ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (FINAL) MAMMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT IN GEORGIA UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE WILDLIFE SERVICES In cooperation with: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY October 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 25 1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS EA TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ................... 27 1.5 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................... 28 1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................... 30 1.7 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ......................................................................................................... 34 CHAPTER 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ISSUES 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 35 2.2 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH MAMMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES .......... 36 2.3 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE ...................................... 44 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 52 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................................. 62 3.3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR MAMMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT .. 68 3.4 ADDITIONAL STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUES ...... 70 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................. 74 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION BY ISSUE .................................. 169 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................ 177 5.2 LIST OF REVIEWERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .......................................................... 177 LIST OF APPENDICES: APPENDIX A – LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. A-1 APPENDIX B – METHODS AVAILABLE FOR RESOLVING OR PREVENTING MAMMAL DAMAGE IN GEORGIA ............................................................................................. B-1 APPENDIX C – FEDERAL THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR CANDIDATE SPECIES IN GEORGIA ..................................................................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D – STATE THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ......................................... D-1 APPENDIX E – CRITERIA FOR BEAVER DAM BREACHING/REMOVAL .................................... E-1 APPENDIX F – CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF FERAL SWINE IN GEORGIA, 2013 ...................... F-1 ii ACRONYMS AMDUCA Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FLIR Forward Looking Infrared FR Federal Register FY Fiscal Year GDNR Georgia Department of Natural Resources GnRH Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone IC Intracardiac IV Intravenous MOU Memorandum of Understanding NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRP Natural Resources Plan NWRC National Wildlife Research Center NWP Nationwide Permit ORV Oral Rabies Vaccine PEP Post - Exposure Prophylaxis SOP Standard Operating Procedure T&E Threatened and Endangered TNR Trap-Neuter-Release TVA Tennessee Valley Authority USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services WS Wildlife Services iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS)1 program in Georgia continues to receive requests for assistance or anticipates receiving requests for assistance to resolve or prevent damage occurring to agricultural resources, natural resources, and property, including threats to human safety, associated with big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus), bobcats (Lynx rufus), beaver (Castor canadensis), Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis), coyotes (Canis latrans), eastern chipmunk (Tamia striatus), eastern cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus), evening bats (Nycticeius humeralis), fallow deer (Dama dama), feral cats (Felis domesticus), feral dogs (Canis familiaris), feral swine (Sus scrofa), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), mink (Neovison vison), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus), raccoons (Procyon lotor), Rafinesque’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus rafinesquii), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), river otters (Lontra canadensis), roof rats (Rattus rattus), silver-haired bats (Lasionycteris noctivagans), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), tri-colored bats (Perimyotis subflavus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and woodchucks (Marmota monax). In addition, WS could occasionally receive requests for assistance with feral or free-ranging non-native mammals2. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) also continues to experience damage and threats of damage associated with mammals at facilities or properties they own or manage in Georgia. The TVA could request the assistance of WS to manage damage or threats of damage at those facilities and properties. Individual damage management projects conducted by the WS program could be categorically excluded from further analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), in accordance with APHIS implementing regulations for the NEPA (7 CFR 372.5(c), 60 FR 6000-6003). The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to evaluate cumulatively the individual projects that WS could conduct to manage damage and threats to agricultural resources, property, natural resources, and threats to people caused by those mammal species identified previously, including those activities that the TVA could request of WS. This EA will assist in determining if the proposed cumulative management of mammal damage could have a significant impact on the environment based on previous activities conducted by WS and based on the anticipation of conducting additional efforts to manage damage caused by those species. Because the goal of WS would be to conduct a coordinated program to alleviate mammal damage in accordance with plans, goals, and objectives developed to reduce damage, and because the program’s goals and directives3 would be to provide assistance when requested, within the constraints of available funding and workforce, it is conceivable that additional damage management efforts could occur. Thus, this EA anticipates those additional efforts and the analyses would apply to actions that may occur in any locale and at any time within Georgia as part of a coordinated program. This EA analyzes the potential effects of mammal damage management when requested, as coordinated between WS, the TVA, and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR). WS and the TVA are preparing this EA to 1) facilitate planning; 2) promote interagency coordination; 3) streamline program management; 4) clearly communicate to the public the analysis of individual and cumulative impacts of proposed activities; and 5) evaluate and determine if there would be any potentially significant or cumulative effects from the alternative approaches developed to meet the need for action. 1The WS program is authorized to protect agriculture and other resources from damage caused by wildlife through the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 USC 426-426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 1329-331, 7 USC 426c). 2 See further discussion in Chapter 4, Section 4.1. 3At the time of preparation, WS’ Directives occurred at the following web address: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/ws_directives.shtml. 1 The analyses contained in this EA are based on information derived from WS’ Management Information System, published documents (see Appendix A), interagency consultations, and public involvement. This EA evaluates the need for action to manage damage associated with mammals in the State, the potential issues associated with managing damage, and the environmental consequences of conducting different alternatives to meet the need for action while addressing the identified issues. WS, in cooperation with the TVA, initially developed the issues and alternatives associated with managing damage caused by mammals