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection
Invasive species and a
Harmful Wild Animal
Yes, NR 16.11, State Statutes
172.01
Yes, NR 40
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 414
State/
U.S. Territory
State agency(ies)/dept.(s) with
management and regulatory
authority for feral swine
Designated Legal
Classification/Status of
feral swine
Are there regulations to
address escaped domestic or
"wild type" swine?
Are there regulations that
prohibit/restrict inter- or
intrastate movement of feral
swine in state?
Wyoming
Wyoming Game and Fish Department
(WGFD, primary); Wyoming
Livestock Board (WLSB, secondary);
Wyoming Department of Agriculture
(WDA, secondary). Determining
agency management and regulatory
authority depends on whether swine
are truly feral as per W.S. 11-48-101
or are species of swine other than
domestic swine
Neither Wyoming Title 23
(Game and
Fish) Statutes or
Wyoming Game and Fish
Commission (WGFC)
Regulations have
a definition of "Feral
Swine", but there are
definitions of "wildlife",
"wild", "and domestic
animals" that relate to the
legal classification/status
of feral swine. WGFC
Chapter 10 Regulation for
the Importation,
Possession,
Confinement, Transportati
on Sale and Disposition of
Live Wildlife prohibits the
importation or possession
of all members of the
family Suidae, expect
domestic swine and pot-
bellied pigs, in
Wyoming. The WDA
statutes do not list feral
swine as a predator species
in Wyoming.
Feral livestock statute W.S.
11-48-101 and 102. WGFC
Chapter 10 Regulation for the
Importation, Possession,
Confinement, Transportation
Sale and Disposition of Live
Wildlife
Yes, W.S. 11-18-103 AND
11-19-101.
WGFC Chapter 10
Regulation for the
Importation, Possession,
Confinement,
Transportation, Sale and
Disposition of Live Wildlife
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 415
Table 2. Legal Status, Management Plan Information, and Population Estimates by State/Territory
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Alabama Game animal
until dead or
trapped, then
livestock
Regulations depend
on status of animal
live or dead and
where located when
live
No, in
development
Local damage
control, long
term eradication
Yes, but only
on
management
areas.
Unknown
population
size but
known range.
Statewide
Alaska Deleterious
exotic wildlife
Regulation 92.029 is
ADF&G, Division
of Wildlife
Conservation’s
primary regulation
related to possessing
“game”, which
includes all wild or
domestic and native
or non-native
mammals, birds, and
reptiles
No Control if
reported
Not needed None None
American
Samoa
(NR) (NR) (NR) (NR) (NR) (NR) (NR)
Arizona Excluded from
livestock list
None No Eradication No Unknown Only in a few
counties
Arkansas Livestock Act 1104 of 2013
"An Act Concerning
Feral Hogs"
No Eradication Yes Unknown Statewide
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 416
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
California
Game mammal California Code
Title 14 Chapter 3 §
350.0 and § 368.0, §
401.0
Yes Game
management
and local control
Yes Unknown Statewide; 57
of 59 counties
Colorado No official status 2 CCR 406-0
Chapter W-0 Article
2 #002-K
No Eradication Yes Unknown Southeast
portion of
state
Connecticut Domestic species Connecticut
Department of
Agriculture CGS 22-
278
No Remove as
needed
No Rare
outbreaks
Not applicable
Delaware Invasive Title 7 -3900
Wildlife Section
23.2.2 Feral Swine
No Eradication but
to date no feral
swine in state.
Regulations are
designed to
prevent
introduction
No None known None
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 417
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Florida Wildlife with no
restrictions on
private land.
Some wildlife
management
areas have
restrictions/
regulations
Wildlife code 68A-
1.004 and 68A-
5.001
No Landowner/
manager
preference
Florida
Department of
Environmental
Protection-
state parks
have some
active control
programs
ongoing.
None by other
agencies
Unknown Statewide
except Florida
Keys.
Georgia Feral swine
generally
considered
invasive species
in Georgia;
however legal
definition is as
follows:
O.C.G.A. § 27-1-
2 (28) "
Feral hog" means
any hog which is
normally
considered
domestic but
which is living in
a wild state and
Georgia Department
of Agriculture 40-
13-2-.09/Feral
Swine; Department
of Natural
Resources 391-4-2-
.30/Feral Hog
Hunting Weapons;
O.C.G.A. § 27-3-
24/Restrictions on
hunting feral hogs;
27-3-13/Hunting of
wildlife or feral hog
from boats, aircraft,
or motor vehicles;
27-1-2
(28)/Definitions
No Invasive pest
management
Yes, but only
on specific
state-owned
properties
Unknown, but
widespread
and excessive
in some areas
In nearly all
counties
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 418
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
cannot be
claimed in
private ownership
Guam Game and
invasive
Title 5 GCA Chapter
63 Article 1 Section
102 - Department of
Agriculture has the
authority to manage
No state plan;
plan in
development
for Department
of Defense
lands
Game
management,
local damage
control
DAWR issues
removal
permits for
residents to
reduce
damage to
property using
a variety of
measures
Unknown Statewide
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 419
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Hawaii Game especially
within state-
owned public
hunting areas.
Often treated as
unregulated
nuisance on
private lands and
invasive
especially in
designated
natural areas,
national parks
and private
preserves
Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS)
Chapter 183D
Wildlife and Title 13
Hawaii
Administrative
Rules (HAR)
Chapter 123
Regulating Game
Mammals
No species-
specific
statewide
management
plan. There are
game
management
plans for some
islands that
include feral
swine. Some
area plans that
also mention
feral swine
Objectives
depends on
purpose of the
land
Yes,
especially in
the Natural
Areas
Preserve
System
Unknown On all main
islands except
Kahoolawe
and Lanai.
Idaho Invasive Species Idaho Code 36-
202(g):; Idaho Code
General Laws
Title 25. Animals
Chapter 23; Idaho
Code 22-1905.
No; established
Feral Swine
Working Group
Eradication Yes Unknown Only in one
localized area
Illinois
Damaging
Invasive
In development No, in
development
Eradication;
reduce impacts
to native
wildlife and
wildlife habitat
Yes,
Cooperative
Program with
APHIS
Wildlife
Services after
acquiring
Two
established
populations;
One area has
been reduced
to
approximately
Established &
self-sustaining
populations
known in two
regions of
Illinois;
encompassing
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 420
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Illinois
(cont.)
landowner
permission to
access land
10 known
individuals;
the second is
estimated to
have > 100
individuals
parts of 5
counties,
reports of
sightings in 22
other counties
Indiana
Exotic mammal,
invasive species,
Swine
312 IAC 9-3-18.6
IC 15-17-3-13; 345
IAC 1-3-13(e)
No Develop or
modify control
techniques,
provide
technical
assistance to
landowners/
agency
personnel,
collect DNA for
forensic
application to
illegal transport/
release, disease
monitoring,
protect public
and domestic
swine herds
from diseases
associated with
feral swine
Yes, for some
agencies
involved
Unknown Limited
distribution,
primarily 3-4
counties with
smaller
populations in
3-4 other
counties,
possible
unknown
populations
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 421
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Iowa
Non-game,
invasive species
Iowa Senate File
564: An Act
Regulating
Dangerous Wild
Animals
Yes Local damage
control and
eradication
Not needed Sporadic
outbreaks
Only in a few
counties
Kansas Feral Livestock KSA 47-1809 No Eradication Yes, provides
funds to
APHIS
Wildlife
Services
800 Southern
counties
Kentucky No formal legal
classification but
considered
invasive pest
KRS 150.186 and
301 KAR 3:030
No, in progress Eradication Yes Unknown Statewide but
locally
isolated
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 422
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Louisiana Outlaw
Quadruped
LA RS 56:20, RS
3:2891
No LADWF: Public
education on
damage control,
harvest
strategies and
personal
protective
procedures for
disease. LDA:
Population
control, local
damage control,
information on
diseases spread
by feral swine
No. Feral
swine
harvested by
state agency
for disease
monitoring
only.
~500,000
(LADWF
estimate)
Statewide
Maine Stray Livestock Maine Revised
Statute Title 7
§1341-1347;
Department of
Agriculture rules
Chapter 206, 223
No Disease
prevention and
prevention of
establishment of
feral populations
Not needed None Not applicable
Maryland Livestock, pets None No Prevention No No known
populations of
feral swine
Not applicable
Massachu-
setts
None None No, in
development
Prevent
Establishment or
Eradication
No None Not applicable
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 423
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Michigan* Nuisance
invasive species
Part 413 of
Michigan's Natural
Resource and
Environmental
Protection Act :
2010 Invasive
Species Order,
Animals Running at
Large Act 328 of
1976, Section
433.14a
No, in
development
Eradication Yes, technical
assistance
only
Unknown In 76 of 83
Counties
Minnesota Eurasian wild
pigs and hybrids
thereof are a
"restricted
species"
Minnesota Statutes
17.457 - Restricted
Species
No None No None, isolated
incidence of
escaped
domestic
swine
Not applicable
Mississippi Nuisance 40 Mississippi
Administrative Code
Pt 2 Rule 7.1
No Eradication
where possible,
local damage
control
No, planned Unknown Statewide,
>38% of land
area is
occupied with
wild hogs
Missouri Non-game,
invasive species
Missouri Revised
Statutes: 270.260,
270.270 270.400
Yes Eradication Yes Estimated
10,000 to
15,000
Isolated
locations in
southern third
of state
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 424
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Montana
Illegal if Eurasian
origin or hybrid
thereof, no status
if feral domestic
ARM 12.6.1541,
ARM 12.6.1540
Zero tolerance
of any feral
swine
Zero tolerance
of feral swine,
eradication of
any known feral
swine
populations
No <20 Unknown if
any
Nebraska Nongame
/Nuisance
Nebraska RS 37-
524.01
No No tolerance
eradication
No None Not applicable
Nevada Stray livestock NRS 569 No None No Unknown,
sporadic
outbreaks
Only a few
counties
New
Hampshire
No official status
for feral swine
but boar are
defined as
"Animals running
at large" or
escaped private
property
"Running at large"
RSA 467:3
No Eradication Yes in
cooperation
with APHIS-
WS as lead
investigator
100-250 Verified in 4
counties but
concentrated
in western part
of state
New Jersey
No official
classification yet
established
NJSA 23:4-63.3 NJDFW, New
Jersey
Department. of
Health
(NJDH), and
US Department
of Agriculture
developed
Eradication APHIS
Wildlife
Services New
Jersey (WS)
and NJDFW
cooperatively
trapping
Gloucester
<50 Gloucester
County only
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 425
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
New Jersey
(cont.)
feral swine
eradication
plan involving
the one feral
swine
population in
Gloucester
County, NJ.
County
population and
occasionally
set up bait and
shoot. Deer
hunters can
take swine in
this area and
must report to
NJDFW so
that WS or
NJDH can
collect
samples
New Mexico No official
designation
NM Statute 77-18-6 Yes Eradication Yes Unknown Approximate-
ly half of
counties in
state
New York
Not a domestic
pig, invasive
species
Environmental
Conservation Law
11-0103, 11-0514,
and 71-0925.
Currently using
New York feral
swine damage
management
environmental
assessment and
Feral Swine
Management
Protocol
Eradication Yes, with
APHIS
Wildlife
Services as the
primary agent
to implement
goal
< 500 Breeding
population in
5 counties,
feral swine
noted in 21
other counties.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 426
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
North
Carolina
Wild animal/
nongame animal
15A NCAC 10B
.0101; 15A NCAC
10B .0223; 15A
NACA 10B .0303;
G.S. 106-798; G.S.
113-291.12
No No formal
management
objectives
defined, desire
is to slow or
stop the spread
in distribution of
feral swine on
the landscape
and, where
possible, reduce
or eradicate
populations that
are already
established.
No, with the
exception of
APHIS
Wildlife
Services on
select
properties and
the NC
Wildlife
Resources
Commission
on one game
land
Unknown Several
populations
spread
throughout the
state.
North
Dakota
Stray livestock or
illegally
released/escaped
non-traditional
livestock
North Dakota
Century Code Title
36 Chapter 26 "Feral
Swine"
No Eradication Yes Unknown,
sporadic
outbreaks
Removed in a
few counties
and unverified
reports
statewide
Northern
Marianas
Islands
Game animal and
feral animal
Title 85-30-1
Northern Marianas
Administrative Code
No Management,
damage control
No Unknown Statewide, all
inhabited
islands.
Ohio
Game Quadruped Ohio Division of
Wildlife Definitions
ORC 1531.01 (V)
and Seasons for
Yes Eradication Yes, through
APHIS
Wildlife
Services
Between 1000
and 5000
Established
breeding
populations
exist in the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 427
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Ohio
(cont.)
game birds, game
quadrupeds and
furbearing animals.
OAC 1501:31-15-17
(J)
southeast,
unglaciated
portion of the
state, isolated
emergent
populations in
the rest of the
state
Oklahoma Invasive Feral Swine Control
Act (Title 2, Chapter
1, Article 6 of OK
Statutes) and
Oklahoma
Department of
Agriculture
Administrative
Rules (Title 35,
Chapter 15,
Subchapter 34 of
Oklahoma
Administrative
Code)
No Local damage
control
Yes Unknown Statewide
Oregon
Predatory
Animal per
Oregon Revised
Statutes 610,
feral swine are on
the top 100 worse
OAR 635-058
OAR 635-058-0010
OAR 635-058-0020
ORS 603-010-0055
ORS 610.002 ORS
610.105
Yes, The Feral
Swine Action
Plan for
Oregon
Eradication Yes, but
limited
2,000 - 5,000 Primarily
North Central
Oregon (6
counties) and
to a lesser
extent
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 428
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Oregon
(cont.)
invasive species
list
Southwest
Oregon
Penn-
sylvania
Inside fence:
livestock/agricult
ure;
Outside fence:
invasive nuisance
species
No formal
regulations, new law
regulations pending.
No Eradication No Unknown
Formal study
contracted for
one part of
state
Sighted in at
least 15 of ~80
counties,
primarily NE
Central and
SW Central
Puerto Rico
Exotic invasive
species
Commonwealth
regulation 6765,
under
Commonwealth act
241, Appendix A,
list of invasive
species
No Control and if
possible
eradication on
main island and
Mona Island. In
Mona Island it is
controlled by
sport hunting
(game animal)
In mainland, is
a recent event
now under
research. In
Mona Island it
is hunted as a
game animal.
No estimates
for mainland,
but in ~154.4
ha of the
municipality
of Aguas
Buenas, from
~2003 to
September
2013, nearly
250 wild pigs
have been
trapped by
farmers. In
Mona Island,
Louson (1965)
estimated 700
pigs, and
DNER
Reported
mostly within
central
municipalities:
Aguas
Buenas,
Barranquitas,
Comerío,
Corozal and
Naranjito.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 429
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Puerto Rico
(cont.)
Biologist
Gustavo
Olivieri
estimated
400-1300 pigs
for Mona
Island in 2012
Rhode
Island
Unknown Title 4 and 20 of RI
General Laws
No As there is
currently no
formal
management
plan there is no
formal
objective.
Primary concern
at this point is to
prevent
population from
becoming
established.
No None Does not
occur
South
Carolina
Unclassified 50-16-25 Unlawful
release of pigs
No Control spread,
local
eradication,
damage control
Generally no,
but yes on
certain
WMA's.
150,000 Present in
parts of all 46
counties.
Densities vary
dramatically.
South
Dakota
Not defined SD Administrative
Rule 12:68:18:03.01
Specifically
No None stated, but
we have a zero
tolerance policy.
Not at this
time.
None, they do
not occur here
at this time.
None
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 430
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
South
Dakota
(cont.)
prohibited
nondomestic
mammals.
Tennessee Species Deemed
Destructive/
Nuisance
TCA 74 - 107, TCA
74 - 133, TN Fish
and Wildlife
Commission
Proclamation 13-09
In progress Eradication Yes estimated at
130,000
60 % of the
state
Texas Exotic Livestock Texas Health and
Safety Code Title 10
§ 825.001, Texas
parks and Wildlife
Code Title 5 §
42.002, Texas
Agriculture Code, §
161.0412, .054,
.1375 & .150; Texas
Administrative Code
Title 4 § 55.9
Only Texas
AgriLife
Extension has a
written
management
strategy
No universal
objective.
Objectives vary
among agencies
depending upon
authority
Yes. State
removes
approximately
20,000 feral
swine per year
for damage
management
1.8-3.4 million
swine
(average 2.6
million)
Statewide;
all counties
except one
have
documented
feral swine,
However,
there is no
known
reproduction
in about 10
counties.
Utah Stray Livestock,
invasive species
4-25-12.1. Release
of swine for hunting
purposes.
No Prevention and
eradication
No Unknown Only in a few
counties
Vermont Invasive species 4709 importation,
stocking wild
animals, possession
of wild Boar
No Eradication No, planning Unknown Unknown
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 431
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Virginia Livestock,
Nuisance species,
pest, agricultural
animal, animal,
non-commercial
swine, domestic
animal.
Code 3.2-700, 5400
and 6500; 29.1-100,
511, 520B, 521A1,
521A4 and 530;
Regulations
2VACS(5?)-141-10;
2VAC5-141-120;
4VAC15-20-50;
4VAC15-20-160
No Eradication,
local damage
control
No, planned 5,000 widely
distributed in
small disjunct
populations.
Statewide in
small disjunct
populations.
Virgin
Islands
Stray livestock N/A No Erosion control;
T&E protection;
Crop protection
NO Sporadic
outbreaks
In small
pockets
Washington Invasive Species None No Eradication No No Known
Breeding
Population
No Known
Population
West
Virginia
Wild boar
considered game
animals with an
established
firearms and
archery hunting
season. Feral
swine considered
nuisance animals.
Title 61 Legislative
Rule - Department
of Agriculture -
Series 1 - Animal
Disease Control:
Section 61-1-7.16
refers to Swine; and
WV State Law -
Chapter 19,
Agriculture - Article
18: General Stock
Law
No, in
development
Allow for
hunting seasons
within the wild
boar
management
area based on
population
fluctuations and
resident hunter
demand. Protect
the genetic
strain of wild
boar within the
Yes for DNR,
in cooperation
with APHIS
Wildlife
Services but
not for WDA
Unknown,
with sporadic
outbreaks in
southern areas
of state
40 to 50
percent of
counties have
reported feral
swine
sightings since
records have
been recorded
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 432
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
West
Virginia
(cont.)
wild boar
management
area from being
contaminated by
feral swine
populations.
Provide hunting
opportunities
within the wild
boar
management
area for 1,500
wild boar
hunters. All
other feral swine
populations
should be
eliminate, if
possible. WDA
- test and
eradication,
damage control
Wisconsin Invasive species
and a Harmful
Wild Animal
WI DNR, NR
Chapters 10,12,16,
and 40 address feral
swine
No Eradication Very little < 50 Breeding
population
known in one
county.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 433
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Wyoming
Neither
Wyoming Title
23 (Game and
Fish) Statutes or
Wyoming Game
and Fish
Commission
(WGFC)
Regulations have
a definition of
"Feral Swine",
but there are
definitions of
"wildlife",
"wild", "and
domestic
animals" that
relate to the legal
classification/stat
us of feral
swine. WGFC
Chapter 10
Regulation for
the Importation,
Possession,
Confinement,
Transportation
Sale and
W.S 11-48-101 and
102 Feral; W.S. 23-
1-302 and WGFC
Chapter 10
Regulation for the
Importation,
Possession,
Confinement, Trans
portation Sale and
Disposition of Live
Wildlife
No WGFD does not
have written
state
management
objectives,
intent and desire
to prevent feral
hogs from
becoming
established in
Wyoming and
address any feral
hog that are
found in the
state in an
appropriate,
aggressive and
timely fashion.
No None Not applicable
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 434
State/
U.S.
Territory
Designated legal
classification/
status of feral
swine
Primary
statute/regulations
for feral swine
Is there a
written
management
plan for feral
swine?
State
management
objectives
Is state
engaged in an
active feral
swine damage
control
program?
Current
agency(ies)
statewide
feral swine
population
estimate
Distribution
of feral swine
Wyoming
(cont.)
Disposition of
Live Wildlife
prohibits the
importation or
possession of all
members of the
family Suidae,
expect domestic
swine and pot-
bellied pigs, in
Wyoming. The
WDA statutes do
not list feral
swine as a
predator species
in Wyoming.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 435
Table 3: Information on Hunting for Feral Swine by State/Territory
State
Is Feral Swine
Hunting
Allowed?
Are there Restrictions on Killing
Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?
Is Sale of Hunting
Opportunities for Free-
Ranging Swine on Private
Land Allowed?
Alabama Yes Hunting license required to hunt, but
not if causing damage outside of
hunting season
Yes if hogs are present, preserve
cannot bring them in to hunt
Yes
Alaska Yes Land status restrictions, no hunting in
a city, on private property or in
National Park
Yes No, they cannot be free-
ranging; must be confined
American
Samoa
(NR) (NR) (NR) (NR)
Arizona No No Yes, but only one in state which
recently had its permit expire
Yes
Arkansas Yes Hunting license required Yes Yes
California Yes Hunting license required unless a
depredation permit is provided or
landowner or agent encounters pig
doing damage
Yes Yes
Colorado Yes No One grandfathered No
Connecticut No No No No
Delaware No Permit from Division required No No
Florida Yes No restrictions on private lands Yes Yes
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 436
State
Is Feral Swine
Hunting
Allowed?
Are there Restrictions on Killing
Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?
Is Sale of Hunting
Opportunities for Free-
Ranging Swine on Private
Land Allowed?
Georgia Yes On private lands: Hunting license
required, may be hunted year round,
no limit, night hunting allowed, light
allowed, bait allowed. No hunting
from a vehicle, except by permit.
On public lands: restrictions vary by
location, more restrictive than on
private lands.
Yes Yes
Guam Yes Hunting license or a revocable
removal permit required
Yes, but do not exist in state Yes, not aware of any
existing
Hawaii Yes Hunting license required for public
lands. No restrictions if causing
damage, however, if a permit is
requested, one may be issued.
Yes Yes
Idaho Yes Hunting license required Yes No
Illinois Yes No, not at this time Yes Yes
Indiana Yes No, but hunting only with landowner
permission.
No No
Iowa Yes No Yes No
Kansas No No sport hunting No No
Kentucky* Yes Hunting license required; daylight
hours hunting only
No: KRS 150.186 prohibits
possession of feral swine and
provides that only domestic swine
may be legally possessed for
legitimate agricultural purposes.
Yes
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 437
State
Is Feral Swine
Hunting
Allowed?
Are there Restrictions on Killing
Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?
Is Sale of Hunting
Opportunities for Free-
Ranging Swine on Private
Land Allowed?
Louisiana Yes Basic hunting license required to shoot
or live trap. Trapping license required
to snare.
Yes Yes
Maine No Yes Yes by permit and capped number Yes, only permitted fenced
areas
Maryland No No, but there are potential hurdles in
local animal cruelty laws
No No
Massachusetts No Yes No No
Michigan* Yes Must have hunting license on public
land, must have landowner permission
on private land
Yes, however, not allowed to have
Russian boar
No
Minnesota No Eurasian wild boars, their hybrids, and
domestic swine at large are not
protected and may be shot however,
feral swine are not considered a game
species therefore there is no hunting
season.
No, although two facilities were
grandfathered in before the ban on
feral swine hunting preserves was
put in place. One of these sites
allows hunting and the other raises
swine for meat production
No
Mississippi Yes License for hunting on private
land/public lands beyond being the
titled landowner
No Yes
Missouri Yes Yes, but only during firearm deer and
turkey seasons
Yes Yes
Montana Yes No No No
Nebraska No Yes No No
Nevada No Yes No No
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 438
State
Is Feral Swine
Hunting
Allowed?
Are there Restrictions on Killing
Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?
Is Sale of Hunting
Opportunities for Free-
Ranging Swine on Private
Land Allowed?
New
Hampshire
Yes Current regular NH hunting license
required. Feral swine are considered
escaped private property and may only
be hunted with permission of the
property owner per New Hampshire
RSA 467.
Yes Yes
New Jersey Yes Hunting of feral swine allowed during
deer seasons in areas identified as
having hogs. Hunters would need
permission to be on private land.
Special wildlife management permit
issued to local golf course by the NJ
Div. of Fish and Wildlife for take
outside of deer seasons.
No, hunting preserves cannot have
hogs.
No, population so small this
is not an issue.
New Mexico Yes No No, not for feral swine No
New York* No Yes, Hunting of all feral swine is
illegal. Landowners suffering swine
damage can get a permit to kill free-
ranging Eurasian boar.
Yes, but hunting preserves cannot
possess Eurasian boar after
September 1, 2015
Only on enclosed hunting
preserves and only until
August 31, 2015.
North Carolina Yes Hunting license required for hunting.
No license required for swine causing
damage
No Yes, as long as the feral
swine were not stocked and
are not fenced
North Dakota No Yes North Dakota does not define
"Hunting Preserves". Individuals
who have captive, privately owned
swine and meet the requirements in
North Dakota Administrative Code
48-12-02.1-01 may operate freely.
No
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 439
State
Is Feral Swine
Hunting
Allowed?
Are there Restrictions on Killing
Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?
Is Sale of Hunting
Opportunities for Free-
Ranging Swine on Private
Land Allowed?
Northern
Marianas
Islands
Yes Weapon restrictions only No Yes; private land access can
be sold, but authority to hunt
is exclusively regulated by
Division of Fish and Wildlife
Ohio Yes No closed season, no bag limit, no
license required if hunting or trapping
on own property, otherwise, license
required
Yes Yes
Oklahoma Yes Hunting license not required on private
lands. License required on public
lands. If hunting occurs during a
current game animal hunting season, a
tag for that appropriate game animal is
required. Night hunting and aerial
hunting requires permit.
Yes Yes
Oregon Yes Feral swine not a game animal,
defined as "predatory" animals and
nothing in the state law prohibits a
landowner or their agent from
eradicating them. No hunting licenses
are required, state law requires
landowners aware of the presence of
feral swine on their land to develop a
plan to eliminate them.
No No
Pennsylvania Yes Hunting license required to remove
free-ranging swine. Hunter must be
engaged in some other type of hunting.
Hunter take must be reported.
Spearing is allowed.
Yes Yes
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 440
State
Is Feral Swine
Hunting
Allowed?
Are there Restrictions on Killing
Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?
Is Sale of Hunting
Opportunities for Free-
Ranging Swine on Private
Land Allowed?
Puerto Rico Yes, Mona
Island only
Farmer can legally euthanize the
animal if there is no owner and is
causing damages.
Yes, only in Mona Island. Could be
considered in the near future for
mainland.
No
Rhode Island No Unknown No No
South Carolina Yes Hunting license required if hunting,
some restrictions on night time
activities
Yes Yes
South Dakota No No No No
Tennessee No Yes Yes, but no new preserves allowed Yes
Texas Yes Hunting license required to shoot feral
swine, but landowner or agent may
shoot unlimited swine if they are doing
damage
Yes Yes
Utah No No, releasing them for hunting
purposes is illegal
No No
Vermont No (undefined) No (undefined) None permitted at this time. No
Virginia Yes No, unless someone claims them No Yes for free-ranging, but not
for enclosures.
Virgin Islands No Yes No No
Washington Yes No Yes No
West Virginia Yes No, but there are no established
hunting seasons for feral swine
Yes Yes
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 441
State
Is Feral Swine
Hunting
Allowed?
Are there Restrictions on Killing
Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?
Is Sale of Hunting
Opportunities for Free-
Ranging Swine on Private
Land Allowed?
Wisconsin Yes Hunting license required when hunting
on public land or land the hunter does
not own. Property owners are exempt
from license requirement while
hunting on land they own.
No Yes, as long as they are not
within a fence
Wyoming No No authorized hunting seasons for
feral swine. Wyoming restrictions
would be for swine being declared
feral (11-48-101 and 11-48-102) or
illegally imported/possessed and the
statutory/regulatory process to lethally
remove them. No Wyoming laws
preventing the general public from
killing feral swine.
No No
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 442
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 443
APPENDIX E
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOL
This Appendix provides tables summarizing potential risks to federally-listed candidate, proposed, threatened, endangered species from the proposed
FSDM activities. The table also provides examples of SOPs and mitigation measures which may be implemented to reduce or eliminate risks. The
table is intended as a blueprint to aid APHIS-WS state, territory and tribal level consultations and conferences with the FWS on risks to federally-
listed species.
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Technical assistance
Alternatives 1,
2, 3 and 4
No Effect None None
National level
outreach expanded,
including public
education and
information/
assistance with
state/territorial/tribal
regulatory
mechanisms.
Alternatives 2,
and 4
No Effect None None
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 444
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Frightening devices Pyrotechnics,
other sounds,
strobe lights,
other visual
deterrents
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
May affect Disturbance Terrestrial
vertebrates
Auditory and visual devices to
frighten feral swine are likely to
also disperse non-targets,
including T&E species.
However, potential impacts are
expected to be temporary with
both target and non-target species
returning after cessation of
dispersal methods.
Feral swine become quickly
habituated to the use of
frightening devices. Thus, the use
of such devices would likely be
minimal due to their limited
effectiveness.
Devices would primarily be
deployed at airports and to protect
agriculture crops/livestock during
periods when crops or livestock
are particularly vulnerable. These
areas are not generally the types
of habitats commonly used by
T&E species.
Site specific
determinations would be
made to determine effect.
These methods are not
likely to adversely affect
T&E species with
avoidance (i.e., not using
the method in places
where the T&E species
occurs) or other practices
and may have no effect.
Section 7 consultations
are either in place locally
and/or would be
completed or updated for
this method as applicable.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 445
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Method use may be avoided
where T&E species may be
found, or methods may be
avoided during seasons when
species are vulnerable to
disturbance.
Monitoring to
locate/track swine
Judas pig
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
Telemetry
collar: No
Effect
None None
Capture:
effect
depends on
trap
method
used
See discussions on trapping methods.
Aerial location
of swine
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
May affect 1) Disturbance
from aircraft
2) Disturbance
and trampling by
ground crews
Terrestrial
vertebrates and
plants
Flight passes are brief and not of
sufficient duration or frequency to
constitute a chronic disturbance
(see attached text on aerial
shooting).
Coordination with FWS,
state/territorial/tribal resource
agencies, land management
With avoidance and other
practices, this method
would have either no
effect or would not be
likely to adversely affect
terrestrial birds and
mammals.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 446
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
agencies and/or landowners
identifies areas where listed
species may be affected.
Sensitive areas can be avoided or
pilots watch for individuals and
avoid. For example in Nevada,
sage grouse leks are avoided as
specified in work plans
coordinated with BLM. In some
areas it may be possible to adjust
time of flight (season or time of
day) and distance from sensitive
areas (e.g., sage grouse leks) to
avoid disturbance of breeding
birds.
Effects of ground crews are
addressed in section on vehicular
site access below.
Section 7 consultations
are either in place locally
and/or would be
completed or updated for
this method as applicable.
Tracking dogs
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
May affect Disturbance Terrestrial
vertebrates
APHIS-WS would not release
dogs in areas where they may
disturb listed species (e.g.
tracking dogs may not be used in
occupied habitat of the southwest
willow flycatcher during nesting
season).
Adverse effects are not
likely or no effect.
Section 7 consultations
are either in place locally
and/or would be
completed or updated for
this method as applicable.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 447
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
In accordance with APHIS-WS
policy (APHIS-WS Directive
2.445), all dogs used by APHIS-
WS employees must be trained in
the skills necessary to perform a
specific WDM task and be
controllable at all times.
Coordination with FWS, state/
territorial/tribal natural resource
management agencies, land
management agencies and/or
landowners identifies areas where
listed species may be affected.
Monitoring for
diseases in feral
swine
Capture
(depends on
method used)
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
See effects
below
See discussion under individual capture methods.
Sample
collection
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
No Effect None None
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 448
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
GonaCon/
reproduction
inhibitors
Currently only
formulated for
use as
injection.
Formulation for
oral ingestion
under
development
and not
currently
proposed for
operational use.
No Effect None None Available toxicity data for GnRH
suggests the active ingredient is
practically non-toxic to mammals.
This is reflected in the lowest
toxicity (Category IV) for acute
oral, dermal, inhalation, and
ocular exposure routes determined
by USEPA/Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP).
There is no known danger
associated to humans or wildlife
from eating animals that have
been vaccinated with GonaCon™.
In 2009, the EPA determined
there is little likelihood of dietary
exposure or impacts to humans
who consume meat from a treated
doe. As with other vaccines, such
as those used with livestock, both
the vaccine and the antibodies
produced are proteins. Once
ingested, they are broken down by
stomach acids and enzymes.
Similar injectable hormone-
altering products are used
EPA registration of
GonaCon would likely
include ESA Section 7
consultation prior to
approval. Associated
endangered species
considerations and use
restriction would be
included on the product
label or in EPA’s
Bulletins Live system.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 449
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
routinely in livestock
applications.
Killing methods Sodium nitrite
Under
development.
Not currently
proposed for
use.
May affect 1) Poisoning non-
targets that can
ingest treated bait
and animals that
ingest treated
species.
2) Trampling
1) All
terrestrial
vertebrate
species
2) Plants in
vicinity of
feeder
1) Toxicity of nitrite to non-target
organisms such as mammals and
birds is moderate to high based on
acute oral dosing studies.
Exposure and risk to terrestrial
non-target organisms is greatest
for those animals that have access
to and are likely to eat the bait
material. Risks to non-target
species can be reduced through
bait formulation, selection
delivery system (feeder type), bait
placement, and avoiding use
during periods when vulnerable
migratory species may be present.
Product would not be applied in a
manner or location which would
permit runoff from bait sites into
water. Consequently we
anticipate no risk to aquatic
organisms.
EPA registration for
sodium nitrite would
likely include ESA
Section 7 consultation
prior to approval.
Associated endangered
species considerations
and use restriction would
be included on the
product label or in EPA’s
Bulletins Live system.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 450
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
2) Coordination with FWS,
state/territorial/tribal resource
agencies, land management
agencies and/or landowners
identifies areas where listed
species may be affected. Bait
stations would not be placed in
areas where they could adversely
affect T&E species habitat.
Aerial shooting
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
May affect 1) Disturbance
from aircraft
2) Lead poisoning
3) Disturbance
and trampling by
ground crews
1) Terrestrial
mammals, birds
2) Scavengers ,
birds
1) Flight passes are infrequent and
temporary but may be more
concentrated in some areas than
monitoring. (i.e., additional passes
may be made to dispatch whole
sounder). Exposure is not chronic
– see attached text on aerial
shooting.
1, 2, 3) Coordination with FWS,
state/territorial/tribal resource
agencies, land management
agencies and/or landowners
identifies areas where listed
species may be affected. Areas
can be avoided or pilots watch for
individuals and avoid (e.g., in
Avoidance would result
in no or unlikely effect.
Section 7 consultations
are either in place locally
and/or would be
completed or updated for
this method as applicable.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 451
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Nevada, sage grouse leks are
avoided as specified in work plans
coordinated
with BLM).
2) Carcass retrieval is generally
cost prohibitive but may be
possible in limited circumstances.
Carcasses have to be recovered by
ground crews. In some areas,
removal by ground crews may
also not be feasible or
environmentally desirable,
especially in remote locations
with few roads, or in sensitive
habitats such as desert ecosystems
with fragile soils and vegetative
cover.
2) Some APHIS-WS state
programs use all or primarily non-
toxic shot from aircraft. [Chapter
4, Section C.2] Nontoxic
ammunition options suitable for
feral swine are currently limited
based on cost and availability.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 452
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
3) Effects of ground crews are
addressed in section on vehicular
site access below.
Snares
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
May affect Non-target capture Large
mammals and
birds
APHIS-WS primarily uses blind
sets for snares or sets snares on
routes to bait sites. Baits are
typically grain-based and meat
baits are not used. Prior to setting
snares, APHIS-WS specialists
examine travel way to determine
if non-target species are using the
trail and avoid setting snares on
travel routes where there is
evidence of extensive use by non-
target species. Space is left
between snare sets so that animals
scavenging on the carcass of a
feral swine caught in one snare
would not be at risk of capture
from an adjacent snare.
Coordination with FWS,
state/territorial/tribal resource
agencies, land management
agencies and/or landowners
Use of snares can result
in risk of take for some
species.
Section 7 consultations
are either in place locally
and/or would be
completed or updated for
this method as applicable
to ensure that this method
does not jeopardize listed
species.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 453
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
identifies areas where listed
species may be affected.
Other potential protective
measures which may be
implemented on a case-by-case
basis may include not using
snares in habitat occupied by the
species of concern or not using
snares during times of year when
the T&E species of concern is
active (e.g., snares might be used
during season when non-target
species are hibernating or have
migrated out of project area).
Snare stops and breakaway snares
may also be used to reduce risks
of adverse impacts on T&E
species. Snares may be checked
more frequently than
state/territorial/tribal law
requirements to reduce risk of
adversely impacting a T&E
species if it is inadvertently
captured in a snare.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 454
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Foothold traps
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
May affect Non-target capture Large
mammals and
large birds
Foothold traps are not a preferred
method for capturing feral swine.
APHIS-WS primarily uses blind
sets for foothold traps or sets traps
on routes to bait sites. Baits are
typically grain-based and meat
baits are not used. Prior to setting
traps, APHIS-WS specialists
examine travel way to determine
if non-target species are using the
trail and usually avoids setting
traps on travel routes where there
is evidence of extensive use by
non-target species. Space is left
between trap sets so that animals
scavenging on the carcass of a
feral swine caught in one trap
would not be at risk of capture
from an adjacent trap. Pan
tension devices are used to
prevent smaller animals from
triggering the traps.
Use of foothold traps can
result in risk of take for
some species.
Section 7 consultations
are either in place locally
and/or would be
completed or updated for
this method as applicable.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 455
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Other potential protective
measures which may be
implemented on a case-by-case
basis may include not using traps
in habitat occupied by the species
of concern or not using snares
during times of year when the
T&E species of concern is active
(e.g., snares might be used during
season when non-target species
are hibernating or have
migrated
out of project area). .Foothold
traps may be checked more
frequently than
state/territorial/tribal law
requirements to reduce risk of
adversely impacting a T&
E
species if it is inadvertently
captured in a trap.
Ground
shooting
Alternatives 1,
May affect Lead poisoning
Scavengers,
birds and
mammals
In some areas, APHIS-WS may
avoid using lead shot and bullets
where carcasses may be
scavenged. Nontoxic ammunition
options suitable for feral swine
Take may occur if
avoidance of lead
ammunition or carcass
removal/burial is not
possible.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 456
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
2, 3, 4 and 5 are currently limited based on cost
and availability.
Carcasses shot with lead may be
retrieved or made inaccessible to
scavenging birds (e.g., California
condor).
Section 7 consultations
are either in place locally
and/or would be
completed or updated for
this method as applicable.
Cage
traps/corral
(including use
of bait and
fencing to
surround trap
area, if used)
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
May affect 1) Non-target
capture
2) Trampling
3) Critical habitat
destruction of
Primary
Constituent
Elements (PCEs)
1) Large
mammals
2) Terrestrial
plants
3) Critical
habitat of any
species
1) When possible, baits are used
that do not attract listed species.
Camera devices may be used to
monitor and trigger traps when
feral swine enter traps. Traps are
checked frequently according to
state/territorial/tribal law and
APHIS-WS policy. Corral traps
have open tops and usually have
large mesh wire allowing escape
for many species. Coordination
with FWS, state/territorial/tribal
resource agencies, land
management agencies and/or
landowners identifies areas where
listed species may be affected.
2, 3) Where possible, cage and
corral traps are set in previously
1) Use of target specific
baits would avoid effects
on carnivores. Camera
systems and remotely
activated traps would
allow for capture
avoidance.
2, 3) Coordination with
land and resource
managers is likely to
allow management
actions that would result
in no effect on listed
plants and critical
habitats.
Determinations of effects
on large mammals,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 457
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
disturbed or cultivated areas.
Coordination with FWS,
state/territorial/tribal resource
agencies, land management
agencies and/or landowners
identifies areas where listed
species may be affected.
Potential effects can be avoided
by not locating cage and corral
traps where listed plant species
and critical habitat elements may
be adversely affected. This would
consider both trap
setup/construction/placement and
attracting feral swine to area.
terrestrial plants, and
critical habitat would be
made locally based on
species presence,
proposed work locations,
and coordination with
land management
agencies.
In most instances, use of
this method is likely to
have no effect or may
affect but is unlikely to
adversely affect.
Section 7 consultations
are either in place locally
and/or would be
completed or updated for
these methods as
applicable.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 458
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Drop nets
Alternatives 2,
3, 4 and 5
May affect 1) Non-target
capture
2) Trampling
3) Critical habitat
destruction of
Primary
Constituent
Elements (PCEs)
1) Large
mammals
2) Terrestrial
plants
3) Critical
habitat of any
species
1) Use of drop nets requires
constant supervision by APHIS-
WS personnel. Nets are deployed
manually by personnel only when
target species are present. Nets
would not be deployed if non-
target species, including T&E
species, are present within the
capture zone.
2, 3) The potential effects of
trampling can be avoided by
choosing drop net sites where no
listed plant species or critical
habitat elements are present or
where no listed plant species or
critical habitat could be adversely
affected. This would include
taking into account the specific
drop net location as well as the
surrounding area where swine
may be attracted.
1) Effects are not likely
or no effect.
2, 3) Coordination with
land managers and
avoidance of sensitive
areas is likely to result in
no effect on listed plant
species or critical
habitats.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 459
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Capture methods Fencing or
other barriers
Alternatives 2,
3, 4 and 5
May affect 1) Trampling
2) Critical habitat
destruction of
PCEs
3) Affect
migration of non-
target wildlife or
exclude them
from area.
1) Terrestrial
plants
2) Critical
habitat of any
species
3) Migratory
terrestrial
APHIS-WS is not likely to install
exclosures. APHIS-WS may
provide technical assistance to
landowners for this method,
however the fencing would be
installed by the resource manager
or landowner, who would be
responsible for ESA compliance.
In the unlikely event that APHIS-
WS would install exclosures,
APHIS-WS would initiate local
consultation as appropriate.
Section 7 consultations
would be initiated as
appropriate.
Landfill
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
No Effect None None Licensed landfills have
regulations and monitoring in
place to prevent adverse impacts
on T&E species.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 460
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Exclosures Leave in place
Alternatives 1,
2, 3 4 and 5
May affect 1) Attract
scavengers that
cause disturbance
or predation.
2) Lead poisoning
1) Ground
nesting birds
2) Scavengers
1) Carcasses may be retrieved
from nesting areas with ground
nesting birds or removals may be
scheduled to avoid seasons when
ground-nesting birds and their
offspring are vulnerable to
scavengers that may be attracted
by carcasses.
Coordination with land
management agencies would
identify areas of concern for
avoidance.
2) See shooting
Coordination with
managers is likely to
result in no effect.
Section 7 consultations
are either in place locally
and/or would be
completed or updated for
these methods as
applicable.
Carcass disposal Onsite burial
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
May affect 1) Disturbance
from digging
2) Soil erosion
and runoff
3) Critical habitat
1) Terrestrial
species
2) Aquatic
species
3) Alteration or
loss of primary
1, 3) Burial sites large enough to
accommodate several swine
would likely be located on pre-
disturbed sites such as agricultural
operations. Coordination with
FWS, state/territorial/tribal
resource agencies, land
management agencies and/or
landowners identifies areas where
listed species may be affected.
Site selectivity would
result in no effect.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 461
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
constituent
elements
(PCEs)
APHIS-WS personnel are, or
would be trained in the
identification of T&E species and
would avoid burial of individual
animals if listed species that may
be affected by digging
disturbance were observed either
on site or in the surrounding area.
2) APHIS-WS would follow
state/territorial/tribal and local
regulations and guidelines
pertaining to the incidental burial
of animals. State/territorial/tribal
guidelines generally offer
recommendations for general soil
types, burial depth, and distance
from ground water to prevent
leachates from entering surface or
ground water.
Composting
Alternatives 2,
3, 4, and 5
May affect 1) Trampling
2) Runoff/water
contamination
1) Terrestrial
plants
2) Aquatic
species
1, 3) Pre-disturbed or cultivated
areas, such as agricultural
operations, would be preferred for
composting site locations. When
and where possible, APHIS-WS
could use established compost
Site selectivity would
result in no effect.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 462
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
2) Critical habitat 2) Alteration or
loss of primary
constituent
elements
(PCEs)
systems. If a new site must be
established coordination with
FWS, state /territorial/tribal
resource agencies, land
management agencies and/or
landowners would identify areas
where listed species or critical
habitats may be affected to ensure
those areas could be avoided.
2) APHIS-WS would follow
state/territorial/tribal and local
regulations and guidelines
pertaining to the incidental burial
of animals. State/territorial/tribal
guidelines generally offer
recommendations for general soil
types, burial depth, and distance
from ground water to prevent
leachates from entering surface or
ground water.
Donation for
human or
animal
consumption
No Effect None None
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 463
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
Rendering
Alternatives 2,
3, 4 and 5
No Effect None None Regulations governing the
operation of rendering facilities
would prevent adverse impacts on
T&E species.
Incineration
(Fixed facility)
Alternatives 2,
3, 4 and 5
May Effect 1) Air quality
1) Terrestrial
species
2) Aquatic
species
1,2) APHIS-WS would likely not
employ open-air burning or air
curtains as methods for carcass
disposal. Any incineration would
be through the use of fixed-
facility incinerators which are
highly controlled. Most
incinerators are fitted with
afterburners to reduce emissions
(Walawender 2003). Ash
produced in fixed-facility
incinerators is typically
considered safe and can be
disposed of in landfills (Ahlvers
2003) resulting in no effect.
No Effect.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 464
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
Chemical
digester
Alternatives 2,
3, 4 and 5
No Effect None None Regulations governing the
operation of chemical digesters
would prevent adverse impacts on
T&E species.
All activities
reducing the
number of
swine
occurring in the
vicinity of
listed
carnivores/scav
engers
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
May affect Loss of prey Florida panther
Florida panther occurs in areas
high population of feral swine and
are known to prey on feral swine.
Logistical constraints and State
and Tribal policy indicate that
elimination or substantial
reduction in feral swine
population within the range of this
species is unlikely. Management
efforts in the state will primarily
consist of localized damage
management to protect specific
resources or human safety.
Coordination with FWS and State
will prevent adverse impacts on
swine population in areas were
Florida panther may be adversely
impacted.
May affect, not likely to
adversely affect due to
coordination with state
and federal agencies.
Section 7 consultations
are either in place locally
and/or would be
completed or updated for
these methods as
applicable.
Site Access Foot/
horseback
May affect 1) Adverse
modification of
1) Species with
proposed or
1) Coordination with FWS and
other resource management
1) Effect not likely under
typical operations. Local
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 465
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
access for all
activities
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
critical habitat,
destruction of
Primary
Constituent
Elements.
2) Trampling
designated CH.
2) All
terrestrial
plants
agencies would identify areas
where critical habitat may be
affected.
2) Coordination with FWS,
state/territorial/tribal resource
agencies, land management
agencies and/or landowners
identifies areas where listed plant
species may be affected.
Where access to areas with listed
plant communities is proposed,
special precautions such as plant
identification and avoidance may
be implemented.
determinations would be
made based on habitat
types, designations, work
locations, and proposed
operations. Consultations
would be initiated if
proposed actions may
affect critical habitat or
listed plants.
2) Local Section 7
consultations would be
initiated if proposed
actions may occur in
areas where listed
terrestrial plants are
found.
Vehicular
access for all
activities
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4 and 5
May affect 1) Disturbance
2) Trampling/
crushing
1) Terrestrial
vertebrates,
nesting birds.
(especially
desert tortoise,
ground nesting
birds, plants)
Vehicles primarily use existing
roadways.
Coordination with FWS,
state/territorial/tribal resource
agencies, land management
agencies and/or landowners
identifies areas where listed
species may be affected. Nesting
Effect not likely under
typical operations. Local
determinations would be
made based on habitat
types, designations, work
locations, and proposed
operations. Consultations
would be initiated if
proposed actions may
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 466
APHIS-WS Actions Sub Actions (if
any) and
Alternatives
Effect
Determina
tion
Type of effect(s) Species type
affected
Typical program practices
(SOPs and other minimization
measures that may reduce or
eliminate risk
Conclusion
areas may be avoided during
breeding season.
Vehicles in desert tortoise habitat
drive at certain speeds which
allow careful observation for
desert tortoise in roadway.
Parked vehicles in desert tortoise
habitat are checked for tortoises
during their active season.
Some work may occur in desert
tortoise habitat only during the
hibernation period. Ground crews
assisting aerial shooting teams
generally only use established
roads and trails, which minimizes
risk of disturbing birds or
mammals or crushing listed plants
and animals. Off-road
movements are most likely to
occur in situations where ground
crews are retrieving carcasses of
animals.
affect listed species or
critical habitat.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 467
APPENDIX F
MIGRATORY BIRD AND EAGLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOL
This Appendix provides tables summarizing potential risks to birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act. This table is intended as a blueprint to aid APHIS-WS state, territory and tribal level analysis of impacts to migratory birds and
eagles.
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
Technical assistance Alternatives
1,2,3,and 4
None None None
Cooperative
agreements
Alternatives
1,2,3,and 4
None None None
National level
outreach expanded,
incl. public education
and
information/assistance
with
state/territorial/tribal
regulatory
mechanisms.
Alternatives 2
and 4
None None None
Cost sharing Cost sharing
involving
APHIS
absorbing the
costs in a
cooperatively
None None None
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 468
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
funded
program.
Alternatives 1,
2,3, and 4
Grants.
Transfer of
funding to other
agencies or
institutions for
research (1) or
operations (2).
Alternative 5
Low potential
for take
1) Research impacts
cannot be
predicted at this
time and will have
to be addressed
through situation-
specific
consultations.
2) Impacts are
expected to be
similar to those
identified below
for operational use
of methods.
1) Migratory birds
2) Eagles
1) Research may be conducted
in confinement or
laboratory environments.
2) Operational activities
conducted with grants from
APHIS will comply with
the MBTA and BGEPA
Grants would
require review
of potential for
take at the local
or project
specific level.
Frightening Devices Pyrotechnics,
other sounds,
strobe lights,
other visual
deterrents.
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Low potential
for take
1) Noise
2) Avoidance
3) Human
disturbance
1) Migratory
Birds
2) Eagles
Auditory and visual devices to
frighten feral swine are likely to
also disperse non-target species,
including eagles and migratory
birds, in the area. However,
potential impacts from noise and
human disturbance are expected
to be temporary with non-target
species returning after cessation
of dispersal methods. Dispersal
methods would not be employed
with sufficient frequency and
duration that essential resources
(e.g. food, habitat) would be
1) No take of
migratory birds
would be
expected with
implementation
of SOPs.
2) No take of
eagles expected
since take would
be avoided with
implementation
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 469
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
unavailable for extended
durations.
Feral swine become quickly
habituated to the use of
frightening devices. Thus, the use
of such devices would likely be
minimal due to their limited
effectiveness.
Devices would primarily be
deployed at airports and to protect
agriculture crops/livestock during
periods when crops or livestock
are particularly vulnerable.
Method use may be avoided
where active eagle nests are
located, or methods may be
avoided during breeding seasons
when migratory birds are
vulnerable to disturbance
.
of SOPs (SOPs
should include
the eagle nest
avoidance
distance in FWS
(2007)).
Monitoring to
locate/track swine
Judas pig
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Telemetry
collar: None
None None
Capture: effect
depends on trap
method used
See discussion below
Aerial location
of swine
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Low potential
for take
1) Human
disturbance
2) Noise
3) Collisions
1) Migratory birds
during breeding
season
2) Eagles
Flight passes are brief and not
of sufficient duration or
frequency to constitute a
chronic disturbance.
Coordination with FWS,
state/territorial/tribal resource
No take of
migratory birds
or eagles is
expected based
on infrequent
overflights and
implementation
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 470
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
agencies, land management
agencies and/or landowners
identifies areas where nesting
eagles may be affected.
Sensitive areas can be avoided
or pilots watch for individuals
and avoid. In some areas it
may be possible to adjust time
of flight (season or time of
day) and distance from
sensitive areas to avoid
disturbance of breeding birds.
Effects of ground crews are
addressed in section on
vehicular site access below.
With avoidance, minimizing
the time in the area, and other
practices, this method would
not result in take of migratory
birds or eagles.
of SOPs. Eagle
nests would be
identified and
avoided.
Tracking dogs
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Low potential
for take.
1) Disturbance
2) Noise
1) Migratory birds
(especially ground
nesters)
2) Eagles
APHIS would not release dogs
in areas where they may
disturb listed vulnerable
species (e.g. tracking dogs
may not be used in occupied
habitat of the southwest
willow flycatcher during
nesting season).
With
implementation
of SOPs, no take
of migratory
birds or eagles is
expected.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 471
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
In accordance with APHIS
policy (APHIS-WS Directive
2.445), all dogs used by
APHIS employees must be
trained in the skills necessary
to perform a specific wildlife
damage management task and
be controllable at all times.
Coordination with FWS, state/
territorial/tribal natural
resource management
agencies, land management
agencies and/or landowners
identifies areas where listed
migratory bird species and
eagles may be affected.
Method use may be avoided
where active eagle nests are
located, or methods may be
avoided during breeding
seasons when migratory birds
are vulnerable to disturbance.
Time can be minimized in an
area to further reduce impacts
to eagles and migratory birds.
Monitoring for
diseases in feral swine
Capture
(depends on
method used)
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
See effects
below
See discussion below
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 472
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
Sample
collection
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
None None None
GonaCon™/
reproductive inhibitors
Injection None None None There is no known danger to
humans or wildlife from eating
animals that have been
vaccinated with GonaCon™.
In 2009, the EPA determined
there is little likelihood of
dietary exposure or impacts to
humans who consume meat
from a treated doe. As with
other vaccines, such as those
used with livestock, both the
vaccine and the antibodies
produced are proteins. Once
ingested, they are broken
down by stomach acids and
enzymes. Similar injectable
hormone-altering products are
used routinely in livestock
applications.
Lethal method Aerial shooting
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
High potential
for take
1) Disturbance from
aircraft
2) Lead shot
poisoning (steel or
other not a problem)
3) Human
disturbance
4) Collisions
1) Migratory birds
and eagles during
breeding season
2) Scavengers/ birds
of prey
3) Eagles
4) Any bird during
flight.
1,3) Flight passes are
infrequent and temporary but
may be more concentrated in
some areas than monitoring
(i.e., additional passes may be
made to dispatch whole
sounder). Exposure is not
chronic.
Pending risk
analysis Take
from lead
poisoning
remains likely
where carcasses
shot with lead
are left in the
field and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 473
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
1, 2, 3, 4) Coordination with
FWS, state/territorial/tribal
resource agencies, land
management agencies and/or
landowners to identify areas
where migratory birds and
eagles may be affected. Areas
can be avoided or pilots watch
for individuals and avoid.
2) Carcass retrieval is
generally cost prohibitive but
may be possible in limited
circumstances. Carcasses have
to be recovered by ground
crews. In some areas, it may
also not be feasible or
environmentally desirable,
especially in remote locations
with few roads, or in sensitive
habitats such as desert
ecosystems with fragile soils
and vegetative cover.
2) Some APHIS state
programs use all or primarily
non-toxic shot from aircraft.
[PENDING input from Tom’s
SD survey on lead. He is also
getting this info for ground
shooting.] Nontoxic
ammunition options suitable
scavenged by
migratory birds
or eagles.
No take is
expected from
other factors due
to infrequent
overflights,
avoidance based
on coordination
with land
owners/manager
s, and pilot and
ground crew
training.
The potential for
bird strikes
remains, as with
any aircraft use.
Should we try to
figure out if
there have been
any strikes
reported from
WS aircraft
use?)
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 474
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
for feral swine are currently
limited based on cost and
availability.
3) Effects of human
disturbance caused by ground
crews is addressed in vehicular
site access below.
Snares
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Low potential
for take
1) Non-target
capture
2) Human
disturbance
1) Eagles, raptors
and owls
2) Eagles
1) APHIS primarily uses blind
sets for snares or sets snares on
routes to bait sites. Baits are
typically grain-based, and
meat baits are not used. Prior
to setting snares, APHIS
specialists examine the trail to
determine if non-target species
are using the trail and avoid
setting snares on travel routes
where there is evidence of
extensive use by non-target
species. Space is left between
snare sets so that animals
scavenging on the carcass of a
feral swine caught in one snare
would not be at risk of capture
from an adjacent snare.
2) Coordination with FWS,
state/territorial/tribal resource
agencies, land management
agencies and/or landowners
identifies areas where eagles,
SOPs minimize
risks, however a
potential for
eagle take
remains.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 475
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
raptors, or owls may be
affected.
3) Other potential protective
measures which may be
implemented on a case-by-
case basis may include not
using snares in habitat
occupied by eagles, raptors, or
owls in specific areas. FWS
also may provide guidance for
the use of snares within a
certain distance from
important eagle use areas.
Minimizing time spent in an
area and reducing snare use in
certain areas will further
reduce impacts to migratory
birds and eagles.
Foothold traps
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Moderate
potential for
take
1) Non-target
capture
2) Human
disturbance
1) Eagles,
Raptors and
owls
2) Eagles
1) Foothold traps are not a
preferred method for capturing
feral swine. APHIS primarily
uses blind sets for foothold
traps or sets traps on routes to
bait sites. Baits are typically
grain-based, and meat baits are
not used. Prior to setting traps,
APHIS specialists examine the
trail to determine if non-target
species are using the trail and
usually avoid setting traps on
travel routes where there is
No potential for
take where
states do not use
foothold traps.
Most states do
not use foothold
traps to capture
feral swine.
Local use of
foothold traps to
capture feral
swine could
result in take
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 476
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
evidence of extensive use by
non-target species. Space is
left between trap sets so that
animals scavenging on the
carcass of feral swine caught
in one trap would not be at risk
of capture from an adjacent
trap. Pan tension devices are
used to prevent smaller
animals from triggering the
traps.
1, 2) Other potential protective
measures which may be
implemented on a case-by-
case basis may include not
using traps in habitat near
active eagle nests. Minimizing
time spent in an area and
reducing trap use in certain
areas will further reduce
impacts to migratory birds and
eagles.
and would need
to be addressed
in local level
NEPA analyses.
Ground
shooting
High potential
for take
1) Lead
poisoning
from lead
ammunition
(steel or other
not a
problem)
2) Noise
1) Migratory birds
(scavengers, birds of
prey)
2) Eagles
1) In some areas, APHIS may
avoid using lead shot and
bullets where carcasses may be
scavenged. Nontoxic
ammunition options suitable
for feral swine are currently
limited based on cost and
availability.
Lead shot or
bullet fragments
may take
scavenging
migratory birds
and eagles.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 477
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
1) Carcasses shot with lead
may be retrieved or made
inaccessible to scavenging
birds (e.g., California condor
and eagles).
2) Method use may be
avoided where active eagle
nests are located, or methods
may be avoided during
breeding seasons when
migratory birds are vulnerable
to disturbance. Time can be
minimized in an area to further
reduce impacts to eagles and
migratory birds.
Capture methods Cage
traps/corral
(including use
of bait and
fencing to
surround trap
area, if used)
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Low potential
for take
1) Non-target
capture
2) Disturbance
3) Structural
addition to
the landscape
Migratory birds and
eagles
1) When possible, baits are
used that do not attract
scavengers . Camera devices
may be used to monitor and
trigger traps when feral swine
enter traps. Traps are checked
frequently according to
state/territorial/tribal law and
APHIS policy. Corral traps
have open tops and usually
have large mesh wire allowing
escape for birds.
2, 3) Potential effects can be
avoided by not locating cage
and corral traps where
sensitive nesting migratory
No take is
expected with
implementation
of SOPs.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 478
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
bird species occur or where
eagles may be disturbed. This
would consider both trap
setup/construction/placement
and attracting feral swine to
area. Minimizing time spent
in an area and removing traps
immediately after they are no
longer needed can further
reduce impacts to migratory
birds and eagles.
Drop nets
(including use
of bait and
fencing to
surround trap
area, if used)
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Low potential
for take
1) Trampling
2) Human
disturbance
3) Structural
addition to
the landscape
1) Migratory birds
2) Eagles
3) Migratory birds and
eagles
1, 2) Drop nets would not be
used where ground nesting
birds or eagles are located,
therefore trampling and
disturbance to eagles would be
avoided.
Use of drop nets requires
constant supervision by
APHIS personnel. Nets are
deployed manually by
personnel only when target
species are present.
No take is
expected.
Exclosures Fencing or
other barriers
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Low potential
for take
1) Bird
collisions
with wire
fencing
2) Human
disturbance
1) Migratory birds
2) Eagles
3) Migratory birds
APHIS is not likely to install
exclosures. APHIS may
provide technical assistance to
landowners for this method;
however, the fencing would be
installed by the resource
manager or landowner, and
that individual would be
APHIS would
not be expected
to take
migratory birds
or eagles.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 479
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
3) Structural
addition to
the landscape
responsible for MBTA and
BGEPA compliance.
Carcass disposal Onsite burial
Effects will
likely depend
on location and
size of burial
site)
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Low potential
for take
1) Human
disturbance
2) Lead
poisoning
1) Migratory birds and
eagles
2) Eagles, scavenging
birds
1, 2) Burial sites large enough
to accommodate several swine
would likely be located on pre-
disturbed sites such as
agricultural operations. This
would minimize alteration of
vegetation and reduce impacts
to migratory birds and eagles.
APHIS would follow
state/territorial/tribal and
location regulations and
guidelines pertaining to the
incidental burial of animals.
State/territorial/tribal
guidelines generally offer
recommendations for general
soil types, burial depth, and
distance from ground water to
prevent leachates from
entering surface or ground
water.
Site selectivity and minimizing
time spent in an area would
reduce any risk of take of
migratory birds or eagles.
No take would
be expected.
Leave in Place
Alternatives 1,
Moderate
potential for
1) Attract
scavengers
1) Migratory
birds
Carcass removals may be
scheduled during seasons in
Take would
depend on lead
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 480
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
2, 3, 4, and 5 take. that cause
disturbance
or predation
2) Lead
poisoning
2) Eagles and
other
scavenging
birds
locations when ground-nesting
birds and their offspring are
vulnerable to scavengers that
may be attracted by carcasses.
Removals also may be
scheduled if carcasses contain
lead and are near important
eagle use areas. Leaving
carcasses in place, when
possible, will minimize
disturbance and time spent in
an area and may provide
supplementary food source.
Coordination with land
management agencies would
identify areas of concern for
avoidance.
ammunition
used and
location/presenc
e of scavengers.
Adherence to
conservation
measures would
minimize the
potential for
take.
Landfill
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
None None None Licensed landfills have
regulations and monitoring in
place to prevent adverse
impacts on migratory birds and
eagles.
Composting
(Effects will
depend on
location and
size of site)
Alternatives 2,
3, 4, and 5
Low potential
for take
1) Human
disturbance
2)
1, 3, 4) Migratory
birds
2,3,4) Eagles
APHIS would not establish
new composing systems.
Existing sites are expected to
comply with state
/territorial/tribal regulations.
No take would
be expected.
Donation for
human or
None None None
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 481
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
animal
consumption
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Rendering
Alternatives 2,
3, 4, and 5
None None None
Incineration
(Fixed facility)
Alternatives 2,
3, 4, and 5
None None None APHIS would likely not
employ open-air burning or air
curtains as methods for carcass
disposal. Any incineration
would be through the use of
fixed-facility incinerators
which are highly controlled.
Chemical
digester
Alternatives 2,
3, 4, and 5
None None None
General Vehicular site
access for all
activities
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5
Low potential
for take
1) Disturbance
1) Migratory birds and
eagles
Vehicles primarily use existing
roadways.
Coordination with FWS,
state/territorial/tribal resource
agencies, land management
agencies and/or landowners
identifies areas where listed
species may be affected.
Nesting areas may be avoided.
No take would
be expected to
occur with
observance and
implementation
of SOPs
including
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 482
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
Ground crews assisting aerial
shooting teams generally only
use established roads and
trails, which minimizes risk of
disturbing eagles or
encountering nesting
migratory birds. Off-road
movements are most likely to
occur in situations where
ground crews are retrieving
carcasses of animals. Time in
an area should be reduced to
minimize impacts to migratory
birds and eagle
Foot/horseback
access for all
activities
Alternatives 1,
2, 3, 4, and5
Low potential
for take
1) Trampling
Human disturbance
1) Migratory
birds
2) Eagles
Field observation and
coordination with land and
resource management agencies
would allow for identification
of areas where ground nesting
birds and eagles could be
disturbed. Take would be
avoided by identifying and
avoiding sensitive areas.
No take is
expected.
Overall
outcome of
feral swine
removal
program
May benefit
migratory birds
and eagles
2) Potential for
take of both
migratory birds
and eagles
1) Reduced potential
for adverse impacts
from predation,
2) Reduced potential
for destruction of
habitat from
1) Migratory birds
2) Migratory birds
3) Migratory birds and
eagles
Feral swine removals may
occur specifically to protect
migratory bird species, or may
benefit migratory birds and
eagles species and critical
habitats when removed for
other reasons.
Overall benefit
expected, most
directly to
ground nesting
birds or birds
which nest in
riparian habitats
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 483
WS Action Sub-actions
and Applicable
Alternatives
Potential for
Take (High,
Moderate,
Low, or None)
Type of effect(s) Species type affected Typical practices (SOPs and
other conservation
measures) that may reduce
or eliminate risk
Conclusion
wallowing and
rooting, and
3) reduced potential
for adverse impacts
from disease
transmission.
4) Take effects
discussed above.
No protective practices
needed.
affected by feral
swine.
Unintentional
take of some
individual
migratory birds
and/or eagles by
some FSDM
methods may
not be
avoidable;
however
population level
effects would
not be
measurable. See
discussions
above for take
from specific
methods.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 484
This page left intentionally blank
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 485
APPENDIX G
IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR PROTECTION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND
CULTURAL RESOURCES
This Appendix provides tables summarizing potential risks to resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act. This table is
intended as a blueprint to aid APHIS-WS state, territory and tribal level analysis of impacts to resources protected under the act.
Summary of WS Feral Swine Activities and Potential Effects – NHPA
WS Action Sub actions and
Alternatives
Effect
Determination
Type of Effects Contact SHPO (Y/N)
Technical assistance Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
Cooperative agreements Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
National level outreach
expanded, incl. public
education and
information/assistance with
state regulatory mechanisms
Alternatives 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
Frightening Devices Pyrotechnics, other
sounds, strobe lights,
other visual
deterrents
Potential
Adverse Effects
Disturbance from
brief noise
No –
Feral swine become quickly habituated to the use
of frightening devices. Thus, the use of such
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 486
Alternatives 1, 2, 3,
4 and 5
devices would likely be minimal due to their
limited effectiveness.
Devices would primarily be deployed at airports
and to protect agriculture crops/livestock during
periods when crops or livestock are particularly
vulnerable. These areas are not generally located
near historic properties. Method use can be
avoided near historic properties.
Monitoring to locate/track
swine
Judas pig
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
Telemetry
collar: NE
None None
Capture: effect
depends on trap
method
See discussions on trapping methods.
Aerial location of
swine
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
Potential
Adverse Effects
Minimal and brief
noise disturbance
No – effects will be mitigated
Flight passes are brief and not of sufficient
duration or frequency to constitute a chronic
disturbance. Sensitive areas can be avoided.
Effects of ground crews are addressed in section
on vehicular site access below.
Tracking dogs
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
Potential
Adverse Effects
Disturbance via
trampling and brief
noise
No – effects will be mitigated
APHIS will not release dogs in areas where they
would disturb historic properties unless previously
arranged with the property owner.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 487
In accordance with APHIS policy (APHIS-WS
Directive 2.445), all dogs used by APHIS
employees must be trained in the skills necessary
to perform a specific wildlife damage management
task and be controllable at all times.
Monitoring for diseases in feral
swine
Capture (depends on
method used)
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
See effects below
Sample collection
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
GonaCon/ Reproduction
Inhibitors
Injection
NE None No
There is no known danger associated to humans or
wildlife from eating animals that have been
vaccinated with GonaCon™. In 2009, the EPA
determined there is little likelihood of dietary
exposure or impacts to humans who consume
meat from a treated doe. As with other vaccines,
such as those used with livestock, both the vaccine
and the antibodies produced are proteins. Once
ingested, they are broken down by stomach acids
and enzymes. Similar injectable hormone-altering
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 488
products are used routinely in livestock
applications.
Killing methods Aerial shooting
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
Potential
Adverse Effects
Disturbance from
noise; visual
concerns
Yes
Flight passes are brief and not of sufficient
duration or frequency to constitute a chronic
disturbance.
Sensitive areas can be avoided since all work is
coordinated with landowners and land
management agencies. In some areas it may be
possible to adjust time of flight (season or time of
day) to minimize impacts to visitors of historic
properties.
Effects of ground crews are addressed in section
on vehicular site access below.
With avoidance and scheduling modifications,
this method is not likely to negatively impact
historic properties.
Snares
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
Snares would not be placed on historic properties
unless specifically requested.
Foothold traps
NE None No,
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 489
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
Foothold traps would not be placed on historic
properties unless specifically requested.
Ground shooting
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
Potential
Adverse Effects
Disturbance from
trampling and
noise; visual
concerns
No – effects will be mitigated
Noise from ground shooting is brief and not of
sufficient duration or frequency to constitute a
chronic disturbance.
Ground shooting will only take place on historic
properties if requested.
Sensitive areas can be avoided to minimize
impacts to visitors of historic properties.
Cage/corral traps
(including use of bait
and fencing to
surround trap area, if
used)
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
Where possible, cage and corral traps are set in
previously disturbed or cultivated areas.
Cage/corral traps would not be placed on historic
properties unless specifically requested.
Capture methods Drop nets (including
use of bait and
fencing to surround
trap area, if used)
NE None No
Where possible, drop nets are used in previously
disturbed or cultivated areas. Drop nets require
constant supervision by APHIS personnel.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 490
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
Drop nets would not be placed on historic
properties unless specifically requested.
Consideration will be given to the surrounding
areas where swine may be attracted too.
Fencing or other
barriers
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
APHIS is not likely to install exclosures.
However, assistance may be provided to
landowners that use this method. These
individuals would be responsible for NHPA
compliance.
Exclosures Landfill
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
Carcass disposal Leave in place
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
Potential
Adverse Effects
Impact to aesthetic
quality; potential
for public to view
carcasses while at
a historic site
No – effects will be mitigated
Carcass removal could occur near historic
properties of concern.
Onsite burial (effects
will likely depend on
location and size of
burial site)
Potential
Adverse Effects
Ground
disturbance
Yes, however, site selectivity should result in no
effect.
Burial sites large enough to accommodate several
swine would likely be located on pre-disturbed
sites such as agricultural operations.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 491
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
Coordination with SHPOs will prevent
disturbance of historic properties.
APHIS would follow state/territorial/tribal and
location regulations and guidelines pertaining to
the incidental burial of animals.
State/territorial/tribal guidelines generally offer
recommendations for general soil types, burial
depth, and distance from ground water to prevent
leachates from entering surface or ground water.
Composting (effects
will depend on
location and size of
site)
Alternatives 2, 3, 4
and 5
Potential
Adverse Effects
Impact to aesthetic
quality
No
APHIS would not establish new compost systems.
Existing sites are expected to comply with state
/territorial/tribal resource agencies.
Donation for human
or animal
consumption
(Individual
landowners)
NE None No
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 492
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
Rendering
Alternatives 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
Incineration (fixed
facility)
Alternatives 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
APHIS would likely not employ open-air burning
or air curtains as methods for carcass disposal.
Any incineration would be through the use of
fixed-facility incinerators which are highly
controlled. Most incinerators are fitted with
afterburners to reduce emissions.
Chemical digester
Alternatives 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None
Vehicular site access
for all activities
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
Vehicles primarily use existing roadways. Ground
crews assisting aerial shooting teams generally
only use established roads and trails, which
minimize risk of disturbing historic properties.
Off-road movements are most likely to occur in
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 493
situations where ground crews are retrieving
carcasses of animals.
General Foot/horseback
access for all
activities
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
NE None No
Effects not likely under typical operations.
Consultations would be initiated if proposed
actions may affect historic properties.
Overall outcome of
feral swine removal
program
Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5
1) Beneficial
effect
Potential
Adverse Effects
1) Reduced
potential for
adverse impacts
from predation,
wallowing, and
rooting.
2) Effects
discussed above
Feral swine removals may occur specifically to
protect historic properties or may benefit
properties when swine are removed nearby.
Mitigation measures will be enacted as discussed
above to minimize potential adverse effects.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 494
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 495
APPENDIX H
Feral Swine Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options -
Summary of Advantages, Challenges, and Potential
Environmental Effects
This section summarizes the advantages, challenges and environmental effects of feral swine
carcass disposition and disposal options. The options were described in Chapters 2 and
throughout Chapter 4. Chapter 2 described the disposal options including some of the costs and
logistical constraints. The potential environmental effects of the options were evaluated
throughout Chapter 4 where they were relevant to individual affected environmental resource
issues. The effects of the disposal options would not change substantially among alternatives,
except that there may be some variation in the number of carcasses requiring disposal overall,
and in the case of the Federal FSDM Grant Program Alternative, Alternative 5, APHIS-WS
would not be directly involved in disposal practices.
The following disposal methods are discussed in this section:
1. Food Use
2. Composting
3. On site Burial
4. Landfill Disposal
5. Incineration
6. Chemical and Anaerobic Digesters
7. Rendering
8. Leave On site
A number of variables must be considered when making local decisions about the best way to
manage feral swine carcasses. Carcasses would be disposed of according to federal, state, and
local regulations and according to APHIS policies (WS Directives 2.515, 2.210, and 2.510).
Other considerations include cost, local availability, logistics, access limitations such as terrain
and infrastructure, land uses including public uses, soil types, proximity to water sources, the
number of carcasses, the method of capture or kill (specifically whether or not lead shot/bullets
or immobilization chemicals were used), potential environmental impacts of the options,
resource requirements to mitigate negative environmental effects.
The APHIS National FSDM programmatic EIS does not attempt to make local decisions on the
best way to manage carcasses because of the wide range of site specific considerations. In
addition, some variable such as local regulations, land use policies, and disposal options can
change over time. Therefore, this summary is meant to be used as a guide for APHIS-WS and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 496
partner agencies to aid in making local decisions. Local considerations and environmental effects
of carcass disposal or disposition would be included in site-specific NEPA documents or other
analyses.
A. Food Use
1. Advantages
Where state regulations allow and when the animal has not been chemically immobilized
or euthanized, feral swine carcasses may be provided to requesting individual property
owners where the animals are captured and killed. These individuals may choose to
retain the carcass to use the meat for personal consumption. This is advantageous to the
recipient and eliminates disposal costs to the agency.
2. Challenges
The Federal Meat Inspection Act requires feral swine to be inspected live, slaughtered
under inspection, and processed under inspection to be eligible for donation to charities.
Animals euthanized off-site and delivered to USDA-licensed facilities are not eligible for
donation. However, provided the animals have not been treated with chemicals that
would preclude use as food (e.g., immobilization and euthanasia chemicals), and if state
regulations and permits allow, euthanized swine may be offered to the landowners for
personal consumption.
Challenges associated with transport of feral swine and local limitations on the
availability of facilities willing and able to process swine limit the utility of this method.
However, in some areas (e.g., Texas) mobile inspection and animal processing stations
have been developed to meet the needs of the commercial game production industry. It
may be possible to adapt these strategies for use with feral swine.
3. Environmental Impacts
When landowners prefer to keep a feral swine carcass that was killed on its property,
APHIS-WS provides information about food safety and the safe handling of the carcass
and proper cooking of the meat to reduce risks. Therefore risks to human safety are
minimized by emphasizing precautions for safe handling and consumption. In addition,
landowners are advised not to feed pets or other animals uncooked meat or other raw
carcass products. However, APHIS WS has no control over the actions of others.
B. Composting
1. Advantages
On-farm composting is a natural process that produces humus, a useful end product.
Some livestock producers may already use composting to manage routine livestock
disposal. WS may utilize composting operations already in-place by farmers or
producers, but would not construct new composting facilities.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 497
2. Challenges
Composting must be managed properly to avoid attracting pest species to the area or
causing noxious odors that offend the surrounding community. A carcass composting
system requires a carbon source (e.g., sawdust, straw, silage, manure, or leaves), bulking
agents (e.g., sludge cake, spent horse bedding, or rotting hay bales), and biofilters (a
biofilter is a layer of carbon source and/or bulking agent that enhances microbial activity,
deodorizes the gases released at ground level, and prevents access by insects and birds)
(NABCC 2004). Composting would only be conducted in coordination with land
management agencies and landowners, and in compliance with federal, state, territorial,
tribal, county and local regulations and in accordance with APHIS-WS Directive 2.515,
and where facilities already exist. APHIS-WS would not create new composing systems.
3. Environmental Impacts
APHIS is not likely to use composting to dispose of feral swine carcasses. Construction
of composting sites requires consideration of effects on listed species. No effects on
endangered species or critical habitats are expected since the facilities would be pre-
existing and the choice to use this option is flexible. If APHIS WS uses composting it
would comply with state and local regulations and guidelines for proper procedures.
Thus, composing is not anticipated to adversely affect environmental resources including
soils or water quality or generate offensive odors.
The potential for carcasses to harbor diseases may be unknown unless the feral swine
were specifically targeted for disease monitoring. In any case, feral swine that are host to
a disease agent would be composted on site – reducing the possibility for disease
transmission off-site, though transmission to other swine prior to death could not be ruled
out, thought it would not be exacerbated by FSDM. Thus overall risks from composting
carcasses killed on site may not exceed the status quo as long as carcass numbers are not
concentrated.
C. On site Burial
1. Advantages
On site burial can be economically feasible and minimizes or eliminates transportation
needs. Some livestock operations use trench or pit burial for routine livestock carcass
management already, thus feral swine carcasses may be added to existing systems if
approved by the landowner and compliant with applicable rules for livestock burial.
2. Challenges
Cultural resource laws, endangered species/critical habitat considerations, land uses,
climate, soil type and depth, vegetation, and proximity to ground and surface water
resources must be considered in selecting new burial sites. New burial sites require
coordination with SHPOs, land managers/landowners and tribes to determine if
cultural/historic resources may be present. Burial site selection and excavation depth
should be planned to avoid water contamination considering depth to ground water and
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 498
distance to surface waters and wells. Excavation and remediation should conserve
topsoil, control erosion and runoff, and allow for revegetation. Heavy excavation
equipment may increase the potential for adverse effects.
Local planning must include consultation with state/territorial/tribal wildlife,
environmental quality, and/or agriculture officials (e.g., State Veterinarian) to ensure that
local guidelines on carcass burial are considered and potential contamination concerns
are mitigated.
3. Environmental Impacts
APHIS-WS does not use burial for feral swine carcass disposal in most states. Some
state regulations require burial or limit various options but include burial. Most burial
sites to date have been small and shallow to contain few individual animals. It is
conceivable that some property managers may choose to bury larger numbers of feral
swine as the number of feral swine killed expands operationally over current program
levels. Burial sites can be selected to minimize or avoid potential adverse effects. ESA
Section 7 consultations would be conducted for any listed plant species that may be
adversely affected or designated critical habitats that may be adversely modified.
Preference is given to new burial sites on previously disturbed areas. Cultural/historic
resources impacts would be avoided through making siting decisions after coordination
with SHPOs, tribal authorities, and land managers.
Nitrogen, chloride, and pathogens may cause soil and water contamination when
carcasses are buried on site. Most sates do not regulate feral swine burial, however states
and other local authorities provide guidance for routine livestock burial to protect soil and
water quality among other concerns. When feral swine carcasses are disposed of in
existing routine livestock burial trenches or pits, cumulative impacts could potentially
have higher environmental risks, however those effects are likely to be mitigated by
producers following local guidelines for livestock carcass burial which are in place to
protect soils and water resources.
The potential for carcasses to harbor diseases may be unknown unless the feral swine
were specifically targeted for disease monitoring. In any case, feral swine that are host to
a disease agent would have died in place and/or may have spread the disease to other
swine or other animals if it was not removed in FSDM. Thus overall risks from leaving
carcasses on site may not exceed the status quo as long as carcass numbers are not
concentrated.
Burial site remediation should include soil conservation measures to minimize runoff and
soil erosion, loss of topsoil, and effects on vegetation.
APHIS-WS’ local environmental reviews may be issued to implement decisions made
from this EIS and would include local analysis of impacts on soil, vegetation and water
quality where on site burial is a proposed disposal option.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 499
In conclusion, burial is not a widely used disposal option, and where it is used, few
individual carcasses are usually involved. This presents a low level risk when compared
with the effects of live feral swine and dying in place from natural death over the
landscape. Some feral swine carcasses would likely be added to existing routine livestock
trench or pit burial sites. Environmental effects would thus be mitigated by the land
manager who complies with livestock burial rules. Where more than one sounder is slated
for on site burial of feral swine only, the general lack of regulatory controls over on site
feral swine carcass burial and the soil and water contamination risks from larger groups
of carcasses is a concern that should be resolved with local resource experts.
D. Landfill Disposal
1. Advantages
Some commercial landfills are approved for animal disposal and are strictly regulated by
the EPA and local authorities. Environmental risks are mitigated by the landfill operator.
Landfill operators are required to collect and treat leachate to protect groundwater, cover
waste to protect air quality and reduce scavenging, and implement other measures to
protect other environmental resources and public health risks.
2. Challenges
Approved landfills that will accept feral swine carcasses may not be widely available,
while landfill disposal and associated transportation increase operational costs.
Transportation of feral swine carcasses is a potential source of disease transmission risk.
Disease related risks from feral swine carcasses are thought to diminish over time,
however feral swine carcasses would need to be transported to a landfill at the time of the
management action, not allowing time for disease risks to abate.
3. Environmental Impacts
Environmental impacts are limited to transportation.
E. Incineration
1. Advantages
Open burning may be favored over burial when soils are rocky or shallow, or a high
water table is present.
2. Challenges
Open burning should be avoided (APHIS WS Directive 2.515) due to potential fire
hazards except when this method is required by regulations and can be conducted safely.
Additionally, open burning requires sufficient combustible materials.
APHIS Directive 2.515 allows for carcasses to be incinerated in approved facilities that
comply with federal, state, and local regulations. Availability of incineration facilities
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 500
approved for large numbers of large animals can be a limitation with regard to feral swine
carcass disposal and may not be practical in many areas.
3. Environmental Impacts and Conclusions
APHIS WS does not typically use this option, and future use is not likely to increase
substantially due to shortage of available facilities, associated costs, transportation
requirements, regulatory restrictions, and safety and air quality issues.
F. Chemical and Anaerobic Digesters
1. Advantages
Chemical digesters create an effluent that is easily disposed or utilized depending on the
digesting agent. Anaerobic digesters produce energy (biogas) that may be used as fuel.
2. Challenges
Lack of alkaline hydrolysis and anaerobic digestion facilities is a current limitation with
regard to feral swine carcass disposal.
3. Environmental Impacts
These options have not been assessed in detail since they are not expected to be pursued.
However, digesting facilities are regulated by federal and state entities, so the possible
use of existing aerobic digestion facilities is not expected to have any negative effect on
the environment.
G. Rendering
1. Advantages
Rendering can generate useful by-products such as animal feed or fertilizer, and is
economically feasible if rendering plants are available.
2. Challenges
Rendering cannot be used for feral swine that are killed with lead ammunition.
Availability of independent rendering plants may be limited. Remote operational
locations may preclude this option in many cases.
3. Environmental Impacts
Rendering plants are regulated to be environmentally sound. Thus no adverse effects on
air quality during processing, or on end product users are expected.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 501
H. Leave On site
1. Advantages
Leaving carcasses in place or on site simulates natural death by allowing carcasses to
remain in the ecosystem for scavenging and other natural processes. Leaving carcasses
on site is the lowest cost disposal option. Carcass retrieval is avoided, therefore access
challenges, transporting carcasses, additional vehicle use, and disturbance of sensitive
ecosystems are avoided. This option is particularly desirable when using aerial shooting
in remote areas. Leaving carcasses on site also minimizes the potential for disease
transmission to off-site locations and may be preferred by state and local animal health
authorities.
2. Challenges
Consideration must be given to the effects of lead ammunition, if used, on scavengers,
including eagles and other vulnerable protected species. Decisions on using this option
must consider public exposure to visual and odor effects and land use conflicts, and must
comply with land owner agreements and federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local laws
and regulations regarding carcass disposition. This option may not be desirable with
higher levels of human use where exposure is more likely to be offensive and pose other
risks to humans or domestic animals.
3. Environmental Impacts
Leaving carcasses on site is currently the most widely practiced carcass management
option and can be the most environmentally preferable option with aerial shooting in
more remote areas or where ground access is limited. While it may be preferable in
many cases, there are important environmental impact considerations and mitigations via
SOPs are oftentimes necessary.
Leaving carcasses on site can attract predators to vulnerable protected species such as
ground nesting birds. Measures to avoid or minimize harmful effects include
identification of issues and resolutions through ESA consultations, coordination with land
managers, and by avoiding sensitive areas altogether or during critical life stages such as
breeding, nesting, or birthing seasons. When lead ammunition is used it can pose toxicity
risks to scavengers including eagles and vulnerable listed species, such as the California
condor. Risks are minimized through coordination with land managers, ESA
consultations, SOPs to minimize risk, and using non-toxic ammunition in designated
areas such as the range of the California condor and in other areas when readily available,
safe, practical and effective. Eagles may be attracted to feral swine carcasses that are
taken at trap and snare sites. To reduce risk of an eagle walking onto a trap or into a
snare, feral swine carcasses would be left downwind and crosswind of trap or snare sets.
Feral swine carcasses that are left on site would pose only a very limited disease risk to
human health and safety since the putrefaction process destroys most disease causing
agents. Most disease agents require a live host and fail to survive when their host dies.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 502
Although prion diseases are known to be particularly persistent in the environment they
are not known to occur in feral swine. Feral swine carcasses left in the field would
generally not be left in locations frequented by the general public and would only be left
with landowner permission. The potential for the general public to encounter a feral
swine carcass would be expected to be extremely remote.
Feral swine carrying the pseudorabies virus (PRV) can present a mortality risk to
domestic animals and other non-target mammals if they ingest tissues from a fresh
carcass. A decomposing carcass is not likely to pose a risk, thus leaving feral swine on
site presents only a short term risk.
The potential for carcasses to serve as a source of infection may be unknown unless the
feral swine were specifically targeted for disease monitoring. In any case, feral swine that
are host to a disease agent would have died in place and/or may have spread the disease
to other swine or other animals if it was not removed in FSDM. Thus overall risks from
leaving carcasses on site may not exceed the status quo as long as carcass numbers are
not concentrated.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 503
APPENDIX I
Response to Comments
The DEIS was made available for public review and comment from December 10, 2014 –
February 2, 2015. The agencies received 45 comment letters from organizations and private
individuals. This appendix contains the lead and cooperating agency response to comments
provided on the DEIS. Comments are numbered and presented in bold text. The agencies’
response follows each comment and is written in standard text. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) also reviewed the DEIS in accordance with their responsibilities
under Section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. The EPA rated
the DEIS as LO indicating they had a lack of objection. The DEIS was also provided to the
U.S. Department of the Interior for review. The DOI did not have any comments on the
DEIS.
1) Feral swine research is based on southern populations. The EIS should state the
limitations of that data.
An entity representing state management agencies noted that most of the current information
available on feral swine biology and behavior comes from well established, southern
populations of feral swine. The spread of feral swine into more northern climates may cause
feral swine behaviors and habits (including food preferences) to adapt and that more research
would be needed in this area. Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would provide additional funding for
FSDM research which could include research into biology and behavior of feral swine in
different types of ecosystems.
2) Please develop an alternative that minimizes or eliminates federal funding for
FSDM.
Chapter 1 and Chapter 3 provide details on national and international concerns about feral
swine and the need for FSDM. Alternative 1 would not use any new federal funds to expand
the APHIS-WS FSDM program. However, the decision to allocate funding for a national
FSDM program was made by Congress. Federal funding for FSDM is stretched under most
of the alternatives due to cost sharing with partner agencies and others. The selection and
application of the most effective Alternative will ultimately decrease the need for federal
funding in the long term. Without a nationally managed program, feral swine damage is
expected to increase and become more costly over time to manage. See also EIS Chapter 2
Sections F.1.a and F.1.b. for a discussion of the alternatives considered but not analyzed in
detail.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 504
3) Please do not select Alternative 1. Alternative 1 has not been, and cannot be
effective at long-term population stabilization.
Thank you for the comment. This opinion is consistent with APHIS’ review of the
alternative presented in Chapter 4, Section B.1 of the EIS.
4) Please do not select Alternative 5. Alternative 5 does not take advantage of the
knowledge base and expertise of APHIS Wildlife Services.
Thank you for the comment. This opinion is consistent with APHIS’ review of the
alternative presented in Chapter 4 of the EIS.
5) Comments Regarding the Use of Lead Ammunition.
Several commenters expressed concern with the use of lead ammunition in FSDM activities
and potential impacts on scavengers, including eagles. As noted in the FEIS, APHIS
complies with national, state and local regulations requiring the use of non-lead ammunition
and also complies with landowner/manager requests to use non-lead ammunition. Program-
wide, APHIS-WS is shifting to lead-free ammunition as new lead-free alternatives that meet
WS standards for safety, performance and humaneness are developed. The APHIS-WS
program has identified lead-free shot suitable for use in aerial shooting for FSDM which is
currently the method used to remove the most feral swine per year (42% of all feral swine
removed are taken with this method). Under Alternatives 2-4, the APHIS-WS national
FSDM program would purchase lead-free ammunition for use during aerial shooting
operations. Information on the issues and risks associated with the programs use of lead is
summarized in Table 1.
Primary sections of FEIS with
information on use of lead
ammunition. Issue
Location in Document
Availability of non-lead ammunition Chapter 4 Section C.2. Risks
Associated with Ammunition Used for
FSDM
Cost of non-lead ammunition Chapter 4 Section C.2. Risks
Associated with Ammunition Used for
FSDM
Availability to non-eagle scavengers Chapter 4 Section C.2. Risks
Associated with Ammunition Used for
FSDM
Effects on eagles Chapter 4 Section C.2. Risks to
Migratory Birds and Bald and
Golden Eagles
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 505
Under the current APHIS program, the national bald eagle population has remained stable,
indicating that APHIS activities, including the use of lead ammunition, have not negatively
impacted the species population or trend. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2)
represents a reduction over the amount of lead used under the Current Program (Alternative
1, No Action Alternative).
One commenter mentioned concerns regarding an unspecified previous analysis by APHIS-
WS comparing lead and non-lead ammunition. This EIS provides current, detailed analysis
of the status of APHIS-WS’ review of non-lead ammunition performance and options for
FSDM. This discussion may be found in Chapter 4 Section C.2.
Several entities expressed their support for APHIS’ commitment to moving to non-lead
ammunition.
6) Please do not round up and keep feral swine in holding facilities like they do with
feral horses.
APHIS-WS did not propose and would not use this method. See Chapter 2, Section E.
7) Would the use of baits increase feral swine populations because it provides
supplemental food?
No, as used by APHIS-WS, baits would not result in increases in feral swine populations.
Baits are only provided for a short period of time and are not provided in sufficient quantity
or for sufficient duration to impact feral swine populations. Baits are essential to success and
widely accepted part of an integrated control program. The baits are most commonly used as
part of trapping systems intended to remove all individuals that utilize the bait, including
reproductive-aged individuals, and ultimately decrease the size of the feral swine population.
Baits used for shooting would not be available in large quantities or for extended periods of
time and would not provide a supplemental food source.
8) APHIS-WS should include an SOP to require that the most effective methods are
used to remove swine.
APHIS-WS uses Integrated Wildlife Damage Management and the APHIS-WS Decision
model to select the most effective methods for each project while minimizing risk of adverse
environmental effects (e.g., risks to threatened and endangered species, risks to human
safety), and considering other factors such as availability (legal and administrative), site uses,
humaneness and ethical concerns, and landowner and community values (Chapter 2, Section
C). Use of the APHIS-WS Decision model to identify the most practical, effective and
appropriate methods when developing site-specific management strategies is addressed in
Standard Operating Procedures Chapter 2, Section G.1.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 506
9) APHIS-WS should use chemical sterilization to reduce feral swine populations.
The use of a contraceptive that can pass from swine to swine through saliva
would be especially helpful.
Use of chemical sterilization is considered in the EIS, but no products are currently registered
for this use (Chapter 2, Section E.8.b). There are ongoing investigations to develop an oral
contraceptive for use in feral swine and Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 would increase the funding
available to develop and register a feral swine contraceptive.
There are environmental concerns regarding use of this type of method which would need to
be addressed via the federal product registration and NEPA review processes. These
concerns include risks to non-target species that may be exposed to the reproductive control
agent and, in the case of the product proposed by the commenter that could be transmitted
among swine, risks that the agent could be transmitted to domestic swine. Sufficient
information was available on one product (injectable GonaCon™) that it could be
incorporated into the current program without additional NEPA analysis. This analysis
would need to be supplemented prior to incorporating any other chemical reproductive
control product into an APHIS-WS FSDM program.
10) One entity requested that APHIS adopt their specific strategy of feral swine
management.
The commenter’s proposed management program uses a series of lethal control methods in a
specific sequence based on seasonal food sources. Emphasis is placed on removal of entire
sounders and efforts to minimize the risk of escapees. The proposed management program
provides detailed and useful analysis of tools and implementation strategies similar to those
that are utilized by APHIS-WS as one component of the existing integrated FSDM program
when using lethal strategies to remove feral swine from an area. Strategies presented by
commenter could also be used by APHIS-WS under alternatives 1-4. However, working
with state, territories and tribes to achieve their feral swine management goals is a priority for
the current and proposed future FSDM program activities. Not all tribes, agencies or
landowners/managers wish to completely eradicate feral swine populations, and some
landowners/managers may be opposed to use of lethal methods. Universal adoption of the
commenter’s strategy for all situations would not provide sufficient flexibility to
accommodate the range of agency partner, tribal or landowner/manager goals. The model
provided by the commenter also does not address the goals regarding communication,
international outreach, education, partnerships, and disease risks that are key to the national
FSDM program. It is our determination that the varied needs of APHIS-WS cooperators are
best addressed through use of an integrated FSDM program that includes lethal and nonlethal
methods developed for each specific situation through use of the APHIS-WS Decision
Model. See Chapter 2 Section D.2 for details on WS’ Integrated FSDM program and
APHIS-WS Decision model. Further discussion on the selection of methods and use of lethal
methods see Chapter 4 Section C.8 Humaneness and Ethical Perspectives in the EIS.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 507
11) Does APHIS consider all comments submitted even if they are critical of the
proposed action and the money that would go to the APHIS-WS program for
FSDM?
All issues raised in comment letters received during the public comment period of December
10, 2014 to Feb 2, 2015 have been considered and are presented here. The decision to
allocate funds for FSDM was made by Congress and is outside the scope of this analysis.
12) Alternative 2 (Preferred Alternative) doesn’t appear to have an
outreach/communications program like the one in Alternative 4.
Alternative 2 includes the same communications strategy as Alternative 4 as described in
Chapter 4 Section B.5.b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative).
This section outlines the proposals for an expanded outreach program; including a social
media communication program with weekly messages on FSDM; outreach materials
including brochures and fact sheets which can be customized to meet local needs; improved
online materials to be used by agencies and the public; additional traveling displays for use at
fairs, industry meetings and other gatherings; and print advertisements. Additionally, under
the Preferred Alternative, resources would be available for APHIS to assess effectiveness of
outreach strategies.
13) Will APHIS utilize social media to facilitate the FSDM efforts and target specific
audiences, such as hunters and large landowners, to communicate facts about
feral swine, the damage they cause, and what the public can do to alleviate the
damage?
The details of the communication strategy associated with the National Feral Swine Damage
Management Program are evolving and will not be finalized until a Decision is made on this
EIS. Current proposals to be considered include use of social media and a wide range of
other targeted strategies to enhance the ability of the program to reach stakeholders. The
basic tenants of APHIS’s implementation of communications, education, outreach, and
regulatory support and advice can be found in the EIS in Chapter 2 Section E.1 Technical
Assistance.
14) Leaving feral swine in the field is a waste of meat. APHIS-WS should look for
ways to make these animals available for food. The EIS also needs to consider
impact of program on people who use feral swine for food including those who
prefer feral swine over commercially produced swine.
The EIS acknowledges that there are people who use feral swine meat as part of their diet for
a variety of reasons in Chapter 2 Sections F.1.d and F.2.c. Risks associated with
consumption of feral swine meat are discussed in Chapter 2, Section F.1.d and also in context
of FSDM program in Chapter 4 Section C.7.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 508
Distributing some game species for public consumption/distribution to food banks is legal
and is conducted by the APHIS-WS program when safe, practical and allowed by state and
federal laws. However, disposition of feral swine is regulated under the Federal Meat
Inspection Act. The Act requires that all swine be inspected before and after death before
they can be part of the commercial food supply (includes donation to food pantries). This
type of inspection is not cost-effective or practical for most APHIS-WS FSDM operations.
Section 303.1 of the Act provides an exemption for individual landowners/managers who
may slaughter swine for their personal use or use by family members, nonpaying guests, and
employees. This issue is addressed in the EIS in Chapter 2 Section E.11.a. and Chapter 3
Sections F.2.c. and H.1. Federal Meat Inspection Act.
State regulations also direct how feral swine meat may be used. Some state agencies may be
reluctant to condone use of feral swine as food or contributing feral swine to food pantries
because of health concerns and concerns about agency liability. For example, testing in
Louisiana has identified potentially zoonotic diseases in feral hogs including, but not limited
to, swine brucellosis (5% prevalence), leptospirosis (12% prevalence), toxoplasmosis (8%
prevalence) and trichinosis (3% prevalence). The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and
Fisheries has refused to endorse the utilization of feral hog meat in the “Hunters for the
Hungry” program due to concerns that workers in soup kitchens would be exposed to
diseased feral pork during meal preparation or that consumers would be fed undercooked
feral pork resulting in human disease. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
does not want the liability risks associated with this program, or to be construed as portraying
feral pork as “wholesome” (J. LaCour, DVM, State Veterinarian, Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries, pers. comm.). See also Issues 16 and 17 below.
In addition to health concerns, agencies are also reluctant to encourage practices which may
increase the perceived positive values of feral swine for things such as hunting and food use
because these actions may have the unintended adverse consequence of encouraging people
to try and preserve or spread feral swine populations (See Issues 24 and 25 below).
15) APHIS should utilize mobile inspection units to better utilize meat.
The use of mobile inspection units to facilitate feral swine processing was listed as a means
to make more feral swine take for damage management available for human consumption.
These units are currently available in very limited areas, and would only be useful for
situations where feral swine may be held in a corral until inspected. The method is unlikely
to be cost effective unless many swine are available at one or nearby location. This is not a
viable option for remote, difficult to access locations and situations where relatively small
numbers of swine are removed over large areas (as may occur with aerial shooting).
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 509
16) Can APHIS make it easier for people to sell feral swine meat, increasing harvest
and utilizing the food source? Increasing the number of terminal facilities
available to feral swine sales and altering state laws would be helpful.
APHIS does not have regulatory authority to alter the Federal Meat Inspection Act or state
regulations on use of feral swine. While this would utilize meat and create some financial
incentive for the removal of swine, it also creates financial incentive for people to maintain,
or increase and spread feral swine populations. Actions that result in new reasons for people
to wish to introduce or retain feral swine work against the intent of the program and are
strongly discouraged by APHIS. Additionally, alteration of state laws and facilities is
outside the scope of this EIS. See also response 25.
17) Can APHIS-WS effectively control the feral swine population? In one project in
Florida, a 50% removal rate was not sufficient to limiting the feral swine
population.
Current feral swine population models cited in the EIS (Chapter 4 Section B.1.a Impacts on
National Feral Swine Populations) indicate that a removal rate of 70% is necessary to
stabilize or reduce populations. When APHIS operational program goals are set to eliminate
feral swine populations, APHIS would strive to remove at least 70%, and hopefully 100% of
the targeted isolated population. While APHIS will not be able to remove 70% of the
national population, the efforts to remove individual populations are expected to slowly
reduce distributions. The EIS details the numerous challenges that are inherent in eradication
efforts for species with such high reproductive rates, particularly areas with moderate or high
populations (EIS Chapter 4 Section B.1.a. Efficacy of Damage Management Methods and
Other Factors Influencing Efficacy of FSDM Programs). Difficulties in controlling feral
swine populations with methods currently available are one of the primary motivations for
ongoing research into self-administered feral swine reproductive control methods and
toxicants discussed in the FEIS (Chapter 2 Section E.8). Variations in habitat and feral swine
behavior are just two of the factors that APHIS considers when implementing FSDM,
through the implementation of the APHIS-WS Decision Model outlined in Chapter 2 Section
C of the FEIS. While eradication may be attempted in some situations and may be achieved
in some areas, damage management is the primary goal of the EIS may not always require a
significant population reduction to be successful.
18) APHIS should work closely with state agencies and form state-level committees to
address local feral swine issues.
Several commenters brought up various aspects of the subject of cooperative partnerships,
referring to both general cooperative relationships and specifically in reference to APHIS
partnering with state agencies. APHIS recognizes that state/local support is key to the
success of the FSDM program, and was commended by some commenters on the
development of our partnerships with state agencies. New Mexico credits the partnership
between APHIS-WS and the state agencies with their success with managing feral swine.
State and other local agencies provide insight into local needs, local feral swine population
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 510
demographics and patters, as well as the needs of the local agricultural communities on
damage and disease issues. States also present unique regulatory climates that affect
management options available for use. Further developing cooperative partnerships with
other pertinent federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local agencies, as well as private
organizations working to reduce impacts of feral swine is specifically listed as an Objective
of the National Feral Swine Damage Management Program. While details of the
partnerships will be developed as the national strategy for dealing with feral swine evolves
after a Decision is made on this EIS, some of the basic tenants that were brought up during
public comment are addressed below.
19) Why did APHIS exclude state agencies from the preparation of the EIS and from
future cooperative partnerships?
APHIS did not exclude state agencies from participating in preparation of the EIS. Nor are
states excluded from future cooperative partnerships. The EIS considered the states, along
with territories and tribes, as current and future partners, vital to any successful FSDM
program outcome. State wildlife and agriculture agencies were included in the preparation of
this EIS through the participation of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. Inclusion of every state agency
with feral swine on the interdisciplinary team for the EIS would have been logistically
untenable. The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture represent state agencies on national issues and were able to
provide effective and efficient input during development of the EIS. The EIS was also
available to state agencies during the comment period and comments were provided to
APHIS by several state agencies. State agencies are active participants in the current APHIS
FSDM program and the FEIS explicitly identifies development of cooperative partnerships
with them as an Objective (Chapter 1 Section G Specific Objectives). All APHIS FSDM
actions are and would continue to be conducted in accordance with applicable state
regulations and coordinated with state agencies with regulatory authority for management of
feral swine. Coordination with state agencies and other entities at the state, territorial or
tribal level is currently conducted through one-on one partnerships between APHIS and these
entities and/or working groups. APHIS has been asked to set up state level working groups
that would in some way report to a national FSDM steering committee. A national steering
committee already exists to guide the development of the National FSDM program.
Committee members include the APHIS FSDM Program Manager, the Assistant APHIS
FSDM Program Manager, one APHIS-WS Western Region State Director, one APHIS-WS
Eastern Region State Director, a representative from the National Wildlife Research Center,
and two representatives from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
20) APHIS should include USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and
extension services in the Preferred Alternative.
NRCS is a Participating Agency in the preparation of this EIS, and remains a federal partner
in its implementation (Chapter 1 Section H.11 USDA, Natural Resources Conservation
Service). One of the objectives of the APHIS FSDM program is to further develop
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 511
cooperative partnerships with other pertinent federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local
agencies, and private organizations working to reduce impacts of feral swine to agriculture,
natural and cultural resources, property, animal health, and human health. APHIS-WS
already cooperates in portions of some state programs, such as extension services and
research institutions, and partners them to develop and modify management methods
(Chapter 2 Section D.2.c Research). Ongoing development of partnerships between APHIS
and other agencies, tribes and public and private entities including the NRCS and Extension
programs would be expected under Alternatives 1-4.
21) My dogs and I have never gotten any diseases from feral swine, and I hunt feral
swine regularly with dogs. Are they really a disease risk?
While some commenters felt that the feral swine disease potential was understated in the
document, some commenters used anecdotal evidence of personal experiences with swine
that did not result in disease transmission to state that the threat of disease was overstated.
APHIS provided a detailed discussion of disease risks in Chapter 3 Section B.1.b. Disease
threats to Livestock and Trade and Market. While some hunters routinely interact with feral
swine with no disease transmission, that is not conclusive proof that feral swine cannot
transmit diseases. In January of 2015, 10 hunting dogs died in Arkansas after contracting
pseudorabies from a feral swine they engaged
(http://www.arkansasmatters.com/story/d/story/pseudorabies-outbreak-kills-hunting-dogs-in-
sevier/42528/2ueQp-wn9USJzX3_FZjLDA).
22) Feral swine are a substantial risk to commercial swine production, but foreign
animal diseases are the most dangerous to the industry. Why would APHIS
monitor for endemic diseases?
The Proposed Alternative includes testing for both endemic disease as well as FADs. While
FADs are a much greater threat to the pork industry and human safety as a whole, monitoring
for diseases that are known to occur in feral swine populations is important. Endemic
diseases would not have the tremendous financial impacts to the feral swine industry as a
whole that a FAD would, smaller operations could be severely impacted by an endemic
disease, and endemic diseases may also be a financial hardship on the public. The
alternatives proposed by APHIS are intended to assist the feral swine industry as a whole,
from large commercial operations to producers on small family farms. Knowledge of the
presence or absence of endemic diseases in an area may be particularly useful to producers
on small farms, including low-income farmers, and producers seeking to produce pasture-
raised pork. These producers do not have the same resources to commit to biosecurity as
large commercial operations and knowledge of the presence or absence of diseases in their
area may be useful in making management decisions. APHIS-VS will evaluate the disease
monitoring program and work with commercial pork producers to determine which diseases
should be included in the national disease monitoring component of the program.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 512
23) The Department of Defense should be included as a Cooperating Agency on the
EIS.
Feral swine have far reaching impacts and inclusion of all agencies that could feel effects of
feral swine was not practical. APHIS invited agencies with agriculture or natural resources
management as their primary mission and/or area of expertise to be cooperating agencies.
Although DOD controls large amounts of land, their primary mission is not natural resources
management. APHIS-WS still works closely with DOD to assist with wildlife issues and that
cooperation will continue with FSDM. APHIS’ current and future partnerships with tribes,
agencies and private organizations are not in any way limited to only those entities
specifically listed in the FEIS. This comment was provided by a private organization, and
not by the Department of Defense.
24) Why should the government expend resources to manage a species that people
will pay to kill?
One commenter was opposed to the use of federal money to kill something that provides
income for the private sector via hunting lodges and opportunities. APHIS acknowledges the
potential impacts to the hunting industry and discusses the impact of FSDM on hunting in
Chapter 3 Sections E.1.c and E.2.b with analysis of the alternatives on feral swine hunting
related businesses is provided in Chapter 4 Section C.5 Impacts on Recreation and Section
C.9 Economic Impacts. However, under the Alternatives 2 through 5, legal fenced hunting
preserves could benefit by having less competition from reduced or eliminated opportunities
to hunt free-ranging swine populations nearby, provided that these types of facilities are not
prohibited by the state, territory or tribe because of concerns regarding escaped or
intentionally released animals.
Reviews of recreational hunting and commercial hunting as methods to control or eradicate
feral swine populations have indicated that these strategies have generally not been sufficient
to address the problem. In Australia, a review of commercial harvest if pigs for meat
indicated that commercial harvest rates were generally low (<20%) and that harvest rates
capable of substantial long-term reductions (>50% as defined by the authors) were isolated
occurrences and not maintained across sites and years (Gentle and Pople 2013). Authors
noted that unless commercial harvesting could be significantly increased it should be
considered a supplement to rather than a substitute for other strategies. Massei et al. (2011)
noted that historically, sustained intensive hunting has reduced feral swine populations in the
past and, in many European countries, even resulted in extirpation of feral swine from some
areas during periods when wild game was regarded as one of the few available sources of
protein. However, based on current trends in feral hog numbers in the U.S., Australia and
Europe, recreational hunting as current practiced is not of sufficient intensity or magnitude to
reduce populations. In a study from Hawaii (Reeser and Harry 2005), volunteer or public
hunting failed to remove feral hogs at the required rate, but professional hunters were more
successful. Volunteer hunters also tended to select for adult males instead of females and
young pigs which also reduced the effectiveness of population control efforts. Similar
complications may occur with commercial hunters who may favor larger animals over
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 513
smaller animals that provide little return when processed or which will not be accepted by
processing plants. (See also Chapter 2, Section E.10)
Some of the recent spread of feral swine in the U.S. has been attributed to movement of
swine by individuals who wish to create hunting opportunities near their residences and
swine which have escaped from hunting preserves (See Chapter 4, Section C.5.a). The lead
and cooperating agencies and some commenters on the DEIS are concerned that systems
which provide commercial or recreational benefit from an ongoing feral swine population
may foster behaviors which sustain or increase the spread of feral swine populations, and the
agencies generally work to discourage those types of practices. This differs from feral swine
control businesses which generally have the same goals as agencies, in that they seek to
remove feral swine from specific areas and success of the business is based on their ability to
remove swine not provide a recreational opportunity or maintain a population.
25) APHIS should provide opportunities for the private sector to benefit from FSDM.
In response to a request for APHIS to provide opportunity for the private sector to profit from
the proposed action, using non-governmental resources (hunters, private control providers,
etc.) as substitute for federal FSDM was evaluated in Chapter 2 Section F.1.a. Exclusive Use
of Private Industry, Volunteers, and Private Hunting and Chapter 2 Section F.2.b Bounties.
Alternative 5 analyzed the use of a grant program that would rely on state, territorial, tribal or
local governments to conduct all FSDM. Under Alternative 5, states, tribes and territories
could allocate some of their grant money to hiring private contractors. See also response to
Issue 24.
26) Control work should ensure eradication and provide rapid response to new feral
swine populations.
Under the current program/no action alternative, response to new detections of feral swine
was dependent upon availability of cooperator resources. Under the proposed alternative and
the National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects Alternative, national FSDM resources
would be available to enable APHIS-WS state offices to rapidly respond to new reports of
feral swine in areas that have never had feral swine or which are believed to be cleared of
feral swine. Under the Baseline FSDM and Federal Grants Program Alternatives, resources
would be allocated at the beginning of the fiscal year and no money would be retained for
rapid response to new detections of feral swine. Under these alternatives, if cooperator
resources are not available for rapid response, APHIS-WS response to reports of feral swine
would have to wait until the next federal funding cycle. Table 2-1 compares the ability of
APHIS to provide a rapid response under each alternative.
When conducting operational work for FSDM, local APHIS employees are trained in
detection of feral swine and carefully monitor the outcome of each FSDM project for
success. This is not a standardized procedure outlined in the EIS, but is conducted by
experienced employees trained in feral swine management and detection. It is important to
remember that not all states, territories and tribes wish to eradicate their feral swine
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 514
populations. In these situations, project success may be measured in terms of the damage
which has been stopped or prevented or in reductions in feral swine populations and not the
eradication of feral swine.
27) Can people keep feral swine on their property to hunt or as livestock?
A few commenters asked that feral swine should be allowed to be kept on private property
and as livestock. In the EIS, the term “feral swine” refers collectively to “free-ranging
swine”. In cases where state laws allow feral swine to be kept in fences, this EIS does not
address such activity. This EIS does not deal with feral swine in captivity. However, failure
of those containment systems can result in unintentional release of feral swine and induce
new damage problems that are within the scope of this FEIS.
28) Please explain how risk analysis, economic analysis, and population modeling
help efforts to reduce damage.
Those large scale data collection efforts and analyses are part of the “national projects”
components of the alternatives. These aspects are included to provide beneficial effects
based on long-term efficiency and efficacy in developing tools and improving public
understanding of the need to stabilize and reduce the feral swine population. There have
been multiple requests for additional information on the economic damage caused by feral
swine to help national, state and local decision-makers understand the magnitude of feral
swine impacts and compare costs of feral swine to any potential economic benefits which
may be associated with feral swine (e.g. feral swine related businesses). While APHIS has
provided a dollar value estimate for national damage, more specific data is necessary to
determine the proper allocation of resources to most effectively resolve feral swine damage
and reduce further threats.
Disease monitoring and risk analysis help agencies to understand where risks to animal and
public health are greatest and facilitates effective and efficient allocation of management
resources. Feral swine population modeling helps to assist agencies in understanding the
impacts of management on feral swine populations and effectively target agency resources to
achieve desired results. These types of national projects are particularly important given that
APHIS does not have sufficient resources to address all FSDM problems at once and must
prioritize projects strategically to maximize efficiencies to help meet national objectives. An
explanation of how population modeling will be used to increase the effectiveness of the
FSDM program can be found in Chapter 2 Section D.2.d. Disease and Population
Monitoring.
29) Explain why the program focuses on FSDM and not “Feral Swine Control” or
“Feral Swine Eradication”.
The change would not properly reflect the focus of the proposed program. APHIS-WS’s
mission, and the goal of this EIS and Program, is to reduce feral swine damage and help
states, territories and tribes achieve their FSDM objectives. In some areas the objective is to
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 515
eradicate feral swine and thereby eliminate damage, but in other areas the goal is to retain
some feral swine while also minimizing feral swine damage. APHIS actions are not limited
to controlling feral swine, but also include other strategies including public outreach and
education to inform the public of feral swine damage and help reduce intentional spread of
feral swine, as well as disease monitoring to help guide efforts to protect animal and public
health. Feral swine population control as discussed by commenter is one way to address
damage, but other methods such as exclusion, frightening devices, or other nonlethal
techniques may also achieve project objectives, either as an interim measure until population
control objectives are achieved or as part of a program to retain feral swine while minimizing
feral swine damage.
30) Government is ineffective and wasteful.
APHIS has a proven record of effectiveness with the issues of feral swine management.
APHIS has also laid out tangible goals (Chapter 4 Section B.1.b. Impact on National Feral
Swine Population) which to measure success. The initial target of the national population
reduction effort is to eliminate feral swine from two states within the first 5 years of the
program and then continue to eliminate feral swine from additional states at an average rate
of two states every three years. Alternatives 2-4 include a national evaluation and
monitoring component that establishes performance measurements consistent with the long-
term strategic goals and objectives of the FSDM plan. Program performance reports would
be used to communicate with agency decision-makers and budget officials within USDA and
APHIS and to guide and refine management actions in accordance with adaptive
management practices.
31) Is there really a feral swine problem? Some data from Florida does not show any
adverse impacts from feral swine.
One commenter asserted that there were few damage complaints related to feral swine in
Florida and that wetlands were not negatively impacted by feral swine. The commenter did
not provide any specific references for APHIS to use. The EIS acknowledges that some
habitats may be better able to withstand feral swine damage and that not all areas with feral
swine may show evidence of extensive damage. However, damage caused by feral swine in
Florida has been documented in several published studies and reports (Engman et al. 2013b,
2007a, 2007b, 2004, 2003). While feral swine damage crops in Florida (Chapter 3 Section
B.1.a.), they are also responsible for the death of numerous federally listed T&E species,
including the Florida panther (Chapter 3 Section C.1.c), sea turtles (Chapter 4 Section
C.1.a.), and listed desert tortoises (Chapter 3 Section C.1.c.). Additionally, in 2009, a
Florida woman was killed when her vehicle flipped after colliding with a feral swine
(Chapter C Section F.1.a.). There are also recent cases of human brucellosis with links to
feral swine hunting activities confirmed by the Florida Department of Health in Florida
(Chapter 3 Section F.1.b. Brucellosis). In regards to wetlands, the EIS cites a study
conducted in 2004 that showed that feral swine damage management in wetlands reduced
environmental damage by a total of 60%, indicating feral swine were damaging the wetlands
(Chapter 3 Section C.2.a.) Feral swine have been present in Florida for hundreds of years, so
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 516
the commenter’s assumption that wetlands that exist with feral swine are at their peak
productivity because they haven’t changed in the last 20 years does not consider that feral
swine may have already altered the wetlands prior to current studies.
These are a snapshot of the damage events that have been documented, not an exhaustive list
of feral swine damages in Florida. Florida allows landowners to take feral swine year round,
reducing the need for landowners to contact authorities with complaints about feral swine.
32) APHIS should conduct a cost/benefit study for feral swine damage management
before choosing an alternative.
One commenter requested that APHIS conduct further cost benefit studies prior to spending
funds on control. We believe that the existing qualitative and quantitative analysis is
sufficient to compare the merits of the alternatives for the purposes of this programmatic EIS.
Additional formal APHIS economic evaluations of FSDM are built into the alternatives that
contain the “national projects” component (Alternatives 2 and 4) to determine cost/benefit of
activities and refine FSDM activities. CEQ NEPA regulations do not require a formal cost
benefit analysis in an EIS (40 CFR 1502.23). Instead, the EIS examines a combination of
quantitative and important qualitative economic considerations to weight the merits and
drawbacks of the alternatives (see Chapter 4, Economic Effects). Furthermore, some issues
are not easily quantified, e.g., feral swine effects on human health and safety, threatened and
endangered species, or cultural resources, yet these issues are relevant and important to
program decisions.
33) Issues with the need for action.
Several commenters questioned aspects of the need for action. The table below lists the
issues that were raised and where in the document the issue was addressed.
Comment Response
EIS should include discussion on the
effects of feral swine on island
ecosystems
Discussion of Channel Island National
Park in Chapter 3 Section C.1.b.
Vegetation, Discussion of feral swine
as food source for predators on Island
Chapter 3 Section C.1.c Wildlife. There
are also multiple references to feral
swine impacts to natural resources in
Hawaii in Chapter 3 Section C.
Feral swine do not have a negative
effects on ground nesting birds
Discussion of ground nesting wildlife
Chapter 3 Section C.1.c Wildlife.
There is no data that feral swine
damage the environment, only
anecdotal evidence
Chapter 3 review of the affected
environment includes numerous
scientific studies, professional reports,
and factual evidence of adverse impacts
of feral swine published in scientific
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 517
journals.
Control of swine is not necessary and it
only to benefit agribusiness
Feral swine damage a wide range of
resources including natural resources,
cultural and historic resources,
property, as well as posing risks to
human health and safety. A review of
studies documenting the need for action
is provided in Chapter 3 Sections C, D,
E and F.
Feral swine are not a primary cause of
poor longleaf pine regeneration
The claim that feral swine adversely
affect longleaf pine was not made by
APHIS in the EIS. However,
Lipscomb 1989 showed that excluding
feral swine increased pine regeneration
in some species. Conversely, APHIS
also cited literature that showed feral
swine may enrich soils for certain tree
species.
34) Risks to Non-target Species
Impacts of APHIS’s actions on non-target species are of high concern to the agency. The
EIS provides analysis on anticipated effects of FSDM and outlines Standard Operating
Procedures (SOPs) to minimize effects to non-target species and prevent take of listed T&E
species. These SOPs can be found in Chapter 2 Section G Sections 3-5.
One commenter provided a supportive comment that APHIS-WS does not take non-target
animals during its activities. While the vote of confidence is appreciated, this is not always
the case. APHIS-WS discusses non-target take and has disclosed known non-target take
resulting from FSDM activities in the EIS (Chapter 4 Section C.2.a). Many decisions on
method implementation to minimize non-target take will occur on a local scale within the
APHIS-WS state programs, and ESA consultations with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries will
be conducted at that level as necessary. Discussion on APHIS-WS’s cumulative effects on
T&E and non-target species can be found in Chapter 4 Section H.1-2.
35) Why isn’t APHIS utilizing hunters as a cost-savings method to conduct FSDM?
Some commenters feel that hunters should be used to conduct FSDM, and some people feel
that hunters could be as effective as the government. Conversely, several groups expressed
the opinions that hunting should be discouraged in areas where control is being conducted,
and areas that do not have a culture of feral swine hunting should avoid establishing such.
APHIS discussed the use of hunters for managing feral swine in Chapter 2 Section E.10.b
and the value of feral swine to hunters in Chapter 3 Section E.1.c. See also response to Issue
24 above.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 518
36) What alternative strategies to reduce feral swine damage were considered by
APHIS?
Multiple commenters suggested alternative strategies for managing feral swine. They are
listed below along with references to the portion of the EIS where they were considered by
APHIS. See also Chapter 2 Sections F.
Strategy Reference in Document
Only Lethal control is acceptable Chapter 2 Section F.1.e. Only Use
Lethal Methods to Address Feral Swine
Problems
Lethal control is unacceptable Chapter 2 Section F. 1.d. Only Use
Non-lethal Methods to Address Feral
Swine Problems
Hunters should be used instead of
federal funds
Chapter 2 Section F.1.a. Exclusive Use
of Private Industry, Volunteers, and
Private Hunting
Eradication is the only acceptable
strategy
Chapter 2 Section F.1.c. Eradication of
Swine from All Areas of Occurrence
No federal involvement in feral swine
management
Chapter 2 Section F.1.b. No APHIS
Involvement in Feral Swine Damage
Management
37) Couldn’t changes to regulations on transportation of feral swine increase
incentive for people to capture them?
Several commenters requested that APHIS review laws regarding the transportation of feral
swine and in some cases change them to facilitate easier transportation so swine can be
moved to markets or hunting lodges where they would be killed. APHIS is not cuurently
proposing any changes to federal regulations. Regulations regarding movement of feral
swine within states are the responsibility of the respective states, tribes and territories.
Although the lead and cooperating agencies understand the desire to make a profitable use
from feral swine, there are several concerns regarding movement of live feral swine. Illegal
movement of feral swine is an ongoing problem. Agencies are concerned that they do not
have the resources to ensure that all feral swine live captured are released in approved fenced
facilities. There are also concerns that relocation of feral swine may also relocate diseases
and parasites associated with feral swine. Consequently, movement of live feral swine will
be discouraged under all alternatives, through educational efforts and implementation of
existing laws and regulations.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 519
38) APHIS should select Alternative 4.
Two groups requested the selection of Alternative 4. Commenter reasons for the selection of
Alternative 4 are listed below, along with APHIS’s response.
a) Alternative 4 will more quickly achieve the national feral swine population
objectives, as stated in Chapter 4 Section B.d. Impacts on National Feral Swine
Population.
Reducing the national feral swine population is one of six objectives outlined in Chapter 1
Section G. Accomplishment of one objective will not ensure the completion of the other
five which are crucial for overall damage reduction. Additionally, without a comprehensive
approach to FSDM that accomplishes all of the objectives, long-term success is less likely as
there will be fewer safeguards against future feral swine repopulations and damage.
b) Commenter states that increased baseline capacity, as described under alternative
2, uniformly distributes resources that should be strategically allocated to areas with
“novel or potential feral swine populations” to prevent the spread or establishment of
feral swine. The commenter also prefers that low priority states continue feral
swine management through existing cooperator agreements while using federal funds
for high priority states.
Alternative 2 provides funds for baseline FSDM in all states with feral swine based on the
size of their feral swine population, but also allocates funds strategically to states to address
the national goal of reducing the range and size of the national feral swine population in the
same manner as Alternative 4. This includes holding some funds in reserve each year for
rapid response to new reports of feral swine in areas not previously documented to have feral
swine. Baseline funding to all states with feral swine helps to ensure that sufficient resources
are available for nationwide monitoring of feral swine populations and disease in feral swine
and to aid protection of sensitive resources (e.g., threatened and endangered species) and
areas of strategic importance for the national FSDM effort (e.g., a border with a state or
region with only a few or no feral swine population).
c) Alternative 4 improves upon Alternative 2 by addressing the same issues by
strategically allocating resources to areas of high priority or strategic value.
Alternative 4 would show the most immediate success in feral swine management.
Alternative 4 and 2 do address the same issues, and both use a strategic, prioritized process
for allocating resources. The difference is in the portion of total funding that is available for
strategic allocation. Fewer resources are available for the national program components
(including strategic allocation of resources to achieve national population reduction
objectives) under Alternative 2 than Alternative 4 because Alternative 2 allocates some
baseline funding to all states with feral swine. As stated in the EIS Chapter 2 Section D.2.b.
Improve Baseline Operational Capacity to Respond:
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 520
“In States and Territories with small isolated populations or scattered reports of feral swine,
APHIS-WS would be expected to investigate and confirm reports of feral swine activity by
conducting ground or aerial surveys to locate feral swine or evidence of damage, and
remove them as appropriate, in collaboration with State, Territorial and Tribal officials. By
enhancing baseline capacity, APHIS-WS would be better positioned to conduct these
activities and be able to remove swine from some areas while their populations are still
relatively small.”
Baseline Operational capacity, in these cases, acts as the eyes and ears for the National Feral
Swine Management Program and provides APHIS the ability to respond quickly and
effectively to new feral swine damage issues in states that already have feral swine.
d) Alternative 4 directs available resources to high priority area, while future funding
can go to states with established populations after high priority states or projects are
complete
While Alternative 4 does use a prioritization system, simply directing funds at high priority
states is unlikely to successfully accomplish all the goals of the EIS, as it will not prevent the
anthropogenic causes of feral swine problems. Some feral swine populations can be
eliminated outright; however, the anthropogenic causes of feral swine spread must be
addressed concomitantly with conducting control work. This requires the work not only in
areas targeted for eradication, but also in source population areas, or low-priority areas, to
alter the culture associated with moving feral swine. Additionally, the primary goal of the
EIS and the National Feral Swine Management Program is damage reduction. While swine
may be eradicated quickly in one state, APHIS will not ignore that there is potential for
significant damage in low-priority states as well.
e) Alternative 4 proposes increases in funding research and outreach, increasing funds
available to land-grant and other research institutions as well as Extension Services.
Alternative 4 does increase funding for research and outreach activities, beyond what would
be allocated in Alternative 2. Under both alternatives, APHIS anticipates that research
funding would primarily be used by APHIS research institutions including the NWRC, but
anticipates that these institutions will develop collaborative research projects with other
entities including land-grant universities.
39) Feral swine should be removed from all federal lands because should be no
barrier to access to these lands for FSDM.
One entity stated that feral swine should be eradicated from all federal lands, because there is
greatest access to these lands. APHIS cannot mandate what other land management agencies
do on their lands, but APHIS will cooperate with any agency that requests assistance with
feral swine damage management. And while federal agencies working on federal lands
seems simple, the steps to gaining access are often as complex, or even more complex than
APHIS working on private lands. There must still be an agreement in place that outlines
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 521
work on the lands, and these work plans must meet agency standards and federal land use
regulations and laws must be considered including NEPA. Additionally, removal of feral
swine from federal lands, without necessary control work on neighboring lands will only
result in feral swine repopulating previously-cleared federal lands. Federal agencies are
compelled to manage invasive species under Executive Order 13112, therefor the availability
of FSDM resources to other federal agencies through APHIS will only facilitate future
cooperation for work on federal lands.
40) The following issues were outside the scope of the analysis and will not be
considered further.
‐ APHIS should be more transparent in the use of toxins
‐ APHIS should be abolished
‐ Use of lethal control methods to reduce damage by birds
‐ Feral horses should be managed along with feral swine
‐ Opposition to the use of compound 1080
‐ Proposals for changes to State laws and regulations to facilitate FSDM
41) APHIS should notify communities before FSDM is conducted on private lands.
APHIS only conducts FSDM with permission of the landowners. APHIS-WS prepares local
Environmental Assessments to consider local environmental effects and interest groups.
42) Your strategic communication plans and related outreach materials should
include specific methods to improve outreach to low-income and minority
populations.
Strategic communication plans and outreach materials are rooted in integrating
communications to underserved and minority populations from the earliest stages. Criteria
for evaluating contractors include the capability to make materials culturally relevant,
including a micro-site available in both English and Spanish. APHIS has also established a
program through Tuskegee University to work with all 1890 University Extension Programs
to communicate with and provide training to limited resource farmers. We will continue to
strive to identify other mechanism to improve our communication with low-income and
minority populations through our collaborations with the 1890 Universities and other
appropriate outlets.
43) How will APHIS-WS prioritize the distribution of resources among states that
have, or are thought to have, feral swine?
Many commenters asked questions or expressed opinions about how resources should be
distributed by APHIS-WS. The distribution of resources is influenced by many factors and
varies depending upon the alternative. Factors considered include feral swine population
size, state management objectives, resources provided by other entities, damage types,
amount, and/or potential for damage, along with research needs and results of population
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 522
modeling. Not all of these factors will be relevant in every situation, so it is not a set formula
to determine prioritization and the methods must be adaptable to respond to changing
environmental and political climate.
One commenter requested that areas where feral swine are causing damage to highly
sensitive natural resources should be a priority for funding. APHIS works with other federal
and state agencies to develop projects to protect T&E species, or other sensitive resources.
Where disease transmission is a significant concern, disease risk models will synthesize
surveillance data collected as part of the program along with locations of livestock producers
to help WS prioritize feral swine removal efforts, in order to protect domestic livestock and
mitigate human health concerns. Models that synthesize information about feral swine
populations will be used for predicting where future feral swine establishment may occur.
Population dynamic models will link models of feral swine distribution and disease risk to
allow for testing of operational activities to mitigate risk of disease, efficacy of operational
tools, and population reduction (Chapter 2 Section D.2.d). This approach will enable APHIS
to better prioritize and target their management activities over time.
One commenter felt that alternative 2 created an unnecessary bureaucracy that reduced
resources available for prioritized national and strategic local projects by increasing the
baseline capacity and preferred Alternative 4. As detailed in the EIS, Alternatives 2 and 4
both have a system for prioritizing resources within the framework of those alternatives
(Table 2-1). This means that under alternative 4, where there are no funds to increase the
baseline capacity even with prioritization processes, APHIS-WS’s ability to respond to feral
swine damage would be inhibited in low priority states. The importance of the baseline
capacity is that is allows the implementation of the research-based improvements and new
information, along with education and outreach materials, population monitoring and disease
surveillance across wider areas for all states, tribes, and territories (Chapter 4 Section B.1.d).
The elimination of baseline support would reduce the availability of local damage
management. Additionally, the oversight and national prioritization of resources under
Alternative 2, while they could be considered a bureaucracy, provide direction and
coordination to best apply limited resources over a broad area.
Many commenters expressed the opinion that areas with new populations of feral swine or
those states that have a high likelihood of being able to eradicate feral swine should be given
priority for resources. Newer populations are generally easier to remove and states with
smaller populations would usually be priorities for funding to clear them of feral swine as
quickly as possible (Under Alternatives 2, 4, and 5). Similarly, a state that has a high
probability of success for eradication would be a high priority as well. There are, however,
additional factors that affect APHIS-WS’s ability to provide resources to a state. State,
tribal, or territorial commitment to feral swine management, the likelihood of success, as well
as resources affected are all considered as resources are prioritized. For example, areas
where disease transmission to a commercial swine herd is possible may be prioritized over
damage to pasture.
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 523
One commenter asked that APHIS-WS only provide resources to states that are known to
have feral swine. This suggestion was considered as part of Alternative 3, Baseline APHIS
FSDM Program wherein funding would only be provided to states which are known to have
feral swine. However, under this alternative and Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 some funding would
continue to be provided to states which are believed to have removed all swine for a period
after eradication is believed to be completed for monitoring to ensure that all swine have
been removed. One of the limitations of Alternative 3 is that no funds would be held in
reserve to allocate to states without feral swine that are seeking to follow up on reports of
feral swine observations or other situations where feral swine presence is suspected. This
could lead to delays in responding to new instances of feral swine and impede the ability of
agencies to respond to feral swine when the populations are still small and relatively easier to
manage.
44) How will APHIS-WS remove feral swine from private lands where access is
denied by landowners?
APHIS-WS does not conduct any damage management without land owner/land manager
consent. APHIS-WS only works where requested and obtains written permission before
conducting any FSDM. Therefore, if a landowner does not want APHIS-WS to conduct
FSDM, and they decline to give consent, APHIS-WS will not work on those lands. This may
inhibit eradication efforts; however APHIS-WS has no regulatory authority to conduct
FSDM activities against landowner’s wishes. State, local, tribal, or territorial authorities may
intervene if they feel that FSDM on a particular piece of land is critical to their own feral
swine management goals, however, it’s the landowners prerogative to authorize or deny
APHIS-WS access to land.
45) APHIS should consider an alternative in which money is issued to states,
territories and tribes to conduct FSDM, but APHIS retains the capacity to
provide operational assistance and materials when these entities need additional
help and resources (e.g., aerial shooting).
This alternative would be a combination of Alternative 5, the FSDM Grants Program (issuing
funds to States, Territories and Tribes), and Alternative 3, the baseline program (maintaining
baseline operational capacity to respond). Although we recognize the appeal of this
alternative, unfortunately it also combines some of the limitations that precluded
identification of Alternatives 3 and 5 as the preferred alternative. The component that would
issue grants to States, Territories and Tribes would be subject to the same problems with
inefficiencies and administrative costs as Alternative 5, only even less money would be
available for distribution to States, Territories and Tribes, because some funds would be
retained by APHIS to support baseline operational capacity to respond. As with Alternative
3, this suggested alternative would also be limited by the lack of a national APHIS program
component including nationally coordinated disease surveillance, outreach and education
programs, research and work with Canada and Mexico at the national level to resolve issues
of mutual concern regarding feral swine damage management. To get as much of the
funding as possible to field operations, this alternative would also commit all resources at the
FINAL - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach
Appendix I: Responses to Comments Page 524
beginning of the funding cycle and no national program funding would be withheld for rapid
response to new reports of feral swine in areas previously believed to be without feral swine
and areas where all feral swine are believed to have been removed. Finally, creating the
condition where trained and available APHIS personnel and equipment stand ready for
assistance on an unplanned, stand-by basis would be logistically and fiscally inefficient,
particularly if the additional APHIS assistance was not needed at the times and locations
where they are available. This proposal and response has been added to the FEIS in Chapter
3 Section F.1.f – Alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail.
46) Some tribes have lands that cross international boundaries. How will APHIS be
able to help these tribes if they have FSDM issues?
APHIS values our partnerships with tribes and, as discussed in the FEIS, recognizes that feral
swine can have significant impacts on tribes. Under all alternatives, APHIS will continue to
reach out to tribes to identify and address tribal concerns and values regarding feral swine and
FSDM. Under Alternatives 2 and 4, the National Program component would include work by
APHIS-IS with Canada and Mexico to address issues of mutual concern regarding FSDM.
APHIS would be able to work with tribes to address FSDM concerns that cross international
boundaries.
