Draft 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.)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

FERAL SWINE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT:

A NATIONAL APPROACH

Type of Statement: Draft 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

Alton.Dunaway@aphis.usda.gov

Cooperating Agencies: USDA Forest Service

201 14th 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, D.C. 20005

Contact: Mr. Phillip Andreozzi

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 725

Washington, D.C. 20001

Contact: Ms. Jennifer Mock Schaeffer

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

4350 North Fairfax Drive #910

Arlington, VA 22203

Contact: Ms. Amy Hendrickson

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

1621 N. Kent St

Rosslyn, VA 22209

Contact: Ms. Andrée DuVarney

December 9, 2014
DRAFT - 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, D.C. 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) 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

(This page left intentionally blank.)

Page ii
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

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

Page iii
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

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.......................................................................................................................... 26

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)

.............................................................................................................................................. 32

d. Unique Aspects of Alternative 2, Integrated FSDM Program........................................ 33

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)37

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

.............................................................................................................................................. 42

5. Alternative 5—Federal FSDM Grant Program................................................................................. 45

E. DISCUSSION OF FERAL SWINE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT METHODS AVAILABLE FOR USE IN ALL 

APHIS ALTERNATIVES.................................................................................................................................. 55

1. Technical Assistance ................................................................................................................................ 55

a. Education, Communication, and Outreach ..................................................................... 55

Page iv
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

b. Regulatory Support/Advice ............................................................................................ 55

2. Surveillance................................................................................................................................................. 56

a. Judas Pigs/Telemetry ...................................................................................................... 56

b. Night Vision and Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) Devices........................................ 57

c. Camera Systems.............................................................................................................. 57

d. Aircraft Including Unmanned Aircraft ........................................................................... 57

3. Ground Shooting........................................................................................................................................ 58

4. Aerial Shooting .......................................................................................................................................... 59

5. Tracking with Dogs.................................................................................................................................. 59

6. Live Capture Systems.............................................................................................................................. 60

a. Cage and Corral Traps .................................................................................................... 60

b. Drop Nets........................................................................................................................ 61

c. Snares and Cable Restraints............................................................................................ 62

d. Foothold Traps................................................................................................................ 63

7. Non-Lethal Methods................................................................................................................................. 63

a. Exclusion......................................................................................................................... 63

b. Frightening Devices........................................................................................................ 64

8. Chemical Methods.................................................................................................................................... 64

a. Immobilization and Euthanasia Drugs............................................................................ 64

b. Reproductive Inhibitors .................................................................................................. 65

c. Repellants........................................................................................................................ 66

d. Toxicants......................................................................................................................... 67

9. Research and Development.................................................................................................................... 67

10. Non-Federal and Private Control Options....................................................................................... 67

a. Private Control Operators ............................................................................................... 67

b. Hunting ........................................................................................................................... 68

c. Removal by Certified Volunteers.................................................................................... 69

11. Disposition of Feral Swine Captured or Killed for Damage Management............................ 69

a. On-site Carcass Disposal Options................................................................................... 69

b. Offsite Carcass Disposal Options................................................................................... 71

F. ALTERNATIVES AND METHODS CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS........ 73

1. Alternatives Dismissed from Detailed Analysis............................................................................... 73

a. Exclusive Use of Private Industry, Volunteers, and Private Hunting............................. 73

b. No APHIS Involvement in Feral Swine Damage Management ..................................... 73

c. Eradication of Swine from All Areas of Occurrence ...................................................... 74

d. Only Use Non-Lethal Methods to Address Feral Swine Problems................................ 74

e. Only Use Lethal Methods to Address Feral Swine Problems......................................... 75

2. Methods Dismissed................................................................................................................................... 76

a. Bounty System ................................................................................................................ 76

b. National Legislative Changes......................................................................................... 76

c. Diversionary Feeding...................................................................................................... 76

e. Export Swine to Other Countries.................................................................................... 77

f. Donation to Zoos and Animal Sanctuaries...................................................................... 77

Page v
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

G. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES COMMON TO ALL ALTERNATIVES EXCEPT THE FEDERAL 

FSDM GRANT PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................. 78

1. General SOPs Used by APHIS-WS in Operational Activity........................................................ 78

2. SOPs on Program Monitoring and Compliance ............................................................................... 78

3. SOPs to Minimize Harm to Non-Target Species............................................................................. 79

4. SOPs that Minimize Harm to T&E Species ...................................................................................... 80

5. SOPs that Minimize the Potential for Non-purposeful Take of Eagles..................................... 81

6. SOPs on Carcass Disposal...................................................................................................................... 81

7. SOPs that Minimize Risks to Human Safety..................................................................................... 82

8. SOPs that Minimize Harm to Cultural Resources........................................................................... 83

9. SOPs that Address Animal Welfare Concerns.................................................................................. 83

10. SOPs that Address Coordination within States and Territories................................................. 84

11. SOPs that Address Coordination with Tribes................................................................................. 84

12. SOPs that Address Actions Conducted on Federal Lands.......................................................... 85

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................... 87

A. FERAL SWINE................................................................................................................................................... 87

1. Origin and Morphology of Feral Swine in the United States and Territories.......................... 87

2. Population Status of Feral Swine.......................................................................................................... 89

3. Behavior of Feral Swine.......................................................................................................................... 92

a. Social Structure ............................................................................................................... 92

b. Use of Habitat ................................................................................................................. 93

c. Capacity for Learning ..................................................................................................... 94

d. Food Habits..................................................................................................................... 95

4. Life History................................................................................................................................................. 96

5. Genetics........................................................................................................................................................ 97

B. AGRICULTURE.................................................................................................................................................. 99

1. Impacts of Feral Swine on Agriculture ............................................................................................... 99

a. Crop Impacts................................................................................................................... 99

b. Livestock Impacts......................................................................................................... 100

c. Other Agriculture Impacts............................................................................................. 107

2. Agriculture Resources Which May Be Impacted by Feral Swine Damage Management . 108

a. Damage and Disease Risks........................................................................................... 108

b. Hunting Preserves and Associated Swine Production .................................................. 108

c. Use of Pastures for Swine Production........................................................................... 109

C. NATURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................................................. 109

1. Natural Resources Affected by Feral Swine.................................................................................... 109

a. Soils, Water and Fungi.................................................................................................. 110

b. Vegetation.................................................................................................................. 116

c. Wildlife ......................................................................................................................... 119

e. Climate Change............................................................................................................. 121

2. Resources Which May be Affected by Feral Swine Damage Management .......................... 122

a. Impacts Associated with Eliminaiton or Reductions in Feral Swine Populations........ 122

b. Potential Impacts of FSDM Methods ........................................................................... 123

Page vi
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

D. PROPERTY....................................................................................................................................................... 125

1. Resources Affected by Feral Swine................................................................................................... 125

a. Landscaping, Gardens, Golf Courses, Urban Parks/Recreational Areas, Roads, Levees, 

Dikes.................................................................................................................................. 125

b. Vehicle Collisions......................................................................................................... 126

c. Pets................................................................................................................................ 127

2. Resources Which May be Affected by Feral Swine Damage Management .......................... 127

E. SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES.................................................................................................................... 128

1. Resources Affected by Feral Swine................................................................................................... 128

a. Historic Sites/Resources................................................................................................ 128

b. Impacts on Native Americans, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial Values.............. 128

c. Hunting.......................................................................................................................... 130

d. Other Outdoor Activities............................................................................................... 130

e. Feral Swine Related Businesses.................................................................................... 132

f. Humaneness and Ethical Concerns................................................................................ 132

2. Resources Which May be Affected by Feral Swine Damage Management .......................... 136

a. Historic Sites/Resources, Native Americans, Traditional Cultures and Ceremonial 

Values ................................................................................................................................ 136

b. Hunting ......................................................................................................................... 137

d. Other Outdoor Activities............................................................................................... 137

e. Feral Swine Related Businesses.................................................................................... 138

f. Humaneness and Ethical Concerns................................................................................ 138

F. HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY................................................................................................................... 138

1. Impacts of Feral Swine on Human Health and Safety.................................................................. 138

a. Vehicle Collisions......................................................................................................... 138

b. Risk of Disease Transmission (Zoonoses).................................................................... 139

c. Aggressive or Habituated Feral Swine.......................................................................... 142

d. Feral Swine as a Food Source....................................................................................... 144

2. Resources Which May Be Impacted by Feral Swine Damage Management on Human 

Health and Safety.................................................................................................................................... 145

a. Cooperators and the Public ........................................................................................... 145

b. Operators/Employees.................................................................................................... 146

c. Feral Swine as a Food Source ....................................................................................... 146

H. REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................... 147

1. Key Federal Laws.................................................................................................................................... 147

2. APHIS Regulations Regarding Transportation of Feral Swine ................................................. 152

3. Executive Orders..................................................................................................................................... 152

4. State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local Laws........................................................................................ 154

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES........................................................ 157

A. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................. 157

B. ABILITY OF ALTERNATIVES TO ACHIEVE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ................... 158

Page vii
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

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...................................................................................................................... 158

a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)..................... 159

b. Alternative 2: National FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative) ................................ 165

c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 170

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects.................................... 171

e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program.............................................................. 173

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........................................................................................................................................................... 175

a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)..................... 175

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative).............................. 175

c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 176

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects....................................... 176

e. Alternative 5: Federal Grant Program.......................................................................... 176

3. Expand feral swine disease monitoring to protect agriculture and human health................ 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

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. ............ 179

a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)..................... 179

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative).............................. 180

c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 181

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects....................................... 181

e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program.............................................................. 181

5. Develop outreach materials and activities to educate the public about feral swine damage 

and related activities to prevent or reduce damage....................................................................... 182

a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)..................... 182

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

6. Coordinate with Canada and Mexico to establish a collaborative plan to address the feral 

swine threat along the common borders. ......................................................................................... 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 ...................................................................... 184

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects....................................... 185

e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program.............................................................. 185

Page viii
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................................................... 185

1. Impact on Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants and Critical Habitats.............. 185

a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative).................... 186

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative).............................. 190

c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 192

d. Alternative 4: National and Strategic Local Projects................................................... 193

e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program.............................................................. 193

2. Impact on Non-target Animals............................................................................................................ 194

a. Alternative 1: Current FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)............................. 195

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative).............................. 217

c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 221

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects....................................... 223

e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program.............................................................. 225

3. Impact on Soils and Water.................................................................................................................... 227

a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative)..................... 227

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)............................... 232

c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 236

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM without Baseline Funding .......................................... 236

e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program............................................................... 237

4. Impact on Odor/Air Quality................................................................................................................. 238

a. Alternative 1 - Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative).................... 238

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)............................... 244

c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ....................................................................... 245

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects........................................ 245

e. Alternative 5 - Federal FSDM Grant Program.............................................................. 245

5. Impact on Recreation ............................................................................................................................. 245

a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative .................... 245

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative).............................. 251

c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ....................................................................... 254

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects........................................ 257

e. Alternative 5 - Federal FSDM Grant Program.............................................................. 259

6. Climate Change Impacts....................................................................................................................... 260

a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative).................... 261

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative).............................. 263

c. Alternative 3: Baseline Program.................................................................................. 263

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects....................................... 263

e. Alternative 5: Federal Grant Program........................................................................... 264

7. Effects on Human Health and Safety................................................................................................. 264

a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative).................... 264

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative).............................. 274

c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 275

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects........................................ 276

e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program............................................................... 276

8. Socio Cultural Effects............................................................................................................................ 277

Page ix
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

a. Alternative 1: Current FSDM Program (No Action Alternative) ................................ 277

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative).............................. 286

c. Alternative 3: Baseline FSDM Program ...................................................................... 289

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects....................................... 292

e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program.............................................................. 295

9. Economic Impacts................................................................................................................................... 296

a. Alternative 1: Current APHIS FSDM Program (No Action Alternative).................... 296

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative).............................. 298

c. Alternative 3: Baseline Funding Program.................................................................... 303

d. Alternative 4: National FSDM and Strategic Local Projects....................................... 306

e. Alternative 5: Federal FSDM Grant Program.............................................................. 308

D. SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ....................................................................... 310

E. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS........................................................................................................... 310

F. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES.............................................. 311

G. INCOMPLETE OR UNAVAILABLE INFORMATION.................................................................................... 311

H. CUMMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................................. 312

1. Threatened and Endangered Species................................................................................................. 313

2. Non-target Animals................................................................................................................................. 314

3. Water, Soils and Vegetation................................................................................................................. 315

4. Odor/Air Quality...................................................................................................................................... 316

5. Recreation.................................................................................................................................................. 317

6. Climate Change......................................................................................................................................... 318

7. Human Health and Safety ..................................................................................................................... 319

8. Sociocultural Resources........................................................................................................................ 319

9. Economic Impacts................................................................................................................................... 321

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS ................................................................... 343

APPENDIX B: LITERATURE CITED.................................................................................... 347

APPENDIX C: PREPARERS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS.............................. 387

A. APHIS PREPARERS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS ...................................................................... 387

B. COOPERATING AGENCY CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS................................................................ 392

APPENDIX D: STATE AND TERRITORY INFORMATION ON FERAL SWINE 

MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 395

TABLE 1: STATE AND TERRITORIAL REGULATIONS RELEVANT TO FERAL SWINE MANAGEMENT 397

TABLE 2: LEGAL STATUS, MANAGEMENT PLAN INFORMATION, AND POPULATION ESTIMATES BY 

STATE/TERRITORY........................................................................................................................................ 409

TABLE 3: INFORMATION ON HUNTING FOR FERAL SWINE BY STATE/TERRITORY ............................. 429

Page x
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

APPENDIX E: THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

TOOL............................................................................................................................................ 437

APPENDIX F: MIGRATORY BIRD AND EAGLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOL ...... 463

APPENDIX G: IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR PROTECTION OF HISTORIC 

RESOURCES............................................................................................................................... 483

APPENDIX H: FERAL SWINE CARCASS DISPOSAL AND DISPOSITION OPTIONS 493

A. FOOD USE ....................................................................................................................................................... 494

1. Advantages................................................................................................................................................ 494

2. Challenges................................................................................................................................................. 494

3. Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 494

B. COMPOSTING.................................................................................................................................................. 494

1. Advantages................................................................................................................................................ 494

2. Challenges................................................................................................................................................. 495

3. Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 495

C. ON-SITE BURIAL........................................................................................................................................... 495

1. Advantages................................................................................................................................................ 495

2. Challenges................................................................................................................................................. 495

3. Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 496

4. LANDFILL DISPOSAL..................................................................................................................................... 497

1. Advantages................................................................................................................................................ 497

2. Challenges................................................................................................................................................. 497

3. Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 497

5. INCINERATION ................................................................................................................................................ 497

1. Advantages................................................................................................................................................ 497

2. Challenges................................................................................................................................................. 498

3. Environmental Impacts and Conclusions......................................................................................... 498

6. CHEMICAL AND ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS................................................................................................. 498

1. Advantages................................................................................................................................................ 498

2. Challenges................................................................................................................................................. 498

3. Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 498

7. RENDERING ..................................................................................................................................................... 498

1. Advantages................................................................................................................................................ 498

2. Challenges................................................................................................................................................. 498

3. Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 499

8. LEAVE ON-SITE .............................................................................................................................................. 499

1. Advantages................................................................................................................................................ 499

2. Challenges................................................................................................................................................. 499

3. Environmental Impacts.......................................................................................................................... 499

Page xi
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

This page left intentionally blank.

Page xii
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

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 draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) 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 DEIS includes all of the United States and its Territories where feral swine exist 

or may occur. This DEIS concerns only the actions of the APHIS program, carried out directly or 

in conjunction with agency partners and private organizations and individuals. FSDM actions 

Page xiii
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

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; surveillance (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 livePage xiv
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

capture of swine. The injectable contraceptive, GonaConTM 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: 

Page xv
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

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 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 

Page xvi
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

existence of any species. The majority of consultations have found that the program would have 

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. 

Page xvii
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

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 DEIS, 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 

Page xviii
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

existing SOPs to 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 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 

Page xix
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

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 

there are likely to be cost inefficiencies associated with the method for allocating resources under 

this alternative including less coordination in surveillance and 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.

Page xx
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

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, 

Page xxi
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach 

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.

Page xxii
DRAFT - 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 draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) 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 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 DEIS; 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 DEIS. 

 

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 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 (estray4

) domestic and pet 

swine and their descendants, Polynesian pigs, and Eurasian wild boar and their hybrids (Chapter 

4 Estray is a term used to describe a domestic animal found wandering without an owner.

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, National Feral Swine Mapping System 

(http://swine.vet.uga.edu/nfsms/)). 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 Disease 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 2
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 for 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 DEIS 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 DEIS. 

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. For this reason, 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

% of All Counties

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 3
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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).

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 4
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Table 1-1. Differences between native collared peccary and non-native, invasive feral swine (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 Scent gland present No scent gland

Teeth 38 teeth with straight incisors 36 or 44 teeth with curved incisors

Toes 3 toes on hind feet 4 toes on hind feet

Tail Vestigial tail Short tail

Legs Limb bones partially fused Limb bones not fused

D. Need for Action

Feral swine can cause significant damage to agricultural and natural 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 

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 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 5
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 of crops 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.

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 6
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 7
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

limited natural food supplies, although documentation of competition is limited 

(Mayer 2009a, Barrios-Garcia and Ballari 2012). Mast crops5 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). 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 8

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 DEIS 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 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 9
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 (RuizFons et al. 2008, Meng et al. 2009). Feral swine can also harbor the causative 

agents of important foodborne diseases (e.g., 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). 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 10
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 2012a, 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) exists and may 

become more of a risk for feral swine particularly if they are fed by humans, 

intentionally or unintentionally. 

E. Scope of EIS

This DEIS 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 DEIS 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 DEIS 

in accordance with the applicable implementing and administrative regulations (40 CFR 1500–

1508; 7 CFR part 372). 

1. Geographic Scope

The scope of the DEIS 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 DEIS 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 some alternatives, APHIS could pass funding for some types of 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. 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 11
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

However, APHIS 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 DEIS. Such actions are constrained only by applicable Federal, State, 

Territorial, and Tribal laws, local ordinances, pesticide label instructions, and selfimposed constraints. 

Although other agency partners, Tribes, and private entities can and are conducting 

FSDM on their own, several of the alternatives in this DEIS, 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 DEIS, 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 DEIS, 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?

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 12
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 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.

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 13
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

• 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.

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. APHISWS cooperates with other Federal, State, 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 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 14
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

efficiently resolving wildlife damage problems in compliance with all applicable Federal, 

State, 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, State,

national, and international partners on animal health issues. APHIS-VS’ comprehensive 

and integrated surveillance 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.

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 15
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 DEIS.

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 DEIS.

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, 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 16
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

national recreational rivers, and national recreational areas. Additionally, NPS 

administers the National Historic Landmark, the National Natural Landmark, and the 

National Heritage Areas Programs. 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 DEIS. 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, 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 

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 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 17
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

DEIS.

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

DEIS.

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, 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 hog 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:

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 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 18
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 19
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

with farmers and ranchers, local and State 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 FS. This agreement documents the 

cooperation between APHIS-WS and FS to (1) identify responsibilities of the 

Parties and foster a partnership for the management of indigenous and invasive 

vertebrates causing damage on FS lands; (2) establishes general guidelines to 

assist field personnel in carrying out their WDM responsibilities consistent with 

policies of the FS 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 

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.

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 20
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

• 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, and through outreach by cooperating and participating agencies. 

The APHIS-WS program is also working 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. 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 

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 21
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 will be provided to the tribes for the DEIS.

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.

Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action Page 22

 
DRAFT - 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 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, Federal,

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 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 2.2017). 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 hogs) 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

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 24

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 destr-uctive 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 Year8 2014 (FY14) USDA budget 

allocates $20 million to APHIS to implement FSDM. 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.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 25

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

d. Research

The APHIS-WS National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) currently conducts 

research projects on an array of issues related to feral swine, including:

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 26
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

• 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., GonaConTM); 

• 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, 

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 27
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 28
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 costshare 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, 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 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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 29
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). 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, costs, and State 

laws/regulations that may affect success. This Alternative would also provide 

funds to aid in investigation of feral swine sightings in states where feral swine 

are not currently known to occur. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 30
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 31
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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., GonaConTM). 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.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 32
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

requested. Additionally, national level outreach and education efforts would 

increase.

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. APHIS-VS identified five diseases to be incorporated in a 

national surveillance 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. APHISVS also would provide general guidance and support for diagnostic tests 

conducted through the National Veterinary Services Laboratories and 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 33
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 wellbeing 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 performance 

measurements 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.

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 surveillance 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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 34
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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), 

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 35
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 36
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 37
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, 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 

federal resources would facilitate access to trained aerial shooting equipment and 

personnel. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 38
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 39
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 40
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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.

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 41
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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., GonaConTM). 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 3, 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

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 42
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Under the Preferred Alternative, 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 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 surveillance 

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 

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 43
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). 

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 44
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). 

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. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 45
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 nonAPHIS 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 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 DEIS (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). 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 46
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 47
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

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

As supported through 

grant program and at 

discretion of States, 

Territories and Tribes. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 48
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

national support. and effective methods. 

Outreach would include

support of Federal, State and 

Tribal regulations which 

discourage activities that 

contribute to the feral swine 

problem. 

Alternative 1 with some 

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 APHISVS.

APHIS Cooperative 

Partnerships

At State, Tribal,

and local levels.

National, State, Tribal and 

local

State, Tribal, and local

levels.

National, State, Tribal,

and local levels.

Limited to grants 

process at national, 

State, Territorial, Tribal

levels.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 49
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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 

Nationally coordinated 

through FSDM program. 

Uses risk-based modeling 

for targeted disease 

sampling. Includes local 

Same as Alternative 1 Same as Alternative 2 No disease monitoring 

by APHIS. Could be 

implemented by States, 

Territories. Tribes and 

organizations 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 50
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

collaboration. 

Primarily 

opportunistic 

sampling. 

collaborative efforts. representing Native 

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 

participation 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 costshare 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 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 

laws and regulations that 

may affect success, and 

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.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 51
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

geographical 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.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 52
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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 GonaConTM). 

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 projectspecific 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. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 53
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 sitespecific 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 APHISWS 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 decisionmaking. 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

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 54
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. However, the NPS has primary authority to manage 

feral swine within the boundaries of units in the National Park System. 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 properties that cover multiple jurisdictions. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 55
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. Surveillance

Surveillance involves direct observation, camera systems, hunter surveys and other systems 

to monitor for the presence or absence of feral swine. Aerial surveillance 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 and 

State 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 pig may be sterilized to prevent reproduction. 

Once the sounder’s location is established, feral pigs associated with the “Judas” 

pig are removed with live capture devices, hunting with dogs, or shooting. The 

collared pig 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 targetspecific 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 fixed6 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).

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 56

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 surveillance 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

Surveillance 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. Surveillance 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 surveillance 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 surveillance. The APHIS-WS’ program aircraft-use policy (APHISWS Directive 2.620) helps to ensure that aerial hunting is conducted in a safe and 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 57
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

environmentally sound manner, in accordance with Federal and State laws. 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 

surveillance 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 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-anduse 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 

prohibits firearm possession by anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of 

domestic violence. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 58
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 hunting 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 costeffective option. 

Aerial hunting 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 hunting 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 Federal and State laws. 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 surveillance for feral swine (measuring damage and locating swine), APHISWS 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 

dogs. Dogs are not allowed to kill swine. Handlers are encouraged to use protective 

equipment for dogs (see Mayer et al. 2009 for examples). Hunting with dogs is particularly 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 59
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 sometimes occurs if the hounds are less experienced, but running lessexperienced hounds with more-experienced hounds 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 will be 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. The doors are often 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 

traps are not moveable until disassembled and transported; and 7) in remote areas, 

transporting the required equipment can be difficult. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 60
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 nontarget 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 pigs to enter and exit the project area without encountering trap doors or 

walls. This 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 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. Guskamp 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

(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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 61
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 hogs 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 livecapture 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 

species. APHIS-WS’ personnel perform a thorough search for evidence of nontarget animals (tracks, scat, etc.) prior to setting snares for feral swine. When 

attractants are used (i.e. bait or lures), it reduced the chance of non-target activity at 

capture sites. Risks to non-target animals may also be reduced by adjusting the size 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 62
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, nonlethal methods which relocate animals are of limited utility in FSDM.

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. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 63
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 wild pig 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.

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 64
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 (onsite 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 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 GonaConTM registered for use in female white-tailed deer and freeranging horses and burros that also is effective in feral swine (Killian et al. 2006, 

Campbell et al. 2010b). GonaConTM 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, 

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 DEIS. Consequently, if registered, an injectable 

formulation of GonaCon could potentially be incorporated into an operational 

APHIS-WS program depending on the management alternative selected. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 65
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 there 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 pigs. 

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, 

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 66
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 quickacting, 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 HogGone.® 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.

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 and State 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, largerscale population control or elimination of swine may be problematic for these 

operators because of the wide geographic scope of the project, financial 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 67
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 pigs 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 

(Appendix D, Table 1). Some States and Territories currently allow for the 

recreational take of feral swine as game animals, pursuant to a State hunting license 

as game or non-game animals. These States are responsible for establishing 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. 

On public lands, use of hunting as a management strategy may also be limited by a 

number of factors, including the enabling language and mission of the site, 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 this 

practice because it can greatly expand the feral swine population, hunting may have 

utility in reducing feral swine populations in areas where swine are already 

widespread.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 68
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 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 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). 

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 pigs 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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 69
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 

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). APHISWS 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.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 70
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 

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, 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 nonhazardous solid waste), have been evaluated for suitability, and the necessary 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 71
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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/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 

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).

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 72
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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. 

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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 73
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). APHISWS 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 

DEIS establish unequivocally that feral swine can and are having adverse impacts 

on agriculture, natural 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 

DEIS; 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, 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. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 74
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 resources from feral 

swine across large areas. There are also concerns regarding the impact of largescale 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.

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. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 75
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 portion of funds available 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. 

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. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 76
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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).

Currently, there are no repellents registered for use with feral swine in the United 

States. Should new technologies be developed that demonstrate promise, the use of 

repellants could be explored as part of an IWDM effort.

e. 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.

f. 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. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 77
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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) database7

. 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.

• 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

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 78

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

• APHIS-WS complies with all applicable laws and regulations that pertain to 

conducting FSDM on Federal, State, 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. Commercialrated 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 lowlevel 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. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 79
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

• Non-target animals captured in cage traps or any other restraining device would be 

released whenever it is possible and safe to do so.

• Traps would be checked, in accordance with applicable State laws, to ensure nontarget species would be released in a timely manner, and to minimize unnecessary 

stress or injury to target or non-target species.

• 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 nontarget 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 law. 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. 

• Minimization measures identified in specific informal ESA consultations with FWS 

and/or NMFS, as applicable, are incorporated into State and local programs for 

FSDM.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 80
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

• 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 take8 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 

(SHPOs), affected tribal authorities, and land managers to avoid adverse effects on 

cultural/historic resources. 

8

 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. 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 81

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

• 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.

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. 

• 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 

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 82
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. APHISWS 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 APHISWS, State 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 DEIS, 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.

9. SOPs that Address Animal Welfare Concerns

• Personnel would be well trained in the latest and most humane devices/methods for 

removing feral swine.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 83
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

• 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.

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, Territory and Tribally-listed T&E species. APHIS will 

work with State, Territorial and Tribal entities on methods to ensure that FSDM 

actions do not jeopardize State, Territory or tribally listed T&E species. 

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.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 84
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, and existing site uses.

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 85
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

This page left intentionally blank

Chapter 2: Alternatives Page 86
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 1,000 years ago (Nogueira et al. 2007). 

The Polynesian swine were most likely descendants of the Asiatic form of swine (Sus 

scrofa ; Nogueira 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 brought European 

swine to the Islands (Nogueira et al. 2007). The European swine were larger than the 

Asiatic swine (Baker 1975, Nogueira et al. 2007). Early reports state that the Asiatic form 

was replaced by the European breeds. However, more recent DNA analysis has indicated 

that Hawaiian feral swine are more genetically similar to Indonesian/Polynesian swine and 

not the European swine (Nogueira et al. 2007).

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). 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). 

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 16th century, 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 87
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 17th and 18th

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 2010) 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 1900, North 

Carolina/Tennessee in 1912, Texas in 1919, and Washington in 1981; Giuliano 2010) 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 hogs 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, 

2010). 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 2010). 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 2010). Striped patterns are visible 

in all types of juveniles, but disappear as the hog matures (Mapston 2010). 

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 2010). Most have large prominent tusks (Mayer and 

Brisbin 1993). Other differences are outlined on the Table 3-1 below.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 88
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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/brownbase bristles over most 

of the body with dark 

brown to black solidcolored pointsa

; whitetipped facial pattern 

(saddle or mouth 

streak)

Include wild boar 

and feral hog 

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/darkbased 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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 89
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 2013a). 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 APHISWS, 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. 

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.,

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 90
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

thousands of wild pigs) and in some cases the occurrence of these animals may have been

temporary or even questionable (i.e., there may in fact be no wild pigs 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 – 11.3million 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 wild pig population in the United States in 2014 (J. Mayer, Savannah River National 

Laboratory, Aiken, S.C., unpublished data).

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 500,000 750,000a 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 750a 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 2,000a 3,000 X

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

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 91
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

State

Population Estimate Estimate Basis/Bases

Minimum Mean Maximum

Published 

or 

Reported

Harvest 

Percentage

Bounding 

Estimate

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

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 2010, Fernandez-Llario et al. 1996, Mayer 2009c). Sounders 

are composed of two or more individuals which are generally related females, and 

usually have about 9 or 10 (Mapston 2010, Graves 1984, Nogueria et al. 2007). 

However, during a dry season or drought some sounders may have up to 40 or 50 

animals (Mapston 2010). 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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 92
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, 2010). 

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. Pigs 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 (Mayer 2009c). 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 (Nogueira et al. 2007) and excellent senses of hearing 

and smell (Mapston 2010). 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 

in their food selection, and there are claims they can live a day’s walk from water 

(Mississippi State University 2014). 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 93
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 2010). Daily activities of feral swine 

are also influenced by temperature (Mayer 2009b, Hellgren 2014). 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 resting periods (Nogueira et 

al. 2007). 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 (Nogueira

2007, 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 

(Nogueira et al. 2007, Mapston 2010). 

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 (2014) 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 2014). In Hawaii, home ranges of boars (2.0 km2

) were nearly 

two times that of sows (1.1 km2); Nogueira et al. 2007). 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 km2) were larger than wet season ranges (3.0 km2; 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 2010). 

Additionally, feral swine have been observed to smell humans from nearly a half 

mile away and have avoided or jumped over nearby traps (Nogueira 2007). People 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 94
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 in (place?), animal matter was 

found in 94% of feral swine stomachs (Ballari and Barrios-Garcia 2014). Some 

authors have interpreted the relatively high frequency of animal matter in feral 

swine stomachs as 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). 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 95
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 2010). Juvenile 

mortality, especially during the first 3 months of life is high, but tapers during the first year 

(Mapston 2010). Juvenile deaths are due to suffocation by sows, starvation, parasites, 

disease, accidental death, hunting, and predation (Mapston 2010). 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 2010).

Models that predict feral swine population growth rates and density assist when attempting 

to manage the animals. 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 hogs/ square mile, 

an estimate of 1.8 to 3.4 million hogs state-wide, and approximately 134 million acres 

(79% of the state) of habitat that is suitable to feral swine (Texas A&M 2014).

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 96
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

5. Genetics

As noted in Chapter 1, this DEIS uses the term “feral swine” refer collectively to freeranging 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 

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 such as hairy coats which can lead to conflicts when state regulations intended to 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 97
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 16th 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. 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 populations kept off-island by farmers for 

their value as heritage pork and in limited populations in zoos and parks.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 98
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 hogs 

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 wild pigs. 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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 99
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 $800 million in damages to the U.S. agricultural sector 

annually, and as much as $1.5 billion per year in total damage and control costs 

(Pimentel 2005). 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 (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). 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).

Wild pig predation on livestock can be difficult to verify because the entire carcass 

is usually consumed, leaving little evidence. In addition, pigs 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). 

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).

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 100
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 101
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

industries (Hone et al. 1992). On the other hand, feral swine may serve as a 

surveillance 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

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 102
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 surveillance 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

Seroprevalence95% 

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. 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 103
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

organisms survive in surface waters, such as swamps, streams, and rivers, for 

extended periods, the disease is often waterborne. The organism survives well in 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 104
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

mud and moist, alkaline soil, such as riverbanks. Floods frequently result in an 

increase of disease outbreaks (Merck Veterinary Manual 2011). A number of 

wildlife species have been implicated as reservoirs for the bacteria including 

raccoons, opossums, squirrels and feral hogs (Chatfield et al. 2013). 

Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus (PR RSV): PRRSV was 

first reported in the United States in 1987 (Merck Veterinary Manual 2011). 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 PRRS 

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 pigs (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 

with the only symptoms being poor performance and failure to thrive (CFSPH

2009).

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 105
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 pigs 

infected with M. bovis. The area the feral pigs 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. 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 106
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Tuberculin 

Expenses Total 

Puu-OHoku 

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).

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 107
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. (2005) estimated the annual cost associated with feral swine damage 

at $800 million, 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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 108
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, 

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. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 109
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

sediments that have little to no alterations. In general, additions and losses of soil 

are minimal within this horizon. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 110
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 m2

) 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 Mountain National Park. Rooted 

areas also had lower levels of leaf litter. Reductions in soil density can increase the 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 111
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 112
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 pig 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 pigs 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 hogs 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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 113
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

(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 

variety of species including people (Boa 2004, Alexander et al. 2002, Dubay et al. 

2008). 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 114
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 Smokey Mountains National 

Park (Lowney et al. 2005). In Hawaii, feral swine dispersed seeds of the nonnative, nitrogen fixing, Myrica faya tree in rainforests (Nogueira-Filho et al. 2009). 

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 

expressed concern that foraging by feral swine may result in competition with 

native species including an endangered northern bettong (Bettongia tropica). In 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 115
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, Nogueira-Filho et al. 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, 

hickorynut) 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 (Nogueira-Filho et al. 

2009). 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 varied among management units. In the Big Sandy Creek Unit, 

damage was greatest in wet and mesic sites with 45% of wetland habitat damaged 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 116
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

be more extensively damaged because feral swine were attracted to invasive species 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 117
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). 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 cattleianum, increased 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 

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). 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 118
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 (Nogueira-Filho et al. 2009). 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 

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). 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 119
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Tortise 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 wild pigs 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.; 

Nogueria-Filho et al. 2009). The mechanism for this impact is subject to some 

debate but 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.

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, 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 120
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 121
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 redlegged frog and California tiger salamander (McCann and Garcelon 2008). 

Removal of feral swine may less the damage, but may not, in and of itself, result in 

recovery of the system. Additional restoration efforts may be needed, particularly 

in areas where invasive plant species have become established. For example, once 

established, non-native plant species often outcompete native species, and 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 122
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 richness of non-native species 

that have become established during the period of feral swine disturbance 

(Nogueira-Filho et al. 2009). 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.

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). 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 123
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 DEIS 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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 124
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

D. Property

1. Resources Affected by Feral Swine

a. Landscaping, Gardens, Golf Courses, Urban Parks/Recreational Areas, 

Roads, Levees, Dikes

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 125
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 (2011) collected data from 179 feral swine-vehicle collisions in South 

Carolina occurring between 1968 and 2006 (Mayer and Johns 2011). Those 

accidents collectively involved 212 feral swine. The study found that feral swinevehicle collisions occurred year-round and throughout the 24-hour daily time 

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 wild 

pig-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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 126
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

estimate was $1,173 (Mayer and Johns 2011). The projected cost of vehicle 

collisions with feral swine in the United States could be as high as $36 million 

annually (Mayer and Johns 2011). 

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 

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 APHISWS 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. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 127
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

E. Socio-cultural Resources

1. Resources Affected by Feral Swine

a. Historic Sites/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. 2013b). 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).

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 128
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

among tribes and between individuals within tribes depending on their history with 

the species. During the scoping phase for the DEIS, 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 

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). 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 129
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). 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 state-wide, 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 

their habitat and adversely impact associated hunting opportunities. Feral swine 

prey on popular native game species including deer fawns, and eggs of groundnesting 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 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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 130
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 131
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 132
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 133
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 decisionmaking 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 

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 commonlyaccepted 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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 134
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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 APHISWS program recognizes the importance of careful decision-making regarding use of lethal 

methods.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 135
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 Sites/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 

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.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 136
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

d. 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. 

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.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 137
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

e. 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. 

f. 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 (2011) 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.

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.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 138
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). 

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.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 139
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 wild pig 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 a 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 

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 (BarrettConnor et al. 1976, Greenbloom et al. 1997, Serrano et al. 1989).

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

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 140
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 141
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 hogs collected 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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 142
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 wild pig 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 nonhunting 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 

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. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 143
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 hogs 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 hogs were federally 

inspected prior to slaughter at Texas processing plants (Higginbotham 2013). This 

figure does not include the pigs 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 

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 hogs. 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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 144
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. The logistics and cost considerations associated with 

getting live swine to processing facilities that will accept feral swine 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 hunting, 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, 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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 145
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. APHISWS’ 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 

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 postmortem 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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 146
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

H. 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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 147
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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

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. 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 148
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 149
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 150
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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.

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 151
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 U.S. and 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 

Space Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development. NISC provides highlevel 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 DEIS. 

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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 152
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 DEIS 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-togovernment 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. APHISWS 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 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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 153
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 and local laws and regulations that do 

not directly and substantively conflict with its Federal statutory authorities (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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 154
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). On NPS lands, NPS has the authority to manage feral swine. Other 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.

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. Part of the 

National FSDM Program 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. 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, 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 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 155
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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).

Chapter 3: Affected Environment Page 156
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 157
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

• 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 158
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 159
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

without the 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 removal9

. 

To date, APHIS-WS’ role in FSDM has included investigating reports of freeranging 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 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 and Territories 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 constitutes a 

9 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 160

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 161
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 Pinacles National Monument in California (McCann and Garcelon 

2008). Feral swine in the surrounding area are excluded from Pinacles 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 hog 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 162
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

population, a level of removal well in excess of the estimate of 750,000 hogs 

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 

when developing effective and environmentally responsible FSDM programs. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 163
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Challenge1

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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 164
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 and Territories 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 165
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 166
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 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 states10 known or suspected to have established feral swine 

10 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, 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 167

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 surveillance/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

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 168

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

• 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 169
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 170
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 surveillance, 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 surveillance, 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 171
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

in areas which are not identified as current priorities for swine eradication. 

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 and Territories 

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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 172
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 173
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 174
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 175
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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 Grant Program

This alternative would provide resources to improve States, 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 

DEIS 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 176
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 and State 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, 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 177
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

surveillance and 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).

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 178
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 179
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

APHIS-VS Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health (CEAH) develops 

models for assessment of risks posed to livestock – primarily from diseases. Feral 

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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 180
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 nonhormonal, 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.

11 

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 

11 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 181

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

damage management efforts. Additionally, no APHIS-WS operations staff would 

be available to help with data collection and research for large-scale projects.

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 sitespecific 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. 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 182
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 Grants 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 Grants 

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).

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 183
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 surveillance

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).

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 184
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. APHISVS 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 take12 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. 

 

12 “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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 185

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, local, regional, and 

national levels on the Current FSDM Program have never resulted in conclusions 

that Current FSDM Program, including cumulative effects,13 would jeopardize the 

continued existence of any T&E species or result in the destruction or adverse 

13 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 186

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, APHISWS 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 187
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

other land uses and sites which have already been damaged by swine. In remote 

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 nontoxic 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 188
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

snares in areas with evidence of use by T&E species, bait selection, use of pantension 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) (199914); 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) 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 APHISWS 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. 

14 The 1999 BO on jaguar was reviewed by the FWS in 2012 and deemed still complete and effective. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 189

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

However, APHIS-WS does not claim to have a beneficial effect, by ESA 

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 fen15 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. 

15 A fen is a type of wetland that is low and marshy or frequently flooded. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 190

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Use of GonaConTM 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 GonaConTM 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, Territories, 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 191
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 and funding would be 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 192
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

to be 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 1) 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 193
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. Nontarget 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 194
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

ingested by scavengers. This will be minimized by exhausting supplies of effective nontoxic ammunition when possible before using toxic ammunition.

Research into sodium nitrite, a toxicant, and feed-based reproductive inhibitors, is

ongoing and may eventually be evaluated under NEPA for inclusion in FSDM. APHISWS 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 

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, 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 195
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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. Nontarget 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 196
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 in the top of the trail, placing jump sticks), and by regularly 

checking snares. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 197
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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’ 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 nonlethal 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 

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 nontarget 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 198
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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).

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, 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 pigs 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 1⁄2 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 199
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 nontarget 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 

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 surveillance to 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 200
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 201
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 budget16 of the species. 

Aerial operations conducted by APHIS-WS would not be conducted over Federal, 

State, 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 

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 

16 An animal’s activity budget is how it divides its time between activities (e.g. foraging, incubating eggs, building 

shelter, etc) daily or seasonally. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 202

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 203
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, 81% 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 

increases. When they were elevated, heart rates rapidly returned to predisturbance 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 204
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 205
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 overestimate 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 nontarget 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.

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 206
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 207
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 208
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 diameter). The size of the shot is likely to reduce 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 209
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 210
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 heme17 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).

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 

17 Heme is the red, oxygen-carrying component of hemoglobin.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 211

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 water18, for the northern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), while no 

18 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).

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 212

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 nontarget 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 

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, 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 213
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 or State regulations on the use of lead ammunition. Current 

challenges associated with lead-free ammunition include that some types of leadfree 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). Leadfree 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 types

of lead rifle ammunition. In addition to the increased risk of hitting an unintended 

target, non-frangible bullet pass-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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 214
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 hunting 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 hunting in rocky terrain where aerial hunting 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 

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, D.C., 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 APHISWS activities and landowner/manager desires for lead-free ammunition in their 

projects. Additionally, the APHIS-WS program is working to shift to lead-free 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 215
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, 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 groundnesting 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 

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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 216
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

monitors take of non-target species to ensure that the activities and methodologies 

used in FSDM do not adversely affect non-target species populations. APHISWS 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 

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 

increases. Additionally, GonaConTM 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 decisionmaking 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 217
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 nontarget 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.

GonaCon

Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH), trade name GonaConTM, is a naturally 

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, GonaConTM, that when injected into an animal 

induces the production of antibodies against GnRH, resulting in infertility. 

GonaConTM is preloaded into syringes where it can be injected into target animals 

by hand or remote delivery. GonaConTM 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 GonaConTM 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 218
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

environment, would be expected to result in negligible risk to non-target fish and 

wildlife. 

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). 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. LeadChapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 219
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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, and land management agencies 

make decisions about whether or not lead can be used and under what 

circumstances. State 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 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 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 220
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 nontarget 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 221
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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, APHISWS 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 222
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 nontarget species would be expected to be greater than the current program, but over 

time, less than the Integrated FSDM. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 223
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

national of specific local projects. Conversely, areas identified as priorities for 

National or strategic local projects may temporarily be subject to greater impacts 

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 with feral swine populations will not receive funds for 

baseline operational capacity to conduct FSDM. Consequently, some states 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. 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 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 224
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, 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, 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.

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 nontarget 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 225
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 226
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 227
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

are regulated, permitted, and monitored by both the EPA and the States 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. 

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 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 

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 pigs. 

Thus, lower volumes of soil would be needed to bury five average feral swine. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 228
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Sounders19 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. 

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 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 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, 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 state to state. 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 

19 A sounder is a group of swine, usually adult females with their sub-adult and juvenile offspring.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 229

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, 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 

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 state 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 230
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 or local laws (SOPs, 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 sitespecific 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 231
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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, APHISWS 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 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 states because of the diseases which feral swine may carry. Because 

landfills are regulated, permitted, and monitored by both the EPA and the states 

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). 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 232
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). 

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 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 sometimes counties, 

and those entities would evaluate/regulate the environmental effects. However, 

feral swine are not regulated as livestock in most states, 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 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 233
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 (Mapston 2010, Graves 1984, Nogueria et al. 2007) 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 234
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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), 

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 sitespecific 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 nationallycoordinated 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 235
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 236
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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), 

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,

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 237
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 APHISWS’ 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 238
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 and Federal 

regulations on landfill burial, incineration, chemical digesters and alkaline 

hydrolysis are expected to address air quality and odor issues to acceptable 

standards.

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). Onfarm 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, leachate20

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.

20 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 239

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 240
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 (CO2, NH3, H2S, 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 

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 35-40o

C (95-104oF) and 

transfers the heat (Fernando 1995 in NABCC 2004). The cooling water removes 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 241
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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, 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 state permit is 

required prior to initiating an open-air burn and open-air burning is not allowed in 

every state (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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 242
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 state 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 243
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

and State 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 244
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 245
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

(e.g. protecting private cropland or an endangered species on public land where 

hunting is not allowed). Alabama, California, 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 246
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 247
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 laws governing hunting of feral swine. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 248
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 surveillance 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 249
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

consulted in planning, potential effects on the public in high use recreational areas 

or other sensitive areas can be avoided. 

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 

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 hunting 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, 

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 250
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 FS Acting Director to BLM 

and FS 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 avoided 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 251
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 252
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 Nontarget Animals.

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 253
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 surveillance and to provide logistical support for ground 

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

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 254
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 255
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 256
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 257
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

education and outreach under this alternative would include information and data

to discourage hunters from moving feral swine. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 258
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

areas would be intermediate to the Integrated FSDM Program (Alternative 2) and 

Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), but overall impacts would be more 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 259
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

on feral swine management, including opportunities for the public to hunt feral 

swine. Grant recipients could potentially provide education and outreach to 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 260
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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. The higher the nutritional value 

of a hog’s diet, the greater the reproductive success (Giuliano 2013). 

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. 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 CO2-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 CO2, NOx, CO, and SOx) 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 261
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

fleet of passenger vehicles (1,665 leased and owned vehicles) using the average 

vehicle miles traveled per year as calculated by FHWA (2012).21 APHIS used the 

ratio of CO2 emissions to total greenhouse gas emissions (CDEs) for passenger 

vehicles to complete the calculation.22 Current APHIS vehicle use for all wildlife 

management programs can contribute approximately 8,058 metric tons (MT) of 

CDEs each year.23 

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 CO2 emissions.24 APHIS also 

owns or leases 6 different types of aircraft. Average fuel consumption rates for 

fixed wing piston engine aircraft is 12.9 gph (FAA 2012). Average CO2

emissions for piston engine aircraft are 0.11 MT/hr (Conklin and de Decker 

2014). Less than 1 percent each of NOx, CO, SOx, 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 CO2 emissions would be 1,612 MT/year. If all 

flight hours were attributed to helicopters, the estimated CO2 emissions would be 

3,516 MT/year. Given that feral swine activities do not comprise all aerial 

program activities in a year, estimated yearly CO2 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/year25.

21 11,493 miles per vehicle per year. 22 0.985

23 (8.92 × 10-3 metric tons/gallon of gasoline)*(19,135,845 miles traveled by WS)*(1/21.5 mpg)*(1/0.985) 24 Conklin and de Decker Aviation Information (https://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/CO2Calc.aspx) 25 CEQ (2010) issued a memorandum to heads of federal agencies and departments on providing 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 262

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

Current APHIS vehicle use for all wildlife damage management programs can 

contribute approximately 8,058 metric tons (MT) of CDEs each year.26 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 hours27 which would increase the range of CO2 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 

26 (8.92 × 10-3 metric tons/gallon of gasoline)*(19,135,845 miles traveled by WS)*(1/21.5 mpg)*(1/0.985) 27 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 263

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

objectives are achieved in high priority areas. ATV and office usage would 

remain the same.

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 surveillance, snares, leg-hold traps, 

pyrotechnics for hazing, cage traps, drugs, the reproductive inhibitor GonaConTM

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. APHISWS 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 264
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 265
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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 APHISWS 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 266
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). 

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 highlevel flights. Accidents have been associated with APHIS-WS aerial operations 

and are a concern to APHIS-WS because of risks to personnel. Some of APHISWS’ 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 APHISWS 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 APHISWS. APHIS-WS pilots are trained in hazard recognition and surveillance 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 267
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

aviation and that the risk of harming any member of the public is exceedingly low 

(USDA 2011a, USDA 2011b).

APHIS-WS’ safety measures and training for aerial sharpshooting are the same as 

those for aircraft used in surveillance 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 

putrefication 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 putrefication 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 268
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 and 

surveillance. 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).

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 269
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

GonaConTM 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 are fully reversible with 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 270
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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. 

GonaConTM: 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 GonaConTM 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 DEIS. 

Consequently, in the event that an injectable formulation of GonaConTM 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 nontoxic 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, GonaConTM 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 GonaConTM labels for use in deer its use is further restricted to APHISWS 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 Indian 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 271
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 GonaConTM

are 

people who harvest and consume feral swine that are treated with GonaConTM. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 272
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). 

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 would not be 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 273
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 274
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

meets both these requirements and provides an acceptable alternative to 

traditional lead ammunition.

APHIS has considered whether project impacts occurring in minority and lowincome 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

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 275
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 surveillance 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 APHISWS 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

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 276
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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,28 sacred sites, and archaeological sites not 

28 “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)).

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 277

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. 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) 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. 

Other than excavation for on-site burial and building permanent fences, the 

Current FSDM Program 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 278
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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, each 

partner agency also may have its own rules and regulations 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 

SHOPs, 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 279
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 280
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

tribes from FSDM actions under this alternative are low. However, potential for 

positive 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 DEIS. 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 281
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 pigs, created the problem and the pigs 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 282
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 DEIS 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 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 283
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 284
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 DEIS 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 285
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 nonlethal 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 nonlethal 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. APHISWS 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. 

Impacts on Tribes, Traditional Cultures, and Ceremonial Values

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 286
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Under this alternative feral swine populations are expected to decrease 

nationwide, with swine populations eventually eliminated from most states except 

those where the State 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 and 

Tribe 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 

Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1) and this would reduce their potential 

availability in some areas outside of public hunting areas. Compared with the 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 287
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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 

surveillance 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. 

6-Factor Ethics Model (Littin et al. 2004): As noted for the Current FSDM 

Program (Alternative 1) the DEIS presents the goals and anticipated benefits of 

FSDM and provides details on the anticipated environmental impacts of the 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 288
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 289
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 and 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 

impacts of increased FSDM activities would be as described for the Integrated 

FSDM Program (Alternative 2). 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 290
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

DEIS 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 combined need to address the national-level 

increase in the feral swine population and associated damage and the need to 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 291
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

cultural resources would be based on the level of existing and potential feral 

swine activity. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 292
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

associated SOPs would be as described for the Integrated FSDM Program

(Alternative 2). 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 293
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

DEIS 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. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 294
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 295
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 Parks 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

population and associated costs from damage and risks to human and animal 

health is increasing (Chapter 3). Current APHIS FSDM efforts lack the nationallevel coordination and strategic allocation of resources needed for long term large 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 296
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 297
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

b. Alternative 2: Integrated FSDM Program (Preferred Alternative)

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 298
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

identified areas while also providing baseline assistance to all areas with feral 

swine. This strategy should help stabilize feral swine populations and associated 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 299
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

damage. Combined with operational management and international coordination 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 300
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

Under the Current FSDM Program (Alternative 1), approximately 30,000 pigs are 

eliminated each year. The number of feral swine eliminated or contained under 

this alternative would vary depending on where the operations take place, the 

specific program objective in each area, the phase of the operation, or the extent 

to which elimination or containment in each of the areas has been achieved. 

Smaller populations and populations that have been heavily exploited are more 

costly to eliminate. Greater numbers of feral swine can more easily be removed 

from larger populations without affecting the population. For the purpose of 

comparing alternatives based on program efficiencies, taking the elimination of a 

range of 70,000 to 100,000 feral swine as an illustrative estimate of the number of 

swine which might be removed annually under this alternative, and assuming the 

commonly cited figure of $200 in crop damage per feral swine per year (adjusted 

to $235 per year in 2012 dollars), the this alternative could result in an additional 

$9.4 to $16.4 million in avoided crop damages over current program levels (Table 

4-6). Some experts believe the $200 of crop damage per feral swine is 

conservative and the level of avoided crop damages would be substantially higher 

(M. Bodenchuk, pers. com. 2014). 

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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 301
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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, 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 302
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 APHISWS 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 surveillance, 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 303
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

 

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 surveillance 

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 surveillance 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).

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 304
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 305
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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 APHISWS 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 306
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 307
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

projects like research, education, outreach, and surveillance. 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 308
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 longterm 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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 309
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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) 

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 

surveillance, 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 310
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 were 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 DEIS 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. 

1. A comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of FSDM.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 311
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

2. Comprehensive data on the effects of feral swine hunting and associated businesses.

3. Comprehensive data on the effects of feral swine hunting on the ability to achieve agency 

FSDM goals.

4. A lack of 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. 

5. A lack of scientific analysis of 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. Site specific impacts cannot always be anticipated, therefore, local analyses in the form of 

environmental assessments or other records 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. Assessing the efficacy of 

communication and outreach is largely unavailable.

8. Fencing is not always effective in keeping domestic swine from escaping to become feral 

swine. Fencing is necessary to both contain domestic swine, as well as keep feral swine 

from entering and posing disease problems. 

H. CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 312
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 APHISWS 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 313
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 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, nontarget 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 nontarget 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 314
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. NonAPHIS 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 

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, 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 315
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 316
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 317
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 CO2 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 318
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 properties29. 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 

29 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).

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 319

 
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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., 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 320
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

the preferred alternative would be both ethical and humane, and would not result in 

adverse cumulative effects. 

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 321
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 322
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 323
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

GonaConTM 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. APHISWS 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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 324
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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. APHISWS minimizes adverse effects of carcass decomposition and water contamination by avoiding excavation of burial 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 325
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

Alternative 3. Effects would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program but this alternative may have the highest the number of 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 326
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Baseline FSDM 

Program

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 

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.

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 327
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

Hunting other Game Animals

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 328
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 surveillance 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. 

Hunting other Game Animals

This alternative would benefit other game species by reducing or eliminating feral swine populations that adversely 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 329
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

affect the species or their habitats. This may provide benefit to States 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. 

Aesthetic Values

Program effects would be similar to the Integrated FSDM Program but would be related to baseline funding 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 330
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

have high feral swine populations or which do not intend to eradicate them may see benefits similar to the current 

program. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 331
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 332
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 CO2-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. 

Effects on Human Health and Safety

Alternative 1. 

No Action 

Alternative 

Firearms, aerial shooting and surveillance, 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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 333
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

(Current FSDM 

Program)

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 GonaConTM 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 lowincome 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 surveillance for zoonotic diseases and would improve the 

ability of health officials to identify and respond to disease risks. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 334
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 335
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 336
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 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. Cultural Resources 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 337
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Baseline FSDM 

Program

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 Grant FSDM 

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 APHISWS 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. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 338
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 339
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 surveillance 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. 

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 340
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 341
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences Page 342
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Appendix A. Acronyms Page 343
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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

LPA USDA Legislative and Public Affairs

Appendix A. Acronyms Page 344
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

SOP Standard Operational Procedure

Appendix A. Acronyms Page 345
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Appendix A. Acronyms Page 346
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 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, D.C., USA.

Aiello, SE and MA Moses (eds). Merck Veterinary Manual Online. 2013. 

http://www.merckmanuals.com/vet/generalized_conditions/fungal_infections_mycoses/cry

ptococcosis.html. Accessed 2 August 2013. 

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. 2002. Livestock mortality management 

(Disposal). Retrieved on March 2014 from 

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 347
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

An T.Q., Z. J. Tian, C.L. Leng, J.M. Peng, 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. 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. 2013. Environmental Assessment for Bird Damage Management in Texas, Texas Wildlife 

Services Program, February 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. Appl Environ Microbiol 

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.

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. Information 

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 348
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

obtained from: http://agrilife.org/texnatwildlife/feral-hogs/economics-and-humaninteractions-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. Available at: 

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, editors. 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. J. Infect. Dis. 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 Agric. Ext. 

Serv., College Station.

Beal CD, Gardner EA, Christiansen C, Beavers P. 2005. A review of on-site wastewater 

management practices in 584 south-east 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.

Beauchamp, T.L. and R.G.Frey, eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford 

University Press, New York.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 349
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1989. Response of staging greater snow geese to human disturbance. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 53:713-719.

Belanger, L. and J. Bedard. 1990. Energetic costs of man-induced disturbance to staging snow 

geese. J. Wildl. Manage. 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.

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/photoslivelyfarms-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. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 

94 (8), S1-S238.

Boa, E. 2004. Wild edible fungi: a global overview of their use and importance to people. Nonwood Forest Products Vol. 17. 147pp.

Boden, E. 2001. Black’s Veterinary Dictionary 20th Edition. Barnes and Noble Books, Lanham, 

Maryland.

Bodenchuk, M.J. 2008. Feral Hog Management: Typing Performance Measures to Resources 

Protected. National Conference on Feral Hogs. April 13-15, St. Louis, MO.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 350
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 Smokey 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.

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 351
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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., Stopak, S. R., and Wolf, P. C. 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.

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. Obtained from: 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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 352
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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). 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, D.C. 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, 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.

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 353
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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:no-no.

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. 2012a. CSU eXtesnion: Feral hogs. Retrieved from 

http://www.extension.org/pages/63659/vehicle-collisions-with-feral-hogs. November 7, 

2012.

Comer 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. Savannah 

River National Laboratory. Aiken, South Carolina. SRNL-RP-2009-00869.

Conklin and de Decker Associates. 2014. CO2 Emissions and Offset Calculator. Online. 

https://www.conklindd.com/CDALibrary/CO2Calc.aspx

Conomy, J. T., J. A. Collazo, J. A. Dubovsky, W. J. Fleming. 1998. Dabbling duck behavior and 

aircraft activity in coastal North Carolina. J. Wildl. Manage. 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. 

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 354
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Cooley M., Carychao D., Crawford-Miksza L., Jay M. T., Myers C., Rose C., et al. (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. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 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, New York.

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. Available from 

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/feral-pig/stage3.html.

Cox, G.W. 1999. Alien Species in North America and Hawaii: Impacts on natural ecosystems. 

Island Press, Washington, D.C. and Corelo, California.

Cozzens, T.W. 2010. Economic impact of feral swine transmitting foot-and-mouth disease to 

livestock in Kansas. M.S. thesis, Dept. of Agr. 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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 355
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Crane, N. 1997. Animal disposal and the environment. State Vet. Jrnl. 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. Pp. 105-134 In Field manual of wildlife diseases in the 

southeastern United States. Third edition. Southwestern Cooperative Disease Study, 

Athens, GA.

Davidson, W.R. and V.F. Nettles, editors. 1997. Wild swine. Pp 104-133 In Field manual of 

wildlife diseases in the southeastern United States. Third edition. Southwestern 

Cooperative Disease Study, Athens, GA.

Delaney, D. K., T. G. Grubb, P. Beier, l. L. Pater, and M. H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter 

noise on Mexican spotted owls. J. Wildl. Manage. 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.

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. Savannah River 

National Laboratory. Aiken, South Carolina. SRNL-RP-2009-00869.

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 356
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

Engeman, R. M., G. Massei, M. Sage and M. N. Gentle. 2013a. Monitoring wild pig populations: 

a review of methods. Environmental Science and Pollution Research20:8077-8091.

Engeman, R. M., K. J. Couturier, R. K. Felix, Jr., and M. L. Avery. 2013b. Feral swine 

disturbance at important archaeological sites. Environmental Science and Pollution 

Research 20:4093-4098

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 357
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Engeman, R. M., J. Woolard, H. T. Smith, J. Bourassa, B. U. Constantin, and D. Griffi n. 2007a. 

An extraordinary patch of feral swine damage in Florida before and after initiating hog 

removal.

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

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. 242 pp.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 358
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, D.C. 

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. 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.

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. 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, p211-272.

Florida Department of Health. 2011. Florida Morbidity Statistics Report 2010. Tallahassee, FL.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 359
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 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. Pp 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, D.C.

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. 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.

Gallagher, J. F. undated. Procedures for evaluating predation on livestock and wildlife. Texas 

Agrilife Extension. 56pp.

Gaskamp, J. and J. Biermacher. 2013. BoarBusterTM 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, Illinois.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 360
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. J. of Wildl. Manage. 68: 939-946.

Gieling, E.T., R.E. Nordquist, 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, K.C. VerCauteren. 2003. Use of frightening devices in wildlife 

damage management. Integrated Pest Management Reviews. 7:29-45.

Giuliano 2013 (hog diet repro success)

Giuliano, W.M. 2010. Wild hogs in Florida: Ecology and management. University of Florida. 

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/uw322.

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, Michigan.

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. 

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 361
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. Can. J. Publ. 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. J. of Zoology 233: 631-648.

Grubb, T. G., Delaney, D. K., Bowerman, W. W. And Wierda, M. R. (2010), Golden Eagle 

Indifference to Heli-Skiing and Military Helicopters in Northern Utah. J. 

Wildl.Manage.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., et al. 2011. The environmental and biosecurity characteristics of livestock carcass 

disposal methods: A review. Waste Management (2011), 

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.12.005.

Haider, S. and K. Jax. 2007. The application of environmental ethics in biological conservation: a 

case study from the southernmost tip of the Americas. Biodivers. Conserv. 16: 2559-257.3

HAID (Hawaii Animal Industry Division), Animal Disease Control Branch. 2014. Pseudorabies. 

Retrieved on January 14, 2014 from http://hdoa.hawaii.gov/ai/ldc/pseudorabies/.

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. 

Arch. Environ. 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. Volume 41, pp 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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 362
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Hayes, R. S. Riffell, R. Minnis and B. Holder. 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. 2014. Biology of feral hogs. Texas A&M. http://agrilife.org/texnatwildlife/feralhogs/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 of Livestock & Poultry 

Mortality. University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension. EC-727. Lincoln, Nebraska . 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 .

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

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 363
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Hubalek, Z., F. Treml, Z. Juricova, M. Hundy, J. Halouzka, V. Janik, 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.

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), College of Veterinary Medicine, Veterinary Diagnostic and 

Production Animal Medicine. 2014. Pseudorabies – PRV. Retrieved June 2014 from 

http://vetmed.iastate.edu/vdpam/new-vdpam-employees/food-supply-veterinarymedicine/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/pigsivms-report.pdf.

Jay, M.T., M. Cooley, D. Carychao, G.W. Wiscomb, R.A. Sweitzer, L. Crawford-Miksa. 2007. 

Escherichia coli O157:H7 in feral swine near spinach fields and cattle, central California 

coast. Emerg. Infect. Dis. Available from http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/13/12/07-

0763.htm.

Jay, M.T. and G.W. Wiscomb. 2008. Food safety risks and mitigation strategies for feral swine 

(Sus scrofa) near agricultural fields. Proc. 23rd Vertebr. Pest Conf. R.M. Timm and M.B. 

Madon Eds. Univ. of Calif. Davis. Pp 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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 364
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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., Phebus, R., Applegate, T., Nutsch, A., Thacker, H.L., Walawender, W. 2004. Carcass 

Disposal: A comprehensive review. National Agricultural Biosecurity Center Consortium, 

USDA APHIS Cooperative Agreement Project. Online available at http://krex.kstate.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.

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/conferencelead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 365
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. Wildl. Soc. 

Bull. 11:372-375.

Krausman, P. R., B. D. Leopold, and D. L. Scarbrough. 1986. Desert mule deer response to 

aircraft. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 14:68-70.

Kushlan, J.A. 1979. Effects of helicopter censuses on wading bird colonies. J. Wildl. Manage. 

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. Information 

obtained from: http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/family-crashes-into-feral-hogs-on130.

Lacki, M. J. and R. A. Lancia. 1983. Changes in soil properties of forests rooted by wild boar. 

Pages 228-236 in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

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.

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, New Jersey.

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-HopperTM) 

in Australia and the USA. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Management Conference 

14:19–24.

Lapidge, S., and C. T. Eason. Date? 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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 366
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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. 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. Vet. 

Micro. 166: 1-10.

Lipscomb, D.J. 1989. Impacts of feral hogs on longleaf pine regeneration. Southern Journal of 

Applies 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.

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. 

Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 24(2): 767-782.

Livestock Conservancy. 2014. Heritage Breeds. Located at: 

http://www.livestockconservancy.org/index.php/heritage, found on 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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 367
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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, California.

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. 2010. Feral Hogs in Texas. Texas Cooperative Extension, Wildlife Services. 

26pp. http://icwdm.org/publications/pdf/feral%20pig/txferalhogs.pdf.

Mapston, M. E. 2004. Feral hogs in Texas. Texas Cooperative Extension. 26pp.

Martin, J., H. H. Edwards, M. A. Burgess, H. F. Percival, D. E. Fagan, B. E. Gardner, J. G. OrtegaOrtiz, 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.

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. Draft Report 

SRNL-STI-2014-00292, Savannah River National Laboratory, Aiken South Carolina. 

12pp.

Mayer, J.J. 2013. Wild pig attacks on humans In: Proceedings of the 15th Wildlife Damage 

Management Conference, Clemson University. In Press.

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. Savannah River National 

Laboratory. Aiken, South Carolina. SRNL-RP-2009-00869.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 368
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. Savannah River 

National Laboratory. Aiken, South Carolina. SRNL-RP-2009-00869.

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. 

Savannah River National Laboratory. Aiken, South Carolina. SRNL-RP-2009-00869.

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. Savannah River National 

Laboratory. Aiken, South Carolina. SRNL-RP-2009-00869.

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, D.C.

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, 

South Carolina, USA.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/.

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, 314 pages.

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. 2011. Characterization of wild pig-vehicle collisions. Washington 

Savannah River Company, Aiken S.C. and Carolina Wildlife Consultants, New Ellentown, 

S.C. May 23, 2011.

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 29808.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 369
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. Information obtained from the website: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-

153-10370_12145_55230-230062--,00.html

MDC (Michigan Department of Conservation). 2013. Feral hog control. Information obtained from 

website: http://mdc.mo.gov/your-property/problem-plants-and-animals/invasiveanimals/feral-hog-control.

Melis, C., P. A. Szafranska, B. Jedrzejewska and K. Barton. 2006. Biogeographical variation in 

the population density of wild boar (Sus scofa) 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.

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/texasferal-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.

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 370
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Mississippi State University. 2014. Behavior and Biology of Wild Pigs. 

http://wildpiginfo.msstate.edu/ behavior-feral-pigs.html.

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 Biochemestry 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. Retrieved 4 February 2014.

Mungal, E.C. 2001. Exotics. Pp 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 Garcı ́a. 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 ConservancyMigratory 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. Retrieved from 

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. J. Wild. Dis 25:61-65.

Nielson, D.B., F.J. Wagstaff, and D.Lytle. 1986. Big-game animals on private range. Rangelands 

8(1). Feb, 1986.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 371
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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/FiveYear%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, S.L.G. Nogueira-Filho, M. Bassford, K. Silvius, J.M.V. Fragoso. 2007. Review: 

Feral pigs in Hawaii: Using behavior and ecology to refine control techniques. Applied 

Animal Behavior Science. Volume 108:1-11. 

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, NPS, 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. Found at 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.

Nogueira, S. S. C., S. L. G. Nogueira-Filho, M. Bassford. K. Silvius, 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.

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 372
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Nunley, G.L. 1999. The cooperative Texas wildlife damage management program and feral swine 

damage management. Pp 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.

Paarlberg, P.L., J.G. Lee, and A.H. Seitzingeer. 2003. Measuring welfare effects of an FMD 

outbreak in the United States. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 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. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 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. 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

Parkes, J.P., D.S.l. 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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 373
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. Proc. Vert. Pest 

Conf. 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. Proc. Vert. Pest 

Conf. 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 Unted States. Human-Wildlife Interactions 6(1): 38 – 47, Spring 2012.

Penn State Extension. 2011. Pigs on pasture. http://extension.psu.edu/business/startfarming/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.

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, USDA/APHIS Wildlife Services, National Wildlife Research Center.

Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs 

associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics. 52: 273-

288.

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, Idaho, USA. 

http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 374
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Poteaux, C., Baubet, E., Kaminski, G., Brandt, S., Dobson, F. S. and Baudoin, C. (2009), Sociogenetic structure and mating system of a wild boar population. Journal of Zoology, 

278: 116–125. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7998.2009.00553.x

Powlson, D. S., Whitmore, A. P. and Goulding, K. W. T. (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, Idaho, 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 In: Beach, R. Texas Natural Wildlife: Depredation problems involving 

feral hogs. Texas A&M AgriLife Research. San Angelo, TX 76901. Retrieved from: 

http://agrilife.org/texnatwildlife/feral-hogs/depredation-problems-involving-feral-hogs/.

Reidy, M. M., T. A. Campbell, and G. G. Hewitt. Evaluation of electric fencing to inhibit feral pig 

movements. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1012-1018.

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. PP. 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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 375
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. J. Wildl. Dis. 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. Pp. 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-oddidUSTRE76S4DP20110729

Sanchez, M., Gonzalez, J.L., Gutierrez, M.A.D., Guimaraes, A.C., Gracia, L.M.N. 2008. 

Treatment of animal carcasses in poultry farms using sealed ditches. Bioresource Technol., 

99, 7369-7376.

Santill, F., L. GAlardi and C. Russo. 2005. Corn appetability reduction in wild boar (Sus scrofa) 

in relationship to the use of commercial repellents. 

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 376
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Scheetz and 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, Idaho, USA. 

http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm.

Scheuhammer, A. M., and S. L. Norris. 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. Trans. N. America Wildl. & Nat. 

Res. Conf. 54:468-475. 

Schmidt, R. H. 1992. Why bad things happen to good animals. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest 

Conference. 15:25-28.

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 Surveillance). 2004. Pseudorabies and 

brucellosis problems in feral swine. SCWDS Briefs April 2004. 20(1).

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 377
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Shaw, A. 2013. Across south Louisiana, feral hogs uproot sugar cane, rice fields—and levees. 

NOLA.com. The Times-Picayune Greater New Orleans. November, 27, 2013. Retrieved on 

January 14, 2014 from 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.C. Clebsch. 1984. Effects of wild pig rooting in a deciduous 

forest. The Journal of Wildlife Management 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. 

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 436. 

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. 

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. Pp 387−405. In A. Y. Cooperrider, R. J. Boyd, and H. 

R. Stuart, eds. Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat. USDI, Bur. Land Manage., 

Serv. Cen., Denver, CO.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 378
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Spencer, P.B., S.J. Lapidge, J.O. Hampton, 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, L. 1996. The Feral Hog in Oklahoma. Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. Ardmore, OK, 

USA.

Sweeney, J.R., J.M. Sweeney, and S.W. Sweeney. 2003. Feral hog. Pp. 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. Pp. 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. J. Anim. Sci. 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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 379
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. Accessed on September 2013.

The Pig Site. 2012b. The Pig Site Quick Disease Guide-Toxoplasmosis. 

http://www.thepigsite.com/pighealth/article/429/toxoplasmosis-toxoplasma. Accessed on 

September 2013. 

The Merck Veterinary Manual. Leptospirosis in Pigs. Available at: 

http://www.merckmanuals.com/vet/index.html. Accessed September, 2013.

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, S.C.

Thorne, E. T. 2001. Brucellosis. Pages 372–395 in E. S. Williams and I. K. Barker, editors. 

Infectious diseases of wild mammals. Blackwell, Ames, Iowa USA.

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. Sustainable 

management of soil organic matter:393-425.

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, Texas, USA.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 380
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Tolson, K.M. and J.M. LaCour. 2013. The reproductive potential of feral hogs in Louisiana and 

their impact on forestry and agronomic activities. In: T.F. Shupe and M.S. Brown, eds. 

Proceedings of the Louisiana natural Resources Symposium. Louisiana State University 

AgriCenter. Baton Rouge, LA. ISBN 0-9763623-4-0. pp. 47-56.

Tompkins, S. 2013. Texas losing war on feral hogs. Houston Chronicle, July 24, 2013.

TPW (Texas Parks and Wildlife). 2013. Nuisance wildlife in Texas: Feral hogs. Information 

obtained from website: 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. 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.

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. Downloaded 6/20/2014.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014a. Environmental Assessment. Feral Swine 

Damage and Disease Management in Louisiana. Online. 

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. Online. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/pdfs/nepa/TXFeral%20Swine%20EA%20FINAL.pdf

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2014c. USDA FY14 Budget Summary and Annual 

Performance Plan. http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY14budsum.pdf. Retrieved on 4 

February 2014.

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 381
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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/briefingpapers/fy2013/state/FY%202013%20Hawaii%20PSW.pdf last accessed Dec. 6, 2013.

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2010. Status of Feral Swine in New York State. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife 

Services. Castleton, New York.

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. USDA, 

APHIS, 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. 

United States 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. USDA, 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. USDA, Animal and Plant Inspection Service, Wildlife Services, 

Denver, Colorado.

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

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 382
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 USDA-USFS-TNF Intermountain Region 

Report. 65 pp.

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. In K. Maramorosch, A.J. Shatkin, and F.A. Murphy. Editors: 

Advanced in Virus Research, Vol. 72, Burlington: Academic Press. Pp 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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 383
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Watts, A. C., J. H. Perry, S. E. Smith, M. A. Burgess, B. E. Wilkinson, Z. Szantoi, P. G. Ifju, H. F. 

Percival. 2010. Small unmanned aircraft systems for low-altitude aerial surveys. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 74:1614-1619.

Weeks, P. and J. Packard . 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.

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 J. 

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.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 384
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Wolf, I. and J. Bartz. 2009. Hogs run wild: Feral pig population exploding in Florida and nation, 

damaging property. Scripps Howard News Service. Information obtained from website: 

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/dec/27/hogs-run-wild-feral-pig-populationexploding-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.

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., Hueth, B.M., Zilberman, D., 2000. Managing a multiple-use resource: the case of feral 

pig management in California rangeland. Journal of Environmental Economics and 

Management 39, 189–204.

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 385
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

This page left intentionally blank

Appendix B: Literature Cited Page 386
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 

Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 387
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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)

Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 388
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Portand, 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 APHISWildlife 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

Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 389
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 surveillance 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

PhD 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.

Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 390
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. Wildilfe 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

Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 391
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 Agency Contributors and Reviewers

Jessica Resnik

Wildlife Biologist, Invasive Animals Program Coordinator

National Park Service

NRSS-BRMD Wildlife Conservation Branch

1201 Oakridge Dr. Suite 201

Fort Collins, CO 80525

Glenn Plumb

Chief Wildlife Biologist

National Park Service

Biological Resource Management Division

Wildlife Conservation Branch

1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 200

Fort Collins, CO 80525

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 A. Sinclair

Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 392
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Assistant National Wildlife Program Leader

Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air and Rare Plants 

USDA Forest Service

201 14th Street, SW

Washington DC 20250

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

Gray Andersen

Assistant Chief Wildlife and Forestry Division

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

PO Box 40747

Nashville, TN 37204

Richard Smith

Region 8, Refuge Planning

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-1832

Sacramento, CA 95825

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

Andree Duvarney, National Environmental Coordinator

USDA-NRCS

14th and Independence Ave, SW

Room 6158-S

Washington, DC 20250

Troy Bigelow, DVM

Staff Veterinarian

USDA/APHIS/VS/SPRS

Des Moines, IA

Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 393
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

210 Walnut Street

Des Moines, IA 50309

Doug Eckery, PhD

Project Leader – Fertility Control

National Wildlife Research Center

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services

4101 LaPorte Avenue 

Fort Collins, CO 80521

Toni Piaggio, Ph.D.

Research Scientist, Wildlife Genetics

National Wildlife Research Center

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services

4101 LaPorte Ave.

Fort Collins, CO 80521

Appendix C: Preparers, Contributors and Reviewers Page 394
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Appendix D

State and Territory Information 

on 

Feral Swine Management

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 395
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

This page left intentionally blank

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 396
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS state personnel.

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.

Sections (a), (b), and (d) 

mostly relate to feral swine. 

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.

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 397
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.)

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 398
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 399
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 400
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 401
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 402
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

No, but bill passed legislature 

in June 2013 that awaits the 

Governor's signature to 

become law that addresses 

wild type swine

Bill awaiting Governor's 

signature will address 

movement of swine

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, USDAVeterinary 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 nontraditional 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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 403
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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).

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 404
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 405
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 (authority 

for control of Russian Boars 

(synonymous with feral swine)); 

Texas Board of Animal Health 

(regulates movement and subsequent 

release 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 

impacts to soil and water)

Exotic Livestock Uncontained swine are 

"exotic livestock" and 

managed in the same way as 

truly feral swine

Any swine entering state 

need a health certificate (not 

available for feral swine). 

Texas Animal Health 

Commission allows 

movement intrastate only to 

terminal slaughter or an 

approved holding facility (to 

await slaughter). Hogs may 

also be taken to approved 

shooting facility with "hogproof fence".

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 406
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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?

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, noncommercial 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 Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources; Wisconsin 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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 407
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 potbellied 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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 408
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 409
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 410
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 68A1.004 and 68A5.001No Landowner/ 

manager 

preference

Florida 

Department of 

Environmental 

ProtectionState 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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 411
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 412
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 stateowned 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 speciesspecific 

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 

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 413
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 414
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 415
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

surveillance 

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

MassachusettsNone None No, in 

development

Prevent 

Establishment or 

Eradication

No None Not applicable

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 416
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 a small 

number of 

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 417
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 418
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 Approximately half of 

counties in 

state

New York

New York 

(cont.)

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.

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 419
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 420
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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

Oregon 

(cont.)

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 

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 421
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

invasive species 

list

Southwest 

Oregon 

PennsylvaniaInside 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

Puerto Rico

Exotic invasive 

species

Commonwealth 

regulation 6765, 

under 

Commonwealth act 

241, Apendix A, list 

of invasive species

No Control and if 

posibble 

eradication on 

main island and 

Mona Island. In 

Mona Island it is 

controled 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 

municiplity 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.

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 422
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

(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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 423
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 424
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 425
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 board 

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.

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 426
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 Wyomin

g 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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 427
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 potbellied pigs, in 

Wyoming. The 

WDA statutes do 

not list feral 

swine as a 

predator species 

in Wyoming.

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 428
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 FreeRanging 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 freeranging; 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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 429
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

State

Is Feral Swine 

Hunting 

Allowed?

Are there Restrictions on Killing 

Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?

Is Sale of Hunting 

Opportunities for FreeRanging 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

Yes Yes

Louisiana Yes Basic hunting license required to shoot 

or live trap. Trapping license required 

to snare. 

Yes Yes

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 430
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

State

Is Feral Swine 

Hunting 

Allowed?

Are there Restrictions on Killing 

Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?

Is Sale of Hunting 

Opportunities for FreeRanging Swine on Private 

Land Allowed?

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 

certain phenotypes of swine

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

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 431
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

State

Is Feral Swine 

Hunting 

Allowed?

Are there Restrictions on Killing 

Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?

Is Sale of Hunting 

Opportunities for FreeRanging Swine on Private 

Land Allowed?

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 Yes Yes, as of October 1, 2013, only 

landowners allowed to shoot feral 

swine 

Yes, but hunting preserves have until 

August 31, 2015 to remove all swine 

from inventory.

Yes, 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

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 432
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

State

Is Feral Swine 

Hunting 

Allowed?

Are there Restrictions on Killing 

Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?

Is Sale of Hunting 

Opportunities for FreeRanging Swine on Private 

Land Allowed?

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

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 433
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

State

Is Feral Swine 

Hunting 

Allowed?

Are there Restrictions on Killing 

Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?

Is Sale of Hunting 

Opportunities for FreeRanging Swine on Private 

Land Allowed?

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

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 434
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

State

Is Feral Swine 

Hunting 

Allowed?

Are there Restrictions on Killing 

Feral Swine? Are Hunting Preserves Allowed?

Is Sale of Hunting 

Opportunities for FreeRanging Swine on Private 

Land Allowed?

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

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 435
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Appendix D: State and Territory Information on Feral Swine Management Page 436
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 federallylisted 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

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 437
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

Method use may be avoided 

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.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 438
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 

agencies and/or landowners 

With avoidance and other 

practices, this method 

would have either no 

effect or would not be 

likely to adversely affect 

terrestrial birds and 

mammals. 

Section 7 consultations 

are either in place locally 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 439
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

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.

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 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 440
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 APHISWS 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. 

this method as applicable.

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

No Effect None None

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 441
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 GonaConTM. 

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 

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. 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 442
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

the vaccine and the antibodies 

produced are proteins. Once 

ingested, they are broken down by 

stomach acids and enzymes. 

Similar injectable hormonealtering products are used 

routinely in livestock 

applications.

Killing methods Sodium nitrite

Under 

development.N

ot currently 

proposed for 

use. 

May affect 1) Poisoning nontargets 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 nontarget 

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 

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.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 443
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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.

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.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 444
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 

surveillance. (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 

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

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.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 445
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 nontarget species. Space is left 

between snare sets so that animals 

scavenging on the carcass of a pig 

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 

identifies areas where listed 

species may be affected. 

Other potential protective 

measures which may be 

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. 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 446
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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.

Foothold traps

Alternatives 1, 

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 

Use of foothold traps can 

result in risk of take for 

some species. 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 447
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 pig 

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. 

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 

Section 7 consultations 

are either in place locally 

and/or would be 

completed or updated for 

this method as applicable.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 448
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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, 

2, 3, 4 and 5

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 

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). 

Take may occur if 

avoidance of lead 

ammunition or carcass 

removal/burial is not 

possible.

Section 7 consultations 

are either in place locally 

and/or would be 

completed or updated for 

this method as applicable.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 449
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 

pigs 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 

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. 

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, 

terrestrial plants, and 

critical habitat would be 

made locally based on 

species presence, 

proposed work locations, 

and coordination with 

land management 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 450
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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. 

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.

Drop nets 

Alternatives 2, 

3, 4 and 5

May affect 1) Non-target 

capture

2) Trampling 

3) Critical habitat 

destruction of 

1) Large 

mammals

2) Terrestrial 

plants

3) Critical 

1) Use of drop nets requires 

constant supervision by APHISWS personnel. Nets are deployed 

manually by personnel only when 

target species are present. Nets 

would not be deployed if nontarget species, including T&E 

1) Effects are not likely 

or no effect.

2, 3) Coordination with 

land managers and 

avoidance of sensitive 

areas is likely to result in 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 451
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Primary 

Constituent 

Elements (PCEs)

habitat of any 

species

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.

no effect on listed plant 

species or critical 

habitats. 

Exclosures Fencing or 

other barriers

Alternatives 2, 

3, 4 and 5 

May affect 1) Trampling 

2) Critical habitat 

destruction of 

PCEs

3) Affect 

migration of nontarget 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 APHISWS would install exclosures, 

APHIS-WS would initiate local 

Section 7 consultations 

would be initiated as 

appropriate.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 452
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

consultation as appropriate.

Carcass disposal 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.

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 

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.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 453
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

avoidance.

2)See shooting

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 

constituent 

elements 

(PCEs)

1, 3) Burial sites large enough to 

accommodate several swine 

would likely be located on predisturbed 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. 

APHIS-WS personnel are, or 

would be trained in the 

identification of T&E species and 

would avoid burial of individual 

Site selectivity would 

result in no effect.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 454
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 455
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Composting 

Alternatives 2, 

3, 4, and 5

May affect 1) Trampling

2) Runoff/water 

contamination

2) Critical habitat 

1) Terrestrial 

plants

2) Aquatic 

species

2) Alteration or 

loss of primary 

constituent 

elements 

(PCEs)

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 

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 

Site selectivity would 

result in no effect.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 456
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

entering surface or ground water.

Donation for 

human or 

animal 

consumption

Alternatives 1, 

2, 3, 4 and 5

No Effect None None

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.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 457
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 fixedfacility 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. 

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.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 458
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

General 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.

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 459
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Foot/ 

horseback 

access for all 

activities

Alternatives 1, 

2, 3, 4 and 5

May affect 1) Adverse 

modification of 

critical habitat, 

destruction of 

Primary 

Constituent 

Elements.

2) Trampling

1) Species with 

proposed or 

designated CH.

2) All 

terrestrial 

plants

1) Coordination with FWS and 

other resource management 

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. 

1)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 

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

May affect 1) Disturbance

2)Trampling/crush

1) Terrestrial 

vertebrates, 

nesting birds

(especially 

Vehicles primarily use existing 

roadways. 

Effect not likely under 

typical operations. Local 

determinations would be 

made based on habitat 

types, designations, work 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 460
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

ing desert tortoise, 

ground nesting 

birds, plants)

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 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 

locations, and proposed 

operations. Consultations 

would be initiated if 

proposed actions may 

affect listed species or 

critical habitat. 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 461
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

plants and animals. Off-road 

movements are most likely to 

occur in situations where ground 

crews are retrieving carcasses of 

animals 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species Impact Assessment Tool Page 462
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 463
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Cost sharing Cost sharing 

involving 

APHIS 

absorbing the 

costs in a 

cooperatively 

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 addresses 

through situationspecific 

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.

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 464
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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-targets, 

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 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. 

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 

of SOPs (SOPs 

should include 

the eagle nest 

avoidance 

distance in FWS 

(2007)).

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 465
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 466
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 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 of 

migratory birds or eagles. 

No take of 

migratory birds 

or eagles is 

expected based 

on infrequent 

overflights and 

implementation 

of SOPs. Eagle

nests would be 

identified and 

avoided.

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 467
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Tracking dogs

Alternatives 1, 

2, 3, 4, and 5

Low potential 

for take.

1) Disturbance

2) Noise

3) 1) Migratory 

birds 

(especially 

ground 

nesters)

4) 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). 

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.

With 

implementation 

of SOPs, no take 

of migratory 

birds or eagles is 

expected.

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 468
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Monitoring for 

diseases in feral swine

Capture 

(depends on 

method used)

Alternatives 1, 

2, 3, 4, and 5

See effects 

below

See discussion below

Sample 

collection

Alternatives 1, 

2, 3, 4, and 5

None None None

GonaConTM/

reproductive inhibitors

Injection None None None There is no known danger to 

humans or wildlife from 

eating animals that have been 

vaccinated with GonaConTM. 

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.

?

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 469
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 surveillance 

(i.e., additional passes may 

be made to dispatch whole 

sounder). Exposure is not 

chronic.

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 

T ’ SD l d 

Pending risk 

analysis Take 

from lead 

poisoning 

remains likely 

where carcasses 

shot with lead 

are left in the 

field and 

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?)

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 470
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 grainbased, and meat baits are not 

used. Prior to setting snares, 

APHIS specialists examine 

the trail to determine if nontarget 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 pig caught in 

one snare would not be at 

risk of capture from an 

adjacent snare. 

1, 2) Coordination with FWS, 

State/Territorial/Tribal 

resource agencies, land 

management agencies and/or 

landowners identifies areas 

where eagles, raptors, or owls 

may be affected. 

1, 2)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 

l Mi i i i

SOPs minimize 

risks, however a 

potential for 

eagle take 

remains. 

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 471
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 grainbased, and meat baits are not 

used. Prior to setting traps, 

APHIS specialists examine 

the trail to determine if nontarget species are using the 

trail and usually avoid 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 pig 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.

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 

and would need 

to be addressed 

in local level 

NEPA analyses.

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 472
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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. 

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.

Lead shot or 

bullet fragments 

may take 

scavenging 

migratory birds 

and eagles. 

[Risk 

assessment 

conclusions?]

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 473
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 pigs 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 

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.

No take is 

expected with 

implementation 

of SOPs.

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 474
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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

3) Structural 

addition to 

the landscape

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 

responsible for MBTA and 

BGEPA compliance. 

APHIS would 

not be expected 

to take 

migratory birds 

or eagles. 

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 475
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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. 

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 476
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Leave in Place

Alternatives 1, 

2, 3, 4, and 5

Moderate 

potential for 

take. 

1) Attract 

scavengers 

that cause 

disturbance 

or predation

2) Lead 

poisoning

1) Migratory birds 

2) Eagles and 

other 

scavenging 

birds

Carcass removals may be 

scheduled during seasons in 

locations when groundnesting 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. 

Take would 

depend on lead 

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.

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 477
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 

animal 

consumption

Alternatives 1,

2, 3, 4, and 5

None None None

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 fixedfacility incinerators which 

are highly controlled. 

Chemical 

digester

Alternatives 2, 

3, 4, and 5

None None None

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 478
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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. 

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

No take would 

be expected to 

occur with 

observance and 

implementation 

of SOPs 

including 

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 479
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

Foot/horseback 

access for all 

activities

Alternatives 1, 

2, 3, 4, and5

Low potential 

for take

1) Trampling

Human disturbance

1) Migratory birds 

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.

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 480
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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

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 wallowing and

rooting, and 

3) reduced potential 

for adverse impacts 

from disease 

transmission. 

4) Take effects 

discussed above.

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.

No protective practices 

needed.

Overall benefit 

expected, most 

directly to 

ground nesting 

birds or birds 

which nest in 

riparian habitats 

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. 

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 481
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Appendix F: Migratory Bird and Eagle Impact Assessment Tool Page 482
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

APPENDIX G

IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR PROTECTION OF HISTORIC 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 

devices would likely be minimal due to their 

Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 483
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 

4 and 5

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 

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 

Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 484
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

and 5 arranged with the property owner.

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 GonaConTM. 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, 

Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 485
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

they are broken down by stomach acids and 

enzymes. Similar injectable hormone-altering 

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 

agecneis. 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

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 

NE None No

Foothold traps would not be placed on historic 

Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 486
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

and 5 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)

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 

and 5

NE None No

Where possible, drop nets are used in previously 

disturbed or cultivated areas. Drop nets require 

constant supervision by APHIS personnel. 

Drop nets would not be placed on historic 

properties unless specifically requested. 

Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 487
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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)

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 

4 and 5

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. 

Coordination with SHPOs will prevent disturbance 

Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 488
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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)

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4 

NE None No

Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 489
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 fixedfacility 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 

situations where ground crews are retrieving 

Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 490
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 491
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

2)

Appendix G: National Historic Preservation Act Impact Assessment Tool Page 492
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 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 

Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 493
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

change over time. Therefore, this summary is meant to be used as a guide for APHIS-WS and 

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) or shot with 

lead-based ammunition, 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 

Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 494
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

disposal. WS may utilize composting operations already in-place by farmers or 

producers, but would not construct new composting facilities.

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 preexisting 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 and surveillance. 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 

Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 495
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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 and surveillance. 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.

Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 496
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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.

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. 

4. 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. 

5. Incineration

1. Advantages

Open burning may be favored over burial when soils are rocky or shallow, or a high 

water table is present. 

Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 497
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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 

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.

6. 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. 

7. 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.

Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 498
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

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. 

8. 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. 

Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 499
DRAFT - Feral Swine Damage Management: A National Approach

Feral swine carcasses that are left on-site would pose only a very limited disease risk to 

human health and safety since the putrefication process destroys most disease causing 

agents. Most disease agents require a live host 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. 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 onsite 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.

Appendix H: Summary of Carcass Disposal and Disposition Options Page 500