Marsh Restoration and Nutria Damage Reduction Environmental Assessment Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services Cooperating Agency: U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chesapeake Bay Field Office Agencies Consulted: State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources State of Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Prepared by: U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services January 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 11 1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS EA TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ................... 14 1.5 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................... 15 1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................... 16 1.7 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ......................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ISSUES 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 20 2.2 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH NUTRIA DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES .............. 21 2.3 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE ...................................... 25 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 28 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................................. 41 3.3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR NUTRIA DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ...... 43 3.4 ADDITIONAL STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUES ...... 44 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................. 46 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION BY ISSUE .................................... 62 4.3 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES OF POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................. 65 4.4 SUMMARY OF THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS .................................................. 65 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS.................................................................................................................. 67 5.2 LIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED .............................................................................................. 67 LIST OF APPENDICES: APPENDIX A – LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................... 68 APPENDIX B – FEDERAL THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST ............................ 73 APPENDIX C – MARYLAND THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST ....................... 74 APPENDIX D – DELAWARE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES LIST ....................... 76 APPENDIX E – USFWS BIOLOGICAL OPINION ................................................................................. 79 2 ACRONYMS APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association BNWR Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQ President’s Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations COMAR Code of Maryland Regulations DDNREC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control DFS Delmarva Fox Squirrel EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 FLIR Forward Looking Infrared IWDM Integrated Wildlife Damage Management ISI Invasive Species International MEPA Maryland Environmental Policy Act MDA Maryland Department of Agriculture MDNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources MOU Memorandum of Understanding NDDTC National Detector Dog Training Center NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act SOP Standard Operating Procedures T&E Threatened and Endangered USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USDI United States Department of Interior USGS United States Geological Survey WMA Wildlife Management Area WS Wildlife Services 3 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE Across the world, as human populations have expanded, wildlife species have been introduced into new areas, and land has been transformed to meet human needs. These changes often increase the potential for conflicts between wildlife and people that result in damage to resources and threaten human health and safety. One encroachment on native ecosystems is the introduction of non-native, invasive species into native environments. Invasive species often compete with native plants and wildlife and can threaten biodiversity. The number of invasive species introduced in the history of the United States has been estimated at 50,000 species (Pimentel et al. 2005). Some introduced invasive species benefit society, such as corn, wheat, cattle, poultry, and other food items. Nearly 98% of the food system in the United States is derived from introduced, invasive species (USBC 2001, Pimentel et al. 2005). Other invasive species have caused considerable economic and environmental damage in the United States and worldwide. Pimentel et al. (2005) estimated invasive species cause nearly $120 billion in environmental damages and losses in the United States annually. Of particular concern are the impacts of invasive species on threatened and endangered (T&E) species worldwide. Invasive species negatively impact nearly 42% of the species listed as T&E in the United States (Wilcove et al. 1998, Pimentel et al. 2005). Worldwide nearly 80% of wildlife populations at risk of extinction are threatened or negatively impacted by invasive species (Pimentel et al. 2005). One of those species introduced into the United States that can negatively impact biodiversity has been the intentional and unintentional release of nutria (Myocastor coypus). Nutria are a large, dark colored, semi-aquatic rodent that are native to South America and are similar in appearance to the native muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus). Nutria were valued for their fur and most introductions into the United States occurred from nutria that escaped fur farms or were released as a source for fur trapping (Carter and Leonard 2002). The first attempts to establish a population of nutria in the United States occurred at Elizabeth Lake in California during 1899 for fur farming (Carter and Leonard 2002). Most established populations in the United States occurred from nutria that escaped fur farms in the 1930s and 1940s, which coincides with the introduction of nutria into the Chesapeake Bay area where populations became established (Carter and Leonard 2002). The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to evaluate alternative approaches to addressing the loss of marshland habitat associated with the introduction of nutria into the Chesapeake Bay area (USFWS 2001, Southwick Associates 2004). The first recorded introduction of nutria into the Figure 1-1. Annual Nutria Harvest and Average Real Chesapeake Bay occurred in 1943 during attempts Price per Pelt from 1959 to 2004 (Dedah et al. 2010). to stimulate the local fur farming economy (Willner et al. 1979, Maryland Department of Natural Resources 1997). Although nutria were introduced to support the fur industry, private fur trappers and hunters were not able to harvest enough nutria to keep pace with the population growth rate. The global demand for nutria pelts can be very sporadic with fur markets and the profits from nutria pelts are declining for a variety of reasons, such as fashion trends, United States exchange rates, and the political and economic trends in consumer nations. As shown in Figure 1.1, the harvest of nutria and the prices paid for nutria pelts has declined (Dedah et al. 2010). 4 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) began to address increasing and expanding nutria populations along the Eastern Shore of Maryland and the loss of marsh habitat associated with nutria foraging and digging during the 1980s and 1990s (Bounds et al. 2003). Initial efforts included the establishment of rebates (i.e., bounties) to trappers that removed nutria, seeking recommendations from other professionals on eradication efforts, and the formation of a multi-agency task force. In addition, the Maryland General Assembly required the MDNR to develop and implement a program to eradicate nutria in Maryland. In 1995, the MDNR and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) conducted research on the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (BNWR) to evaluate the recovery of marsh vegetation if nutria were removed. Using fencing to exclude nutria, the researchers found marsh vegetation recovered quickly but habitats outside the fencing continued to be lost (Bounds et