Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

1 

FINAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

REDUCING DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT 

DAMAGE IN OHIO 

Prepared By: 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

Wildlife Services 

In Cooperation with 

United States Department of Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Office 

United States Department of Interior 

Fish and Wildlife Service, West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

March 2006 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

2 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION 5 

ACRONYMS 6 

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 8 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 8 

1.1 PURPOSE 9 

1.2 OBJECTIVES 9 

1.3 DECISION TO BE MADE 9 

1.4 NEED FOR ACTION 10 

1.4.1 Potential DCCO Impact on Wildlife and Native Vegetation, Including 

Threatened and Endangered Species 10 

1.4.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources 10 

1.4.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Aquaculture 11 

1.4.4 Potential DCCO Impact on Property 11 

1.4.5 Potential DCCO Impact on Human Health and Safety 11 

1.5 BACKGROUND 11 

1.5.1 Potential DCCO Impact on Wildlife and Native Vegetation, Including 

T&E Species 11 

1.5.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources 13 

1.5.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Aquaculture 14 

1.5.4 Potential DCCO Impact on Property 15 

1.5.5 Potential DCCO Impact on Human Health and Safety 16 

1.5.6 Double-crested Cormorants in Ohio 17 

1.5.7 Ohio DCCO Management Working Group 33 

1.5.8 Examples of CDM efforts in Ohio 33 

1.6 WS RECORD KEEPING REGARDING REQUESTS FOR CDM ASSISTANCE

 35 

1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 36 

1.8 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 36 

1.8.1 Actions Analyzed 36 

1.8.2 Period for which this EA is Valid 37 

1.8.3 American Indian Tribes and Land 37 

1.8.4 Site Specificity 37 

1.8.5 Summary of Public Involvement 39 

1.9 AUTHORITY AND COMPLIANCE 39 

1.9.1 Authority of Each Lead and Cooperating Agency in CDM in Ohio 40 

1.9.2 Compliance with Other Laws, Executive Orders, Treaties, and Court 

Decisions 43 

CHAPTER 2: ISSUES 48 

2.0 INTRODUCTION 48 

2.1 SUMMARY OF ISSUES 48 

2.1.1 Effects on DCCO Populations 48 

2.1.2 Effects on other Wildlife and Fish Species, Including Threatened and 

Endangered Species 49 

2.1.3 Effects on Human Health and Safety 50 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

3 

2.1.4 Effects on Aesthetic Values 51 

2.1.5 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns of Methods Used by WS 52 

2.1.6 Effects of Carcass Disposal 53 

2.1.7 Effects of CDM on Recreation 53 

2.2 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE 54 

2.2.1 Impacts on Biodiversity 54 

2.2.2 A “Threshold of Loss” Should Be Established Before Allowing Any 

Lethal CDM 54 

2.2.3 Cormorant Conflict Management as proposed in the preferred alternative 

is contrary to the purpose and mission of a National Wildlife Refuge and 

Wilderness area. 54 

2.2.4 There are effective mechanisms in place to address DCCO damage to 

property and aquaculture facilities and to reduce risks from DCCOs at 

airports. There is no need to expand DCCO removals for these issues. 56 

CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 57 

3.0 INTRODUCTION 57 

3.1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL 57 

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 58 

3.2.1 Alternative 1. Integrated CDM Including Implementation of the PRDO 

(Preferred Alternative) 58 

3.2.2 Alternative 2. Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies 59 

3.2.3 Alternative 3. Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies 60 

3.2.4 Alternative 4. No CDM by Federal Agencies 60 

3.2.5 Alternative 5. - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of 

the PRDO (No Action) 61 

3.3 CDM STRATEGIES AND METHODOLOGIES 61 

3.3.1 Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) 61 

3.3.2 Decision Making 63 

3.3.3 Cormorant Conflict Management Methods Available for Use 63 

3.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL WITH 

RATIONALE 66 

3.4.1 Lethal CDM Only 66 

3.4.2 Compensation for DCCO Damage Losses 66 

3.4.3 Non-lethal Methods Implemented Before Lethal Methods 67 

3.5 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPs) FOR CDM 68 

3.5.1 Standard Operating Procedures 68 

3.5.2 Standard Operating Procedures Specific to the Issues 68 

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 72 

4.0 INTRODUCTION 72 

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN 

DETAIL 72 

4.1.1 Effects on DCCO Populations 72 

4.1.2 Effects on Other Fish and Wildlife Species, Including Threatened 

and Endangered Species 80 

4.1.3 Effects on Human Health and Safety 86 

4.1.4 Effects on Aesthetic Values 91 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

4 

4.1.5 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns of the Methods Used 94 

4.1.6 Impacts of Carcass Disposal 95 

4.1.7 Effects on Recreation in Surrounding Area 98 

4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 100 

4.3 SUMMARY 101 

CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 106 

CHAPTER 6: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE EA 107 

APPENDIX A: LITERATURE CITED 133 

APPENDIX B: SPECIES THAT ARE FEDERALLY LISTED AS THREATENED OR 

ENDANGERED IN THE STATE OF OHIO 140 

APPENDIX C: SPECIES THAT ARE LISTED AS ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED BY THE STATE OF OHIO 141 

APPENDIX E: LOCATION AND SIZE OF DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT 

BREEDING COLONIES IN THE STATE OF OHIO WITH 

INFORMATION ON CO-NESTING COLONIAL WATERBIRDS 155 

APPENDIX E: INTERACTION AMONG AGENCY DECISIONS 156 

APPENDIX F: LIST OF SCIENTIFIC NAMES 165 

APPENDIX G: USFWS FINAL RULEMAKING AND RECORD OF DECISION ON 

DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT MANAGEMENT 167 

APPENDIX H: U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE 

MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 193 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

5 

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION

The United States Department of Agriculture’s, Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, Wildlife Services (USDA, APHIS, WS), the Department of Interior’s, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODW) propose to 

implement a double-crested cormorant (DCCO) damage management program in Ohio, 

including the implementation of the Public Resource Depredation Order (PRDO) (50 

CFR 21.48) as promulgated by the USFWS. An Integrated Wildlife Damage 

Management (IWDM) approach would be implemented to reduce DCCO damage to 

aquaculture, property, and natural resources, and reduce risks to human health and safety 

in localized situations when it is deemed necessary. Cormorant damage management 

(CDM) may be conducted on public and private property in Ohio when the resource 

owner (property owner) or manager requests assistance and any necessary permits and 

authorizations are obtained. An IWDM strategy would be recommended and used, 

encompassing the use of practical and effective methods of preventing or reducing 

damage while minimizing harmful effects of CDM measures on humans, target and nontarget species, and the environment. Under this action, the agencies could provide 

technical assistance and direct operational damage management, including non-lethal and 

lethal management methods. When appropriate, physical exclusion, habitat modification, 

or harassment would be recommended and used to reduce damage. In other situations, 

birds would be humanely removed through shooting, egg addling/destruction, nest 

destruction, or euthanasia following live capture. In determining the damage 

management strategy, preference would be given to practical and effective non-lethal 

methods. However, non-lethal methods may not always be applied as a first response to 

each problem. The most appropriate response could be a combination of non-lethal and 

lethal methods, or there could be instances where the application of lethal methods alone 

would be the most appropriate strategy. Landowner/resource manager permission would 

be obtained prior to conducting CDM activities. Management activities would comply 

with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws. The USFWS would be responsible for 

ensuring compliance with the regulations at 50 CFR 21.48 and that the long-term 

sustainability of regional DCCO populations is not threatened by CDM activities. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

6 

 ACRONYMS

 ADC Animal Damage Control 

 APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

 AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association 

 BCNH Black-crowned night-heron 

 CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 CDC Center for Disease Control 

 CDFG California Department of Fish and Game 

 CDM Cormorant Damage Management 

 CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

 CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

 DCCO Double-crested cormorant 

 DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

 EA Environmental Assessment 

 EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

 EJ Environmental Justice 

 END Exotic Newcastle Disease 

 EPA Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. or OH) 

 ESA Endangered Species Act 

 FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

 FY Fiscal Year 

 IWDM Integrated Wildlife Damage Management 

 MBP Migratory Bird Permit 

 MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

 MIS Management Information System 

 MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

 NFH National Fish Hatchery 

 NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

 NOA Notice of Availability 

 NWPS National Wildlife Preservation System 

 NWRC National Wildlife Research Center 

 OARDC Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center 

 ODA Ohio Department of Agriculture 

 ODH Ohio Department of Health 

 ODOT Ohio Department of Transportation 

 ODW Ohio Division of Wildlife 

 ODSW Ohio Division of Soil and Water 

 ODNR Ohio Department of Natural Resources 

 OMNR Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

 ONWR Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge 

 ORC Ohio Revised Code 

 OSUE Ohio State University Extension 

 PRDO Public Resource Depredation Order 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

7 

 ROD Record of Decision 

 SOP Standard Operating Procedure 

 T&E Threatened and Endangered 

 TAC Total Allowable Catch 

 TPI Turning Point Island 

 USC United States Code 

 USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

 WNV West Nile Virus 

 WS Wildlife Services 

 WSI West Sister Island 

 WSINWR West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge 

NOTE: On August 1, 1997, the Animal Damage Control program was officially renamed to Wildlife 

Services. The terms Animal Damage Control, ADC, Wildlife Services, and WS are used synonymously 

throughout this Environmental Assessment. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

8 

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Across the United States, wildlife habitat has been substantially changed as the human 

population expands and more land is used to meet human needs. These human uses often 

come into conflict with the needs of wildlife and increase the potential for negative 

human/wildlife interactions. Double-crested cormorants (hereafter, DCCOs; see 

Appendix B for a list of scientific names) are one of the wildlife species that engage in 

activities which conflict with human activities and resource uses. Conflicts with DCCOs 

include but are not limited to DCCO foraging on fish at aquaculture facilities, DCCO 

foraging on populations of sport fish, negative impacts of increasing DCCO populations 

on vegetation and habitat used by other wildlife species, damage to private property from 

DCCO feces, and risks of aircraft collisions with DCCOs at or near airports. Wildlife 

damage management is the science of reducing damage or other problems associated with 

wildlife and is recognized as an integral part of wildlife management (The Wildlife 

Society 1990). In response to persistent conflicts and complaints relating to DCCOs, in 

2003 the United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 

cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) completed a final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) on the management of DCCOs in the United States (USFWS 2003). 

The selected management alternative included the establishment of a depredation order to 

address conflicts regarding DCCO impacts on public resources. 

Public Resource Depredation Order (PRDO): The purpose of this order is to 

reduce the actual occurrence, and/or minimize the risk, of adverse impacts of 

DCCOs to public resources. Public resources include fish (both free-swimming 

fish and stock at Federal, State, and tribal hatcheries that are intended for release 

in public waters), wildlife, plants, and their habitats. It authorizes WS, State fish 

and wildlife agencies, and Federally-recognized Tribes to control DCCOs, 

without a Federal permit, in 24 states (AL, AR, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, 

MI, MN, MS, MO, NY, NC, OH, OK, SC, TN, TX, VT, WV, and WI). It 

authorizes control on “all lands and freshwaters.” This includes private lands, but 

landowner permission is required. It protects “public resources,” which are 

natural resources managed and conserved by public agencies, as opposed to 

private individuals. 

Ohio is one of several states experiencing DCCO damage. This Environmental 

Assessment (EA) evaluates ways by which WS, the USFWS, and the Ohio Division of 

Wildlife (ODW) may work together to resolve DCCO damage problems in Ohio. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

9 

1.1 PURPOSE 

The purpose of this EA is to analyze the environmental impacts of alternatives for 

addressing damage and conflicts involving DCCOs under the USFWS PRDO and 

Migratory Bird Permits (MBPs) in Ohio. Resources protected by such activities are 

freshwater aquaculture stocks, fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats, property, and 

human health and safety. This EA considers the potential environmental effects of 

conducting cormorant damage management (CDM) throughout the state of Ohio. 

1.2 OBJECTIVES 

The goal of this action is to reduce DCCO damage in Ohio. In particular, the objectives 

are: 

1. Coordinate agency efforts in reducing negative impacts of expanding 

DCCO populations on public resources in Ohio, particularly on the Lake 

Erie islands and near shore vegetation, public fishery resources and other 

bird species, especially State and federally-listed species. 

2. Protect habitat for colonial nesting waterbirds on the West Sister Island 

National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR) by preventing further damage to 

vegetation caused by increased numbers of nesting and migrating DCCOs. 

3. Minimize potential DCCO damage to private property and risks to human 

health and safety including damage to boats, buildings, vegetation, and 

fish (in private ponds and aquaculture facilities), and DCCO hazards at 

airports. 

1.3 DECISION TO BE MADE 

Wildlife Services is the lead agency in the preparation of this EA. The USFWS and the 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife (ODW) are 

cooperating agencies. ODW provides for the control, management, restoration, 

conservation and regulation of birds, fish, game, forestry and all wildlife resources of the 

State of Ohio. The lead and cooperating agencies will work together to address the 

following questions in the EA. 

• How can the lead and cooperating agencies best respond to the need to 

reduce DCCO damage covered under the USFWS’ PRDO? 

• How can the lead and cooperating agencies best respond to the need to 

address all other types of DCCO damage not covered by the PRDO? 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

10 

• What are the environmental impacts of alternatives for dealing with these 

types of DCCO damage? 

• Will the proposed program have significant effects requiring preparation 

of an EIS? 

Although the lead and cooperating agencies have worked together to produce a joint 

document and intend to collaborate on CDM in Ohio, each agency will make its own 

decision on the alternative to be selected in accordance with the standard practices and 

legal requirements relevant to each agency’s decision making process. The USFWS will 

be making two decisions based on this analysis: 1) the role of the USFWS in overseeing 

CDM actions; and 2) the type of CDM, if any, that will be conducted at WSINWR. 

1.4 NEED FOR ACTION 

As stated in the USFWS FEIS (USFWS 2003), the recent increase and range expansion 

of the North American DCCO population has been well documented along with concerns 

of negative impacts associated with the expanding DCCO population. The need to 

protect natural resources, aquaculture, property, and human health and safety from 

damage and other conflicts associated with DCCOs is described in the USFWS FEIS 

(USFWS 2003) and is summarized in the following subsections. 

1.4.1 Potential DCCO Impact on Wildlife and Native Vegetation, Including 

Threatened and Endangered Species

DCCOs can have a negative impact on vegetation through both chemical (DCCO 

guano) and physical means (stripping leaves and breaking tree branches) and are 

of concern in the Great Lakes region, including Ohio (USFWS 2003). DCCOs 

can displace colonial species such as black-crowned night-herons, egrets, great 

blue herons,gulls, and Caspian terns through habitat degradation and nest site 

competition (USFWS 2003). When these situations occur, there may be a need to 

manage DCCOs to minimize their negative impacts. 

 

1.4.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources 

DCCOs are opportunistic feeders that prey on a wide variety of fish species 

(USFWS 2003). The magnitude of impact of DCCO predation on fish in a given 

body of water depends on a number of variables, but in select circumstances, 

DCCOs can have a negative impact on recreational fishing on a localized level 

(USFWS 2003) resulting in a need to reduce these negative impacts. Nearly any 

fish species could be affected by DCCO predation in Ohio. Three recreationally 

and economic important species of current concern are walleye, yellow perch, and 

smallmouth bass. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

11 

1.4.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Aquaculture 

DCCOs can feed heavily on fish being raised for human consumption, and on fish 

raised for other purposes (USFWS 2003). When this occurs, there is a need to 

protect aquaculture facilities from DCCO feeding. The principal species 

propagated by the Ohio state fish hatcheries are saugeye, walleye, yellow perch, 

muskellunge, and bluegill. Additional fish threatened by DCCO predation at 

private hatcheries include rainbow trout, bass species, catfish species, crappie, and 

golden shiners.

1.4.4 Potential DCCO Impact on Property 

There is also a need to manage DCCO damage to property. To date, property 

damage in Ohio associated with DCCOs has primarily involved consumption of 

fish in private ponds. DCCO damage to private property may also include 

corrosion, caused by the acid in DCCO droppings, that damages boats, marinas 

and other properties near DCCO breeding or roosting sites; and damage to 

vegetation on privately-owned land (USFWS 2003). 

1.4.5 Potential DCCO Impact on Human Health and Safety 

Collisions between aircraft and wildlife are a concern throughout the world 

because they threaten passenger safety (Thorpe 1996), result in lost revenue and 

costly repairs to aircraft (Linnell et al. 1996, Robinson 1996), and erode public 

confidence in the air transport industry as a whole (Conover et al. 1995). DCCOs 

are a particular hazard to aircraft because of their body size and mass, slow flight 

speeds, and their natural tendency to fly in flocks. Where the potential for DCCO 

and aircraft collisions exists, there is a need to manage DCCO activity. 

1.5 BACKGROUND 

1.5.1 Potential DCCO Impact on Wildlife and Native Vegetation, Including 

T&E Species 

DCCOs can have a negative effect on vegetation through both chemical (DCCO 

guano) and physical means (stripping leaves and breaking tree branches) and are 

of concern in the Great Lakes region, including Ohio (USFWS 2003, Hebert et al. 

2005). Accumulation of DCCO droppings (which contain excessive ammonium 

nitrogen), stripping leaves for nesting material, and the combined weight of the 

birds and their nests can break branches and kill many trees within 3 to 10 years 

(Bédard et al. 1995, Korfanty et al. 1999, Lemmon et al. 1994, Lewis 1929, 

Weseloh et al.1995, Weseloh and Ewins 1994, Weseloh and Collier 1995, Hebert 

et al. 2005). Ammonium toxicity may be an important factor contributing to 

island forest decline (Hebert et al. 2005). Lewis (1929) considered the killing of 

trees by nesting DCCOs to be very local and limited, with most trees he observed 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

12 

to have no commercial timber value. However, tree damage may be perceived as 

a problem if these trees are rare species, or aesthetically valued (Bédard et al. 

1999, Hatch and Weseloh 1999). For example, at Presqu’ile Provincial Park in 

Ontario, Canada, DCCOs nesting on Gull Island have killed all of the trees 

spurring managers to protect the other islands from the same fate. The goal for 

High Bluff Island was “to protect representative woodland flora and fauna and the 

aesthetic beauty of High Bluff Island while retaining maximum diversity of 

nesting colonial bird species” (PDCMSRC 2004). Destruction of nests and 

culling of adults has taken place on High Bluff Island to protect the natural 

woodlands which provide important nesting habitat for great egrets, great blue 

herons, and black-crowned night-herons (PDCMSRC 2004). 

DCCOs can displace colonial species such as black-crowned night-herons, egrets, 

great blue herons, gulls, common terns, and Caspian terns through habitat 

degradation and nest site competition (USFWS 2003). DCCOs have been known 

to take over heron nests. For example, of 81 nest acquisitions observed by 

Skagen et al (2001), 57 were instances of DCCOs taking over great blue heron 

nests. However, it should be noted that in the remaining 24 instances, great blue 

herons took over DCCO nests. Cuthbert et al. (2002) examined potential impacts 

of DCCOs on great blue herons and black-crowned night-herons in the Great 

Lakes and found that DCCOs have not negatively influenced breeding distribution 

or productivity of either species at a regional scale, but did contribute to declines 

in heron presence and increases in site abandonment in certain site specific 

circumstances. A study by Weseloh (2005) reviewed current and historical data 

on 43 breeding colonies of black-crowned night-herons on Lakes Huron, Erie and 

Ontario and the Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers. Eleven of the sites 

also had nesting great egrets and eight also had nesting great blue herons. Nesting 

cattle egrets and snowy egrets were present at two and one colonies, respectively. 

The study assessed trends in each species nesting relative to changes in co-nesting 

DCCO populations. Thirty-eight percent of black-crowned night-heron colonies 

were not affected, 23% showed potential or probable conflict and 39% showed 

nest take-overs or colony decline/ abandonment. At least nine black crowned 

night-heron colonies appear to have been abandoned after nest take-overs by 

DCCOs. More than half of great egret and great blue heron colonies showed 

probable (or higher) threat from cormorants. All black-crowned night-heron 

colonies under threat were located between Lake Erie and the St. Lawrence River. 

Weseloh (2005) recommended that managers monitor DCCO nest placement 

when DCCOs nest with herons and assess if threats occur. 

DCCOs can have a negative impact on vegetation that provides nesting habitat for 

other birds (Jarvie et al. 1999, Shieldcastle and Martin 1999) and wildlife, 

including State and federally-listed threatened and endangered species (Korfanty 

et al. 1999). Cuthbert et al. (2002) did find that DCCOs have negative effects on 

normal plant growth and survival on a localized level in the Great Lakes region. 

Wires and Cuthbert (2001) identified vegetation die off as an important threat to 

66% of the colonial waterbird colony sites identified as priority conservation sites 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

13 

in the U.S. Great Lakes. Of the 29 priority conservation sites reporting vegetation 

die off as a threat, Wires and Cuthbert (2001) reported DCCOs present at 23. 

Based on survey information provided by Wires et al. (2001), biologists in the 

Great Lakes region reported DCCOs as having an impact to herbaceous layers and 

trees. Damage to trees was mainly caused by guano deposition, and resulted in 

tree die off at breeding colonies and roost sites. Impacts to the herbaceous layer 

were also reported due to guano deposition, and often this layer was reduced or 

eliminated from the colony site. In addition, survey respondents reported that 

DCCO impacts to avian species were mainly through habitat degradation and 

competition for nest sites (Wires et al. 2001). 

Hebert et al (2005) conducted a study of the relationship between DCCO density 

and vegetation on East Sister Island and Middle Island in Lake Erie. In 2000, the 

year prior to their study, there were 5,485 DCCO nests on the 37.5-acre East 

Sister Island and 5,202 nests on the 45-acre Middle Island. In their study, the 

spatial use of nesting DCCOs was negatively correlated with forest cover. Whole 

island tree cover on East Sister Island decreased 15% in six years concurrent with 

trends in DCCO use of the island. The largest decline in tree cover occurred in 

one transect in Middle Island that was heavily used by DCCOs. Tree cover at the 

site declined from 92% in 1995 to 40% in 2001. Although the results of the study 

were correlational in nature and cannot prove that damage by DCCOs caused the 

decline in vegetation, review of other potential factors including pests, disease, 

human disturbance and weather did not provide any trends or data that would 

explain the observed declines. The authors also observed that DCCOs tended to 

prefer live trees for nesting and abandoned dead trees. There appeared to be a 

pattern of expanding habitat loss that developed as trees used by DCCOs died and 

DCCOs moved on to healthy, more stable nesting sites. 

1.5.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources 

Outdoor recreation, hunting, and sport fishing make up a large part of Ohio’s 

economy. The tourism and spending generated from sport fishing helps to create 

an enhanced quality of life and is a substantial portion of the local economies in 

the State. In 2003, 692,405 resident fishing licenses, 40,763 nonresident fishing 

licenses and 82,798 temporary fishing licenses were sold in Ohio. License sales 

alone accounted for almost $16 million dollars in revenue for the state of Ohio in 

2003. Ohio ranks ninth among the top ten states for economic gains resulting from 

the sport fishing industry (ASA 2002). 

The rapid increase in DCCO populations over the last 25 years has led to an 

increase in conflicts between humans and DCCOs including complaints relating 

to DCCO impacts on sport fisheries (USFWS 2003). DCCOs feed 

opportunistically on a variety of fish species, depending on location and prey 

availability (USFWS 2003). In the Great Lakes, fish species such as the alewife 

and gizzard shad appear to be the most important prey. Stickleback, sculpin, 

cyprinids, and yellow perch, and, at some localities, burbot, freshwater drum, and 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

14 

lake/northern chub are also important prey fish species for DCCOs (Wires et al. 

2001). DCCO foraging can have a negative impact on recreational fishing on a 

localized level (USFWS 2003). Potentially, any species of fish could decrease as 

a result of DCCO predation in Ohio. Currently, walleye, yellow perch, and 

smallmouth bass are species of particular concern in Ohio. 

. 

The impact of DCCO predation on fish in a given body of water is dependent on a 

number of variables, including the number of birds present, the time of year when 

predation occurs, prey species composition and abundance, and physical 

characteristics of the body of water such as depth, water clarity, vegetation or 

other prey refuges, and proximity to DCCO colonies, all of which affect prey 

availability. Environmental and human-induced factors also affect aquatic 

ecosystems and fish populations. These can be classified as biological/biotic 

(overfishing, exotic species, etc.), chemical (water quality, nutrient and 

contaminant loading, etc.) or physical/abiotic (dredging, dam construction, 

hydropower operation, siltation, etc.). Such activities may lead to changes in fish 

species density, diversity, and/or composition due to direct effects on year class 

strength, recruitment, spawning success, spawning or nursery habitat, and/or 

competition (USFWS 1995). 

1.5.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Aquaculture 

The frequency of occurrence of DCCOs at a given aquaculture facility can be a 

function of many interacting factors, including: (1) size of the regional and local 

DCCO population; (2) the number, size, and distribution of ponds/raceways; (3) 

the size, distribution, density, health, and species composition of fish populations 

in the ponds/raceways; (4) the number, size, and distribution of natural wetlands 

in the immediate area; (5) the size, distribution, density, health, and species 

composition of natural fish populations in the surrounding landscape; (6) the 

number, size, and distribution of suitable roosting habitat; and (7) the variety, 

intensity and distribution of local conflict abatement activities. DCCOs are adept 

at seeking out the most favorable foraging and roosting sites. As a result, DCCOs 

rarely are distributed evenly over a given region, but rather tend to be highly 

clumped or localized. Conflict abatement activities can shift bird activities from 

one area to another which does not eliminate DCCO conflicts but rather shifts 

them to a new location (Aderman and Hill 1995; Mott et al. 1998; Reinhold and 

Sloan 1999; Tobin et al. 2002). It is not uncommon for some aquaculture 

producers in a region to suffer little or no economic damage from DCCOs, while 

others experience exceptionally high losses (Glahn and Bruggers 1995, Glahn et 

al. 2000b, Glahn et al. 1999, Glahn et al. 2002). 

There are 45 license holders engaged in commercial fish production with facilities 

in at least 33 of the 88 Ohio counties (ODNR 2005). Commercial producers in 

the state raise eight fish species or groups of fish species. Largemouth bass and 

bluegill are the two most commonly stocked species. The three most common 

types of fish production are food fish (fish raised for consumption by humans), fry 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

15 

and fingerling (fish raised for stocking in sport fish lakes), and baitfish (supplies 

for bait stores). Aquaculture in Ohio is becoming an increasingly important 

industry with sales of bait fish exceeding 90,000 gallons in 1992 (Meronek et. al 

1997). Conservative 1991 estimates of wild harvested and cultured baitfish sales 

indicated that the industry was worth over $367 million in nine of the 50 U.S. 

states including Ohio (Gunderson and Tucker 2000). 

 

The ODW operates six hatcheries in the state that are used to produce stock of 10 

fish species. Sport fish are raised for additive stocking to natural populations of 

rainbow and brown trout, walleye, yellow perch, muskellunge, largemouth bass, 

channel catfish and bluegill. Hybrid species such as striped bass and saugeye, are 

also raised for stocking purposes. ODW also raises non-sport species to support 

threatened and endangered fish populations in the state. Some channel catfish fry 

are sent to other states for rearing until they reach stocking size and are released 

in those states. Ohio does not have any national fish hatcheries run by the 

USFWS within its borders. In 2004, Ohio WS assisted eight separate aquaculture 

facilities in applying for USFWS MBPs to manage DCCO predation to their fish 

stocks. 

The magnitude of DCCO economic impacts on the aquaculture industry varies 

depending upon many different factors including, the value of the fish stock, 

number of depredating birds present, and the time of year the predation is taking 

place. DCCO depredation has been a concern at some Ohio aquaculture facilities. 

Since 1990 OH WS has received 15 calls concerning DCCO damage to fish 

stocks resulting in over $44,000 in damage or losses. In 2004, OH WS received 

complaints from eight private aquaculture facilities that requested a USFWS 

migratory bird depredation permit to control DCCO. WS provided technical 

assistance on ways to reduce conflicts with DCCOs and, where appropriate, 

assisted the property owners in applying for USFWS migratory bird depredation 

permits by providing supporting documentation to the USFWS (WS Form 37 1). 

WS has not been involved with operational control of depredating DCCOs at 

Ohio aquaculture facilities and does not anticipate future involvement in this facet 

of CDM. 

1.5.4 Potential DCCO Impact on Property 

Fecal contamination on public and private facilities is one of the most common 

complaints relating to bird damage to property. Accumulated bird droppings can 

reduce the functional life of some building roofs by 50% (Weber 1979). 

Corrosion of metal structures and painted finishes, including those on automobiles 

and boats, can occur because of uric acid from bird droppings. Other types of 

 

1

 WS Form 37s document consultations between WS Specialists and individuals experiencing bird 

damage. The forms specify the species causing damage, the amount and type of damage, damage 

management methods that have been tried or are in place, and WS’s recommendations for damage 

management. These forms are used by the USFWS Migratory Bird Management Office in determining the 

need to issue a MBP for damage management. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

16 

property damage that may be caused by DCCOs include foraging on fish in 

privately-owned ponds; damage to boats and marinas or other properties near 

DCCO breeding or roosting sites; and damage to vegetation on privately-owned 

land (USFWS 2003). In some parts of the country conflicts with DCCOs include 

complaints that large colonies of DCCOs have adverse impacts on aesthetic 

values of sites because of odor of droppings and fecal contamination of water 

used for recreational purposes. 

Complaints regarding DCCO damage to private property in Ohio have been rare. 

Property losses in Ohio associated with DCCOs include impacts to fish in both 

private and state-run hatchery facilities. When DCCO damage to property occurs, 

WS has assisted the private property owner in applying for a USFWS migratory 

bird depredation permit by providing supporting documentation to the USFWS 

(WS Form 37). If the USFWS issues a permit, the property owner may then take 

DCCOs. WS has not provided operational assistance (implementing CDM 

techniques) for DCCO damage to private property but, depending upon the 

alternative selected, could do so if the landowner were to obtain a MBP from the 

USFWS and request a Cooperative Service Agreement with WS. 

1.5.5 Potential DCCO Impact on Human Health and Safety 

Collisions between aircraft and wildlife are a concern throughout the world 

because they threaten passenger safety (Thorpe 1996), result in lost revenue and 

costly repairs to aircraft (Linnell et al. 1996, Robinson 1996), and erode public 

confidence in the air transport industry as a whole (Conover et al. 1995). All 

birds are potentially hazardous to aircraft and human safety. The magnitude of 

the hazard depends on the physical, biological, and behavioral characteristics of 

each bird. DCCOs are a particular hazard to aircraft because of their body size 

and mass, slow flight speeds, and their natural tendency to fly in flocks. 

Blockpoel (1976) states that birds with slow flight speeds can create increased 

hazards to aircraft because they spend relatively greater lengths of time in aircraft 

movement areas. There is a very strong relationship between bird weight and the 

probability of plane damage (Anonymous 1992; Dolbeer 2000). For example, 

there is a 90% probability of plane damage when the bird weighs 70 or more 

ounces (4 1/3 pounds) versus a 50% probability of plane damage for a six ounce 

(1/3 pound) bird (Anonymous 1992). Adult DCCOs can weigh up to 96 ounces 

(six pounds; Terres 1980). 

According to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Bird Strike database 

there were 16 DCCO strikes to civil aircraft in the United States from 1990-1999 

(USFWS 2003). In October 2002, at Logan International Airport (Boston, MA), a 

B-767 struck a flock of DCCOs, resulting in an engine shut down, precautionary 

landing, and damage to the engine and landing lights. The aircraft was out of 

service for three days, and repairs cost $1.7 million (Wright 2004). In September 

2004, at Chicago O’Hare International Airport (Chicago, IL) a MD-80 struck a 

flock of DCCOs. Several birds struck an engine resuling in an engine fire and 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

17 

failure, and engine debris falling on a suburban Chicago neighborhood. The 

aircraft made an emergency landing and repairs cost $186,000 (Wright 2004). It 

is estimated that only 20 - 25% of all bird strikes are reported (Conover et al. 

1995; Dolbeer et al. 1995; Linnell et al. 1996; Linnell et al. 1999), hence, the 

number of strikes involving DCCOs is likely greater than FAA records show. 

It should be noted that the civil and military airports in Ohio with the greatest 

risks of aircraft collisions with wildlife have ongoing programs to reduce these 

risks. One particular Ohio airport reports that during spring and fall migration 

considerable time is devoted daily to harassing DCCOs away from the airport 

operations area (C. Hicks, USDA, personal communication). 

 

WS recognizes that the risk to aircraft safety associated with DCCOs is low. To 

date there have been no reported DCCO strikes to aircraft in Ohio. However, 

because DCCO roosting and feeding sites may sometimes be found in close 

proximity to airports and military airbases in Ohio, it is possible that WS may 

receive additional requests for assistance in the future. 

1.5.6 Double-crested Cormorants in Ohio 

Ohio’s Lake Erie Islands are popular tourist attractions as well as important areas 

for wildlife. Ohio’s island region is located in the western basin of Lake Erie and 

includes the larger Bass Islands, Kelley’s Island, and several smaller islands 

(Figure 1-1, Shieldcastle 2005). Tourism and residential development in the 

island region is centered primarily on the Bass Islands and Kelley’s Island. West 

Sister Island (WSI) is managed by the USFWS for wildlife habitat and is not open 

to the public. West Sister Island is part of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge 

(ONWR) Complex and is also a Federal wilderness area. Green Island is owned 

and managed by ODW for wildlife habitat and is also closed to the public. Green 

Island and WSI have active DCCO nesting colonies. Another island, Turning 

Point Island (TPI), is a manmade island and also is host to nesting DCCOs. 

Cormorants were regular migrants along Lake Erie in the early 1800’s and only 

moved to inland Ohio to breed after the creation of canal reservoirs during the 

construction of the Erie Canal (Peterjohn 1989). The first records of DCCOs 

breeding on these canal reservoirs in OH were at Buckeye Lake and Grand Lake 

St Mary’s during the 1860’s and 1870’s. The Buckeye Lake colony housed about 

10-15 pairs only while Lake St Mary’s reportedly was much larger (Peterjohn and 

Price 1991). Both of these colonies were reported gone by 1880’s due to 

unregulated hunting and egg collecting (Peterjohn 1989). There are reports that 

DCCOs were once again breeding at Grand Lakes St Mary around 1922 (Bent 

1964) but others claim that DCCOs did not return to Ohio to breed until the 

1940’s (Peterjohn 1989). Lake Erie was first colonized by DCCO in 1939. 

Nonetheless the cormorant had a rare existence in Ohio during the early 1900’s 

and while the 1950’s -1970’s showed increased DCCO breeding activity within 

the state, their reproductive success was hampered by the use of DDT and other 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

18 

harmful pesticides (Peterjohn 1989, Peterjohn and Rice 1991). It wasn’t until the 

1980’s that DCCOs were observed again in large numbers during both spring and 

fall migration. According to Peterjohn (1989) 6 pairs of cormorants built nests on 

Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge property in 1987 and while none of the nests 

were successful, they did provide the first concrete record of cormorant nesting in 

Ohio during the 20th century. DCCOs began breeding consistently in Ohio in 

1992 when there were 182 pairs on WSI. In 2005, there were 3,813 nesting pairs 

on WSI and the statewide count of DCCO breeding pairs was 5,164 within five 

separate colonies (Figure 1-2, ODW 2005). The number of DCCOs at these 

colonies has grown dramatically in recent years. For example, on Green Island 

DCCO density increased from no nesting pairs in 2003 to 857 nesting pairs in 

2005 (ODW Data 2005). The number of nesting pairs on TPI underwent a similar 

rapid increase over the period of 1999-2002, but the population has been 

relatively stable from 2003-2005 with an increase of only eight nesting pairs. 

(Figure 1-4). These estimates are only for the number of nesting pairs. Immature 

and non-nesting birds also exist in the rookeries and comprise a substantial 

proportion of the population on Lake Erie. Furthermore, these nest counts fail to 

account for the migratory birds that pass through the area during their southern 

migration in the fall. Similar to the increase of cormorants on Lake Erie, nesting 

populations in Lakes Huron and Ontario continue to rise. Thus, the number of 

cormorants observed during the nesting period on Lake Erie may be minimal 

compared to the number of individuals present during the spring and fall 

migration. 

Figure 1-1. The Lake Erie Islands 

Michigan Ontario 

Ohio 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

19 

. 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Number of DCCO nests

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Inland nests

Island nests

Figure 1-2. Number of DCCO nests in Ohio, 1991-2005 (ODW 2005). 

 

1.5.6.1 DCCO Impacts on Birds and Vegetation on Ohio Lake Erie Islands 

The Lake Erie islands in Ohio are important nesting habitat for many bird species. 

The black-crowned night-heron, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, and 

cattle egret nest primarily on the islands of Lake Erie in Ohio. There have been 

sporadic attempts by great egrets to nest in the large inland great blue heron 

colony on Winous Point and Ottawa Shooting Clubs but they have never 

established a self-sustaining population. The Lake Erie islands area of Ohio is 

important habitat for several state-listed endangered birds including snowy egrets 

and cattle egrets. The following is a brief review of the historical occurrence of 

some of these species in Ohio. 

Black-crowned Night-Heron - Black-crowned night-herons have nested in Ohio 

since 1867, with the first colony located at Lake St. Mary’s (Peterjohn 1989). 

During the period of 1915 to 1935 black-crowned night-herons expanded their 

breeding population and had established breeding sites along western Lake Erie 

by 1920 (Peterjohn 1989). At one time there were at least 19 colonies, ranging 

from a few pairs to several hundred pairs across 16 Ohio counties. Most of these 

inland heronries had disappeared by the early 1950’s. However, in 1989 a small 

colony of 6 nests was established in southeastern Butler County and in 2005 a 

second small colony of 8 nests was reported near Cincinnatti just 25 miles south 

of the Butler County colony in Hamilton County (Peterjohn and Rice 1991, Whan 

2005). 

The first colony to appear inland since the late 1960’s emerged on the Gilmore 

Ponds in Butler County in 1989 (Peterjohn and Rice 1991). Gilmore Ponds is a 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

20 

200 acre wetland complex situated on the headwaters of the East Fork of Mill 

Creek inside the city limits of Hamilton, Ohio. Black-crowned night-herons have 

a long history of nesting along the Mill Creek watershed (Whan 2005). In July, 

1998, 10 black-crowned night-heron nests with hatchlings and 4 nests with 

incubating adults were destroyed on Gilmore Ponds by either predation or a 

strong storm system (Hays and Dykstra 2000). 

Hamilton County, Ohio boasted 200 black-crowned night-heron nesting pairs in 

the 1940’s and 1950’s one of the two largest inland colonies at that time 

(Peterjohn and Rice 1991). The most recent Hamilton County colony was 

established in 2005 on Strauch Island in the Spring Grove Cemetery near 

Cincinnati. The Spring Grove cemetery is also situated along Mill Creek and is 

comprised of 733 acres of cemetery and arboretum which contain several 

wetlands. Five to seven black-crowned night-heron nests were confirmed on the 

small island (Whan 2005). 

Today there are two primary breeding colonies of black-crowned night-herons in 

Ohio; West Sister Island and Turning Point Island. West Sister Island is the 

largest colony, with 500 pairs, and has been home to black-crowned night-herons 

since the 1930’s (ODW unpub. data 2005, Peterjohn and Rice 1991). Turning 

Point Island houses 47 black-crowned night-heron nesting pairs making it the 

second largest colony in the state (ODW unpub. data 2005). 

Great Blue Heron - Great blue heron numbers were greatly reduced in the 

1800’s due to the millinery trade, but had recovered to 1,500-2,000 pairs 

statewide by the 1930’s after they were given complete protection by law 

(Peterjohn 1989). During a survey in 1980 and 1981 the ODNR, Division of 

Natural Areas and Preserves counted 89 great blue heron colonies throughout 52 

counties statewide (Peterjohn and Rice 1991). Breeding great blue herons are 

most numerous in colonies near the western basin of Lake Erie, while inland 

colonies typically contain 75 or fewer nests (Peterjohn and Rice 1991). 

Great Egret - Before the 1880’s great egrets were likely common summer 

visitors to Ohio, but like the other waders were nearly extirpated for their feathers 

(Peterjohn 1989). It was not until 1924 that they again were sighted in Ohio and 

in 1930 sightings were reported in large numbers across the state but there was no 

evidence of breeding. During the 1940’s the only breeding of great egrets 

documented in Ohio was a single pair within an existing great blue heron rookery 

(Peterjohn 1989). In 1946 a colony of 25 pairs was discovered at WSI and since 

then great egrets have been regular summer residents and breeders in the state 

(Peterjohn 1989). West Sister Island retains the majority of the breeding great 

egrets in Ohio, with 827 nests, but two other Ohio islands, Turning Point and 

Green, also are consistent hosts to nesting egrets (ODW unpub. data 2005). Ohio 

may have several inland great egret colonies within the southwestern Lake Erie 

marshes but these are not well established (Peterjohn and Rice 1991).
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

21 

Snowy Egret – Snowy egrets were probably casual summer visitors to Ohio in 

the 1800’s but there is little evidence to validate their presence (Peterjohn 1989). 

After the feather market put pressures on regional populations snowy egrets were 

no longer sighted in Ohio and it was not until 1924 that a single bird observation 

was again reported in the state. During the 1940’s and 1950’s small groups (3-7) 

began to appear, but most were isolated in the northern part of the state. Since 

1970 fall migrants have been nonexistent while snowy egret sightings in spring 

have increased. In 1983 WSI housed the first two confirmed snowy egret nests in 

Ohio (Peterjohn 1989). Breeders still occupy this island and occasionally also 

nest on TPI but total numbers are unknown (ODW unpub. data 2005).

Cattle Egret - The first cattle egret in Ohio was spotted central-state in 1958 and 

next along Lake Erie in 1960 (Peterjohn 1989). Breeding of cattle egrets in Ohio 

was confirmed in 1978 when 20 nests were discovered on WSI, but sightings and 

nests have declined since (Peterjohn 1989). Today there are a few sporadic nests 

on both WSI and TPI (Peterjohn and Rice 1991, ODW unpub. data 2005). In 

2005 WSI had a documented 10 cattle egret nests while TPI had none (ODW 

unpub. data 2005).

The growth of the DCCO colonies on Ohio’s Lake Erie islands has the potential 

to negatively affect the other colonial nesting birds that occupy the islands by 

directly displacing them from their nest sites and/or damaging the vegetation 

where they nest. 

WSI is an 83-acre island just north of the ONWR and Magee Marsh State 

Wildlife Area, northeast of Toledo. WSI currently hosts one of the largest 

remaining nesting colonies of herons and egrets in the U.S. portion of the Great 

Lakes (Figure 1-3). Additionally, WSI hosts one of Ohio’s two primary breeding 

colonies of black-crowned night-herons. Three State-listed birds (black-crowned 

night-heron, snowy egret, and cattle egret) and one bird of special concern (great 

egret) are found on WSI. The black-crowned night-heron population on WSI 

experienced a steady decline from 1991 through 1999, from 1,113 pairs to 387 

pairs. This decline has been mainly attributed to habitat succession on the island 

(Shieldcastle and Martin 1999). However, since 1996, the black-crowned nightheron population at WSI has fluctuated between a high of 500 pairs (1996, 2005) 

and a low of 387 pairs (1999). The fluctuation within this period is within 

sampling error, so no clear population trend is indicated. Black-crowned nightherons appear to be responding well to labor-intensive WSINWR efforts to 

restore vegetation structure preferred by night-herons (Doug Brewer, ONWR, 

pers. comm.), and the population may be stabilizing in line with currently 

available nesting habitat. However, the DCCO population is rapidly expanding to 

areas near or occupied by black-crowned night-herons, leading the USFWS and 

ODNR to be concerned for the loss of additional nesting habitat for blackcrowned night-herons. Snowy egrets have remained fairly steady at 10-14 pairs 

and the cattle egret is only an occasional nester. Numbers of nesting great egrets 

decreased over the period of 1993 to 1998 and have been stable to slightly 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

22 

decreasing since that time. Double-crested cormorants also appear to be 

influencing a shift of the great egret population from a relatively uniform 

distribution, to a pattern of higher concentration in areas closer to the blackcrowned night-herons and away from DCCOs. Double-crested cormorants began 

consistently nesting on WSI in 1992 and the number of breeding pairs has 

increased to 3,813 breeding pairs in 2005. 

TPI is a 5.3-acre remnant of a stone breakwall built on the Sandusky Bay and is 

predominantly covered by 19 to 29 foot-tall mulberry trees. TPI hosts Ohio’s 

other primary nesting colony of black-crowned night-herons (Figure 1-4). The 

black-crowned night-heron nesting population on TPI has fluctuated between 47 

and 300 pairs with no definitive trend over time. Snowy egrets are occasional 

nesters on TPI while cattle egret nests peaked in 1996 with 73 pairs and has 

declined steadily with no pairs observed in 2005 (ODW Data 2005). A nesting 

survey in 2005 revealed 47 black-crowned night-heron nests and 41 great egret 

nests. The number of nesting DCCOs increased rapidly from 1999 to 2002, and 

has been relatively stable from 2003-2005 with an increase of only eight nesting 

pairs. (Figure 1-4). In 2005, there were 409 nesting pairs of DCCOs on TPI. 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Estimated Number of Nest

Great blue heron

Great egret

Black-crowned night heron

Double-crested cormorant

Cattle egret

Figure 1-3. West Sister Island colonial bird nesting pair numbers 1991-2005. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

23 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

19971999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Number of nests

Black-crowned night heron

Great egret

Cattle egret

Snowy egret

Double-crested cormorant

Figure 1-4. Turning Point Island colonial bird nesting pair numbers 1983-2005. 

Green Island is a 17.3-acre island located in Ottawa County just west of South 

Bass Island and northeast of Port Clinton, Ohio. No DCCOs nested on Green 

Island in 2003. An aerial nesting survey in 2004 gave an approximate count of 15 

nesting pairs, and a ground count in 2005 revealed 857 cormorant nests (ODW 

Data 2005). While no data exist for the number of nesting herons and egrets in 

previous years, the potential for DCCO impacts on herons and egrets is high 

especially with the exponential increase of DCCOs on Green Island. Green Island 

also is important habitat for the federally-threatened and State-endangered Lake 

Erie watersnake whose numbers have been greatly reduced on the humaninhabited, surrounding islands. It is uncertain whether Lake Erie watersnakes 

would avoid large groups of DCCOs per se. However, Lake Erie watersnakes do 

prefer ground cover for shelter from predators and for thermoregulation during 

the hot part of summer days. If large amounts of DCCO feces kill the vegetation 

then there is likely to be a negative impact on the Lake Erie watersnake. Green 

Island has 6 state-listed plants which were found on a 2002 vegetative survey of 

the island: elegant sunburst lichen, northern bog violet, Sprengel’s sedge, tufted 

fescue sedge, harebell and rock elm. The State-threatened rock elm is particularly 

susceptible to damage from the DCCOs since these trees were found along the 

south side of the island where the cormorant nests were concentrated. 

1.5.6.2 DCCO Consumption of Fish on Lake Erie 

Sport fishers, the tourism community, charter boat captains, commercial fishers, 

and fisheries managers have expressed concern that the DCCO colonies on Lake 

Erie are having an adverse effect on the fish populations of Lake Erie, especially 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

24 

on walleye, yellow perch, and smallmouth bass. Walleye supports the most 

important sport fishery in Ohio as indicated by the 2004 harvest of 2,665,209 

pounds, which is about 50% of the Ohio sport harvest in Lake Erie. Yellow perch 

also supports important fisheries in Ohio waters, providing nearly 4,000,000 

pounds to sport and commercial fishers in 2004 (ODNR, DOW Lake Erie Status 

Report 2004). Smallmouth bass is the third most targeted species by anglers in 

Ohio waters of Lake Erie, with most fish being released (about 28,000 pounds 

were harvested in 2004; ODNR, DOW Lake Erie Status Report 2004). While 

there are insufficient data to fully characterize DCCO diets in Lake Erie and their 

predatory impacts on these important fish species, the potential exists for adverse 

effects at some scale given research results from other large lakes. 

Data collected from Lake Ontario can provide insight regarding fish population 

impacts that may also be occurring in Lake Erie. In Lake Ontario, where 

cormorant diets have been monitored since 1992, Johnson et al. (2002) estimated 

that 32.8 million fish or 3.1 million pounds are consumed annually by nesting 

cormorants. Of the fish consumed, the biomass of smallmouth bass and yellow 

perch taken by cormorants exceeded that of the commercial and recreational 

harvest of these fish. In addition to consuming smallmouth bass and yellow 

perch, forage fish species such as alewives and assorted minnow species 

comprised a large proportion of the cormorant diet. Similar observations have 

been noted on Lake Huron where the cormorant population is the largest on the 

Great Lakes (Dr. Mark Ridgway, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 

(OMNR), personal communication). Thus, the potential exists for cormorants to 

consume a considerable number of fish from Lake Erie. However, none of the 

studies thus far have determined if the mortality pressures exerted by cormorants 

are compensatory (cormorants are taking fish that would have died of other 

natural causes) or additive (foraging by cormorants increases the total mortality 

rate for the population). Previous research on Lake Erie (Bur et al. 1999) 

indicates that walleye, yellow perch, and smallmouth bass were not common food 

items, but the study covered only one year. More recently, cormorant regurgitant 

data collected by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) suggests that 

consumption of walleye and yellow perch may be quite high, perhaps approaching 

50% of the diet in some areas (Mike Bur, Sandusky Biological Station USGS, 

unpublished data). At high population densities, DCCOs can have adverse 

impacts on populations of fish that represent a small percentage of the 

cormorant’s overall diet, because the small number of fish consumed per DCCO 

is multiplied by the high number of DCCOs present. This may be especially 

important for fish with low population densities, or those whose habitat lies in 

proximity to dense DCCO colonies and in years with low recruitment and/or a 

poor year class. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

25 

Model Using Lake Erie Data

On Lake Erie, data on DCCO predation impacts on fish are available, however, 

more pieces of information that are needed to address whether cormorants are 

having a local or population level effect on sport/commercially important species 

or forage species, and whether cormorant induced mortality is compensatory or 

additive. Results of Bur et al. 1999 generally agree with those of other studies in 

that cormorants appear to be generalists, feeding on the most available species. 

However, they did not assess inter-annual variability in the fish community. The 

potential for significant predation on yellow perch and walleye exists because 

these fish species have produced larger year classes over the last several years 

while alternative fish prey (e.g., gizzard shad) have not. Smallmouth bass are 

vulnerable to predation in Lake Erie because they spend a larg portion of the year 

in shallow water habitats. DCCO predation on percids (e.g., walleye and yellow 

perch), smallmouth bass and assorted forage fish species has been documented in 

several systems in the Great Lakes basin (Burnett et al. 2002; Johnson et al. 2002; 

Rudstam et al. 2004; Van DeValk et al. 2002). 

The most recent cormorant population census (2001) on Lake Erie estimated 

13,600 cormorant nests (27,200 birds) , with nest numbers likely higher in 2004 

with the addition of Green and Middle Sister Islands as nesting colonies. Nest 

counts only provide an estimate of the number of nesting pairs. Immature and 

non-nesting birds also exist in the rookeries and comprise a substantial portion of 

the population on Lake Erie. Hebert and Morrison (2003) estimated the number 

of non-breeding birds in Lake Erie at nearly 6,200 birds bringing the total number 

of resident adult cormorants in Lake Erie to more than 33,000 individuals with the 

majority (29,000) nesting or residing in the western basin. This estimate is based 

upon a non-breeder to breeder ratio of 0.23 as generated on Lake Champlain 

(Fowle 1997). The estimate of non-breeding birds seems relatively low, given the 

number of cormorants loafing on Big Chicken Island throughout the summer. In 

addition to resident birds, Madenjian and Gabrey (1995) estimated the number of 

migrant cormorants at 6,500, however due to the increases in abundance of 

cormorants at locations north of Lake Erie, this number is likely higher (M. 

Ridgway, OMNR, personal communication). Nonetheless, given this 

information, a conservative estimate of the number of resident and migrant 

cormorants on Lake Erie could exceed 39,000 birds. 

Hebert and Morrison (2003) estimated cormorant consumption on Lake Erie using 

the bioenergetics model developed by Madenjian and Gabrey (1995) and found 

that cormorants consumed approximately 6,270 tons of fish annually in the 

western basin, with the majority (62%) consumed by breeding birds, followed by 

hatch-year birds (28%), followed by non-breeding and migrant birds (10%). 

Based upon diet composition data from Bur et al. (1999), the majority of fish 

consumed were gizzard shad and freshwater drum; however, this is based solely 

on a snapshot of diets from 1999. In addition to gizzard shad and freshwater 

drum, biologists estimated 63.1 tons of yellow perch and 56.8 tons of walleye 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

26 

were consumed by DCCOs in the western basin in 2000. Bur et al. (1999) found 

that the mean length of yellow perch consumed by cormorants was 5.8 inches, a 

length typical of two-year old yellow perch. Mean length of walleye consumed 

by cormorants was 10.5 inches, which generally corresponds to a yearling 

walleye. Based upon this information, and applying a weight-length regression 

for Lake Erie yellow perch and walleye, we can estimate that cormorants 

consumed approximately 1.5 million two-year old yellow perch and 

approximately 310,000 one-year old walleye. In 2000, the consumption of 1.5 

million perch by cormorants was approximately 5% of the standing stock of age-2 

yellow perch in the western basin. 

Is cormorant consumption of yellow perch and walleye biologically significant? 

Using the model of Hebert and Morrison (2003) and applying information from 

Bur et al. (1999) we get a sense of the magnitude of sport fish consumption by 

cormorants. In 2000, sport and commercial fisheries harvested 891 tons of yellow 

perch from Lake Erie, relative to the 63 tons consumed by cormorants. In 2000, 

approximately 110,000 yearling walleye were harvested by sport and commercial 

fisheries lakewide, relative to the 310,000 yearling walleye consumed by 

cormorants. These are rough calculations, but they indicate that in some years, 

the cumulative impacts of perch and walleye consumption by DCCOs and fishery 

harvest could be significant relative to production. At present, Total Allowable 

Catches (TACs) for lakewide walleye and yellow perch fisheries are established 

by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Lake Erie Committee, and any mortality 

from DCCO predation on these species is presumed to be a component of 

assumed natural mortality rates by the Committee. In other words, if DCCO 

consumption amounts are additive, instead of compensatory, to the assumed 

levels of natural mortality, the TACs could be excessive. 

Additional information on potential impacts of cormorant predation on 

smallmouth bass can be gleaned from the Stapanian et al. (2002) telemetry study. 

Approximately 80-85% of foraging cormorant flocks were observed within 1.8 

miles of shore and average foraging distance from colonies was 6 miles, therefore, 

we can plot likely impact areas based upon existing nesting colonies on West, 

Middle, and East Sister, Green, Hen, Middle, and TPI (Figure 1-5). 

Despite the fact that no smallmouth bass were found in the diets of cormorants 

during the diet study, the potential exists for significant impacts on smallmouth 

bass (Lantry et al. 2002) for several reasons. First, smallmouth bass show very 

localized distributions (i.e., they aren’t prone to large scale migration or 

movements). Second, smallmouth bass habitat overlaps significantly with 

predicted locations of intense cormorant foraging (Figure 1-6) (Stapanian et al. 

2002). In fact, more than 50% of predicted smallmouth bass habitat in the west 

basin is within areas predicted to be subject to intense cormorant predation. 

Because of low resolution reporting for fishery harvest and effort data, we do not 

have the ability to overlay smallmouth catch rates with the higher resolution 

smallmouth bass habitat. However, we can use some of the tagging data to 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

27 

partially validate the smallmouth bass habitat maps (Figure 1-7). In fact, 70 % of 

tagged smallmouth bass were tagged in areas identified as smallmouth habitat, 

and 80% were tagged in areas subject to intense cormorant predation. These 

figures indicate that there is significant overlap in cormorant foraging and 

smallmouth bass distribution, and the potential exists for cormorants to exert 

pressure on the smallmouth resource, particularly during May and June when bass 

are spawning and DCCO colonies are highly active. 

Figure 1-5. Predicted cormorant foraging areas in 2002, and foraging 

flock locations, 2002 (Stapanian et al. 2002). 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

28 

Figure 1-6. Predicted cormorant foraging areas and smallmouth bass habitat in 

western Lake Erie. Maps are based upon substrate distribution and 

depth information. 

Figure 1-7. Predicted cormorant foraging areas and smallmouth bass habitat in 

western Lake Erie. Points are actual smallmouth bass tagging locations. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

29 

Direct predation is not the only means by which DCCO foraging can impact fish 

populations. DCCO predation may alter the prey base available to predatory fish, 

some of which have more facultative than opportunistic feeding preferences 

(hence, could be adversely affected by prey base shifts). If prey resources are 

limiting, then any additional predation may be important and could affect any of 

the predators, fish or DCCOs, in ways that are not well-understood at present. 

Prey fish numbers are relatively low in Lake Erie, as compared to years prior to 

DCCO establishment (ODNR, DOW Lake Erie Status Report 2004). 

Several studies have estimated DCCO consume 20% of their body weight in fish 

per day (Dunn 1975; Glahn and Brugger 1995; Gremillet et al. 2000). Adult 

DCCO are reported to weigh five pounds (Rudstam et al. 2004), equating to a 

consumption rate of one pound of fish per adult per day. Daily fish consumption 

for an individual chick is 73% of that of an adult (Rudstam et al. 2004). 

Several DCCO diet studies have attempted to examine the effects of DCCO 

predation on fish in the Great Lakes (Ludwig et al. 1989; Belyea et al. 1999; 

Craven and Lev 1987). Although most diet studies of DCCOs have found that 

they do not have a significant adverse effect on game fish populations (Wires et. 

al 2001), at least one recent study, from Oneida Lake, NY, suggests that DCCOs 

may have detrimental effects on game fish populations (Rudstam et al. 2004). 

Rudstam et al. (2004) found that walleye and yellow perch were a major portion 

of DCCO diets at Oneida Lake, a smaller system than Lake Erie but one with a 

similar fish community. They concluded that walleye and yellow perch mortality 

rate increases coincided with the increase in DCCO on Oneida Lake, and that the 

nature of this new mortality signal suggested that it was coming from predation, 

rather than changes in the ecosystem due to new species, primarily zebra mussel 

and gizzard shad. While any number of factors preclude a direct comparison of 

DCCO impacts on the fish community between Lake Erie and Oneida Lake, the 

findings of Rudstam et al. suggest that additional research is necessary to reexamine the potential for recent effects of predation on game fish in regions of 

Lake Erie. 

DCCOs were first observed nesting at Oneida Lake in 1984 and increased to over 

360 nesting pair in 2000. Since 1993, 1,000 to 2,000 migrating DCCO have 

arrived in mid-August and departed in mid-October. DCCO fish consumption on 

Oneida Lake (breeding and migrating birds) was estimated at 3.46 pounds per 

acre in 1997, prior to DCCO control efforts. Higher walleye and yellow perch 

mortality rates for sub-adults in the 1990s have been attributed to DCCO 

predation (Rudstam et al. 2004) Studies conducted from 1995 to 2000 found 

walleye and yellow perch comprised a large percentage of DCCO diets (40% to 

82 % by number). Rudstam et al. (2004) indicated that DCCOs could have an 

additive effect on fish mortality as the size of prey eaten, most importantly subadults, was larger than the size range where compensatory mechanisms were 

important. Van DeValk et al. (2002) estimated that predation by DCCOs on sub-
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

30 

adult walleye and yellow perch in 1997 significantly decreased future angler 

harvest. 

1.5.6.3 Proposed Initial DCCO Management Objective for Ohio’s Lake Erie 

Island colonies. 

Historically, when colonial waterbird breeding colonies reached sufficient density 

that damage to the vegetation occurred and the site was no longer attractive to 

some species, the birds could move to new locations. Unfortunately, human 

population expansion and land use have limited the number of alternative sites 

available to colonial waterbirds and have placed sociological and biological 

constraints on the number of birds that can be supported at the remaining 

locations. The primary biological constraint is that many sites supporting colonial 

waterbirds must be managed to sustain a wide variety of plant and animal species 

indefinitely. This may make it necessary to manage bird populations at breeding 

sites at lower densities to prevent habitat damage and loss that historically would 

not have been a problem. Sociological considerations also limit the number of 

birds that will be tolerated in recreational areas and/or in close proximity to 

human habitation. Both of these constraints appear to be particularly applicable 

for Ohio, where most of the sites suitable for colonial waterbirds appear to already 

be in use and where there are high concentrations of human development and 

recreational activity near some colonies. Some of the colonial waterbird colonies 

appear to be close to or exceeding the number of birds that the habitat can sustain 

over time. Other sites are close to reaching their sociological carrying capacity. 

The challenge for managers is to maintain healthy wildlife populations and their 

habitats within the constraints posed by human land uses and tolerance for 

wildlife. 

The number of DCCOs in Ohio has increased from no breeding pairs in 1991 to 

5,164 pairs in 2005. When nonbreeding birds are included, the Ohio population 

of DCCOs is conservatively estimated at approximately 13,000 birds (Section 

4.1.1). Data and observations by the biologists working at Green Island, TPI and 

WSI indicate that there did not appear to be major impacts on vegetation or 

potential adverse impacts on co-nesting birds prior to 2000. At that time virtually 

all DCCOs in the state were located on the Lake Erie islands and near shore areas. 

Today DCCOs have established two inland colonies both approximately 100 

miles from Lake Erie in addition to 3 colonies on Lake Erie islands. Vegetation 

damage or potential for damage has been observed at all of the five Ohio DCCO 

colonies. 

To protect vegetation and wildlife, the lead and cooperating agencies are 

proposing to reduce the number of DCCOs that nest on the islands or forage 

around them during migration. Maintaining a viable DCCO population is also an 

objective for the proposed program. Cumulative impacts of CDM in Ohio and all 

other DCCO damage management programs will be monitored by the USFWS 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

31 

and ODW to ensure that the long-term sustainability of DCCO populations is not 

jeopardized at the state, regional, or national level. 

Because of damage to important habitat and decreasing numbers of co-nesting 

colonial waterbirds, the lead and cooperating agencies have proposed the 

following management objectives: 

Lake Erie Islands 

The pattern of DCCO colonization, rapid population expansion and associated 

adverse impacts on vegetation and risks to co-nesting species has been observed 

on several Lake Erie islands including Middle Island and East Sister Island 

(Hebert et al. 2005). Therefore, efforts would be made to confine DCCO nesting 

colonies on the Ohio portion of the Lake Erie islands and associated near shore 

areas to two sites (WSI and TPI). Efforts would be made to discourage formation 

of new DCCO colonies in this area. 

• West Sister Island. Management Objective - 1,500 to 2,000 breeding 

pairs. The management objective for WSI is based on Habitat Objective 1 

in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for WSI (USFWS 2000a) 

which calls for the refuge to maintain nesting habitat for approximately 

1,000 pairs great blue herons, 800 pairs great egrets, 500 pairs blackcrowned night-herons and 1,500 pairs of DCCOs and observations from 

refuge biologists that damage to vegetation appeared more pronounced 

when DCCO numbers at WSI exceeded 2,000 breeding pairs. Density of 

nesting DCCOs on the Island reached this level in 1999 (Figure 1- 3). 

• Turning Point Island. Management Objective - 400 breeding pairs. This 

goal would involve maintaining the current density of breeding pairs. The 

current DCCO density does not appear to be adversely affecting 

vegetation or co-nesting species on the island. However, given patterns 

observed on Middle Island in Canada and WSI, it is likely that adverse 

impacts could occur if the population increases much beyond current 

levels. This management objective is the minimum number of birds to be 

maintained at the island. In all likelihood, the number of breeding pairs at 

the site would be at or slightly above this level. 

• Green Island. Management Objective – no breeding pairs. Green Island is 

used as a nesting site by great egrets and great blue herons. The State and 

federally-listed Lake Erie watersnake also uses the island. Additionally 

six State-listed plants including the rock elm are located on the island and 

in close proximity to nesting DCCOs. The rate of DCCO population 

increase over the last two years (0-857 pairs from 2003-2005) has been 

alarming, especially given the relatively small size of the island (17.3 

acres). ODW is concerned that DCCO population increases and 

associated vegetation damage will be similar to that observed on other 

islands like Middle Sister. Given that Green Island is less than a quarter 

of the size of WSI, biologists are concerned that the island will be more 

easily overrun and degraded by DCCOs than the larger islands. If DCCOs 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

32 

are removed from the island, it can serve as a control site against which 

vegetation conditions at other islands can be compared. The management 

objective for Green Island would return the species composition of the 

community of breeding birds on the Island to that observed in 2002. 

Inland Colonies 

Ohio’s two small inland DCCO colonies are located approximately 195 miles 

apart and consist of 86 DCCO pairs total. Both colonies are 100 miles or more 

from the Lake Erie island colonies. Data from states like MN (USDA 2005) 

indicate that some inland colonies appear to exist without causing problems, but 

in other areas, the pattern of rapid population increases and associated damage 

management concerns can be similar to those noted for the Lake Erie islands. At 

present, there is little evidence of conflicts with DCCOs at these sites. However, 

ODW is concerned that rapid population increases observed on the Lake Erie 

islands may also occur at inland sites and will result in similar or more 

pronounced damage problems. There is concern that the potential for adverse 

impacts on fish populations is higher for smaller inland lakes than the Great 

Lakes. If large DCCO colonies become established at inland sites, they may 

become a continual source population for the Lake Erie islands and complicate 

damage management efforts at these locations. Additionally, it may be easier and 

less costly to prevent problems from occurring than to let them go until there is a 

documented problem and a much higher number of DCCOs to remove. 

• Grand Lakes-St. Mary. Management Objective - 15 breeding pairs. 

Grand Lakes-St. Mary is a 5,463 ha lake and important for recreation and 

walleye fishing. The colony occupies a small island about 25 yards off 

shore and cottonwood trees along the shoreline. The colony contained 80 

DCCO breeding pairs in 2005. The state-owned land is also home to a 

pair of nesting bald eagles and a great blue heron rookery. The site 

contains only a limited number of mature trees and there are concerns that 

that the growing DCCO colony could eliminate the vegetation upon which 

the herons depend. This management objective is the minimum number of 

birds to be maintained at the island. In all likelihood, the number of 

breeding pairs at the site would be at or slightly above this level. 

• Portage Lakes. Management Objective - six breeding pairs. The Portage 

Lakes (478 ha) consist of a string of 10 lakes in northeast Ohio. DCCOs 

have established a small colony (six pairs) on a 0.1 ha island in the West 

Reservoir. ODW would like to maintain DCCO populations at the same 

level in this area. During spring 2006, ODW will monitor migrant activity 

in the Portage Lakes in response to public complaints regarding large 

flocks of migrating DCCOs utilizing this area. This management 

objective is the minimum number of birds to be maintained at the site. In 

all likelihood, the number of breeding pairs at the site would be at or 

slightly above this level. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

33 

The lead and cooperating agencies propose to reduce DCCO numbers to target 

levels over the next 1-3 years using a variety of techniques. These methods may 

include, but are not limited to, hazing, habitat modification, exclusion fencing or 

grids, egg and nest removal, egg oiling, and lethal removal of adults. These 

methods should reduce the number of birds utilizing the sites and associated 

adverse impacts on public resources. 

Several research projects and monitoring programs would be run concurrently 

with the CDM efforts to collect data on what DCCOs are eating and feeding their 

chicks, and the effect this predation has on selected game fish populations. 

Impacts of DCCOs and DCCO removal on vegetation will also be monitored. 

Findings from these projects will be used to refine DCCO management 

objectives. 

1.5.7 Ohio DCCO Coordination Group 

Decisions about DCCO control under the PRDO would be made on a case by case 

basis after consultation with the involved action agencies (USFWS, ODNR, and 

WS). These Federal and State entities have established an informal DCCO 

Coordination Group to exchange information on DCCO management and discuss 

sites where there may be a potential need to apply the DCCO PRDO in Ohio. The 

agencies comprising the Ohio DCCO Coordination Group have agreed that they 

will strive to work cooperatively together, rather than independently on DCCO 

management issues in Ohio. However each agency retains its own authority to 

make management decisions. The lead and cooperating agencies have agreed that 

decisions on future PRDO CDM projects will be made only after consulting with 

the DCCO coordination group. 

1.5.8 Examples of CDM efforts in Ohio 

Management of Damage to Aquaculture: WS currently provides CDM assistance 

primarily in the form of technical assistance via site visits or phone consultations. 

Issues are addressed through an integrated program for conducting CDM 

activities, which includes the use of non-lethal methods by aquaculturists. If 

DCCO damage is substantial and recurring, WS works with the property owner to 

obtain a USFWS Migratory Bird Depredation Permit under which the property 

owner or manager is authorized to lethally control a designated number of 

DCCOs. 

Management of Damage at Airports: WS provides technical assistance to 

operations personnel at airports on how to identify and manage wildlife hazards to 

aircraft. Airport operations also have the option of participating in a one-day 

training seminar led by WS personnel that teaches wildlife identification, laws 

and regulations, and methods for wildlife hazard management at airports. All 

certificated airports are also provided a copy of the Wildlife Hazard Management 

at Airports manual (Cleary and Dolbeer, 2005). 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

34 

Currently, two airports in Ohio employ full time WS biologists who provide 

technical and direct (operational) assistance with wildlife issues surrounding their 

particular airport environment. One of these airports is in close proximity to Lake 

Erie and the WS biologist responds to the threat of DCCO-aircraft collision by 

harassing DCCO when they occur at the airport. Harassment of DCCOs at this 

airport has been limited to the use of pyrotechnics. To date there have been no 

incidents involving DCCOs and aircraft in Ohio. 

Management of Damage to Natural Resources : In 2005, WS entered into a 

cooperative project with the USFWS and ODW to examine DCCOs' potential 

damage to trees and vegetation and impact on other colonial nesting birds on WSI 

and Green Islands in Lake Erie. Five hundred DCCOs were removed from Green 

Island and WSI under a scientific collecting permit from the USFWS. Rifles 

without silencers were used to cull the DCCOs and observers accompanied 

shooters to record any disturbance to other nesting birds. Only one great egret 

was seen to flush off of the nest during the removal operation. Trees from which 

the DCCOs were shot were marked, and the number of DCCO nests were counted 

in each tree. 

A total of 363 DCCOs were removed from WSI in 2005 (197 DCCOs on May 4 

and 166 DCCOs on May 16). The DCCOs were removed from 8 test plots (25 

meter radius). A nesting survey conducted on July 6, 2005 showed a net 

reduction of two DCCO nests from the time the DCCOs were removed until the 

nesting survey. The number of DCCOs allowed to be removed under the study 

design and collection permit was inadequate to reduce overall numbers of nesting 

DCCOs on WSI. 

One hundred thirty-seven DCCOs were removed from Green Island on May 11, 

2005. The initial reason for removing DCCOs from Green Island was to test the 

feasibility of eliminating the colony, how quickly the DCCOs would attempt to 

reestablish the colony, and to determine how quickly herbaceous plants could 

recover once the DCCOs were removed. A survey conducted on May 24, 2005, 

showed 857 DCCO nests on Green Island. The number of DCCOs allowed to be 

removed under the collection permit was inadequate to meet the study objective. 

Management of Damage to Property: WS provides information on how to 

minimize the impacts of DCCOs on private property. Property owners who 

contact WS are provided with information on general species biology, damage 

identification, and techniques for exclusion or harassment. WS personnel explain 

techniques and resources for handling DCCO damage. If DCCO damage to 

private property (i.e. trees) is substantial and recurring, WS works with the 

property owner to obtain a USFWS Migratory Bird Depredation Permit under 

which the property owner is authorized to lethally control a designated number of 

DCCOs. WS receives less than six of these types of requests annually. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

35 

1.6 WS RECORD KEEPING REGARDING REQUESTS FOR CDM 

ASSISTANCE 

WS maintains a Management Information System (MIS) database to document assistance 

that the agency provides in addressing wildlife damage conflicts. MIS data is limited to 

information collected from people who have requested services or information from WS. 

It does not include requests received or responded to by local, State or other Federal 

agencies, and it is not a complete database for all wildlife damage occurrences. The 

number of requests for assistance does not necessarily reflect the extent of need for 

action, but this data does provide an indication that needs exist. 

The database includes, but is not limited to, the following information: species of wildlife 

involved; the number of individuals involved in a damage situation; tools and methods 

used or recommended to alleviate the conflict; and the resource that is in need of 

protection. Table 1-1 provides a summary of DCCO Technical Assistance projects 

completed by the Ohio WS program for Fiscal Year 1998 to 2003. Wildlife Services 

Direct Control and Technical Assistance programs are described in Chapter 3 of this EA. 

Table 1-1. Number of independent incidents for DCCO technical assistance for Ohio 

Wildlife Services (MIS Database, 2005). 

Species Damage Resource # Incidents Dollar Value 

DCCO Predation Food Fish 1 $3,000 

DCCO Predation Bait Fish 1 4,000 

DCCO Predation Catfish 

Fingerling 

2 4,000 

DCCO Consumption/ 

Contamination 

Rainbow Trout 1 600 

DCCO Predation Bass 1 500 

DCCO Predation Catfish Adult 3 7,800 

DCCO Predation Rainbow Trout 7 9,700 

DCCO Predation Bait Fish 1 150 

DCCO Predation Catfish 

Fingerling 

1 2,500 

DCCO Predation Catfish Adult 1 0 

DCCO Predation Rainbow Trout 1 0 

DCCO Predation Food Fish 1 0 

DCCO Predation Catfish 

Fingerling 

1 8,000 

DCCO Predation Food Fish 1 0 

DCCO Predation Food Fish 1 3,800 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

36 

1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 

ADC Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. WS has issued a Final EIS (FEIS) 

on the national APHIS/WS program (USDA 1997, Revised). Pertinent and current 

information available in the EIS has been incorporated by reference into this EA. The 

FEIS may be obtained by contacting the USDA, APHIS, WS Operational Support Staff, 

4700 River Road, Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234. 

Final Environmental Impact Statement: Double-crested Cormorant Management in the 

United States. The USFWS issued a Final EIS (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) 

(68 Federal Register 58022) on the management of DCCOs (USFWS 2003). WS was a 

formal cooperating agency in the preparation of the FEIS and has adopted it to support 

WS’ program decisions for its involvement in the management of DCCO damage 

throughout the United States. WS completed a ROD on November 18, 2003 (68 Federal 

Register 68020). This EA is tiered to that FEIS. Pertinent and current information 

available in the EIS has been incorporated by reference into this EA. The FEIS, final 

ruling and PRDO (see Appendix E) may be obtained by contacting the Division of 

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, 

MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203 or by downloading it from the USFWS website 

at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/cormorant/cormorant.html. The WS ROD 

may be viewed at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/pubs.html. 

WSINWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 2000. A CCP is the guiding 

document for a specific refuge which covers a span of 10-15 years and which is subject to 

NEPA including requirements for analysis of alternatives and public involvement. It 

addresses all aspects of refuge management, including wildlife, habitats, and public use, 

with specific objectives and goals, and identifies strategies to meet those goals. The 

WSINWR CCP establishes a goal to preserve and protect the largest wading bird colony 

within the Great Lakes ecosystem in accordance with the national wilderness designation. 

The WSINWR CCP also aims to provide habitat conditions favorable to colonial nesting 

wading birds without compromising the wilderness integrity and while maintaining 

nesting habitat for approximately 1,000 great blue herons, 800 great egrets, 500 blackcrowned night-herons and 1,500 DCCOs. The CCP for WSINWR can be found at 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/ottawa/index.html#CCP. 

1.8 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

1.8.1 Actions Analyzed 

This EA evaluates the impacts of alternatives for CDM by the USFWS, WS and 

the cooperating agencies to protect aquaculture, property, natural resources, and 

human health and safety on private and public land or facilities within the State 

wherever such management is requested or deemed necessary. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

37 

1.8.2 Period for which this EA is Valid 

If it is determined that an additional EIS is not needed, this EA would remain 

valid until WS, USFWS and ODW along with other appropriate agencies, 

determine that new needs for action, changed conditions, and/or new alternatives 

having different environmental effects must be analyzed. At that time, this 

analysis and associated decision would be supplemented pursuant to NEPA. See 

also discussion in section 1.8.4 of criteria which would trigger a supplement for 

specific CDM actions. Review of the EA would be conducted each year to ensure 

that the need for action, actions taken and environmental impacts are within 

parameters analyzed in the EA. 

1.8.3 American Indian Tribes and Land 

Currently, there are no DCCO management MOUs with any American Indian 

tribe in Ohio. 

1.8.4 Site Specificity 

The geographic scope of the proposed action includes areas in and around public 

and private facilities and properties and at other sites where DCCOs may roost, 

loaf, feed, nest or otherwise occur. Examples of areas where CDM activities 

could be conducted include, but are not necessarily limited to: aquaculture 

facilities; fish hatcheries; lakes; ponds; rivers; swamps; marshes; islands; 

communally-owned homeowner/property owner association properties; boat 

marinas; natural areas; wildlife refuges; wildlife management areas; and airports 

and surrounding areas. Cormorant damage management may be conducted on 

properties held in private, local government, state or Federal ownership once 

landowner permission has been obtained. With landowner permission, the lead 

and cooperating agencies could conduct CDM at any of the areas where DCCOs 

cause damage or risks to health and safety in the state including any of the five 

breeding colonies currently identified throughout the state (Appendix D). As 

discussed above, the lead and cooperating agencies are specifically intending to 

conduct work at Green, WSI, TPI and the inland colonies at Portage Lakes and 

Grand Lakes, St. Mary. Because DCCO breeding sites are mixed species colonies 

where control measures may negatively affect other colonial nesting waterbirds, 

such as great egrets, great blue herons and black-crowned night-herons, mixed 

species colonies will be assessed very carefully before any control measures are 

recommended. 

This EA analyzes potential effects of WS and cooperating agency CDM activities 

that will occur or could occur at private and public property sites or facilities 

within Ohio with specific analysis of activities proposed for Lake Erie and two 

inland colonies. Because the program’s goals and directives are to reduce damage 

and to provide services when requested and considered necessary, within the 

constraints of available funding and workforce, it is conceivable that additional 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

38 

CDM efforts could occur. Thus, with the exception of certain CDM projects 

conducted under the PRDO this EA anticipates this potential expansion and 

analyzes the impacts of such efforts as part of the program. 

With the exception of large projects like those planned for TPI, WSI, Green 

Island and the inland colonies discussed below, planning for CDM must be 

viewed as being conceptually similar to Federal or other agency actions whose 

missions are to prevent adverse consequences from anticipated future events for 

which the actual sites and locations where they will occur are unknown but could 

be anywhere in a defined geographic area. Although some of the sites where 

DCCO damage will occur can be predicted, all specific locations or times where 

such damage will occur in any given year cannot be predicted. For the most part, 

the issues that pertain to the various types of DCCO damage and resulting 

management are the same wherever they occur, and are treated as such. The 

standard WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992) is the routine thought process that 

is the site-specific procedure for determining methods and strategies to use or 

recommend for individual actions conducted by WS and the cooperating agencies 

(see USDA 1997, Revised) and Chapter 2 for a more complete description of the 

WS Decision Model as well as examples of its application). All projects covered 

by this EA will be in accordance with any mitigation measures and standard 

operating procedures (SOPs) described herein and adopted or established as part 

of the final agency decisions. 

Projects like the ones proposed for TPI, WSI, Green Island and the inland 

colonies are not undertaken without considerable planning and deliberation on the 

part of the lead and cooperating agencies. Any future projects would likely be 

dependent upon findings of the studies and projects proposed for Ohio. At 

present, none of the management objectives were established for the purpose of 

protecting public fishery resources. Any benefits to fish resources are incidental 

to achieving the primary objectives of protecting wildlife and vegetation. Actions 

to protect public fishery resources are permitted under the PRDO and such 

projects could be considered at a later time. If these projects would result in 

cumulative impacts greater than those analyzed in this EA (e.g., they would result 

in increased cumulative take of DCCOs or higher risks to non-target species than 

those anticipated in this analysis) the EA would be amended and public comment 

would be solicited prior to a decision to continue management efforts. However, 

the fundamental issues relating to new projects are unlikely to differ from those 

addressed in this EA. The analyses in this EA are intended to apply to any action 

that may occur in any locale and at any time and by the lead and cooperating 

agencies and their authorized agents within Ohio. In this way, WS and USFWS 

believe they meet the intent of NEPA with regard to site-specific analysis and that 

this is the only practical way to comply with NEPA and still be able to 

accomplish the agencies’ mission. 

 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

39 

1.8.5 Summary of Public Involvement 

Issues related to cormorant damage management were initially identified by 

natural resource staff within WS, USFWS, and ODW. The USFWS DCCO FEIS 

(2003) was used to further define the issues and identify preliminary alternatives. 

As part of this process, and as required by the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), APHIS-NEPA, and DOI implementing regulations, this document and the 

subsequent Decision will be made available to the public through “Notices of 

Availability” (NOA) published in local media, direct mailings of NOA to parties 

that have specifically requested to be notified, and through agency news releases 

and web sites. New issues or alternatives raised during public involvement 

periods will be used in determining whether the EA should be revised and in the 

final determination of the alternative to be selected and its associated impacts. 

1.9 AUTHORITY AND COMPLIANCE 

Each of the cooperating agencies has specific roles and responsibilities relative to the 

management of DCCO damage in the state of Ohio. The degree and nature of each 

agency’s involvement varies depending on the location and nature of the damage 

problem. The following table summarizes agency roles in addressing DCCO damage in 

OH and provides information on the ability of others to address DCCO damage. 

Table 1-2. Roles and responsibilities for DCCO damage management in Ohio 

Agency/Action Need for Action

Protect Public Resources 

Need for Action

Protect Aquaculture, Property 

and Health and Safety; 

Conduct Research with 

Scientific Collecting Permits) 

WS Take birds at request of 

landowners/ managers. 

Provide technical asstance 

Take birds (less than 10% of 

local colony) after notifying 

USFWS 

Take birds (more than 10% of 

local colony) with approval of 

USFWS 

Monitor state/local DCCO 

population. 

Take birds under permits issued 

to WS or cooperators 

Provide technical asstance 

Provide site analysis and review 

required for USFWS to issue 

permits 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

40 

Agency/Action Need for Action

Protect Public Resources 

Need for Action

Protect Aquaculture, Property 

and Health and Safety; 

Conduct Research with 

Scientific Collecting Permits) 

USFWS 

Migratory 

Bird Office 

Has authority to not approve take 

of more than 10% of local 

colony 

Provide limited technical 

asstance 

Monitor impacts of local, 

regional and national DCCO 

damage management efforts. 

Provide oversight to ensure 

action agency compliance with 

the PRDO regulations 

Issue permits 

Monitor impacts of local, 

regional and national DCCO 

conflict management efforts. 

USFWS 

Refuge 

Approve/authorize take of birds 

on USFWS property 

Take birds as agents of ODW or 

Wildlife Services 

Monitor state local DCCO 

population 

N/A 

ODW Take birds (less than 10% of 

local colony) after notifying 

USFWS 

Take birds (more than 10% of 

local colony) with approval of 

USFWS 

Monitor state and local DCCO 

population 

Take birds for aquaculture 

damage and research with 

permits 

Provide limited technical 

asstance 

1.9.1 Authority of Each Lead and Cooperating Agency in CDM in Ohio 

USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services. The USDA is authorized by law to protect 

American agriculture and other resources from damage associated with wildlife. 

The primary statutory authorities for the APHIS-WS program are the 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)., which provide that: 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

41 

 

“The Secretary of Agriculture may conduct a program of wildlife services 

with respect to injurious animal species and take any action the Secretary 

considers necessary in conducting the program. The Secretary shall 

administer the program in a manner consistent with all of the wildlife 

services authorities in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 

the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001.” 

Since 1931, with the changes in societal values, WS policies and its programs 

place greater emphasis on the part of the Act discussing “bringing (damage) under 

control”, rather than “eradication” and “suppression” of wildlife populations. In 

1988, Congress strengthened the legislative directive and authority of WS with 

the Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 

This Act states, in part: 

“That hereafter, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized, except for 

urban rodent control, to conduct activities and to enter into agreements 

with States, local jurisdictions, individuals, and public and private 

agencies, organizations, and institutions in the control of nuisance 

mammals and birds and those mammals and birds species that are 

reservoirs for zoonotic diseases, and to deposit any money collected under 

any such agreement into the appropriation accounts that incur the costs to 

be available immediately and to remain available until expended for 

Animal Damage Control activities.” 

WS is a cooperatively funded, service-oriented program. Before any operational 

wildlife damage management is conducted, an Agreement for Control or similar 

document must be completed by WS and the landowner/administrator. WS 

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 efficiently resolving wildlife damage problems in compliance with 

all applicable Federal, State, and local laws. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The primary responsibility of the 

USFWS is conserving fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats. While some of the 

USFWS’s responsibilities are shared with other Federal, State, tribal, and local 

entities, the USFWS has special authorities in managing the National Wildlife 

Refuge System; conserving migratory birds, endangered species, certain marine 

mammals, and nationally significant fisheries; and enforcing Federal wildlife 

laws. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) gives the USFWS primary 

statutory authority to manage migratory bird populations in the United States. 

The USFWS is also charged with implementation and enforcement of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and with developing recovery plans 

for listed species. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

42 

Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODW). As authorized by Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 

1531.04, “the division of wildlife, at the direction of the chief of the division, 

shall do all of the following: (A) Plan, develop, and institute programs and 

policies based on the best available information, including biological information 

derived from professionally accepted practices in wildlife and fisheries 

management, with the approval of the director of natural resources; (B) Have and 

take the general care, protection, and supervision of the wildlife in the state parks 

known as Lake St. Marys, The Portage Lakes, Lake Loramie, Indian Lake, 

Buckeye Lake, Guilford Lake, such part of Pymatuning Reservoir as lies in this 

state, and all other state parks and lands owned by the state or in which it is 

interested or may acquire or become interested, except lands and lakes the care 

and supervision of which are vested in some other officer, body, board, 

association, or organization; (C) Enforce by proper legal action or proceeding the 

laws of the state and division rules for the protection, preservation, propagation, 

and management of wild animals and sanctuaries and refuges for the propagation 

of those wild animals, and adopt and carry into effect such measures as it 

considers necessary in the performance of its duties” (ORC §1531.04). 

WS is in the process of updating the current MOU that defines USDA-APHISWS participation in a cooperative wildlife damage management program in Ohio. 

The MOU establishes a cooperative relationship between WS, Ohio Department 

of Agriculture, Ohio Department of Health (ODH), Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources (ODNR), Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), The Ohio State 

University Extension (OSUE), and Ohio Agricultural Research and Development 

Center (OARDC), for planning, coordinating and implementing wildlife damage 

management policies to prevent or minimize damage caused by wild animal 

species (including threatened and endangered species) to agriculture, horticulture, 

aquaculture, animal husbandry, forestry, wildlife, public health/safety, property, 

natural resources and to facilitate the exchange of information among the 

cooperating agencies. 

ODW wild animal permit No. 193 authorizes Ohio WS, on an annual basis to 

take, possess, and transport at any time and in any manner specimens of wild 

animals, subject to the following conditions and restrictions set forth by the chief 

of the ODW: (1) Permittee must collect non-endangered species as needed to 

fulfill requirements of USDA, (2) Permittee must consult with Crane Creek 

Research Station or the appropriate Wildlife District Office prior to moving any 

waterfowl, (3) All traps and devices must be tagged or marked identifying them as 

USDA property, (4) The use of chemical agents to control wild animals is 

prohibited without explicit permission from the Chief of the Division of Wildlife, 

and (5) All nuisance wildlife species collected shall be immediately released at 

the site of capture or euthanized within 24 hours of collection. The permittee 

(WS) must also obtain all applicable Federal permits. State hunting and trapping 

regulations do not apply provided that the permittee is in full compliance with 

Federal laws, rules, and regulations. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

43 

Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex (USFWS, WSINWR). The Ottawa 

National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1961 under the authority of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act "....for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any 

other management purpose, for migratory birds." The Refuge was also 

established to preserve a portion of the remaining Lake Erie marshes. Cedar Point 

National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1964 under this same authority and 

purpose. Today the Refuge Complex consists of three separate refuges (Ottawa, 

Cedar Point and West Sister Island) that total approximately 9,000 acres. The 

focus of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex is to protect, enhance, and 

restore habitat for threatened and endangered species; provide suitable nesting 

habitat for migratory birds; provide spring and fall migration habitat for 

waterfowl and other migratory birds; provide habitat for native resident flora and 

fauna; and provide the public with wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities. 

West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR) is the oldest member of 

the Ottawa Complex and the most isolated. The 80-acre island became a national 

wildlife refuge by Executive Order 7937 on August 2, 1937, and in 1975 was 

designated as a Federal wilderness area under the Wilderness Act of 1964. The 

Service manages 77 acres of the island and the U.S. Coast Guard owns the 

remaining acreage and a lighthouse. The island is home to the largest blue heron 

and great egret rookery in the United States Great Lakes and is also home to 

snowy egrets and one of the largest black-crowned night-heron colonies on the 

United States Great Lakes. The island is not accessible to the public. 

1.9.2 Compliance with Other Laws, Executive Orders, Treaties, and Court 

Decisions 

A number of other Federal laws, treaties, and court decisions authorize, regulate, 

or otherwise affect WS wildlife damage management. The cooperating agencies 

comply with all applicable laws, and consult and cooperate with other agencies as 

appropriate. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). All Federal actions are subject to 

NEPA (Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). NEPA sets forth the 

requirement that Federal actions with the potential to significantly affect the 

human environment be evaluated in terms of their impacts for the purpose of 

avoiding or, where possible, mitigating and minimizing adverse impacts. 

WS and USFWS prepare analyses of the environmental effects of program 

activities to meet procedural requirements of this law. This EA meets the NEPA 

implementation requirements for both WS and USFWS. 

Ordinarily, individual actions on the types of sites encompassed by this analysis 

may be categorically excluded under the APHIS Implementing Regulations for 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (7 CFR 

372.5(c)). APHIS Implementing Regulations also provide that all technical 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

44 

assistance furnished by WS is categorically excluded (7 CFR 372.5(c)) (60 

Federal Register 6,000, 6,003 (1995)). However, WS, the USFWS, and ODW 

have decided to prepare this EA to assist in planning CDM activities and to 

clearly communicate with the public the analysis of cumulative effects for a 

number of issues of concern in relation to alternative means of meeting needs for 

such management in the State, including the potential cumulative impacts on 

DCCOs and other wildlife species. With the exception for certain projects 

covered by the PRDO described in Sections 1.8.2 and 1.8.4, this analysis covers 

current and future CDM actions by the USFWS, WS and the cooperating agencies 

wherever they might be requested or needed within the State of Ohio. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). It is Federal policy, under the ESA, that all 

Federal agencies shall seek to conserve threatened and endangered (T&E) species 

and shall utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act 

(Sec.2(c)). WS conducts Section 7 consultations with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife 

Service to use the expertise of the USFWS 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 . . . Each agency 

shall use the best scientific and commercial data available" (Sec.7 (a)(2)). 

As part of the DCCO FEIS (USFWS 2003), the USFWS completed an intraService biological evaluation and informal Section 7 consultation on the 

management of DCCOs in the U.S. and this resulted in specific provisions for 

T&E species protection in the regulations implementing the PRDO at 50 CFR 

21.48 (see section 4.1.2). 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136). This Act establishes a National 

Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) which is composed of federally owned 

areas designated by Congress as “wilderness areas.” The Act directs each agency 

administering designated wilderness to preserve the wilderness character of areas 

within the NWPS, and to administer the NWPS for the use and enjoyment of the 

American people in a way that will leave these areas unimpaired for future use 

and enjoyment as wilderness. Wilderness is defined in section 2(c) of the 

Wilderness Act: “A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his 

works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth 

and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor 

who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act 

an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and 

influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is 

protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) 

generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the 

imprint of man substantially unnoticeable, (2) has outstanding opportunities for 

solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five 

thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

45 

ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or 

historic value. 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e). The Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act obligates all Federal agencies to consult with State resource 

agencies on actions related to wildlife conservation, including but not limited to 

actions "minimizing damages from overabundant species". 

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended (16 USC 1451-1464, 

Chapter 33; P.L. 92-583, October 27, 1972; 86 Stat. 1280). 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 was 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 varied 

depending on whether the Federal action involved a permit, license, financial 

assistance, or a Federally authorized activity. 

The lead and cooperating agencies have determined that the Preferred Alternative 

would be consistent with the State's Coastal Zone Management Program. The 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Office of Coastal Management has 

concurred with this determination. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 03-711; 40 Stat. 755), as Amended. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) provides the USFWS regulatory 

authority to protect families of birds that contain species which migrate outside 

the United States. The law prohibits any “take” of these species by any entities, 

except as permitted or authorized by the USFWS. The Migratory Bird Treaty 

Reform Act of 2004 clarifies the original purpose of the MBTA as pertaining to 

the conservation and protection of migratory birds native to North America and 

directs the USFWS to establish a list of bird species found in the United States 

which are non-native, human-introduced species and therefore not federally 

protected under the MBTA. 

The USFWS issues permits to requesters for reducing migratory bird damage in 

certain situations. WS provides on-site assessments for persons experiencing 

migratory bird damage to obtain information needed to make damage 

management recommendations. Damage management recommendations could be 

in the form of technical assistance or operational assistance. In severe cases of 

migratory bird damage, WS provides recommendations to the USFWS for the 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

46 

issuance of depredation permits to private entities or other agencies. The ultimate 

responsibility for issuing such permits rests with the USFWS. 

Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001 “Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” This Order states that each Federal agency, 

taking actions that have, or are likely to have, a measurable negative effect on 

migratory bird populations, is directed to develop and implement, a MOU with 

the USFWS that shall promote the conservation of migratory bird populations. 

WS has developed a draft MOU with the USFWS as required by this Order and is 

currently waiting for USFWS approval. WS will abide by the MOU once it is 

finalized and signed by both parties. 

 

The Native American Graves and Repatriation Act of 1990. The Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 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. Federal 

projects would discontinue work until a reasonable effort has been made to 

protect the items and the proper authority has been notified. 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended. The NHPA of 

1966, and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800), requires Federal agencies 

to: 1) determine whether activities they propose constitute "undertakings" that 

have the potential to cause effects on historic properties and, 2) if so, to evaluate 

the effects of such undertakings on such historic resources and consult with the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (i.e. State Historic Preservation Office, 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers) as appropriate. 

The CDM methods described in this EA that might be used operationally by WS 

or permitted by the USFWS do not cause major ground disturbance, physical 

destruction or damage to property, alterations of property, wildlife habitat, or 

landscapes, or 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. Therefore, the methods 

that would be used by WS or permitted by the USFWS under the Preferred 

Alternative are not generally the types of activities that would have the potential 

to affect historic properties. 

There is potential for audible effects on the use and enjoyment of a historic 

property when methods such as propane exploders, pyrotechnics, firearms, or 

other noise-making methods are used at or in close proximity to such sites for 

purposes of hazing or removing birds. However, such methods would only be 

used at a historic site at the request of the owner or manager of the site to resolve 

a damage or nuisance problem, which means such use would be to benefit the 

historic property. A built-in mitigating factor for this issue is that virtually all of 

the methods involved would only have temporary effects on the audible nature of 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

47 

a site and can be ended at any time to restore the audible qualities of such sites to 

their original condition with no further adverse effects. Site-specific consultation 

as required by Section 106 of the NHPA would be conducted as necessary in 

those types of situations. 

Environmental Justice and Executive Order 12898 - "Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." 

Executive Order 12898, promotes the fair treatment of people of all races, income 

levels and cultures with respect to the development, implementation and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. Environmental 

justice (EJ) is the pursuit of equal justice and protection under the law for all 

environmental statutes and regulations without discrimination based on race, 

ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. EJ is a priority within the USDA (WS) and 

DOI (USFWS). Executive Order 12898 requires Federal agencies to make 

environmental justice part of their mission, and to identify and address 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of 

Federal programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income persons or 

populations. APHIS implements Executive Order 12898 principally through its 

compliance with NEPA. All WS and USFWS activities are evaluated for their 

impact on the human environment and compliance with Executive Order 12898. 

Both agencies’ personnel use only legal, effective, and environmentally safe 

wildlife damage management methods, tools, and approaches. It is not 

anticipated that the CDM methods considered in this EA would result in any 

adverse or disproportionate environmental impacts to minority and low-income 

persons or populations. 

Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks (Executive 

Order 13045). Children may suffer disproportionately from environmental health 

and safety risks for many reasons. CDM as proposed in this EA would only 

involve legally available and approved damage management methods in situations 

or under circumstances where it is highly unlikely that children would be 

adversely affected. Therefore, implementation of CDM would not increase 

environmental health or safety risks to children. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

48 

CHAPTER 2: ISSUES 

2.0 INTRODUCTION 

Chapter 2 contains a discussion of the issues relevant to the analysis, including issues that 

will receive detailed environmental impact analysis in Chapter 4 (Environmental 

Consequences), issues that have driven the development of mitigation measures and/or 

standard operating procedures, and issues that will not be considered in detail, with 

rationale. 

2.1 SUMMARY OF ISSUES 

The following issues have been identified as areas of concern requiring consideration in 

this EA. These will be analyzed in detail in Chapter 4: 

• Effects on DCCO populations 

• Effects on other wildlife (and plant) species, including T&E species 

• Effects on human health and safety 

• Effects on aesthetic values 

• Humaneness and animal welfare concerns of the methods used 

• Impacts on recreation 

2.1.1 Effects on DCCO Populations 

A common concern among members of the public is whether wildlife damage 

management actions, in particular the use of lethal control and techniques like egg 

oiling that affect reproduction, will adversely affect the viability of DCCO 

populations. NEPA requires that Federal agencies consider the cumulative impacts of 

their proposed actions and other known impacts on the affected environment. 

Cumulative impacts on the regional DCCO population are addressed in the USFWS 

FEIS and impacts on DCCO populations in Ohio will be addressed in Chapter 4 of 

this EA. One impact on DCCO populations common to all the alternatives is the 

impact of disease. 

Impacts of West Nile Virus and Newcastle Disease on bird populations

West Nile Virus (WNV) has emerged in recent years in temperate regions of North 

America, with the first appearance of the virus in North America occurring in New 

York City in 1999 (MMWR 2002, Rappole et al. 2000). Since 1999 the virus has 

spread across the United States and was reported to occur in 44 states and the District 

of Columbia in 2002 (MMWR 2002). WNV is typically transmitted between birds 

and mosquitoes. The most serious manifestation of WNV is fatal encephalitis in 

humans, horses, and birds. WNV has been detected in at least 138 species, including 

DCCOs (CDC 2003). Although birds infected with WNV can die or become ill, most 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

49 

infected birds survive and may subsequently develop immunity to the virus (CDC 

2003, Cornell University 2003). In some bird species, particularly Corvids (crows, 

blue jays, ravens, magpies), the virus causes disease (often fatal) in a large percentage 

of infected birds (Audubon 2003, CDC 2003, Cornell University 2003, MMWR 

2002). In 2003, Ohio reported WNV in 79 of 88 counties, either in birds, mosquitoes, 

humans, or horses. Of the reports, 107 human and 106 horse cases were identified 

(OSU Extension Fact Sheet WNV-1000-04). Current data from the Center for Disease 

Control (CDC) indicates that birds have tested positive for WNV in 31 of 88 Ohio 

counties in 2005. Although DCCOs can be infected with WNV, they likely are not a 

major reservoir for the virus in Ohio and, at present, the ODH does not test DCCOs 

for WNV. 

Exotic Newcastle Disease

Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) is a contagious and fatal viral disease affecting all 

species of birds, including domestic poultry and wild birds. END is spread primarily 

through direct contact between healthy birds and the bodily discharges of infected 

birds. The disease is transmitted through infected birds’ droppings and secretions 

from the nose, mouth, and eyes. Following an outbreak of END on Lake of the 

Woods, Minnesota in the early 1990s, the DCCO population on the lake declined 

from approximately 4,800 pairs in 1989 to approximately 2,800 in 1997, but 

subsequently increased to just over 4,300 nesting pairs in 2004. This demonstrates 

the ability of DCCO populations to rebound from disease outbreaks such as END. At 

this time there have been no reports of END in Ohio. 

2.1.2 Effects on other Wildlife and Fish Species, Including Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

A common concern among members of the public and wildlife professionals, 

including the lead and cooperating agencies, is the impact of CDM methods and 

activities on non-target species, including T&E species. Of particular concern are the 

potential impacts on co-nesting colonial waterbirds (ie. great egrets, great blue 

herons, and black-crowned night-herons; Appendix D). Cormorant damage 

management may have a positive impact on co-nesting colonial waterbirds because it 

would reduce DCCO competition for nesting sites, or it could adversely affect other 

species through disturbance of nesting activities. The number of species nesting in 

each colony, their longevity and the stability of their populations are among the 

factors that are important to consider in assessing their overall contribution to 

waterbird conservation efforts in Ohio and the Great Lakes. Standard operating 

procedures (SOPs) for the EA (Chapter 3) include measures intended to mitigate or 

reduce the effects of CDM on non-target species populations. To reduce the risks of 

adverse effects to non-target species, the lead and cooperating agencies would select 

damage management methods that are as target-selective as practicable and apply 

CDM methods in ways which reduce the likelihood of disturbing, capturing or killing 

non-target species. The lead and cooperating agencies have agreed to consult with 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

50 

one another before undertaking DCCO control activities at any of the sites in Ohio 

where DCCOs co-nest with other colonial waterbirds. 

As part of the DCCO FEIS (USFWS 2003), the USFWS completed an Intra-Service 

Section 7 Biological Evaluation on the management of DCCOs in the United States. 

Of the federally-listed bird species in Ohio, only the piping plover and bald eagle are 

of potential concern as both are known to occur at or near potential control sites. 

However, the occurrence of piping plover in Ohio is rare due to low availability of 

suitable habitat. An Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation was conducted for 

CDM activities in Ohio. All conservation measures recommended by the USFWS for 

the protection of T&E species in the Ohio Intra-Service Section 7 Biological 

Evaluation have been incorporated into this final EA. State-listed species in the area 

where CDM activities could be conducted include the snowy egret and cattle egret. 

2.1.3 Effects on Human Health and Safety 

2.1.3.1 Effects on Human Health and Safety from CDM Methods 

Some people may be concerned that use of CDM methods, such as 

firearms and pyrotechnic scaring devices, could cause injuries to people. 

WS and ODW personnel occasionally use rifles and shotguns to remove or 

scare DCCOs that are causing damage. Shotguns may also be used on 

airports to scare or remove birds which pose a threat to aircraft or air 

passenger safety. WS frequently uses pyrotechnics in noise harassment 

programs to disperse or move birds away from an area. There is some 

potential fire hazard to agricultural sites and private property from 

pyrotechnic use. 

Firearm use is a very sensitive issue and a concern because of issues 

relating to the safety and potential misuse of firearms. To ensure safe use 

and firearms awareness, WS employees who use firearms to conduct 

official duties are required to attend an approved firearms safety and use 

training program within three months of their appointment and a refresher 

course every two years afterwards. Similarly, State wildlife officials will 

require their personnel to be properly trained in firearm safety before 

participating in CDM activities. WS 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 which prohibits 

firearm possession by anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor 

crime of domestic violence. 

 

2.1.3.2 Effects on Human Health and Safety from Not Conducting 

CDM 

The concern stated here is that the absence of adequate CDM would result 

in adverse effects on human health and safety, because DCCO damage 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

51 

would not be curtailed or reduced to the minimum levels possible and 

practical. The potential impacts of not conducting such work could lead to 

increased incidence of injuries, illness, or loss of human lives. These 

potential adverse effects are discussed in Section 1.5.5. 

2.1.4 Effects on Aesthetic Values 

Aesthetics is a philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, or the appreciation of 

beauty. Therefore, aesthetics is subjective in nature and depends on what an 

observer regards as beautiful. The human attraction to animals has been well 

documented throughout history and began when humans domesticated animals. 

Some members of the American public may consider individual wild animals and 

birds as “pets” or exhibit affection toward these animals, especially people who 

enjoy coming into contact with or viewing wildlife. Conversely, others may see 

the same species as a detriment to aesthetic values (e.g. droppings and damage to 

vegetation associated with large groups of DCCOs). Therefore, the public 

reaction to wildlife damage management is variable and mixed because there are 

numerous philosophical, aesthetic, and personal attitudes, values, and opinions 

about the aesthetic value of wildlife and the best ways to reduce 

conflicts/problems between humans and wildlife. 

Wildlife populations provide a range of social and economic benefits (Decker and 

Goff 1987). These include direct benefits related to consumptive and nonconsumptive use (e.g., wildlife-related recreation, observation, harvest), indirect 

benefits derived from vicarious wildlife related experiences (e.g., reading, 

television viewing), and the personal enjoyment of knowing wildlife exists and 

contributes to the natural ecosystems (e.g., ecological, existence, bequest values) 

(Bishop 1987). Direct benefits are derived from a user’s personal relationship to 

animals and may take the form of direct consumptive use (using the animal or 

intending to) or non-consumptive use (viewing the animal in nature or in a zoo, 

photography) (Decker and Goff 1987). Indirect benefits or indirect exercised 

values arise without the user being in direct contact with the animal and come 

from experiences such as looking at photographs and films of wildlife, reading 

about wildlife, or benefiting from activities or contributions of animals such as 

their use in research (Decker and Goff 1987). Indirect benefits come in two 

forms: bequest and pure existence (Decker and Goff 1987). Bequest is providing 

for future generations and pure existence is merely knowledge that the animals 

exist (Decker and Goff 1987). 

There is likely to be concern that CDM could result in the loss of aesthetic 

benefits to the public, resource owners, or neighboring residents. Potential 

impacts on aesthetic values include potential reductions in opportunities to view 

and enjoy DCCOs at specific sites where CDM is conducted, the potential that 

CDM might adversely affect co-nesting colonial waterbirds and reduce 

opportunities to view and enjoy these species, the risk that if left unmanaged, 

expanding DCCO populations may result in the elimination of some co-nesting 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

52 

colonial waterbirds from certain sites and adversely affect bird viewing 

opportunities, and impact of CDM activities on opportunities to enjoy certain 

fishery resources. 

There is also the possibility that increased volumes of DCCO droppings in water 

and on vegetation could decrease the aesthetic value of recreational areas. The 

highly acidic feces of DCCOs is detrimental to the survival of trees and other 

plant life. Based upon survey information provided by Wires et al. (2001), 

biologists in the Great Lakes region reported that DCCOs have an impact on 

herbaceous layers and trees. Impacts to trees were reported mainly due to guano 

deposition, and resulted in tree die off at breeding colonies and roost sites. The 

loss of trees and ground vegetation at the island and inland sites may be 

displeasing to many people. 

Additionally all of the DCCO colonies within the state are surrounded by public 

waters which receive significant recreational use. Boaters, swimmers and 

fisherman may all be affected by heightened levels of guano in the water. 

 

2.1.5 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns of Methods Used by WS 

DCCO control methods, especially lethal control, may raise issues about 

humaneness and animal welfare. The issue of humaneness and animal welfare, as 

it relates to the killing or capturing of wildlife is an important but very complex 

concept that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Schmidt (1989) indicated 

that vertebrate pest damage management for societal benefits could be compatible 

with animal welfare concerns, if " . . . the reduction of pain, suffering, and 

unnecessary death is incorporated in the decision making process." 

Suffering is described as a " . . . highly unpleasant emotional response usually 

associated with pain and distress.” However, suffering " . . . can occur without 

pain . . . ,” and “. . . pain can occur without suffering . . .” (AVMA 1987). 

Because suffering carries with it the implication of a time frame, a case could be 

made for " . . . little or no suffering where death comes immediately . . .” (CDFG 

1991), thus shooting with firearms would generally meet this criteria. 

Defining pain as a component in humaneness of WS methods appears to be a 

greater challenge than that of suffering. Pain obviously occurs in animals. 

Altered physiology and behavior can be indicators of pain, and identifying the 

causes that elicit pain responses in humans would " . . . probably be causes for 

pain in other animals . . .” (AVMA 1987). However, pain experienced by 

individual animals probably ranges from little or no pain to considerable pain 

(CDFG 1991). 

Pain and suffering, as it relates to WS damage management methods, has both a 

professional and lay point of arbitration. Wildlife managers and the public would 

be better served to recognize the complexity of defining suffering, since " . . . 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

53 

neither medical [n]or veterinary curricula explicitly address suffering or its relief” 

(CDFG 1991). 

Therefore, humaneness, in part, appears to be a person's perception of harm or 

pain inflicted on an animal, and people may perceive the humaneness of an action 

differently. The challenge in coping with this issue is how to achieve the least 

amount of animal suffering within the constraints imposed by current technology 

and funding. 

2.1.6 Effects of Carcass Disposal 

Some individuals may be concerned about the fate of DCCO carcasses and about 

the impacts of carcass disposal on soil, water and air (odor) quality. 

2.1.7 Effects of CDM on Recreation 

Both Green Island and WSI are closed to public access, but sport fishing and 

pleasure boating are popular activities in the surrounding area. CDM on and 

around the islands could affect boaters with noise from firearms or pyrotechnics. 

Additionally, boat traffic could be temporarily prohibited near the islands during 

shooting operations. USFWS, ODW, and WS could plan for operations to occur 

at dates and times when recreational watercraft numbers are lowest on the lake. 

It is also possible that increased volumes of DCCO droppings in water and on 

vegetation could decrease the aesthetic value of recreational areas. The highly 

acidic feces of DCCOs are detrimental to the survival of trees and other plant life. 

Based upon survey information provided by Wires et al. (2001), biologists in the 

Great Lakes region reported DCCOs as having an impact to herbaceous layers and 

trees. Impacts to trees were reported mainly from guano deposition, and resulted 

in tree die off at breeding colonies and roost sites. The loss of trees and ground 

vegetation at the island and inland sites may be displeasing to many people. 

Additionally, all of the DCCO colonies within the state are surrounded by public 

waters which receive significant recreational use. Boaters, swimmers and anglers 

may all be affected by heightened levels of guano in the water. 

If no control is conducted, boaters may observe fewer species and numbers of 

colonial waterbirds and/or increased degradation of island vegetation. The 

potential aesthetic loss of colonial waterbird species is discussed in section 2.1.4. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

54 

2.2 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE 

2.2.1 Impacts on Biodiversity 

The proposed program does not attempt to eradicate any native species of 

wildlife. Any CDM actions would be conducted in accordance with international, 

Federal and State laws, and regulations enacted to ensure species viability. 

Effects on target and non-target species populations because of WS’ lethal CDM 

activities are minor, as shown in Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, and therefore will not 

result in significant nationwide or statewide impacts on biodiversity (USDA 1997, 

Revised). 

2.2.2 A “Threshold of Loss” Should Be Established Before Allowing Any 

Lethal CDM 

WS is aware that some people feel Federal wildlife damage management should 

not be allowed until economic losses reach an arbitrary predetermined threshold. 

Such policy, however, would be difficult or inappropriate to apply to human 

health and safety situations. Although some damage can be tolerated by most 

resource owners, resource owners and situations differ widely and a set of wildlife 

damage thresholds would be difficult to determine or justify. WS has the legal 

authority and direction to respond to requests for assistance, and it is program 

policy to aid each requester to minimize losses. WS uses the Decision Model 

thought process discussed in Chapter 3 to determine appropriate strategies. 

In a ruling for Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, et al. vs. Hugh Thompson, 

Forest Supervisor for the Dixie National Forest, et al., the United States District 

Court of Utah denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. In part the 

court found that a forest supervisor needs only show that damage from wildlife is 

threatened to establish a need for wildlife damage management (Civil No. 92-C0052A January 20, 1993). Thus, there is judicial precedence indicating that it is 

not necessary to establish a criterion such as percentage of loss of a particular 

resource to justify the need for wildlife damage management actions. 

2.2.3 Cormorant Conflict Management as proposed in the preferred 

alternative is contrary to the purpose and mission of a National Wildlife 

Refuge and Wilderness area. 

WSI is a Federal Wilderness Area and National Wildlife Refuge. Some 

individuals may be concerned that the CDM allowed under the Preferred 

Alternative would compromise the wilderness characteristics of the site. Others 

may feel that a National Wildlife Refuge should be a sanctuary for all species and 

that it is inconsistent with the purpose of a “refuge’ to allow the killing of 

DCCOs. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

55 

WSI was designated a migratory bird refuge in 1937 to protect the heron rookery 

located there, and designated as a Federal wilderness in 1975 primarily because of 

its value as a heron and egret rookery. The USFWS, National Wildlife Refuge 

System, draft Wilderness Stewardship Policy Part 610 establishes a Nondegradation Principle (USFWS 2000b). This concept specifies that, at the time of 

wilderness designation, the conditions prevailing in an area establish a benchmark 

of that area’s wilderness values, and that the USFWS will not allow these 

conditions to be degraded. Securing “an enduring resource of wilderness” by 

maintaining and restoring, where appropriate, a wilderness area’s biological 

integrity, diversity, environmental health, and wilderness character is one of the 

key guiding principles for wilderness management established by the USFWS 

(2000). 

The CCP for the Refuge establishes a number of wildlife and habitat goals 

including: 1) a wildlife management goal to preserve and protect the largest 

wading bird colony within the Great Lakes ecosystem in accordance with the 

national wilderness designation; and 2) a habitat management goal to provide 

habitat conditions favorable to colonial nesting wading birds without 

compromising the wilderness integrity (USFWS 2000a). The habitat 

management goal included an objective of maintaining nesting habitat for 

approximately 1,000 great blue herons, 800 great egrets, 500 black-crowned 

night-herons and 1,500 DCCOs (1998 population levels). 

The WSI population of breeding DCCOs exceeded the CCP management goal in 

1999 and has continued to increase (Figure 1-3). However, as discussed in 

Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.6.1, the increasing DCCO population appears to be having 

a negative effect on the vegetation at WSI which is essential habitat for the great 

blue herons, great egrets and black-crowned night-herons on the refuge. 

Observations of vegetation damage on WSI, and the results of high DCCO 

nesting populations on Middle Island and East Sister Island, have led the lead and 

cooperating agencies to conclude that allowing current high or increasing 

numbers of DCCOs to persist on the refuge without some level of management 

will ultimately result in decreased habitat quality for herons and egrets and may 

ultimately result in a decline in the ecological health and biodiversity of the 

refuge. Reducing the density of breeding DCCOs at WSI to between 1,500 and 

2,000 pairs will meet the CCP objectives for the DCCO population and allow the 

refuge to meet its management goals for herons and egrets. The USFWS 

Wilderness Area Management Policy allows for the inclusion of wildlife damage 

management in Wilderness Management Plans (6 RM 8). 

WSI is closed to the public, so the Preferred Alternative will not adversely impact 

the public’s recreational use of the site. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

56 

2.2.4 There are effective mechanisms in place to address DCCO damage to 

property and aquaculture facilities and to reduce risks from DCCOs 

at airports. There is no need to expand DCCO removals for these 

issues. 

CDM activities have been conducted in the state prior to the completion of this 

EA. The anticipated level of take for management of DCCO damage to property, 

aquaculture and DCCO related risks to human health and safety is not anticipated 

to change from the current level if the preferred alternative is adopted (See 

description of alternatives in Chapter 3 and anticipated DCCO take in Section 

4.1.1). The EA analyzes the environmental impacts of alternatives for managing 

all types of DCCO damage to provide a cumulative impact analysis for all CDM 

in Ohio and to allow the agencies to review and reconsider alternatives for 

existing CDM programs. CDM activities are only conducted when a need for 

action has been confirmed and only at the location where the damage is occurring. 

The EA does not propose or anticipate broad-scale statewide reductions in DCCO 

numbers. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

57 

CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 

3.0 INTRODUCTION 

Alternatives were developed for consideration using the WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 

1992); Appendix J (“Methods of Control”), Appendix N (“Examples of WS Decision 

Model”), and Appendix P (“Risk Assessment of Wildlife Damage Control Methods Used 

by USDA, Wildlife Services Program”) of the WS FEIS (USDA 1997, Revised); and 

Appendix 4 (“Management Techniques”) of the USFWS DCCO FEIS (USFWS 2003). 

Agency Decisions 

These alternatives describe the actions available to the USFWS Migratory Bird Office 

(issuing permits and oversight of the PRDO), the USFWS WSI National Wilderness Area 

and Wildlife Refuge (DCCO management at WSI) and WS (involvement in CDM). 

Although the lead and cooperating agencies have worked together to produce a joint 

document and intend to collaborate on CDM in Ohio, each of the lead agencies will be 

making its own decision on the alternative to be selected in accordance with the standard 

practices and legal requirements pertaining to each agency’s decision making process. 

Although the agencies make independent decisions, the decisions made by one agency 

can restrict the actions taken by the other agencies. For example, if the USFWS 

Migratory Bird Office and WS selected an alternative that allowed for non-lethal and 

lethal CDM techniques, but WSI selected an alternative that only allowed for non-lethal 

methods, then WS would only use non-lethal methods at WSI but could use non-lethal 

and lethal techniques at other locations in the state. Alternatively, if the USFWS 

Migratory Bird Office and WSI chose an alternative that allowed for non-lethal and lethal 

CDM techniques, but WS selected a non-lethal only alternative, then WS could help with 

non-lethal CDM, but lethal CDM could only be conducted at WSI with the assistance of 

ODW. Selection of a non-lethal only alternative by WS would also prevent WS from 

conducting the consultations and completing the forms required by the USFWS before 

issuing a MBP. Therefore it would not be possible to obtain a MBP for CDM. Details on 

the relationships among agency decisions are provided in Appendix E. 

For simplicity and clarity of analysis, each of the alternatives below is described and its 

impacts are analyzed as if the lead agencies had selected the same alternative. 

3.1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

Alternatives analyzed in detail are: 

• Alternative 1 - Integrated CDM Program, Including Implementation of the PRDO 

(Preferred Alternative). 

• Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

58 

• Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies 

• Alternative 4 – No CDM by Federal Agencies. 

• Alternative 5 – Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the 

PRDO (No Action). This is the “No Action” alternative as defined 

by the Council on Environmental Quality 

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES 

3.2.1 Alternative 1. Integrated CDM Including Implementation of the 

PRDO (Preferred Alternative) 

The lead and cooperating agencies propose to implement an integrated CDM 

program in the State of Ohio, including working under the PRDO and MBPs. An 

integrated wildlife damage management (IWDM) approach would be 

implemented to reduce DCCO damage to and conflicts with public resources, 

aquaculture, property, and human health and safety. The IWDM strategy would 

encompass the use and recommendation of practical and effective methods of 

preventing or reducing damage while minimizing harmful effects of damage 

management measures on humans, target and non-target species, and the 

environment. Under this action, the lead and cooperating agencies could provide 

technical assistance and direct operational damage management, including nonlethal and lethal management methods by applying the WS Decision Model (Slate 

et al. 1992). When appropriate, physical exclusion, habitat modification, nest 

destruction, or harassment would be recommended and utilized to reduce damage. 

In other situations, birds would be removed through use of shooting, egg 

oiling/addling/destruction, or euthanasia following live capture. In determining 

the damage management strategy, preference would be given to practical and 

effective non-lethal methods. However, non-lethal methods may not always be 

applied as a first response to each damage problem. The most appropriate 

response could often be a combination of non-lethal and lethal methods, or there 

could be instances where the application of lethal methods alone would be the 

most appropriate strategy. The primary strength of this alternative and the IWDM 

approach is that it allows for access to the full range of CDM techniques when 

developing site specific management plans. However, under this alternative, the 

lead and cooperating agencies could decide to only use a subset of the possible 

CDM methods for the management of DCCO damage at a specific site. For 

example, it would be possible to use only non-lethal techniques at specific sites. 

Double-crested cormorant conflict management activities would be conducted in 

the State, when requested and funded, on private or public property, after 

receiving permission from the landowner/land manager. All management 

activities would comply with appropriate Federal, State, and local laws. The 

USFWS would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the PRDO and MBPs 

and that the long-term sustainability of regional DCCO populations is not 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

59 

threatened. Selection of this alternative by any of the agencies would not restrict 

the management options available to the other agencies. 

Lake Erie: If this alternative is selected, the agencies would work to meet the 

management objectives set in Section 1.5.6.3 as quickly as possible (likely a one 

to three year period). Consideration will be given to non-lethal techniques such as 

hazing to encourage the DCCOs to move to other areas (not on Lake Erie islands). 

Hazing could also be used to discourage high densities of migrating DCCOs from 

remaining in areas where they may contribute to damage to public resources. 

However, experience of the cooperating agencies indicates that lethal techniques 

would also be needed to adequately reduce the number of birds nesting on Lake 

Erie. Carcasses of DCCOs killed at WSI would be disposed of in a composting 

facility on WSI. Carcasses of DCCOs killed for reduction of damage to public 

resources on the other Lake Erie islands and near shore areas would be disposed 

of in a composting facility built on Green Island. Both composting facilities 

would be built and maintained in accordance with Ohio Division of Soil and 

Water (ODSW) requirements. Personnel from ODW and ONWR would be 

specifically trained in the design and maintenance of these facilities by the OSUE. 

Carcasses from other CDM activities would be disposed of in landfills in 

accordance with State and Federal regulations. 

3.2.2 Alternative 2. Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies 

Under this alternative, the Federal agencies would only use and permit non-lethal 

techniques for DCCO management. WS would not assist with the site evaluations 

and completion of WS Form 37 required by the USFWS for a MBP. The USFWS 

would not issue MBPs for lethal techniques to resolve conflicts with DCCOs. 

Permits are not required from the USFWS for non-lethal CDM techniques. 

Entities requesting CDM assistance for damage concerns from the lead and 

cooperating agencies would only be provided information and assistance with 

non-lethal methods such as harassment, empty nest destruction, resource 

management, exclusionary devices, or habitat alteration. Depending upon which 

agency(ies) select this alternative, information on lethal CDM methods could still 

be available through sources such as USDA Agricultural Extension Service 

offices, USFWS, ODW, universities, or pest control organizations. 

The USFWS FEIS on DCCO management permits PRDO actions that will result 

in the take of less than 10% of the local DCCO population (USFWS 2003). 

Decisions made by the USFWS in this EA cannot affect this type of CDM action 

on non-Federal land. The ODW would use lethal methods to take up to 10% of 

local DCCO in combination with non-lethal methods to try and meet management 

goals (Section 1.5.6.3) at all sites under its jurisdiction (i.e., not at WSINWR). 

Only non-lethal methods could be used for CDM at WSINWR because Federal 

agency (USFWS) approval would be needed to work there. Overall management 

goals for the Lake Erie islands and near shore areas would be as described for 

Alternative 1. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

60 

3.2.3 Alternative 3. Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies 

The lead and cooperating agencies considered two ways to design this alternative. 

In one design, the Federal agencies would not conduct operational CDM, but all 

permitting including giving other agencies (ODW) permission to work on Federal 

lands would be considered a form of technical assistance and would be allowed. 

Impacts of this alternative would have been similar to Alternative 1 and would 

have provided little new information. In the second design, the Federal agencies 

would not conduct operational CDM and would not permit CDM on Federal 

lands. The agencies selected this design for the EA because it allowed 

consideration of the impacts of an intermediate level of CDM not analyzed in any 

of the other alternatives and also allowed the agencies to consider the impacts of 

having CDM conducted at some but not all sites that were under consideration in 

Alternative 1. Analysis of the second design of this alternative also gave the 

agencies the opportunity to address concerns of individuals opposed to CDM on a 

National Wildlife Refuge (See Section 2.2.3). 

Under this alternative, the Federal agencies would not be able to conduct 

operational CDM in Ohio, and would only provide technical assistance. WS 

would be able to assist with site evaluations and completion of WS Form 37 

documents required by the USFWS for MBPs. Issuing permits is a type of 

technical assistance, so the USFWS would still be able to issue MBPs and grant 

approval for PRDO projects anticipated to take more than 10% of local DCCO 

population. However, operational CDM would not be conducted on Federal lands 

(e.g., WSINWR). Cormorant conflict management for the protection of public 

resources on the remaining Lake Erie islands and near shore areas and the inland 

colonies could only be conducted by ODW and would be the same as described 

for Alternative 1. WS would not be involved in operational CDM. 

3.2.4 Alternative 4. No CDM by Federal Agencies 

Under this alternative, the Federal agencies would not participate in CDM. WS 

would not conduct the consultations or complete the forms required by the 

USFWS to issue MBPs and the USFWS would not issue MBPs. Non-lethal CDM 

techniques could still be used without a permit. Depending upon the agency(ies) 

to select this alternative, information on CDM methods would still be available 

through other sources such as USDA Agricultural Extension Service offices, 

USFWS, ODW, universities, or pest control organizations. 

As with Alternative 2, the USFWS would not grant approval for actions 

conducted under the PRDO that propose the take of more than 10% of the local 

DCCO population. The selection of this alternative by the USFWS would not 

affect ODW’s use of lethal CDM methods under the PRDO that would result in 

the take of less than 10% of the local population. The ODW has made it clear that 

it would use lethal methods to take less than 10% of local DCCO in combination 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

61 

with non-lethal methods to try and meet management goals (Section 1.5.6.3) at all 

sites under its jurisdiction (i.e., not at WSINWR). No CDM would be conducted 

at WSINWR because Federal agency (USFWS) approval would be needed for 

any activities at that location. 

3.2.5 Alternative 5. - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation 

of the PRDO (No Action) 

As defined by the CEQ, the no action alternative can be interpreted as the 

continuation of current CDM practices. None of the action agencies have taken 

action under the PRDO, so the USFWS would not conduct/authorize CDM under 

the PRDO. CDM could still be conducted under MBPs and WS could provide 

technical and operational assistance with CDM conducted under MBPs. 

Migratory Bird Permits could be requested and issued for the reduction of DCCO 

impacts on sensitive species or their habitats (e.g., vegetation), but, with the 

exception of research projects, would generally not be issued for birds taking freeswimming fish from public waters. MBPs would be issued for damage to private 

property and for alleviation of human health and safety issues. 

The management goals set for this EA were established to protect vegetation and 

co-nesting birds, so overall objectives for the Lake Erie islands and near shore 

areas will be the same as described for Alternative 1. WSINWR could grant 

approval for CDM conducted under MBPs. 

3.3 CDM STRATEGIES AND METHODOLOGIES 

3.3.1 Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM) 

The most effective approach to resolve wildlife damage is to integrate the use of 

several methods simultaneously or sequentially. The philosophy behind IWDM is 

to implement the best combination of effective management methods in a costeffective manner while minimizing the potentially harmful effects on DCCO 

populations, humans, non-target species, and the environment. IWDM may 

incorporate cultural practices (e.g., fish husbandry), habitat modification (e.g., 

exclusion, vegetation management), animal behavior modification (e.g., scaring, 

roost dispersal), and removal of individual offending animals (e.g., shooting, live 

capture and euthanasia), local population reduction (e.g., shooting and nest and 

egg destruction), or any combination of these. 

The IWDM approach proposed by the lead and cooperating agencies involves the 

use of four general strategies for addressing DCCO damage: 

• Technical Assistance Recommendations 

“Technical assistance” as used herein is information, demonstrations, and 

advice on available and appropriate wildlife damage management methods. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

62 

The implementation of damage management actions is the responsibility of 

the requester. In some cases, WS provides supplies or materials that are of 

limited availability for non-WS entities to use. Technical assistance may be 

provided through a personal or telephone consultation, or during an on-site 

visit with the requester. Generally, several management strategies are 

described to the requester for short and long-term solutions to damage 

problems; these strategies are based on the level of risk, need, and the 

practicality of their application. 

Under USDA and APHIS NEPA implementing regulations and specific 

guidance for the WS program, WS technical assistance is categorically 

excluded from the need to prepare an EA or EIS. However, it is discussed in 

this EA because it is an important component of the IWDM approach to 

resolving DCCO damage problems. 

• Direct Damage Management Assistance 

This is the implementation or supervision of CDM activities. Direct damage 

management assistance may be initiated when the problem cannot effectively 

be resolved through technical assistance alone. When conducted by WS direct 

damage management assistance is not conducted until Agreements for Control 

or other comparable documents are completed which detail the type of CDM 

assistance to be provided and the methods to be used. The initial investigation 

defines the nature, history, extent of the problem, species responsible for the 

damage, and methods that would be available to resolve the problem. 

Professional skills of trained damage management personnel are often 

required to effectively resolve problems, especially if restricted-use chemicals 

are necessary, or if the problems are complex. 

• Educational Efforts 

Education is an important element of CDM because wildlife damage 

management is about finding balance and coexistence between the needs of 

people and wildlife. This is extremely challenging as nature has no balance, 

but rather, is continually in flux. In addition to the routine dissemination of 

recommendations and information to individuals or organizations with DCCO 

damage, lectures, courses, and demonstrations are provided to aquaculture 

producers, homeowners, state and county agents, colleges and universities, 

and other interested groups. The lead and cooperating agencies frequently 

work together in education and public information efforts. Additionally, 

technical papers are presented at professional meetings and conferences so 

that wildlife professionals and the public are updated on recent developments 

in damage management technology, programs, laws and regulations, and 

agency policies. 

 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

63 

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 3-1. WS decision Model 

• Research and Development 

The lead and all cooperating agencies are all involved in research efforts 

relating to DCCO biology, the impact of DCCOs on fisheries, wildlife and 

other natural resources, and CDM techniques. The lead and cooperating 

agencies also cooperate and exchange information with universities and other 

agencies and entities conducting DCCO research. Research findings are used 

to clarify the need for action, refine management objectives and improve the 

methods and strategies used to address DCCO damage. 

3.3.2 Decision Making 

WS personnel use a thought process for 

evaluating and responding to damage complaints 

that is depicted by the WS Decision Model 

described by Slate et al. (1992) (Figure 3-1). The 

Decision Model is not a written documented 

process, but a mental problem-solving process 

similar to that used by all wildlife management 

professionals including those in the lead and 

cooperating agencies when addressing a wildlife 

damage problem. Trained 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. If the strategy is effective, the need 

for further management is ended. In terms of the 

WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992), most 

damage management efforts consist of continuous 

feedback between receiving the request and 

monitoring the results of the damage management 

strategy. 

3.3.3 Cormorant Conflict Management Methods Available for Use (See 

Appendix 4 of USFWS FEIS (USFWS 2003) for detailed description of 

methods) 

3.3.3.1 Non-lethal Methods 

Agricultural producer and property owner practices consist primarily of 

non-lethal preventative methods such as cultural methods and habitat 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

64 

modification. Examples of habitat modification include the removal of 

nesting trees or nesting materials. 

Animal behavior modification refers to tactics that alter the behavior of 

birds or disperse birds to reduce damages. Some, but not all, of these 

tactics include: 

• Exclusion methods such as netting, 

• Propane exploders (to scare birds), 

• Pyrotechnics (to scare birds), 

• Distress calls and sound producing devices (to scare birds), 

• Visual repellents and scaring tactics (to scare birds), 

• Lasers (to scare birds), 

• Scarecrows, and 

• Nest destruction before eggs or young are in the nest. 

Dispersal of DCCOs from day/night roosts or from breeding/nesting sites 

utilizing propane exploders, pyrotechnics, distress calls/sound producing 

devices, visual repellants or scarecrows may help to limit or reduce DCCO 

activity in the area where damage is occurring. 

Lasers are a non-lethal technique recently evaluated by USDA’s National 

Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) (Blackwell et al. 2002, Glahn et al. 

2000a). The low-powered laser has proven to be effective in dispersing a 

variety of bird species in a number of different environments. The lowpowered laser is most effective before dawn or after dusk when the red 

beam of the laser is clearly visible. Bright sunlight will "wash out" the 

laser light, rendering it ineffective. Although researchers are not sure 

whether birds see the same red spot as people, it is clear that certain bird 

species elicit an avoidance response in reaction to the laser. The birds 

appear to view the light as a physical object or predator coming toward 

them and generally fly away to escape. Research, however, has shown 

that the effectiveness of low-powered lasers varies depending on the bird 

species and the context of the application. Lasers have been used to startle 

DCCOs under low-light conditions (Wires et al 2001, Hatch and Weseloh 

1999, and McKay et. al 1999). 

3.3.3.2 Lethal Methods 

Egg addling/destruction is the practice of destroying the embryo in the egg 

prior to hatching; physically breaking eggs; or directly removing eggs 

from a nest and destroying them. 

Egg oiling is a method for suppressing reproduction of birds by spraying a 

small quantity of food grade vegetable/corn oil on eggs in nests. This 

method has an advantage over egg destruction in that birds generally 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

65 

continue incubating the eggs and do not renest. The EPA has ruled that 

the use of corn oil for this purpose is exempt from registration 

requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide 

Act. 

Live traps/nets are various types of traps designed to capture birds alive. 

Cormorants captured in live traps, nets, or by hand would be humanely 

euthanized. 

Shooting is an effective dispersal technique and a way to reduce bird 

numbers. Shooting with rifles or shotguns is sometimes used to manage 

DCCO damage problems when lethal methods are determined to be 

appropriate. At many locations, the use of a .22 caliber rifle equipped 

with a silencer is the only practical method of removing DCCOs without 

spooking them or having a negative effect on other birds that are protected 

under Federal law. This is the situation at Lake Erie. CDM programs in 

other parts of the United States and Canada have been experimenting with 

other types of firearms and ammunition as alternatives for minimizing 

impacts on non-target species near DCCOs. As data become available, 

new shooting strategies will be incorporated as practical and appropriate 

(e.g., legal for use in Ohio). Birds are killed as quickly and humanely as 

possible. Shooting can be helpful in some situations to supplement and 

reinforce other dispersal techniques. It almost never results in the death of 

non-target species and may be used in conjunction with the use of 

spotlights and decoys. 

Cervical dislocation is an American Veterinary Medical Association 

(AVMA) approved euthanasia method (Beaver et al. 2001) which is 

sometimes used to euthanize birds which are captured by hand or in live 

traps/nets. The bird is stretched and the neck is hyper-extended and 

dorsally twisted to separate the first cervical vertebrae from the skull. The 

AVMA approves this technique as a humane method of euthanasia and 

states that cervical dislocation when properly executed is a humane 

technique for euthanasia of poultry and other small birds (Beaver et al. 

2001). Cervical dislocation is a technique that may induce rapid 

unconsciousness, does not chemically contaminate tissue, and can be 

quickly accomplished (Beaver et al. 2001). 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas is an AVMA approved euthanasia method 

(Beaver et al. 2001) which is sometimes used to euthanize birds captured 

in live traps/nets or by hand. Live birds are placed in a container or 

chamber into which CO2 gas is released. The birds quickly die after 

inhaling the gas. CO2 gas is a byproduct of animal respiration, is common 

in the atmosphere, and is required by plants for photosynthesis. It is used 

to carbonate beverages for human consumption and is also the gas 

released by dry ice. The use of CO2 by WS for euthanasia purposes is 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

66 

exceedingly minor and inconsequential relative to the amounts used for 

other purposes by society. 

3.3.3.3 Composting 

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversees solid waste 

disposal in the state. In consultations with the Ohio EPA (A. Shockley 

2005) it was determined that, considering the isolation of the composting 

sites on the islands, and the frequency (or lack thereof) that carcasses 

would be added, the proposed composting facilities are more like a farm 

animal composting operation than a solid waste disposal facility regulated 

by the Ohio EPA. Farm animal composting in Ohio falls under the 

regulation of the Ohio Division of Soil and Water, and the agency’s sole 

requirement is that the people who do the composting become certified by 

the Ohio State University Extension Agency. Staff from ODW and the 

ONWR would be appropriately trained in the construction and 

maintenance of the composting facilities proposed for use in this EA. The 

compost would not be distributed off site but would remain on the island. 

The initial plans are for one compost area per island (4.5m long, 2.5m 

wide and 1.5m tall) sectioned into four sub-areas with each sub-area used 

every four years. 

3.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

WITH RATIONALE 

3.4.1 Lethal CDM Only 

Agency(ies) selecting this alternative would not use non-lethal techniques for 

CDM. This alternative was eliminated from further analysis because some DCCO 

damage problems can be resolved effectively through non-lethal means and at 

times lethal methods may not be available for use due to safety concerns or local 

ordinances prohibiting the use of some lethal methods, such as the discharge of 

firearms. 

3.4.2 Compensation for DCCO Damage Losses 

The compensation alternative would require the establishment of a system to 

reimburse persons affected by DCCO damage. This alternative was eliminated 

from further analysis because no Federal or State laws currently exist to authorize 

such action. Under such an alternative, WS would not provide any direct control 

or technical assistance. Aside from lack of legal authority, analysis of this 

alternative in the WS FEIS indicated that the concept has many drawbacks 

(USDA 1997, Revised): 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

67 

• It would require larger expenditures of money and labor to investigate and 

validate all damage claims and determine and administer appropriate 

compensation. A compensation program would likely cost several times as 

much as the current program. 

• Compensation would most likely be below full market value. It is difficult 

to make timely responses to all requests to assess and confirm damage, 

and certain types of damage could not be conclusively verified. 

• Compensation would give little incentive to resource owners to limit 

damage through improved cultural, husbandry, or other practices and 

management strategies. 

• Not all resource owners would rely completely on a compensation 

program and lethal control would most likely continue as permitted by 

Federal and State law. 

• Compensation would not be practical for reducing threats to human health 

and safety or damage to public resources. 

 

3.4.3 Non-lethal Methods Implemented Before Lethal Methods 

 

This alternative is similar to Alternative 1 except that WS personnel would be 

required to always recommend or use non-lethal methods prior to recommending 

or using lethal methods to reduce DCCO damage. Both technical assistance and 

direct damage management would be provided in the context of a modified 

IWDM approach. The Preferred Alternative recognizes non-lethal methods as an 

important dimension of IWDM, gives them first consideration in the formulation 

of each management strategy, and recommends or uses them when practical 

before recommending or using lethal methods. The important distinction between 

the Non-lethal-Methods-First Alternative and the Proposed Alternative is that the 

former alternative would require that all non-lethal methods be used before any 

lethal methods are recommended or used. 

 

While the humaneness of the non-lethal management methods under this 

alternative would be comparable to the Proposed Program Alternative, the extra 

harassment caused by the required use of methods that may be ineffective could 

be considered less humane and may unduly disturb co-nesting species. As local 

bird populations increase, the number of areas negatively affected by birds would 

likely increase and greater numbers of birds would be expected to congregate at 

sites where non-lethal management efforts were not effective. This may 

ultimately result in a greater number of birds being killed to reduce damage than 

if lethal management were immediately implemented at problem locations 

(Manuwal 1989). Once lethal measures were implemented, DCCO damage 

would be expected to drop relative to the reduction in localized populations of 

birds causing damage. 

 

Since in many situations this alternative would result in greater numbers of 

DCCOs being killed to reduce damage, at a greater cost to the requester, and 

result in a delay of reducing damage in comparison to the Proposed Alternative, 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

68 

the Non-lethal-Methods -First Alternative is removed from further discussion in 

this document. 

 

 

3.5 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOPs) FOR CDM 

 

The current WS program, nationwide and in Ohio, uses many SOPs to increase the safety 

of and decrease or prevent negative impacts from wildlife damage management actions. 

These measures are discussed in detail in Chapter 5 of the ADC FEIS (USDA 1997, 

Revised) and Chapter 4 of the DCCO FEIS (USFWS 2003). 

3.5.1 Standard Operating Procedures 

Some key SOPs pertinent to the Preferred Alternative and the other alternatives 

that will be incorporated into CDM activities, depending upon the alternative 

selected, include: 

• A Decision Model thought process like the WS Decision Model (USDA 

1997, Revised) will be used to identify effective wildlife damage 

management strategies and their effects. 

• Reasonable and prudent measures or alternatives to avoid averse affects on 

threatened and endangered species are identified through consultation with 

the USFWS and implemented to avoid effects to threatened and 

endangered species. 

• Research is being conducted to improve CDM methods and strategies so 

as to increase selectivity for target species, to develop effective non-lethal 

control methods, and to evaluate non-target hazards and environmental 

effects. 

• When used in accordance with WS procedures and policies, the risk of 

adverse impacts on public safety and hazard to the environment from the 

proposed CDM methods have been determined to be low according to a 

formal risk assessment (USDA 1997 Revised, Appendix P). Where such 

activities are conducted on private lands or other lands of restricted public 

access, the risk of hazards to the public is even further reduced. 

• Agents acting under the authority of the lead and cooperating agencies (50 

CFR 21.48(c)(2)) will be informed and trained in the safe and proper use 

of CDM methods including applicable laws and regulations authorizing 

use of these methods. 

3.5.2 Standard Operating Procedures Specific to the Issues 

The following is a summary of additional SOPs that are specific to the issues 

listed in Chapter 2 of this document. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

69 

Effects on Target Species Populations

• CDM activities are directed at resolving DCCO damage problems by 

taking action against individual problem birds, or local populations or 

groups, not by attempting to eradicate populations in the entire area or 

region. 

• DCCO take is monitored by comparing numbers of birds killed with 

overall populations or trends in populations to assure that the magnitude of 

take is maintained below the level that would threaten the long-term 

sustainability of regional DCCO populations (See Chapter 4). 

• To avoid adverse impacts on DCCO populations, the lead and cooperating 

agencies will abide by the terms and conditions of the PRDO (50 CFR 

21.48) and USFWS migratory bird permits issued for the management and 

control of DCCO damage and conflicts, including, but not limited to, 

reporting on an annual basis the number of nests in which eggs were oiled 

or destroyed and the number of DCCOs killed. 

• In certain circumstances when conducting control activities in DCCO 

breeding colonies, WS and ODW is required to notify the USFWS prior to 

conducting control activities with the approximate number of DCCOs that 

may be killed under the proposed project (50 CFR 21.48(d)(9)). The 

USFWS will review this advanced notification to determine if the 

proposed project would threaten the long-term sustainability of regional 

DCCO populations. 

• When shooting nesting DCCOs, WS and ODW will attempt to remove 

both breeding adults from a specific nest to prevent the possibility of 

renesting. 

• Every attempt will be made to cease killing of breeding adult DCCOs by 

the time of chick hatching so that young are not left to starve or be preyed 

upon at the nest. 

• If determined practical and effective, egg oiling and shooting of DCCOs 

will target different nests or areas of a colony to maximize effectiveness 

and minimize the potential for renesting. 

 

Effects on Non-target Species Populations Including T&E Species

• WS and ODW personnel are trained and experienced to select the most 

appropriate method for taking problem animals and excluding non-targets. 

• Observations of birds in areas that are associated with DCCO 

concentrations are made to determine if non-target or threatened and 

endangered species (Federal or State Listed) would be at risk from CDM 

activities. 

• As appropriate, management actions taken in mixed-species waterbird 

colonies would be conducted in such a manner to avoid or minimize 

impacts to non-target species (i.e. visiting sites during early morning and 

late afternoon hours to avoid thermal stress to eggs/nestlings, conducting 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

70 

actions as early as possible in the nesting season to reduce nestling 

abandonment, etc.). 

• Egg oiling will only be used for ground and shrub nesting DCCOs to 

minimize disturbances to co-nesting colonial waterbird species. 

• Where appropriate, egg oiling activities will take place during night hours 

to minimize potential impacts to co-nesting colonial waterbird species. 

However, WS and ODW will not conduct such activities during night 

hours if it is determined unsafe to do so. 

• When shooting DCCOs in breeding colonies, WS will use the smallest 

caliber firearm that is effective and will use noise-suppressed firearms 

(silencers) as deemed appropriate to minimize repeated disturbances to conesting colonial waterbird species. 

• The retrieval of DCCO carcasses will be completed at such intervals and 

times of day that will cause the least amount of disturbances to co-nesting 

colonial waterbird species. 

• WS and ODW have consulted with the USFWS regarding potential effects 

of control methods on threatened and endangered species, and will abide 

by reasonable and prudent alternatives and/or reasonable and prudent 

measures established as a result of that consultation (see Section 4.1.2). 

• WS and ODW will abide by the conservation measures specified in the 

USFWS FEIS (USFWS 2003) and in 50 CFR 21.48(d)(8) to avoid adverse 

effects on the Federally-listed bald eagle and piping plover. 

• Prior to any control action, WS will consult with the ODW to ensure that 

no actions taken under this plan will adversely affect Ohio’s listed species. 

• Non-toxic shot will be used when using shotguns to harass or kill DCCOs. 

• As applicable, WS and ODW will review the USFWS Final Report (Wires 

and Cuthbert 2001) – “Prioritization of waterbird colony sites for 

conservation in the U.S. Great Lakes region” prior to conducting control 

activities at DCCO breeding colonies. If WS and ODW propose to 

conduct control activities at any of the sites identified in this report as 

priority sites for waterbird conservation, they will consult with the 

USFWS at that time for advice on how to proceed with management 

actions. 

• To avoid adverse impacts on non-target species, WS and ODW will abide 

by the terms and conditions of the FEIS, PRDO (50 CFR 21.48) and 

USFWS migratory bird permits issued to WS and ODW for the 

management and control of DCCO damage and conflicts. 

• As specified in the PRDO (50 CFR 21.48(d)(10), on an annual basis, WS 

and ODW are required to provide the USFWS with a statement of efforts 

being made to minimize incidental take of non-target species and also to 

report the number and species of migratory bird involved in such take, if 

any. The USFWS will review this information to ensure CDM activities 

will not adversely impact non-target migratory bird species. 

• In certain circumstances when conducting control activities in DCCO 

breeding colonies, WS and ODW are required to notify the USFWS prior 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

71 

to conducting control activities including when other (non-target) bird 

species are present (50 CFR 21.48(d)(9)). 

• Compost areas on Green Island and WSI would not be placed over any 

likely Lake Erie watersnake hibernacula. 

• Compost sites will be located > 21 m from the shoreline to prevent 

disruption of summer habitat potential used by Lake Erie watersnakes. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

72 

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.0 INTRODUCTION 

 

Chapter 4 provides information needed for making informed decisions when selecting 

among the alternatives for meeting the purpose and need for action. This chapter 

analyzes the environmental consequences of each alternative in relation to the issues 

identified for detailed analysis in Chapter 2. Each alternative is analyzed in comparison 

with the no action alternative (Alternative 5) to determine whether the real or potential 

effects would be greater, less, or the same. Although each agency has the authority to 

make its own decision regarding the alternative to be selected, impacts are analyzed for 

each alternative as if all of the lead and cooperating agencies had selected the same 

alternative. This allows for analysis of the full range of potential impacts from the 

proposed alternatives while maintaining clarity and avoiding undue repetition. Impacts 

of the lead and cooperating agencies selecting differing alternatives will be intermediate 

to those presented in this chapter. 

The following resource values within the State are not expected to be significantly 

impacted by any of the alternatives analyzed: geology, minerals, flood plains, wetlands, 

visual resources, prime and unique farmlands, timber, and range. These resources will 

not be analyzed further. 

Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects are discussed in relationship to each of the 

alternatives analyzed, with emphasis on potential cumulative effects from methods 

employed, and including summary analyses of potential cumulative impacts to target and 

non-target species, including T&E species. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources: Other than minor uses of 

fuels for motor vehicles and other materials, there are no irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources. 

Effects on sites or resources protected under the National Historic Preservation Act: 

The actions of the lead and cooperating agencies are not undertakings that could 

adversely affect historic resources (See Section 1.7.2) 

4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN 

DETAIL 

4.1.1 Effects on DCCO Populations 

The analysis for magnitude of impact on wildlife populations generally follows the 

process described in Chapter 4 of USDA (1997, Revised). Magnitude is described in 

USDA (1997, Revised) as “. . . a measure of the number of animals killed in relation to 

their abundance.” Magnitude may be determined either quantitatively or qualitatively. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

73 

Quantitative determinations are based on population estimates, allowable (i.e., 

“sustainable”) harvest levels, and actual harvest data. Qualitative determinations are 

based on population trends and harvest data when available. Measures to avoid adverse 

impacts on DCCO populations are described in Chapter 3. 

Alternative 1 – Integrated CDM Program, Including Implementation of the 

PRDO (Preferred Alternative) 

At present, maximum annual take of DCCOs for management of damage to 

aquaculture, public resources, private property, and risks to human health and 

safety and DCCO take for research projects would be identical to that described 

for Alternative 5. This similarity exists because all proposed PRDO projects are 

for the protection of sensitive vegetation and wildlife species. The USFWS could 

issue MBPs for this type of CDM. The only difference is that take for the 

protection of public resources would occur under the authority and procedures 

established for the PRDO (USFWS 2003). However, at a future time, this 

alternative would also allow for the lead and cooperating agencies to conduct 

actions for the protection of fishery resources so long as these projects do not 

reduce the local DCCO populations below the management objectives described 

in Section 1.5.6.3 and so long as these projects do not increase cumulative take 

and other impacts beyond the maximum levels analyzed in this EA. If projects 

for the protection of fishery resources were to occur, take under this alternative 

would be greater than Alternative 5, wherein projects for the protection of public 

fishery resources would be extremely limited. However, maximum annual take 

would remain the same for both Alternatives and would amount to a 48 to 61% 

reduction in the number of breeding DCCOs at WSINWR and a 49 to 57% 

reduction in the statewide population of DCCOs (assuming a conservatively 

estimated total state population of 13,000 DCCOs – see Tables 4-1, 4-2, and 

analysis of impacts for Alternative 5). The Preferred Alternative would reduce 

the Ohio breeding DCCO population to a range of between 1,921 and 2,421 

breeding pairs. This is similar to the number of breeding birds that were counted 

in the state in 1999-2000. The density of DCCOs increased from that level to the 

current density of 5,164 pairs over the period of five to six years. As discussed in 

Section 1.8.4, the EA would be amended and public comment solicited if the lead 

and cooperating agencies propose to conduct CDM projects for the protection of 

fishery resources that would result in impacts greater than those analyzed in this 

EA. Analysis provided for Alternative 5 indicates that the proposed level of 

CDM would not adversely impact the viability of the state, regional or national 

DCCO population. 

Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, the Federal agencies would not kill any DCCOs or destroy 

eggs because no lethal methods would be used. As discussed in Section 3.1, WS 

would not complete the WS Form 37 consultations needed before USFWS could 

issue depredation permits, and the USFWS would not issue MBPs. Local 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

74 

governments, landowners and their designated agents (e.g., private damage 

management businesses) could only use non-lethal CDM techniques. 

Under the PRDO the State does have the authority to take up to 10% of local 

breeding populations of DCCOs, with the consent of the land owner/manager, in 

order to protect public resources (USFWS 2003). ODW has indicated that it 

would use this authority on non-Federal lands. The USFWS would not permit 

lethal CDM techniques on WSINWR but non-lethal methods could be used to try 

and meet management objectives defined in Section 1.5.6.3. A maximum of 270 

DCCOs could be taken by ODW under this alternative (Table 4-1). This is 

approximately 2% of Ohio’s conservatively estimated summer DCCO population 

(see analysis of impacts for Alternative 5) and is a far lower level of take than 

would occur under Alternative 5. For reasons noted for Alternatives 5, the lead 

and cooperating agencies conclude that this alternative would not jeopardize the 

long-term sustainability of DCCO populations at the state, regional, or national 

level. 

 Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance from Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, WS would have no impact on DCCO populations in the 

State because WS would not conduct any operational CDM activities and would 

be limited to providing advice on CDM. WS would still be able to complete the 

WS Form 37 consultations needed before USFWS could issue depredation 

permits. Issuing permits is a kind of technical assistance, so the USFWS could 

still issue MBPs for research, damage to private property and risks to human 

health and safety. However operational damage management would have to be 

conducted by the permittee or their designated agent, ODW, local government, or 

private wildlife damage management companies because the Federal agencies 

would be prohibited from providing operational assistance with CDM. 

The USFWS could also grant approval for PRDO projects that propose to take 

more than 10% of the local breeding DCCO population on non-Federal lands. 

Cormorant conflict management would not occur at WSINWR. The ODW has 

indicated that it will conduct the same level of CDM on non-Federal lands under 

this alternative as would occur under Alternatives 1 and 5. A maximum of 2,686 

or approximately 21% of Ohio’s conservatively estimated summer DCCO 

population (see analysis of impacts for Alternative 5) would be taken under this 

Alternative (Table 4-2). DCCOs would not be harassed or taken from WSINWR. 

This level of take is less than that under the no action and proposed alternatives 

but greater than that for Alternatives 2 and 4. For reasons noted for Alternatives 1 

and 5, the lead and cooperating agencies conclude that this alternative would not 

jeopardize the long-term sustainability of DCCO populations at the state, regional, 

or national level. 

 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

75 

Alternative 4 - No CDM by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, the Federal agencies would have no impact on DCCO 

populations in the state. As discussed in Section 3.1, WS would not complete the 

WS Form 37s consultations needed before USFWS could issue depredation 

permits, and the USFWS would not issue MBPs. However, under the PRDO the 

state does have the authority to take up to 10% of local breeding population of 

DCCOs, with the consent of the land owner/manager, in order to protect public 

resources (USFWS 2003). The ODW has indicated that it would use this 

authority to take up to 270 DCCOs (2% of Ohio’s conservatively estimated 

summer DCCO population - see analysis of impacts for Alternative 5). DCCOs 

would not be harassed or taken from WSINWR. Local governments, landowners 

and their designated agents (e.g., private damage management businesses) could 

only use non-lethal CDM techniques. Therefore the cumulative impact on 

DCCOs would be similar to Alternative 2 (Table 4-2) and would not jeopardize 

the long-term sustainability of DCCO populations at the state, regional, or 

national level. 

Alternative 5 - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the 

PRDO (No Action) 

DCCOs range throughout North America, from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific 

coast (USFWS 2003). During the last 20 years, the DCCO population has 

expanded to an estimated 372,000 nesting pairs; with the U.S. population 

(breeding and non-breeding birds) conservatively estimated to be greater than 1 

million birds (Tyson et al. 1999). The USFWS estimates the current continental 

population at approximately 2 million birds (USFWS 2003). Tyson et al. (1999) 

found that the DCCO population increased approximately 2.6% annually during 

the early 1990s. The greatest increase was in the Interior region with a 22% 

annual increase in the number of DCCOs in Ontario and the U.S. States bordering 

the Great Lakes (Tyson et al. 1999). The number of breeding pairs of DCCOs in 

the Atlantic and Interior population is estimated at over 85,510 and 256,212 

nesting pairs, respectively (Tyson et al. 1999). From 1990 to 1997, the annual 

growth rate in the Interior population was estimated at 6% with the most dramatic 

increases occurring on Ontario, Michigan, and Wisconsin waters (Tyson et al. 

1999, USFWS 2003). Nest counts in 2000 estimated 115,000 pairs in the Great 

Lakes (Weseloh et al. 2002). Lake Erie’s breeding population increased from 174 

to 26,542 breeding individuals from 1979 to 2000 (Hebert et al. 2005). 

The Ohio population of DCCOs is primarily composed of birds from the Interior 

population (USFWS 2003, Tyson et al. 1999). Most DCCOs are found in Ohio 

during the spring, summer and fall months when the breeding population and 

migrating birds are present. The current Ohio breeding population of DCCOs 

started a consistent breeding colony in 1992 at WSI with 182 pairs. There had 

been a breeding population of DCCOs in the state prior to that time, but the use of 

organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT) caused marked declines in the nationwide 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

76 

DCCO population and had temporarily resulted in no regularly nesting DCCOs in 

Ohio. Since the return of breeding DCCOs to Ohio in 1992, the number of 

cormorant colonies in the state has increased rapidly. In 2003, when the FEIS 

(USFWS 2003) was completed, there were 3 breeding colonies with a total of 

3,049 breeding pairs (WSI 2,613 - pairs, TPI - 401 pairs, Grand Lakes, St. Mary - 

35 pairs) and by 2005 there were 5 breeding colonies with a total of 5,165 

breeding pairs (WSI – 3,813 pairs; TPI – 409 pairs; Green Island – 857 pairs; 

Grand Lakes, St. Mary – 80 pairs; Portage Lakes – 6 pairs; ODW 2005). This 

population estimate does not include sub-adults and nonbreeding birds. Estimates 

of 0.6 to 4.0 subadult DCCOs per breeding pair have been used for several 

populations (Tyson et al. 1999). Assuming 0.6 subadults and non-breeding 

individuals per breeding pair, the summer DCCO population in Ohio can 

conservatively be estimated at more than 13,000 birds. During migration, there 

are many additional DCCOs moving through the State. 

Aerial waterfowl surveys of coastal and near shore inland marshes during fall 

migration (e.g., areas not used for nesting) provide some insight as to the number 

of DCCOs that may be migrating through the state. ODW conducts eight aerial 

waterfowl surveys between September 1 and December 15 each year within the 

coastal and near shore inland marshes of Ohio. From 1997 to 2004 anywhere 

between 788 and 4,950 DCCOs have been counted in any one survey (ODW data 

2005). Similar surveys have not been conducted for the islands, but it is likely that 

they draw in many more DCCOs than the marshes due to the tendency of 

migrants to be attracted to the DCCOs already inhabiting the islands. 

Estimated DCCO Take - Protection of Public Resources. 

Some CDM activities to protect public resources could be conducted under 

MBPs. Depredation permits can be issued for the protection of sensitive plants 

and animals (e.g., co-nesting colonial waterbirds). Permits would probably not be 

issued for the protection of free-swimming fish populations, but permits could be 

issued for CDM at the specific sites where hatchery fish are being released 

(USFWS 2003). All cormorant management objectives proposed in Section 

1.5.6.3 were established for the protection of vegetation and wildlife. These 

activities could be permitted under MBPs. The lead and cooperating agencies 

anticipate that to meet the management objectives set in Section 1.5.6.3, a 

maximum of 6,752 DCCOs could be taken in one year for the protection of birds, 

vegetation and other sensitive wildlife species (this number excludes birds taken 

for research, reduction of damage to property or aquaculture or reduction of risks 

to human health and savety; Table 4-1). This would be a 48 to 61% reduction in 

the number of breeding DCCOs at WSINWR and a 44 to 52% reduction in the 

statewide population of DCCOs (assuming a conservatively estimated total state 

population of 13,000 DCCOs). This level of take is unlikely to occur because at 

least some of the birds are anticipated to respond to non-lethal frightening devices 

and/or the use of lethal techniques on other DCCOs and leave the site without 

being shot. Similar projects conducted in other areas have indicated that many 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

77 

birds will disperse from the damage management site to other breeding colonies 

throughout the region (USFWS 2003). Additionally, the number of DCCOs to be 

taken annually is anticipated to be higher during initial years of the project than 

when DCCO colonies are close to management objectives. 

Table 4-1. Number of DCCOs that could be lethally removed annually under each 

alternative for the protection of vegetation and wildlife in the public domain. 

DCCO population numbers for each site only include breeding adults and do 

not include sub-adults and non-breeding birds. 

Site Target 

Popn.1

Annual 

Maximum 

Take 

Alt 1 

Annual 

Maximum 

Take 

Alt. 24

Annual 

Maximum 

Take 

Alt. 3 

Annual 

Maximum 

Take 

Alt. 44

Annual 

Maximum 

Take Alt. 5 

West Sister Island (7,626 breeding adults in 2005) 

 3,000-

4,000 

3,626 - 

4,626 

0 0 0 3,626 - 

4,626 

Turning Point Island (818 breeding adults in 2005) 

 800 802 802 802 802 802

Green Island (1,714 breeding adults in 2005) 

 0 1,714 172 1,714 172 1,714 

Grand Lakes, St. Mary (160 breeding adults in 2005) 

 30 130 16 130 16 130 

Portage Lakes (12 breeding adults in 2005) 

 12 22 22 22 22 22

Migrants – All Sites3

 200 0 ind. 4 60 ind 5 0 ind 4 200 

Total 3,842 – 

4,842 

5,752 – 

6,752 

270 1,986 270 5,752 – 

6,752 

1. Target DCCO numbers based on management objectives defined in Section 1.5.6.3. 

2. Maximum take anticipated to maintain current conditions. 

3. Estimated number of birds that might be taken to reinforce harassment of migrating 

birds. 

4. The state is allowed to take up to 10% of the breeding DCCO population under the 

PRDO without having to obtain permission from the USFWS. That level of take is 

accounted for in the above estimates for the sites where ODW will work during the 

breeding season. 

5 CDM would not be conducted at WSI so the overall need to use shooting to reinforce 

harassment of migrating birds would be reduced. Estimated take was reduced 

proportionally to occurrence of breeding pairs. 

Estimated DCCO Take – All Other Sources

Over the last three years, fewer than 300 DCCOs have been taken per year under 

MBPs for the reduction of damage to aquaculture and private property and for 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

78 

reduction in risks to human health and safety at airports. The highest number of 

DCCOs requested under scientific collecting permits in recent years was a request 

for 500 birds in 2005 for projects relating to DCCO damage at WSI and Green 

Island. (Table 4-2). 

Table 4-2. Number of DCCOs that could be lethally removed annually under each 

alternative through all means. 

Type of Take 

Annual 

Take 

Alt 1 

Annual 

Take 

Alt. 2 

Annual 

Take 

Alt. 3 

Annual 

Take 

Alt. 4 

Annual Take 

Alt. 5 

PRDO1 5,752 – 

6,752 

270 1,986 270 

Scientific 

Collecting Permits2

300 0 500 0 300 

MBPs – Damage to 

Property and 

Aquaculture, Risks 

to Health and 

Safety3

 

300 0 300 0 300 

MBPs – Damage to 

Public Resources1

0 0 0 0 5,752 – 6,752 

ind. 

Total 

(Cumulative) Take 

6,352-7,352 270 2,786 270 6,352 – 7,352 

1

 Totals are from Table 4-1 above. 

2

 Five hundred birds were taken under scientific collecting permits in 2005. This number 

was reduced for Alternatives 1 and 5 because some of the birds taken for damage 

management are likely to be used for research. 

3

 Estimate based on CDM under MBPs in prior years plus some extra based on 

anticipated need for CDM in the future 

Nationwide, the FEIS predicted that the implementation of the AQDO, PRDO, 

and issuance of migratory bird permits would affect approximately 8% of the 

continental DCCO population on an annual basis (USFWS 2003). Assuming an 

equitable distribution of take among the 24 states in which the PRDO applies, this 

is an average of about 6,650 birds per State. This would be about 51% of the 

current estimated summer DCCO population in Ohio of 13,000 birds and a 

smaller but unknown percentage of all DCCOs (residents and migrants) occurring 

within the State. The FEIS concluded that the proposed level of take would be 

sustainable at the State level (USFWS 2003). Take under this alternative would 

be the same as anticipated if the PRDO were to be implemented because all 

proposed take is for the protection of sensitive wildlife and plant species and 

could be permitted under MBPs. However, at a future time, the lead and 

cooperating agencies could conduct actions for the protection of fishery resources 

so long as these projects do not increase cumulative take and other impacts 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

79 

beyond the maximum levels analyzed in this EA and so long as these projects do 

not reduce the local DCCO populations below the management objectives 

described in Section 1.5.6.3. In these instances actual take for this alternative 

would be less than Alternative 1, but the maximum potential take anticipated for 

each alternative would not change.2

Maximum cumulative take in Ohio under this alternative (7,352 birds per year) 

exceeds the 6,650 birds per year that could be taken per state if the total take 

predicted in the USFWS EIS is divided evenly among all states covered in the 

PRDO. However, it is important to note that DCCOs and DCCO damage are not 

evenly divided among all states. Some states like Iowa, Illinois and Indiana may 

never have many DCCO problems or take many DCCOs. Other states like Ohio 

may have higher populations of DCCOs and higher than average predicted DCCO 

removal without adversely impacting the long-term sustainability of the regional 

DCCO population or exceeding parameters stipulated by the USFWS EIS (2003). 

This action would reduce the Ohio breeding DCCO population to 1,921 to 2,421 

breeding pairs. This is similar to the number of breeding birds that were counted 

in the state in 1999-2000. The density of DCCOs increased from that level to the 

current density of 5,164 pairs over the period of five to six years. Therefore, we 

conclude that this alternative would not threaten the long-term sustainability of 

breeding DCCOs at the state, regional or national level. 

DCCOs are protected by the USFWS under the MBTA. Therefore, DCCOs are 

taken in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations authorizing take 

of migratory birds and their eggs or young, including the USFWS Public 

Resource Depredation Order (PRDO) (50 CFR 21.48), and the USFWS 

permitting processes. DCCOs are not a State-protected species in Ohio and the 

State does not require permits in addition to those that must be received from the 

USFWS. The USFWS, as the agency with migratory bird management 

responsibility, will impose restrictions on DCCO management at the State, 

regional, and national levels as needed to assure cumulative take does not 

adversely affect the long-term sustainability of populations (USFWS 2003, 

Appendix G). WS and ODW will report all CDM activities and the USFWS will 

ensure that cumulative take does not exceed that which can be sustained by the 

population. 

Based upon the above information, the lead and cooperating agencies have 

determined that the impacts to the Ohio DCCO population from this alternative 

would not jeopardize the long-term sustainability of DCCO populations at a state, 

regional, or national level. 

 

2

 The EA would be amended and public comment solicited before the lead and cooperating agencies 

conduct any future projects under the PRDO that would increase the cumulative impacts of CDM activities. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

80 

4.1.2 Effects on Other Fish and Wildlife Species, Including Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Alternative 1 - Integrated CDM Program Including Implementation of the 

PRDO (Preferred Alternative) 

Adverse Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threatened and Endangered 

Species Impacts would be similar to the no action alternative. All of the 

management objectives in Section 1.5.6.3, were established for the purpose of 

protecting wildlife and vegetation. Under Alternative 5, it would be possible to 

obtain MBPs for these actions. Therefore the amount of CDM and the methods 

available are identical to Alternative 5. However, if at a future time, data become 

available indicating that a new management objective would be beneficial for the 

protection of public fishery resources, that type of work could be conducted under 

this alternative. The Federal agencies would not conduct or approve projects for 

the protection of public fishery resources that would lead to increases in take, 

decreases in population management goals, or other adverse environmental 

impacts beyond what is already analyzed in this EA without supplementing the 

EA (Section 1.8.4). All SOPs in Chapter 3 and other provisions for protecting 

non-target species, including any recommendations and requirements resulting 

from Section 7 consultation with the USFWS and consultation with ODW, will be 

identical to Alternative 5. Therefore, the lead and cooperating agencies conclude 

that this alternative would not have a cumulative adverse impact on non-target 

species. 

Beneficial Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threatened and Endangered 

Species. The PRDO was established to allow for CDM activities specifically 

designed to benefit non-target species including co-nesting birds, vegetation and 

fisheries. CDM programs can benefit those wildlife species that are adversely 

impacted by DCCO predation, DCCO competition for habitat, and/or the impact 

of large DCCO colonies on vegetation (Sections 1.5.1, 1.5.6.1). Under this 

alternative CDM would be conducted to protect great blue herons, State-listed 

black-crowned night-herons, great egrets and cattle egrets, the State- and 

Federally-listed Lake Erie watersnake, and rare plant communities, particularly 

those occurring on Green Island, from adverse impacts associated with high 

densities of DCCOs. Lead and cooperating agency experience with non-lethal 

and lethal CDM techniques indicates that an integrated CDM approach that 

allows access to all legal CDM methods has the greatest likelihood of rapidly 

achieving DCCO management objectives for the Ohio colonies. 

Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies 

Adverse Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threatened and Endangered 

Species from CDM. The Federal agencies would be restricted to the use of nonlethal techniques. Consequently, there would be no risks from Federal use of 

lethal CDM techniques. The USFWS would also not issue MBPs for DCCO 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

81 

management. However, under the PRDO the state does have the authority to take 

up to 10% of local breeding population of DCCOs, with the consent of the land 

owner/manager, in order to protect public resources (USFWS 2003). ODW has 

indicated that it would use this authority on non-Federal lands. The USFWS 

would not permit lethal CDM techniques on WSINWR. 

The primary risk to non-target species from the use of non-lethal techniques is the 

risk of disturbing co-nesting species during harassment, nest destruction and other 

non-lethal CDM activities as described for the no-action alternative. As discussed 

in Section 1.5.6.3 the lead and cooperating agencies will conduct research on the 

impacts of DCCO removal on co-nesting species. Given the data available, the 

SOPs established for the protection of non-target species, and the fact that the 

agencies will continue to evaluate impacts on non-target species and adjust 

management techniques accordingly, the use of frightening devices proposed in 

this alternative will have a low magnitude of impact on non-target species. 

Without even the minor use of lethal techniques to reduce habituation to nonlethal 

CDM methods (DCCOs getting used to and not responding to frightening 

devices), this alternative will likely require more hours of non-lethal CDM than 

Alternatives 1 and 5 in order to achieve similar management objectives, therefore 

the risk of disturbing co-nesting species will be greater for this alternative than for 

alternatives 1 and 5. Given the tendency of DCCOs to habituate to frightening 

devices, it may not be possible to achieve the same level of CDM as with 

Alternatives 1 and 5. Success in achieving management objectives may be more 

likely on non-Federal lands where ODW would have limited access to lethal 

CDM techniques. However, it is likely to take longer for ODW to achieve 

management objectives than under Alternatives 1 and 5. 

The lead and cooperating agencies will continue to utilize SOPs for harassment 

activities as discussed in Chapter 3 and for Alternative 5 in order to reduce 

potential impacts on listed (Federal and State) and non-listed species. Therefore, 

risks associated with ODW’s use of lethal CDM alternatives under this alternative 

would be similar to Alternative 5, but overall impact would be lower than 

Alternative 5 because less lethal CDM would be conducted. 

Beneficial Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threatened and 

Endangered Species. This alternative would allow for the use of non-lethal 

techniques to protect public resources. Management objectives would remain the 

same for this alternative as for Alternatives 1 and 5. However, as discussed above 

the lead and cooperating agencies are concerned that they may not be able to 

achieve CDM objectives with the exclusive use of non-lethal techniques. This is 

especially true for the Lake Erie island colonies where the management objective 

is to rapidly reduce the local DCCO population from 5,070 to 2,950 breeding 

pairs. 

 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

82 

Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies

Adverse Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threatened and Endangered 

Species from CDM. Under this alternative, the lead and cooperating agencies 

would not conduct operational CDM. WS would still be able to complete the WS 

Form 37 consultations needed before USFWS could issue MBPs. The USFWS 

would also have the ability to approve CDM projects that propose to take more 

than 10% of the local breeding DCCO population. Therefore, it would still be 

possible for ODW to conduct CDM under the PRDO, but it would not receive any 

operational assistance from the USFWS or WS. Additionally, CDM would not be 

conducted at WSINWR. The tools that could be used for CDM would not differ 

from Alternatives 1 and 5. However, because the PRDO will not be implemented 

on Federal lands, the amount of CDM that could be conducted would be lower 

than for Alternative 5. Therefore, this alternative is likely to have a lower level of 

risk to non-target species than the already low level discussed for Alternative 5. 

Beneficial Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threatened and 

Endangered Species. Projects to protect wildlife and plants on non-Federal 

lands would likely be identical to Alternatives 1 and 5. However, CDM efforts at 

these sites may be complicated by the lack of CDM at WSINWR. WSINWR may 

serve as a refuge for birds harassed from the other Lake Erie sites. Birds at 

WSINWR may also serve as a source population for reinvasion of the non-Federal 

sites. 

In the absence of CDM, DCCO densities and associated damage to habitat and 

adverse impact on other wildlife species are likely to continue. Given the pattern 

of DCCOs moving from nesting sites on trees that have died to nearby healthy 

trees observed by Hebert et al. (2005), even if DCCO densities do not increase 

beyond current levels, vegetation loss is likely to continue. Cormorant conflict 

management efforts at non-Federal sites are likely to exacerbate problems on WSI 

because birds are likely to move to the site with no CDM. Overall beneficial 

impacts on non-target species would likely be much lower than for Alternatives 1 

and 5. 

Alternative 4 - No CDM by Federal Agencies.

Adverse Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threatened and Endangered 

Species from CDM. Under this alternative, the Federal agencies would not 

participate in CDM. The USFWS would not issue MBPs and would not grant 

approval for PRDO projects proposing to take more than 10% of a local DCCO 

population. As with Alternative 2, under the PRDO the state does have the 

authority to take up to 10% of a local breeding population of DCCOs, with the 

consent of the land owner/manager, in order to protect public resources (USFWS 

2003). ODW has indicated that it would use this authority on non-Federal lands. 

The USFWS would not permit lethal CDM techniques on WSINWR. The state, 

local governments, landowners and their designated agents (e.g., private damage 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

83 

management businesses) could use non-lethal CDM techniques on non-Federal 

lands. The amount of CDM that could be conducted would be much lower than 

for Alternative 5. Unlike Alternative 2, non-lethal CDM would not be conducted 

on Federal lands (e.g., at WSINWR). Therefore, this alternative is likely to have 

a reduced level of risk to non-target species than the already low level discussed 

for Alternative 5. 

Beneficial Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threatened and 

Endangered Species. Management objectives for activities to protect wildlife 

and vegetation on non-Federal lands would be the same as all the other 

alternatives. The ability to achieve the management objectives will be limited by 

the restrictions on the number of DCCOs that can be taken using lethal methods, 

lack of assistance from WS, and further complicated by the lack of CDM on 

WSINWR (as with Alternative 3). Conversely, like Alternative 3, CDM activities 

on non-Federal lands and the lack of CDM on WSINWR is likely to exacerbate 

adverse impacts of DCCOs on vegetation and other species of wildlife using the 

site. Overall benefits to non-target species are lowest for this alternative. 

Alternative 5 - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the 

PRDO (No Action)

Adverse Impacts on Non-target Species (Not Threatened or Endangered Species). 

Direct impacts on non-target species occur when program personnel inadvertently 

kill, injure, or harass animals that are not target species, including eggs or young 

of nesting adults that are disturbed by CDM activities. The most likely negative 

effect on non-target species from CDM activities in Ohio is disturbance of conesting colonial waterbirds. If adults are startled from the nest for too long or at 

the wrong time of day, there is potential for increased mortality rates for eggs and 

chicks. However, in most instances, migratory birds and other affected non-target 

wildlife may temporarily leave the immediate vicinity of scaring, but usually 

return after conclusion of the action. Moore et al. (2005) evaluated the impact of 

DCCO removal on co-nesting great blue herons and great egrets on Lake Ontario. 

For both species, there was no impact on the proportion of time spent in nest 

attendance between control and treatment sites for the interval prior to DCCO 

removal, the intervals between DCCO removal efforts and the period after DCCO 

removal was completed. Nest attendance declined for both species during the 

DCCO removal periods (35±20 min). Herons disturbed during the DCCO 

removal returned to the nest in 11 - 14 min (longest unattended=50±30 min) and 

all egrets returned to nests before the cormorant removal had ended (longest 

unattended=6±4 min). There was no difference in the nest success of herons or 

egrets between treated and untreated sites. These findings are similar to those of a 

study conducted on WSI and Green Island in 2005. Take of DCCO from WSI in 

2005 under a scientific collecting permit showed little effect on the island’s 

breeding population. Rifles with and without silencers were used to remove a 

total of 363 double-crested cormorants from 28 test plots (25 meter radius) on 

WSI in May, 2005. Observers accompanied shooters to record any possible 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

84 

disturbance to other nesting birds. Only one great egret was seen flushing off its 

nest during the removal operation. As discussed in Section 1.5.6.3 the lead and 

cooperating agencies would continue to monitor the impacts of DCCO removal 

on co-nesting species. Precautions used to minimize the likelihood and duration 

of impacts on co-nesting birds are listed in the SOPs in Chapter 3. 

It is extremely unlikely that a non-target species would be shot. No non-target 

birds or mammals have been killed by WS during CDM operations in Ohio (MIS 

2005 database). Non-target species caught in live-traps and nets would be 

released. While every precaution is taken to safeguard against taking non-target 

birds, at times changes in local flight patterns and other unanticipated events can 

result in the incidental take of unintended individuals. These occurrences are rare 

and should not affect the overall populations of any species under the proposed 

program. Mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to non-target species, 

especially nesting birds, are listed in Chapter 3. 

Given the data available, the SOPs established for the protection of non-target 

species, and the fact that the agencies will continue to evaluate impacts on nontarget species and adjust management techniques accordingly, the use of 

frightening devices proposed in this alternative will have a low magnitude of 

impact on non-target species. 

Beneficial Impacts on Non-target Species (Not Threatened or Endangered 

Species). This alternative allows the USFWS to issue MBPs for the protection of 

sensitive vegetation and animals (e.g., co-nesting birds, rare plant communities). 

Programs to control DCCO damage can reduce negative competition for resources 

with co-nesting colonial waterbirds and can decrease adverse impacts on 

vegetation which benefits the vegetation and the wildlife that uses the vegetation 

(Sections 1.5.1, 1.5.6.1). Under this alternative, actions to protect free-swimming 

fish populations would be limited and the impact on free-swimming fish would 

likely be minimal. However, since the management objectives for the proposed 

project were established for the protection of co-nesting birds and rare plant 

communities, the USFWS could issue permits for the CDM proposed in this EA. 

Section 1.5.6.3 provides the reasoning on why the lead and cooperating agencies 

believe the proposed level of CDM would benefit wildlife and vegetation in Ohio. 

Experience by the lead and cooperating agencies indicates that an integrated 

CDM program as would be permitted under this alternative would have the 

greatest potential to achieve management goals. 

Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts. Special efforts are made to 

avoid jeopardizing T&E species through biological evaluations of the potential 

risks and the establishment of special restrictions or mitigation measures to 

minimize or negate any risks. Mitigation measures to avoid adverse T&E effects 

are described in Chapter 3. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

85 

Federally-listed Species. A summary of Federally-listed T&E species in 

Ohio is provided in Appendix B. The USFWS completed an Intra-Service 

Section 7 Biological Evaluation on the management of DCCOs in the U.S. 

for the FEIS (USDI 2003). The only species in the national consultation 

that could potentially be impacted by CDM actions in Ohio are the piping 

plover (migrant only), bald eagle, and Lake Erie watersnake (USFWS 

2003). An additional Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation was 

conducted specific to CDM actions in Ohio. All recommendations from 

the Ohio Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation have been 

incorporated into the SOPs for CDM. The following is a list of 

conservation measures to reduce risks of adverse impacts on bald eagles 

and piping plovers from the national consultation likely to be applicable to 

CDM in Ohio: 

 (i) Discharge/use of firearms to kill or harass DCCOs or use of other 

harassment methods are allowed if the control activities will occur more 

than 1,000 feet from active piping plover nests or colonies and migrating 

plovers, and more than 750 feet from active bald eagle nests. 

(ii) Other control activities such as egg oiling, cervical dislocation, CO2

asphyxiation, egg destruction, or nest destruction are allowed if these 

activities occur more than 500 feet from active piping plover nests or 

colonies and migrating plovers, and more than 750 feet from active bald 

eagle nests. 

(iii) To ensure adequate protection of piping plovers, any agency or its 

agents who plan to implement control activities that may affect areas 

designated as piping plover critical habitat in the Great Lakes Region are 

to make contact with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Permit 

Office prior to implementing control activities. 

 

The lead and cooperating agencies will abide by the final conservation 

measures in the Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation for Ohio to 

avoid risks to bald eagles, piping plovers and Lake Erie watersnakes. 

Because the proposed level of CDM is intended to protect vegetation on 

the Ohio Lake Erie Islands, this action is likely to be beneficial to the Lake 

Erie watersnake by protecting its habitat (Section 1.5.6.1). (See also 

Appendix H for USFWS management guidelines for the Lake Erie 

watersnake.) Therefore, the USFWS determined that the preferred 

alternative will not adversely affect any federally-listed T&E species or 

critical habitat in Ohio. 

State-listed Species. The State list of endangered and threatened species is 

provided in Appendix C. The lead and cooperating agencies have 

determined that CDM has the potential to affect the black-crowned nightheron, snowy egret, cattle egret, bald eagle, Lake Erie watersnake 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

86 

(discussed above under federally-listed species), elegant sunburst lichen, 

northern bog violet, Sprengel’s sedge, tufted fescue sedge, harebell and 

rock elm. Prior to any control action, the lead and cooperating agencies 

will consult with the ODW to ensure that no actions taken under this plan 

will adversely affect Ohio’s listed threatened and endangered species. 

Actions to minimize risks to these species are described above and in the 

section on SOPs in Chapter 3. Because the proposed level of CDM is 

intended to protect vegetation on the Ohio Lake Erie islands, this action is 

likely to have a beneficial impact on State-listed bird species by virtue of 

protecting their habitat and is also likely to benefit the State-listed plant 

species, especially the rock elm which is located in the portion of Green 

Island that is currently being used by nesting DCCOs. The lead and 

cooperating agencies conclude that with the mitigation measures described 

here and in Chapter 3, this alternative will not adversely impact Statelisted species. 

4.1.3 Effects on Human Health and Safety

4.1.3.1 Effects on Human Health and Safety from CDM Methods

Alternative 1 - Integrated CDM Program, Including Implementation of the 

PRDO (Preferred Alternative)

The CDM methods to be used are identical to Alternative 5. Risks to human 

health and safety associated with these methods would be similar to Alternative 5. 

Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies 

Under this alternative, CDM methods that might raise safety concerns include 

shooting with firearms when used as a harassment technique and harassment with 

pyrotechnics. The ODW would still use firearms as a lethal CDM technique to 

take up to 10% of local DCCO populations for the protection of public resources 

on non-Federal lands. Risks associated with these methods are identical to those 

for Alternative 1. However, there will likely be greater use of harassment 

techniques than for Alternative 1. Given the training and experience of lead and 

cooperating agency personnel conducting CDM, risks to human health and safety 

are anticipated to be very low. 

The State, local governments, landowners and their designated agents (e.g., 

private damage management businesses) could still use pyrotechnics or firearms 

in CDM programs and this activity would likely occur to a greater extent in the 

absence of access to lethal CDM techniques. Hazards to humans and property 

could be greater under this alternative if personnel conducting CDM activities 

have less training and experience than personnel with the lead and cooperating 

agencies. However, the lead and cooperating agencies would be able to provide 

advice and information on the safe and proper use of these methods so risks 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

87 

should be less than Alternative 4. Overall risks to human health and safety are 

still likely to be low, but might be higher than with Alternative 5. 

Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, the Federal agencies would not engage in direct operational 

use of any CDM methods. Risks to human safety from Federal use of firearms 

and pyrotechnics would hypothetically be lower than the no action alternative, but 

not much because the current program has an excellent safety record in which no 

accidents involving the use of these devices have occurred that have resulted in a 

member of the public being harmed. The State would still be able to use lethal 

CDM techniques for the protection of public resources on non-Federal lands. 

Risks associated with these activities would be similar to Alternative 5 or slightly 

lower because use of lethal CDM would not be permitted on WSI. 

The State, local governments, landowners and their designated agents (e.g., 

private damage management businesses) could still use pyrotechnics or firearms 

in CDM programs. Use of these methods by individuals with less training than 

the lead and cooperating agencies would likely occur to a greater extent in the 

absence of operational assistance from WS than with Alternative 5. Hazards to 

humans and property could be greater under this alternative if personnel 

conducting CDM activities have less training and experience than personnel with 

the lead and cooperating agencies. However, the lead and cooperating agencies 

would be able to provide advice and information on the safe and proper use of 

these methods so risks should be less than Alternative 4. Overall risks to human 

health and safety are still likely to be low, but might be higher than with 

Alternative 5. 

Alternative 4 - No CDM by Federal Agencies

Under Alternative 4, the Federal agencies would not be involved in CDM 

activities in Ohio so there would be no risks from their use of firearms or 

pyrotechnics. The State would still be able to use lethal CDM techniques to take 

up to 10% of local DCCO populations for the protection of public resources. 

Risks associated with lethal CDM by the ODW will be similar to or slightly lower 

than Alternative 5 because less lethal CDM will be conducted. 

The State, local governments, landowners and their designated agents (e.g., 

private damage management businesses) could still use pyrotechnics or firearms 

in CDM programs and this activity would likely occur to a greater extent because 

access to lethal CDM methods would be extremely limited and no operational 

assistance would be available from WS. Hazards to humans and property could 

be greater under this alternative if personnel conducting CDM activities have less 

training and experience than personnel with the lead and cooperating agencies. 

The lead and cooperating agencies would not be able to provide advice and 

information on the safe and proper use of these methods so risks may be greater 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

88 

than Alternative 5. Overall risks to human health and safety are still likely to be 

low, but may be higher than with Alternative 5. 

Alternative 5 - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the 

PRDO (No Action)

CDM methods that might raise safety concerns include shooting with firearms 

and harassment with pyrotechnics. Firearms and pyrotechnics would only be used 

by lead and cooperating agency personnel who are trained and experienced in the 

safe and legal use of firearms. WS personnel regularly receive refresher safety 

training to keep them aware of safety concerns and the other agencies have 

similar training requirements. There have been no accidents involving the use of 

firearms or pyrotechnics in which a member of the public was harmed by the lead 

or cooperating agencies. A formal risk assessment of WS’ operational 

management methods found that when used in accordance with applicable laws, 

and WS regulations, policies and directives, risks to human safety were low 

(USDA 1997, Revised, Appendix P). Therefore, no adverse effects on human 

safety from use of these methods are expected. Agents acting under the authority 

of the lead and cooperating agencies will be informed and trained in the safe and 

proper use of CDM methods including the use of firearms. Additionally, when 

firearms or pyrotechnics will be used in CDM activities agency personnel may 

establish a safe perimeter around the colonies and detour boat traffic away from 

those areas. In 2005, when research on CDM methods was being conducted at 

WSI, the USFWS had a marked USFWS boat circling the island during the entire 

shooting period. The USFWS also broadcast a notice to mariners broadcast over 

Channel 16 VHF radio to warn boaters to stay one mile away from the island. 

The USFWS plans to do the same for all management trips and similar measures 

are likely to be used by ODW. 

Local governments, landowners and their designated agents (e.g., private damage 

management businesses) can use pyrotechnics or firearms in non-lethal CDM 

programs without permits from the USFWS. Hazards to humans and property 

could be greater under this alternative if personnel conducting CDM activities 

have less training and experience than personnel with the lead and cooperating 

agencies. However, under this alternative, personnel from the lead and 

cooperating agencies would be able to provide technical assistance on the safe and 

effective use of this technique. Some individuals may choose to have the nonlethal CDM conducted by WS or ODW rather than doing it themselves which 

may also reduce risks associated with improper use of these methods. Overall 

risks to human health and safety are likely to be low. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

89 

4.1.3.2 Effects on Human Health and Safety from Not Conducting CDM 

Alternative 1 - Integrated CDM Program, Including Implementation of the 

PRDO (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to the no action alternative. Activities to address risks 

to human health and safety would not differ between the two alternatives. 

Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, the lead and cooperating agencies would be restricted to 

implementing and recommending only non-lethal CDM methods. As discussed in 

Chapter 3, the USFWS would not be able to issue MBPs for the use of lethal 

techniques to address risks to human health and safety from DCCOs. The success 

or failure of the use of non-lethal methods can be quite variable. In some 

situations the implementation of non-lethal controls such as harassment could 

actually increase the risk of human health problems at other sites by causing the 

birds to move to other sites not previously affected. However, if the lead and 

cooperating agencies are providing direct operational assistance in relocating 

DCCOs, coordination with local authorities will be conducted to assure they do 

not re-establish in other undesirable locations. This alternative is unlikely to be as 

effective in reducing DCCO risks to human health and safety because there are 

some situations, like those at airports, where non-lethal techniques may not 

provide a sufficiently rapid or controlled response from the target bird(s) or where 

non-lethal techniques are not effective because the target animal has habituated to 

the frightening stimulus. Overall risks to human health and safety would be 

slightly greater under this alternative than Alternative 5. 

Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies 

Under this alternative, the lead and cooperating agencies would be restricted to 

providing technical assistance on CDM methods. WS would be able to assist with 

the WS Form 37 required for the USFWS to issue MBPs. Potential impacts 

would be variable. With technical assistance but no direct operational assistance, 

entities requesting CDM assistance for human health concerns would either take 

no action, which means the risk of human health problems would likely continue 

or increase in each situation as bird numbers are maintained or increased, or 

implement recommendations from the lead and cooperating agencies for nonlethal and lethal control methods. Depending on the training and experience of 

the individuals or entities that implement CDM actions, their efforts may not be as 

efficient or effective as programs conducted by the lead and cooperating agencies. 

This potential risk would be less likely under this alternative than Alternative 4 

when people requesting assistance receive and accept technical assistance 

recommendations. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

90 

In some situations the implementation of non-lethal controls such as harassment 

could actually increase the risk of human health problems at other sites by causing 

the birds to move to other sites not previously affected. This potential risk would 

be less likely under this alternative than Alternative 4 when people requesting 

assistance receive and accept technical assistance recommendations. Overall risks 

to human health and safety would be greater under this alternative than 

Alternative 5. 

Alternative 4 - No CDM by Federal Agencies 

Under this alternative, the lead and cooperating agencies would not participate in 

CDM. As discussed in Chapter 3, the USFWS would not be able to issue MBPs 

for the use of lethal techniques to address risks to human health and safety from 

DCCOs. CDM by entities other than the lead and cooperating agencies would be 

limited to non-lethal techniques. Resource owners and managers would be 

responsible for developing and implementing their own CDM program. Efforts 

by these individuals to reduce or prevent conflicts could result in less experienced 

persons implementing control methods, therefore leading to a lesser likelihood of 

reducing DCCO hazards, than under the Preferred Alternative. As discussed for 

Alternative 2, there may be some situations where non-lethal techniques are not 

adequate to reduce the risk to human health and safety. In other situations the 

implementation of non-lethal controls such as harassment could actually increase 

the risk of human health problems at other sites by causing the birds to move to 

sites not previously affected. Under this alternative, human health problems 

could increase if affected individuals were unable to find and implement effective 

means of controlling DCCOs that cause damage problems. Overall risks to 

human health and safety would be greatest under this alternative. 

Alternative 5 - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the 

PRDO (No Action)

People are concerned with potential injury, illness, and loss of human life 

resulting from damage and conflicts associated with DCCOs (Sections 1.4.5 and 

1.5.5). DCCOs can be a threat to aviation safety and there is also concern about 

potential disease risks associated with accumulations of fecal material. In most 

cases, it is difficult to conclusively prove that DCCOs were responsible for 

transmission of individual human cases or outbreaks of bird-borne diseases. 

Nonetheless, certain requesters of CDM service may consider this risk to be 

unacceptable and may request such service primarily for that reason. In such 

cases, CDM, either by lethal or non-lethal means, would, if successful, reduce the 

risk of bird-borne disease transmission at the site for which CDM is requested. 

An Integrated CDM strategy combining lethal and non-lethal means, has the 

greatest potential for successfully reducing risks to aviation and human health and 

safety. An IWDM approach reduces damage or threats to public health or safety 

for people who would have no relief from such damage or threats if non-lethal 

methods were ineffective or impractical. For example, it may be necessary to use 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

91 

lethal methods to remove DCCOs that had habituated or were not responding to 

frightening devices from the path of an airplane. 

In some situations the implementation of non-lethal controls such as harassment 

could actually increase the risk of human health problems at other sites by causing 

the birds to move to other sites not previously affected. In such cases, lethal 

removal of the birds may actually be the best alternative from the standpoint of 

overall human health concerns in the local area. If the lead and cooperating 

agencies are providing direct operational assistance in relocating DCCOs, 

coordination with local authorities will be conducted to assure that they do not 

reestablish in other undesirable locations. 

4.1.4 Effects on Aesthetic Values 

Alternative 1 - Integrated CDM Program, Including Implementation of the 

PRDO (Preferred Alternative) 

Individuals opposed to the use of lethal CDM techniques would be as opposed to 

this alternative as they are to Alternative 5 because the number of DCCOs that 

could be removed is the same for the two alternatives. However, the Preferred 

Alternative will not jeopardize the DCCO population and DCCO viewing 

opportunities will still be available. In most cases, CDM activities will reduce 

but not eliminate local DCCO populations. Green Island is the only site where 

the lead and cooperating agencies propose to stop the use of the site by 

breeding DCCOs. However, DCCO viewing opportunities would still be 

available on nearby islands. If proposed management objectives were met for 

the Lake Erie island colonies (WSI, TPI, and Green Island), there would still 

be 1,900 to 2,400 breeding pairs of DCCOs plus associated juveniles and nonreproductive individuals for people recreating on Lake Erie to view and enjoy. 

Positive impacts on the opportunity to enjoy vegetation and co-nesting species of 

birds that can be negatively impacted by high numbers of DCCOs would be 

greatest under this alternative and Alternative 5 because these alternatives are 

anticipated to have the greatest beneficial impacts on non-target species (Section 

4.1.2). 

Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies 

Under this alternative the Federal agencies would only use non-lethal CDM 

techniques. People who oppose lethal control of wildlife by government but 

are tolerant of government involvement in non-lethal wildlife damage 

management might favor this alternative, especially since no lethal CDM 

would be conducted at WSI. However, some lethal CDM would still be 

conducted by ODW under the PRDO on non-Federal lands. People who have 

developed affectionate bonds with individual wild birds would be less affected 

by the death of individual birds than under Alternative 5, but might still be 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

92 

opposed to the dispersal or translocation of certain birds. On the Lake Erie 

island colonies, the ability of individuals to enjoy viewing DCCOs would not 

differ from Alternative 5 in that the management goals of the projects would 

remain the same. However, the fate of some of the birds would be different 

since there would be much less use of lethal CDM techniques. 

This alternative would allow the lead and cooperating agencies to conduct work 

under the PRDO. This alternative would reduce the negative aesthetic impacts of 

DCCOs on birds, vegetation and fisheries resources if non-lethal methods were 

effective in reducing such damage to acceptable levels. However, as stated in 

Section 4.1.2, non-lethal methods are not always effective and, so this alternative 

is not anticipated to be as effective in reducing negative impacts of DCCOs on 

non-target species as Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 maybe more effective 

in protecting benefits of public resources than Alternative 5 because this 

alternative would still allow for action under the PRDO and therefore could be 

used to protect public fishery resources. 

Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies 

Under this alternative, the Federal agencies would be restricted to providing 

technical assistance on CDM methods. WS would be able to assist with WS form 

37 required for the USFWS to issue MBPs. People opposed to direct 

operational assistance in CDM by the government might prefer this alternative 

to Alternative 5 especially because no CDM would be conducted on Federal 

lands. However, the ODW would still be able to conduct CDM under the 

PRDO including the use of lethal CDM techniques on non-Federal lands. 

Persons concerned about the welfare of individual birds and opposed to the use 

of lethal control would likely be opposed to this alternative because lethal 

control could be conducted by ODW and other non-Federal entities. 

Under this alternative, the lack of operational assistance in reducing negative 

DCCO impacts at WSI could result in an increase in adverse affects on 

aesthetic values. Beneficial impacts of this alternative on the opportunity to 

enjoy vegetation and co-nesting birds on non-Federal sites would be similar to 

Alternatives 1 and 5. 

Alternative 4 - No CDM by Federal Agencies.

Under this alternative, the Federal agencies would not conduct any CDM in 

Ohio. People opposed to any government involvement in CDM would favor 

this alternative. People concerned about the welfare of individual birds or the 

use of lethal CDM would prefer this alternative over alternative 5 because the 

lethal removal of DCCOs would be lower. However, entities other than the 

lead and cooperating agencies could still use non-lethal techniques and some 

individuals might oppose dispersal or translocation of certain birds. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

93 

Under this alternative, the lack of operational assistance in reducing negative 

DCCO impacts on vegetation, birds and fish could result in an increase in 

adverse affects on aesthetic values. The PRDO would only be implemented by 

ODW, and ODW’s actions would be limited to take of up to 10% of the local 

DCCO population on non-Federal lands. Beneficial impacts of this alternative on 

the opportunity to enjoy vegetation, birds, or fisheries resources that are 

negatively affected will be much lower than Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the 

PRDO (No Action)

Some people who routinely view individual birds or flocks of DCCOs would 

likely be disturbed by removal of such birds. Some people are morally or 

philosophically opposed to the killing of any birds. The lead and cooperating 

agencies are aware of such concerns and take this into consideration when 

planning CDM activities. Under the current program, lethal removal of 

DCCOs would continue and these persons would continue to be opposed. 

However, many persons who voice their opposition have no direct connection 

or opportunity to view or enjoy the particular birds that would be killed by 

lethal control activities. Lethal control actions would generally be restricted to 

sites already closed to the public and overall DCCO viewing opportunities will 

still be available. In all instances except Green Island, CDM activities will 

reduce but not eliminate local DCCO populations. Although DCCO viewing 

opportunities would be lost at Green Island, similar opportunities would still 

be available for WSI and TPI. Lethal removal of DCCOs from airports should 

not affect the public’s enjoyment of the aesthetics of the environment since 

airport properties are closed to public access. The abilities to view and 

interact with DCCOs at these sites are usually either restricted to viewing from 

a location outside boundary fences or are forbidden. 

In some instances, large roosting or nesting populations of DCCOs can destroy 

habitat and displace other nesting birds, reducing the aesthetic value for some 

people. This alternative would reduce negative impacts caused by DCCOs on 

wildlife species and their habitats including black-crowned night-herons and other 

colonial waterbirds co-nesting with DCCOs at the sites proposed for CDM. The 

enjoyment of recreational fishing, and, for some, the opportunity to consume the 

fish captured, are positive aesthetic values for some people. The USFWS 

generally does not issue MBPs for the protection of free-swimming fish although 

exceptions can be made for sites where hatchery fish are released. None of the 

CDM objectives in Section 1.5.6.3 were established for the protection of fishery 

resources. However, if there was a need to conduct CDM specifically for the 

protection of fishery resources, that need could not be met under this alternative. 

Any adverse impacts of DCCOs on free swimming fish would continue to 

adversely impact the aesthetic enjoyment of those who value fishery resources. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

94 

4.1.5 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns of the Methods Used 

Alternative 1 - Integrated CDM Program, Including Implementation of the 

PRDO (Preferred Alternative) 

Impacts would be similar to the no action alternative. Individual perceptions of 

the humaneness of the Preferred Alternative would be as described for Alternative 

5. 

Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, lethal methods viewed as inhumane by some persons 

would not be used by the Federal agencies. However ODW could still conduct 

limited amounts of lethal CDM on non-Federal lands for the protection of 

public resources. In general, people who consider the use of lethal CDM 

methods inhumane would find this alternative preferable to Alternative 5. 

Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, the Federal agencies would not be involved in 

operational use of CDM techniques. No CDM would be conducted on Federal 

lands. However lethal CDM techniques could be used by ODW for the 

protection of public resources on non-Federal lands. Lethal CDM methods 

could also be used by the state and other non-Federal entities under MBPs. 

Use of lethal CDM methods would be lower than for Alternatives 1 and 5 

because no lethal CDM would be conducted at WSI, but it would still be 

higher than Alternatives 2 and 4. Individuals who believe lethal CDM 

techniques are inhumane might consider this alternative slightly preferable to 

Alternative 5. 

 Alternative 4 - No CDM by Federal Agencies 

Under this alternative the Federal agencies would not be involved in CDM and 

CDM would not be conducted on Federal lands. ODW could use non-lethal 

CDM techniques and could still use lower levels of lethal CDM techniques for 

the protection of public resources on non-Federal lands. Other non-Federal 

entities could not use lethal CDM techniques but would still have access to 

non-lethal CDM. Individuals who believe lethal CDM techniques are 

inhumane are likely to perceive this method as similar to Alternative 2 and 

more humane than Alternative 5. 

Alternative 5 - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the 

PRDO (No Action)

Under this alternative, methods viewed by some persons as inhumane would 

be used in CDM. Shooting, when performed by experienced professionals, 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

95 

usually results in a quick death for target birds. Occasionally, however, some 

birds are initially wounded and must be shot a second time or must be caught 

by hand and then dispatched or euthanized. Some persons would view 

shooting as inhumane. Some people may also be opposed to killing embryos 

via egg oiling or egg addling, but this technique is generally viewed as 

preferable to killing juvenile or adult birds. 

Occasionally, DCCOs captured alive would be euthanized. The most common 

method of euthanasia would be by decapitation, cervical dislocation or CO2 gas. 

These methods are described and approved by AVMA as humane euthanasia 

methods (Beaver et al. 2001). 

WS has improved the selectivity and humaneness of management techniques 

through research and development. Research is continuing to bring new findings 

and products into practical use. Until new findings and products are found 

practical, a certain amount of animal suffering could occur when some CDM 

methods are used in situations where non-lethal damage management methods are 

not practical or effective. 

Personnel with the lead and cooperating agencies are experienced and 

professional in their use of management methods so that they are as humane as 

possible under the constraints of current technology, workforce and funding. 

Mitigation measures/SOPs used to maximize humaneness are listed in Chapter 3. 

4.1.6 Impacts of Carcass Disposal 

Alternative 1 - Integrated CDM Program, Including Implementation of the 

PRDO (Preferred Alternative) 

Under this alternative, take of DCCOs and disposal of carcasses would be 

identical to Alternative 5. For reasons explained for Alternative 5, carcass 

disposal will not significantly adversely impact soils, water or air quality. 

Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies 

Lethal CDM would not be conducted at WSI so there would be no composting 

of carcasses at that site. Maximum take of DCCOs by ODW at Green Island 

and the other Lake Erie islands and near shore areas would be reduced to 270 

birds, so impacts at Green Island would be much less than under Alternative 5. 

There would be no other use of lethal CDM and no other carcass disposal 

under this alternative. Therefore, based on analysis provided for Alternative 5, 

the lead and cooperating agencies conclude that this alternative would not have 

a significant adverse impact on air, soil or water quality. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

96 

Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies 

Lethal CDM would not be conducted at WSI so there would be no composting 

of carcasses at that site. Lethal CDM by ODW under the PRDO and 

associated impacts relative to carcass disposal would be identical to 

Alternative 5. Take of DCCOs and disposal of carcasses under MBPs and 

scientific collecting permits would also be identical to Alternative 5. For 

reasons provided in Alternative 5, the lead and cooperating agencies conclude 

that this alternative will not have a significant adverse impact on air, soil or 

water quality. 

Alternative 4 - No CDM by Federal Agencies 

Lethal CDM would not be conducted at WSI so there would be no composting 

of carcasses at that site. Maximum take of DCCOs by ODW at Green Island 

and the other Lake Erie islands and near shore areas would be reduced to 270 

birds, so impacts at Green Island would be less than under Alternative 5. 

There would be no other use of lethal CDM and no other carcass disposal 

under this alternative. Therefore, based on analysis provided for Alternative 5, 

the lead and cooperating agencies conclude that this alternative would not have 

a significant adverse impact on air, soil or water quality. 

Alternative 5 - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the 

PRDO (No Action) 

This alternative would result in the lethal take of up to 7,252 DCCOs annually. 

DCCOs taken by the lead and cooperating agencies for reasons other than the 

protection of public resources would be disposed of via burial at an Ohio EPA 

approved sanitary landfill which accepts animal carcasses. The number of 

DCCOs that could be disposed of in a landfill is insignificant in relation to the 

total volume of waste that is placed in landfill sites and will not contribute 

significantly to the impacts associated with these sites. Use of Ohio EPA 

approved landfills would ensure that disposal actions are conducted in accordance 

with all State and Federal regulations for the protection of the environment. 

The ODW and USFWS would compost all cormorants which are shot on Green 

Island and WSI onsite. DCCOs taken under the PRDO on other Lake Erie islands 

and near shore areas would be disposed of in the compost site at Green Island or 

in a certified landfill. The Ohio EPA has placed the composting of cormorants on 

the islands under the authority of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Soil and Water (ODSW) (pers. communication from Alison 

Shockley). Under Ohio law, ODW and USFWS employees would attend a 

mortality composting workshop and be certified by Ohio State University 

Extension before they begin composting (Keener et al. 2005). 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

97 

The maximum number of DCCOs that would be placed in the composting sites 

annually would be 4,766 at WSI (4,626 breeding birds and 140 migrants) and 

1,854 at Green Island (1,714 breeding birds from Green Island, 80 breeding birds 

from TPI, and 60 migrants). Compost areas on Green Island and WSI would not 

be placed over any likely Lake Erie watersnake hibernacula. Compost sites will 

also be located > 21 m from the shoreline to prevent disruption of summer habitat 

potential used by Lake Erie watersnakes. Placement of compost sites at inland 

locations and compliance with procedures for proper composting of animal 

carcasses will eliminate any risk that runoff from the site would enter Lake Erie. 

Additionally a plastic liner will be placed under the compost site to reduce any 

potential risks to the soil and, in the highly unlikely event that compost would 

need to be removed from the site, facilitate removal of compost material. 

Dead animal composting can be described as "above ground burial in a bio-filter 

with pathogen kill by high temperature." The decomposition process is anaerobic 

(lacking oxygen) in and around the animal carcasses, but aerobic in the 

surrounding material where odorous gases are ingested by microorganisms and 

degraded to CO2 and H2O. The amendment (sawdust) that surrounds the animal 

carcass or layers of carcasses provides carbon (energy) for the microorganisms 

and serves as the biofilter (Keener et. al. 2005). 

The general procedure followed for composting carcasses is to first construct a 

base from sawdust or other acceptable amendment at least 30 cm (1 foot) thick. 

Next, a layer of carcasses is placed on the sawdust base. Then the carcasses are 

covered with 30 to 60 cm (1 to 2 feet) of damp amendment. The cover material 

prevents the pile from attracting scavengers and flies, minimizes water leachate in 

the case of high rainfalls for the uncovered pile, and ensures adequate insulative 

value for the composting zone to reach 130oF or higher (pathogen kill). 

 

Composting of DCCO carcasses was conducted on Presqu’ile Provincial Park, 

Ontario in 2004. No complaints were received from the public on the composting 

area despite the fact that, unlike Green Island and WSI, the public is allowed 

access to Presqu’ile Provincial Park. Approximately 4,870 DCCOs were 

composted in a 20m x 20m composting area without adverse impacts on soils, 

water or air quality (Ontario MNR 2005). A similar or lower number of DCCOs 

(maximum = 4,766 birds) could be composted at WSI and a much lower number 

(maximum = 1,854 birds) would be composted at Green Island. The proposed 

composters will not exceed the size of that used at Presqu’ile (4.5m long, 2.5m 

wide and 1.5m tall). 

At Presqu’ile Provincial Park, the level of mercury in the compost, 2.29 and 3.36 

micrograms/gram dry weight exceeded the amount permitted in order to distribute 

compost, but was not so high that the material had to be removed from the site. 

The Park could have left the material in the compost site. However, if the 

material was left on site, the Park was concerned that they would exceed their 

limit for the amount of material that their permit would allow them to hold at the 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

98 

compost site and chose to have the compost removed. The material was taken to 

a conventional landfill in accordance with all applicable regulations. 

As stated above, farm animal composting in Ohio falls under the regulation of the 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water (ODSW). 

The Ohio compost areas would not be subject to Canadian regulations regarding 

the amount of material retained at the site. The compost would remain at the site 

and would not be distributed, so the agencies are not required to test the compost 

for the presence of mercury. Nonetheless, the agencies share the public’s concern 

about mercury in the environment and will test the mercury content of the 

compost and the soil below the compost site at least every other year and more 

frequently if needed. Based on data from composting at Presqui’ile, we anticipate 

that one year’s accumulation of DCCO compost at the Ohio sites will be well 

below the regulatory mercury limit set by Ohio EPA (0.2 mg/L determined by the 

Toxicity Characteristic Leeching Procedure - Ohio Administrative Code 3745-51-

24). The first test, conducted the second year of the program, will allow the 

agencies to monitor the consequences of using the same compost site over a 

period of two years. Results from the test will be used to determine if future 

testing needs to occur more frequently than every other year and to determine if 

the agencies need to change or modify carcass disposal procedures. If needed, 

the agencies will amend this analysis to address changes in environmental impacts 

and carcass disposal procedures in accordance with NEPA. If an amendment is 

needed, the public would have the opportunity to review and comment on the new 

data and proposed procedures. 

Based on available data, and given that all composting will be conducted in 

accordance with guidelines established by the ODSW for the protection of the 

environment, the proposed composting will not have a significant adverse impact 

on environmental quality. 

4.1.7 Effects on Recreation in Surrounding Area 

Alternative 1 - Integrated CDM Program, Including Implementation of the 

PRDO (Preferred Alternative) 

The actions currently planned under this EA would have the same impacts on 

recreation as Alternative 5, because the CDM actions currently proposed under 

the PRDO could be conducted under MBPs. It is possible that at some future 

time, small projects for the protection of public fishery resources could be 

conducted under this alternative that would not be possible under Alternative 5 so 

long as the cumulative adverse impacts do not exceed those analyzed in this EA. 

If the projects to protect fishery resources enhance sport fish populations, then 

this alternative may have benefits to recreation that would not be possible under 

Alternative 5. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

99 

Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies 

Although the total amount of lethal CDM (shooting) that could be conducted 

would be much lower for non-Federal lands and would not occur on Federal 

lands, overall impacts on recreation resulting from the use of firearms and 

pyrotechnics discussed for Alternative 5 may not be lower for this alternative. 

Increased levels of non-lethal CDM, including the use of pyrotechnics, would 

probably be needed to achieve management goals. Harassment activities 

would likely need to be repeated more frequently and for a greater period of 

time under this alternative than for Alternative 5. If safety buffers are 

established for these activities like the ones described for Alternative 5, there 

could be increased closures of the area surrounding the treatment sites to boat 

traffic. Any potential benefits to sport fishing discussed in Alternative 1 

would depend on whether or not the project could be successfully executed 

when access to the full range of CDM methods is limited. 

Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies

Impacts on recreational activities at non-Federal sites would be similar to or 

slightly higher under this alternative because ODW would be able to use the 

full range of CDM methods to achieve CDM goals at non-Federal sites. Risks 

may be slightly higher because additional CDM may be needed at sites near 

WSI because of the large, unmanaged DCCO breeding colony at WSI. There 

would be no CDM conducted at WSI so there would be no impacts on 

recreational activities conducted near WSI. Overall impacts on recreation are 

still likely to be low. Any potential benefits to sport fishing discussed in 

Alternative 1 would depend on whether or not the project could be 

successfully executed without conducting CDM on Federal lands. 

Alternative 4 - No CDM by Federal Agencies 

There would be no CDM conducted at WSI so there would be no impacts on 

recreational activities conducted near WSI. Although the total amount of 

lethal CDM (shooting) that could be conducted would be much lower for nonFederal lands, overall impacts on recreation resulting from the use of firearms 

and pyrotechnics discussed for Alternative 5 may not be lower at these sites. 

Increased levels of non-lethal CDM, including the use of pyrotechnics, would 

probably be needed to achieve management goals. Harassment activities 

would likely need to be repeated more frequently and for a greater period of 

time under this alternative than for Alternative 5. If safety buffers are 

established for these activities like the ones described for Alternative 5, then 

increased closures of the area surrounding the treatment sites may result. 

Additional management efforts may also be needed at sites near the large 

DCCO colony at WSI that would not be managed under this alternative. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

100 

Any potential benefits to sport fishing discussed in Alternative 1 would 

depend on whether or not the project could be successfully executed without 

conducting CDM on Federal lands and when access to the full range of CDM 

methods at other sites is limited. 

Alternative 5 - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the 

PRDO (No Action)

Impacts on wildlife viewing opportunities are addressed in Section 4.1.4. The 

DCCO colonies in Ohio are all located on Federal or state-owned properties and 

surrounded by or adjacent to popular recreational water bodies. Activities by 

agency personnel under this alternative should have a minimal effect on 

recreational use because these areas are already closed to public use. However 

when firearms or pyrotechnics will be used in CMD activities it might be 

necessary for agency personnel to establish a safe perimeter around the colonies 

and detour boat traffic away from those areas. In 2005, when research on CDM 

methods was being conducted at WSI, the USFWS had a marked USFWS boat 

circling the island during the entire shooting period. The USFWS also broadcast 

a notice to mariners broadcast over channel 16 VHF radio to warn boaters to stay 

one mile from the island. The USFWS plans to do the same for all management 

trips. Similar measures are likely to be used by ODW. As much as possible, 

these activities would be planned so as not to coincide with heavy recreational use 

and boat traffic in a given area. Overall impacts on recreation from these 

protective measures are likely to be minimal. Use of MBPs by private 

landowners likely would not have any effect on recreation. 

4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts, as defined by the CEQ (40 CFR 1508.7), are impacts to the 

environment that result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 

(Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts 

may result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over 

time. 

Under the alternatives presented, the lead and cooperating agencies would address 

damage associated with DCCOs in a number of situations throughout the State. The lead 

and cooperating agencies would coordinate their efforts and information on the impacts 

of their activities and the activities of other entities reporting to the USFWS to monitor 

the cumulative impacts of their actions. The potential cumulative impacts analyzed 

below could occur either as a result of the lead and cooperating agency CDM program 

activities over time, or as a result of the aggregate effects of those activities combined 

with the activities of other agencies and individuals. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

101 

Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife Populations 

As analyzed in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, CDM methods used or recommended by the lead 

and cooperating agencies together with impacts by other entities, will likely have no 

cumulative adverse effects on DCCO and non-target wildlife populations. The intent and 

expected result of this program is to prevent the continued loss of rare island vegetation 

and critical colonial waterbird nesting habitat attributed to the rapid increase in DCCO 

densities in Ohio. Take of DCCOs by all sources is anticipated to have no affect on the 

long-term sustainability of DCCO populations in Ohio, the region, and the U.S. 

Population trend data and information provided in the USFWS FEIS (USFWS 2003) 

indicate that DCCO populations have increased for Ohio, the region and the U.S. over the 

past 20 years. When control actions are implemented by the lead and cooperating 

agencies the potential lethal take of non-target wildlife species is expected to be minimal 

to non-existent. The potential for beneficial impacts on vegetation, sensitive wildlife 

populations is greatest for Alternatives 1 and 5 then decreasingly less under Alternatives 

2, 3 and 4. 

Cumulative Impact Potential from CDM Methods 

CDM methods used or recommended by the lead and cooperating agencies may include 

recommendations on exclusion through use of various barriers (at aquaculture facilities 

and private fish ponds), habitat modification of structures or vegetation, live trapping and 

euthanasia of birds, harassment of birds or bird flocks, nest and egg destruction, and 

shooting. Shotguns would only use shot that does not contain lead to prevent adverse 

impacts associated with lead in the environment. No cumulative adverse effects are 

anticipated from implementation of these CDM methods.

 

4.3 SUMMARY 

Under the Preferred Alternative, the lethal removal of DCCOs by the lead and 

cooperating agencies would not have an adverse impact on the long-term sustainability of 

DCCO populations in Ohio, the Region or the United States, but some local reductions 

would occur. Given the SOP’s for the protection of nontarget species in Chapter 3 and 

the lead and cooperating agencies’ commitment to adhere to all USFWS and ODW 

recommendations and requirements for the protection of State and Federally-listed 

threatened and endangered species, the Preferred Alternative will not adversely impact 

nontarget species populations. No risk to public safety is expected when the lead and 

cooperating agencies conduct or recommend CDM because trained and experienced 

wildlife biologists/specialists would be conducting the work and providing guidance 

(technical assistance) to others conducting CDM. Potential risks to public safety are 

slightly higher from persons who reject assistance and recommendations in Alternatives 

1, 2, 3 and 5 and conduct their own CDM activities, and when no assistance is provided 

in Alternative 4. However, overall risks to public safety from the actions of entities other 

than the lead and cooperating agencies are anticipated to be very low. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

102 

Although some persons will likely be opposed to the lead and cooperating agencies 

conducting CDM activities on public and private lands within the state of Ohio, the 

analysis in this EA indicates that an Integrated CDM program will not result in 

cumulative adverse impacts on the quality of the human environment. Table 4-3 

summarizes the expected impact of each of the alternatives on each of the issues. 

Table 4-3. Summary of impacts of each of the alternatives on each of the issues related to CDM 

in Ohio. 

Issues Alternative 1 

Integrated CDM 

Program Including 

PRDO 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative 2 

Only Non-lethal 

CDM by Federal 

Agencies 

Alternative 3 

Only Technical 

Assistance by 

Federal Agencies. 

Alternative 4 

No CDM by 

Federal Agencies

Alternative 5 

Integrated CDM, 

Excluding PRDO 

(No Action) 

Effects on 

DCCO 

Populations

Low effect - 

reductions in local 

DCCO numbers; 

would not 

significantly affect 

viability of state, 

regional, national, 

and continental 

populations. 

No effect by 

Federal agencies. 

ODW removal of 

DCCOs for the 

protection of public 

resources would be 

much lower than 

Alts 1, 3 and 5. No 

other lethal CDM 

would be 

permitted. 

No effect by 

Federal agencies. 

Number of DCCOs 

removed by ODW 

on non-Federal 

sites and DCCOs 

removed under 

MBPs and research 

permits could equal 

that expected under 

Alts 1 and 5. Total 

impacts would be 

lower than Alts. 1 

and 5 because there 

would be no 

DCCO removal at 

WSI 

No effect by 

Federal agencies. 

ODW removal of 

DCCOs for the 

protection of public 

resources would be 

much lower than 

Alts 1, 3 and 5. No 

other lethal CDM 

would be 

permitted. 

Low effect - 

reductions in local 

DCCO numbers; 

would not 

significantly affect 

viability of state, 

regional, national, 

and continental 

populations. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

103 

Issues Alternative 1 

Integrated CDM 

Program Including 

PRDO 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative 2 

Only Non-lethal 

CDM by Federal 

Agencies 

Alternative 3 

Only Technical 

Assistance by 

Federal Agencies. 

Alternative 4 

No CDM by 

Federal Agencies

Alternative 5 

Integrated CDM, 

Excluding PRDO 

(No Action) 

Effects on 

Other Wildlife 

Species, 

Including 

T&E Species 

Low effect - methods 

used by lead and 

cooperating agencies 

would be highly 

selective with very 

little risk to nontarget species. 

Specific measures to 

minimize impacts to 

T&E species. 

Maximum benefits to 

species adversely 

impacted by DCCOs. 

Low effect - 

methods used by 

lead and 

cooperating 

agencies, would be 

highly selective 

with very little risk 

to non-target 

species. 

Specific measures 

to minimize 

impacts to T&E 

species. 

Benefits to species 

adversely impacted 

by DCCOs 

dependent upon 

efficacy of 

exclusive use of 

non-lethal methods 

at WSI and reduced 

use of lethal 

techniques at nonFederal sites. 

No effects by 

Federal agencies. 

Low effect by 

ODW - methods 

used would be 

highly selective 

with very little risk 

to non-target 

species. 

Specific measures 

to minimize 

impacts to T&E 

species. 

Benefits to species 

adversely impacted 

by DCCOs on nonFederal lands 

similar to Alts 1 

and 5. No benefit 

to species 

adversely impacted 

by DCCOs at WSI.

No effect by 

Federal agencies. 

Low effect by 

ODW - methods 

used would be 

highly selective 

with very little risk 

to non-target 

species. 

Benefits to species 

adversely impacted 

by DCCOs 

dependent upon 

efficacy of nonlethal techniques 

and reduced use of 

lethal techniques at 

non-Federal sites. 

No benefit to 

species adversely 

impacted by 

DCCOs at WSI. 

Low effect - 

methods used by 

lead and 

cooperating 

agencies would be 

highly selective 

with very little risk 

to non-target 

species. 

Specific measures 

to minimize 

impacts to T&E 

species. 

Maximum benefits 

to species (birds, 

plants) adversely 

impacted by 

DCCOs. 

Effects on 

Human 

Health and 

Safety 

Negligible risk from 

methods used by lead 

and cooperating 

agencies. 

Good probability of 

reducing hazards 

associated with 

DCCOs. 

Negligible risk 

from methods used 

by lead and 

cooperating 

agencies. 

Risk from ODW 

use of lethal 

techniques less 

than low levels 

anticipated for 

Alts. 1 and 5. 

Less likely to 

reduce hazards 

associated with 

DCCOs than 

Alternatives 1, 3, 

and 5. 

No risk from 

actions of Federal 

agencies. 

Risks from ODW 

CDM actions on 

non-Federal lands 

identical to Alts. 1 

and 5. 

Risks from actions 

of other entities 

low but variable 

depending upon 

experience. Risks 

reduced by use of 

technical 

assistance. 

Good probability 

of reducing hazards 

associated with 

DCCOs. 

No risk from 

actions of Federal 

agencies 

Risk from ODW 

use of lethal 

techniques less 

than low levels 

anticipated for 

Alts. 1 and 5. 

Less likely to 

reduce hazards 

associated with 

DCCOs than 

Alternatives 1, 3, 

and 5. 

Negligible risk 

from methods used 

by lead and 

cooperating 

agencies. 

Good probability 

of reducing hazards 

associated with 

DCCOs. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

104 

Issues Alternative 1 

Integrated CDM 

Program Including 

PRDO 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative 2 

Only Non-lethal 

CDM by Federal 

Agencies 

Alternative 3 

Only Technical 

Assistance by 

Federal Agencies. 

Alternative 4 

No CDM by 

Federal Agencies

Alternative 5 

Integrated CDM, 

Excluding PRDO 

(No Action) 

Aesthetic 

Impacts 

Low to moderate 

effect at local levels; 

Some local 

populations may be 

reduced. DCCO 

viewing 

opportunities would 

still be available 

Best potential for 

localized benefits to 

those who enjoy 

species that may be 

adversely impacted 

by DCCOs. 

Low to moderate 

effect. Impact will 

depend on success 

of efforts to 

relocate problem 

DCCOs with nonlethal techniques 

and success of 

limited ODW use 

of lethal CDM 

methods to protect 

public resources on 

non-Federal lands 

Localized benefits 

to those who enjoy 

species that may be 

adversely impacted 

by DCCOs variable 

depending on 

efficacy of nonlethal techniques. 

No effect by 

Federal agencies 

Impact of entities 

other than WS and 

USFWS would be 

similar to Alts 1 

and 5 on nonFederal lands. 

Benefits to those 

who enjoy species 

adversely impacted 

by DCCOs on nonFederal lands 

similar to Alts. 1 

and 5. 

No localized 

benefits to those 

who enjoy species 

adversely impacted 

by DCCOs at WSI 

because CDM 

efforts to protect 

public resources 

would not be 

conducted at WSI. 

No effect by 

Federal agencies. 

Impact of other 

entities will depend 

on success of 

efforts to relocate 

problem DCCOs 

with non-lethal 

techniques and 

success of limited 

ODW use of lethal 

CDM methods to 

protect public 

resources. 

Localized benefits 

to those who enjoy 

species that may be 

adversely impacted 

by DCCOs on non 

Federal lands 

variable depending 

on efficacy of 

ODW efforts. 

Low to moderate 

effect at local 

levels; Some local 

populations may be 

reduced. DCCO 

viewing 

opportunities 

would still be 

available 

Best potential for 

localized benefits 

to those who enjoy 

species that may be 

adversely impacted 

by DCCOs. 

Humaneness 

and Animal 

Welfare 

Concerns of 

Methods Used

Low to moderate 

effect - methods 

viewed as inhumane 

(lethal CDM 

methods) by some 

people would be 

used by lead and 

cooperating agencies. 

Same number of 

DCCOs taken as 

Alternative 5. 

Lower effect than 

Alt. 5 because only 

non-lethal methods 

would be used by 

entities other than 

ODW. Use of 

lethal methods by 

ODW greatly 

reduced. 

No effect by 

Federal agencies. 

Lethal available to 

other entities but 

fewer DCCOs 

would be taken 

than under 

Alternative 5 

because no lethal 

used at WSI. 

No effect by 

Federal agencies. 

No use of lethal by 

any entity other 

than ODW. 

Use of lethal 

methods by ODW 

greatly reduced. 

Low to moderate 

effect - methods 

viewed by some 

people as 

inhumane (lethal 

CDM methods) 

would be used by 

lead and 

cooperating 

agencies. 

Carcass 

Disposal 

Low effects because 

disposal actions will 

be conducted in 

accordance with state 

and Federal laws and 

regulations. Impacts 

same as Alt 5. 

Effects lower than 

Alts 1,3, and 5 

because lowest 

used of lethal CDM 

methods. Identical 

to Alt 4. 

Effects lower than 

alts 1 and 5 

because less use of 

lethal CDM 

methods. 

Effects lower than 

Alts 1,3, and 5 

because lowest 

used of lethal CDM 

methods. Identical 

to Alt 2. 

Low effects 

because disposal 

actions will be 

conducted in 

accordance with 

state and Federal 

laws and 

regulations. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

105 

Issues Alternative 1 

Integrated CDM 

Program Including 

PRDO 

(Preferred 

Alternative) 

Alternative 2 

Only Non-lethal 

CDM by Federal 

Agencies 

Alternative 3 

Only Technical 

Assistance by 

Federal Agencies. 

Alternative 4 

No CDM by 

Federal Agencies

Alternative 5 

Integrated CDM, 

Excluding PRDO 

(No Action) 

Effects on 

Recreation in 

the 

Surrounding 

Areas 

Low impacts on 

recreation 

Benefits from 

potential future 

projects to benefit 

sport fishing greatest 

for this alternative 

Less lethal CDM 

but not necessarily 

less impact on 

recreation 

Benefits from 

potential future 

projects to benefit 

sport fishing 

dependent upon 

efficacy of nonlethal methods and 

reduced access to 

lethal CDM 

methods 

Less lethal CDM 

but not necessarily 

less impact on 

recreation at nonFederal sites. No 

impacts at Federal 

sites 

Benefits from 

potential future 

projects to benefit 

sport fishing 

dependent upon 

whether goals can 

be accomplished at 

non-Federal sites 

Less lethal CDM 

but not necessarily 

less impact on 

recreation at nonFederal sites. No 

impacts at Federal 

sites 

Benefits from 

potential future 

projects to benefit 

sport fishing 

dependent upon 

whether goals can 

be accomplished at 

non-Federal sites 

and efficacy of 

programs with 

restricted access to 

CDM methods. 

Low impacts on 

recreation. 

Future projects to 

benefit sport 

fishing would be 

extremely limited. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

106 

CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

Tara E. Baranowski, Wildlife Technician USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services 

Doug Brewer, Refuge Manager USFWS, ONWR 

Jonathon D. Cepek, District Supervisor USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services 

Shauna Hanisch, Wildlife Biologist USFWS 

Ron Huffman, Wildlife Biologist USFWS, ONWR 

Roger Knight, Fisheries Program Administrator ODNR, Division of Wildlife 

Rachel Levin, Public Affairs Specialist USFWS 

Steve Lewis, Regional Nongame Bird Coordinator USFWS 

Andy J. Montoney, State Director USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services 

Dave Risley, Executive Administrator ODNR, Division of Wildlife 

David E. Sherman, Wildlife Biologist ODNR, Division of Wildlife 

Mark Shieldcastle, Wetland Research Project Leader ODNR, Division of Wildlife 

Jeff Tyson, Fisheries Biology Supervisor ODNR, Division of Wildlife 

Chris Vandergoot, Fisheries Biologist ODNR, Division of Wildlife 

Kimberly Wagner, Environmental Coordinator USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services 

Angela Zimmerman, Endang. Species Coord. USFWS, Ohio Ecological Services 

Field Office 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

107 

CHAPTER 6: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED 

ON THE EA 

This chapter contains issues raised by the public during the comment period for this EA 

and the agencies’ response to each of the issues. Comments from the public are 

numbered and are written in bold text. The agencies’ response follows each comment 

and is written in standard text. 

1. Double-crested cormorants are having a devastating impact on fishery resources 

in Lake Erie. The numbers and catch rate of walleye, smallmouth bass and yellow 

perch are down. There are so many DCCOs, how can they possibly not be having 

an adverse impact on populations of yellow perch, smallmouth bass and walleye? 

The agencies understand and appreciate the concerns people have regarding the impact of 

DCCOs on fishery resources and presented information on fish populations in Lake Erie 

and an evaluation of available data on DCCO impacts in the EA Sections 1.5.2 and 

1.5.6.2. While there is no question that there are a lot of DCCOs on the Lake Erie islands 

and that these DCCOs eat a lot of fish, the type and volume of each species taken and the 

impact of that take on popular commercial and recreational species is not clear. Lake 

Erie is a large and complex ecosystem that has been heavily altered by human activities 

including the introduction of non-native fish species. Double-crested cormorants feed 

opportunistically on a variety of fish species, depending on location and prey availability 

(USFWS 2003). In the Great Lakes, fish species such as the alewife and gizzard shad 

appear to be the most important prey. Stickleback, sculpin, cyprinids, and yellow perch, 

and, at some localities, burbot, freshwater drum, and lake/northern chub are also 

important prey fish species for DCCOs (Wires et al. 2001). The impact of DCCO 

foraging on any particular fish species depends upon a number of local variables and 

great care should be taken when extrapolating findings from one location to another. 

Previous research on Lake Erie (Bur et al. 1999) indicates that walleye, yellow perch, and 

smallmouth bass were not common food items, but the study covered only one year. 

More recently, DCCO regurgitant data collected by the United States Geological Survey 

(USGS) suggests that consumption of walleye and yellow perch may be quite high, 

perhaps approaching 50% of the diet in some areas (Mike Bur, Sandusky Biological 

Station USGS, unpublished data). Although analysis in the EA indicate that DCCOs 

have the potential to adversely impact fishery resources in Lake Erie, the data is not 

definitive and action will not be taken specifically to protect fishery resources at this 

time. However, it should be noted that if current DCCO densities are having an adverse 

impact on fisheries, the reduction in the number of breeding DCCOs proposed in the 

preferred alternative for the protection of vegetation and co-nesting waterbirds may be 

sufficient to also have an incidental beneficial impact on fishery resources. The ODNR 

will closely monitor fish populations in areas where CDM may occur to see if CDM 

efforts are having an incidental beneficial impact on fish populations. 

2. Double-crested cormorants are having an adverse impact on vegetation on Lake 

Erie islands. Loss of vegetation will adversely impact other species on islands. Loss 

of vegetation will greatly reduce aesthetic enjoyment of islands. West Sister Island 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

108 

is starting to resemble the skeletons that some Canadian Islands have become. 

Commenters do not want to see what has happened/is happening on Middle Island 

and East Sister Island happen in Ohio. West Sister Island (WSI) is too important a 

rookery resource to lose. 

We agree. Habitat loss for other co-nesting birds is the Service’s main concern on WSI. 

Population goals for black-crowned night-herons, great egrets, great blue herons, and 

DCCO were set during the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) process for WSI 

(Section 1.7). Wires and Cuthbert (2001) identified WSI as the most important colonial 

waterbird colony site in the U.S. Great Lakes.

The agencies agree with concerns regarding the impact of high DCCO densities on 

vegetation and co-nesting waterbirds. These concerns are based, in part on data from and 

observations of DCCO impacts on other Lake Erie Islands which have had high DCCO 

densities for longer periods of time than the islands covered in this EA (Hebert et al. 

2005). These issues are addressed in the EA in Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.6.1 and are the 

basis for the management actions proposed in this EA. 

3. There appears to be recent development of algae deposits near islands used by 

DCCOs instead of previous rocky bottom. Commenter attributes algae to 

contamination from DCCO feces. 

Increases in the alga Cladophora have been documented throughout Lake Erie in recent 

years, including areas without DCCOs. Perhaps DCCO feces contribute to the algal 

blooms near DCCO colonies but there are others factors as well, so there may not be a 

major reduction in local algae growth even if DCCO abundance is reduced. 

4. There is little scientific validation/no credible evidence for DCCO control to 

enhance/protect fishery resources. 

While the EA presents examples of studies indicating that DCCOs can have an adverse 

impact on local fishery resources and a discussion of how DCCOs might have an adverse 

impact on fisheries near the Ohio Lake Erie islands, we agree that this data is not 

sufficiently definitive to warrant action to protect fishery resources in Ohio at this time. 

All management actions proposed in the EA are intended for the protection of vegetation 

and co-nesting waterbirds. The EA would have to be supplemented if lethal CDM other 

than very limited shooting to reinforce hazing were to be conducted for the protection of 

free-swimming fish populations. 

5. EA repeatedly discusses increase in DCCOs from 1991-present. The EA fails to 

acknowledge that current increases in DCCO numbers may represent an increase 

from declines caused by a number of factors including environmental contaminants. 

It is not appropriate to use 1991 densities as “baseline”. 

Information on the history of DCCOs in Ohio has been added to Section 1.5.6. 

Information on the history of other colonial waterbird species has been added to the EA 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

109 

in Section 1.5.6.1. Information on recent increases in DCCO numbers is used in the EA 

to demonstrate the rate at which the DCCO population has increased in Ohio and the 

capacity of local populations to increase if reduced to levels which have been seen in the 

recent past. Data from 1991 are not presented as a baseline management objective. 

6. Double-crested cormorants have a longer history of breeding in Ohio than other 

waterbirds (great, snowy and cattle egrets) which may be at northern limit of their 

range. These species may just have been taking advantage of reduction in DCCO 

numbers to establish a breeding presence. Double-crested cormorants have a 

stronger claim to these sites than these other species. 

The management plan established by the agencies is intended to preserve habitat for all 

colonial waterbird species. All 3 egrets and DCCOs are native to Ohio, and currently the 

very limited nesting habitat of the 3 egrets is threatened by DCCO impacts. Ohio's 

habitat is severely altered from what it may have looked like 100-200 years ago. The 

agencies based their management decisions primarily on the current situation and not 

what may or may not have occurred before the landscape was altered by Europeans. The 

preferred alternative was selected because it would be most effective in decreasing or 

eliminating the degradation of nesting habitat of 3 state-listed birds. The ODNR has the 

responsibility to conserve and improve wildlife resources, especially those whose 

presence in our state is in peril. Similarly, the CCP for WSI has only 1 habitat objective, 

maintain nesting habitat for approximately 1,000 pairs of great blue herons, 800 pairs of 

great egrets, 500 pairs of black-crowned night-herons, and 1,500 pairs of DCCOs. The 

CCP is the guiding management document for WSINWR, and was prepared in 

compliance with the NEPA, including completion of an EA and public review and 

comment. 

The agencies are not advocating the elimination of DCCOs from the Lake Erie islands 

and, with the exception of Green Island, the management objectives include maintaining 

breeding populations of DCCOs at all sites where CDM is proposed. The WSINWR set a 

target for 1,500-2,000 nesting pairs in the EA based on the CCP habitat objectives, and 

on the DCCO population level at which habitat damage began to occur at a rapid pace. 

The WSINWR is advocating a proactive approach to reduce the DCCO population on 

WSI to levels at which habitat damage is minimized or reversed, in order to maintain 

nesting habitat for the other co-nesting waterbirds. A population of at least 1,500 nesting 

pairs of DCCOs will be maintained at WSINWR. Actual DCCO population levels at 

WSINWR may ultimately be maintained at a level higher than the 1,500 pair minimum 

depending upon the data obtained from monitoring the impacts of the proposed action on 

DCCOs, co-nesting birds and vegetation (i.e., the use of an adaptive management 

approach). 

7. EA fails to accurately depict interactions between DCCOs and other species. 

Interactions among DCCOs and other species are covered in EA Sections 1.5.1 and 

1.5.6.1. For WSI, where the best data are available, shifts in distribution over time for 

great egrets and great blue herons have occurred as the DCCO population has increased. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

110 

The nesting area of great blue herons has been compressed into a smaller section of the 

island. Takeovers of great blue heron nests by DCCOs have been observed. The great 

egret population was more evenly distributed throughout the island before the recent 

increases in DCCO density, and has shifted to concentrate in areas without DCCOs or 

areas with low DCCO numbers. In the last year, DCCOs have begun to nest in areas 

occupied by black-crowned night-herons. 

8. EA inaccurately states that West Sister Island and Sandusky host the only two 

Ohio nesting sites of black-crowned night-herons but that is not true as they have 

bred at other sites in recent decades and only last summer established Cincinnati's 

second colony (of eight nests) at an inland island at Spring Grove. 

Thank you, the EA has been corrected accordingly. While this is great news, the 

existence of one or two small colonies does not detract from the importance of the Lake 

Erie islands as important nesting areas for night-herons. As the commenter alludes to, 

night-herons have nested in other areas, but all of these areas (except for Cincinnati) have 

been abandoned for at least 40 years. The night-heron colonies on the Lake Erie islands 

are still quite valuable since they are the only colonies which have consistently 

contributed to Ohio’s small night-heron population for the past 10 years. The 2 small 

colonies have not existed long enough to determine if they will remain viable over the 

next 5-10 years. 

9. Black-crowned night-heron numbers at WSI in 2005 are at the highest level in 10 

years, so what’s the problem? EA should acknowledge that fluctuation in blackcrowned night-heron populations is normal. Double-crested cormorant 

management should be considered on WSI only when there is conclusive proof that 

DCCOs are impacting black-crowned night-heron habitat and then only be confined 

to areas of island occupied by black-crowned night-herons. Double-crested 

cormorant management for the protection of black-crowned night-herons could 

only be justified on the wilderness because of the status of the bird as a state 

threatened species. 

We agree that black-crowned night-herons have shown some variations in population 

levels, especially at TPI. The black-crowned night-heron population on WSI experienced 

a steady decline from 1991 through 1999, from 1,113 pairs to 387 pairs. This decline has 

been mainly attributed to habitat succession on the island. However, since 1996, the 

black-crowned night-heron population at WSI has fluctuated between a high of 500 pairs 

(1996, 2005) and a low of 387 pairs (1999). The fluctuation within this period is within 

sampling error, so no clear population trend is indicated. The population may be 

stabilizing in line with currently available nesting habitat. Habitat management to 

produce suitable nesting cover for black-crowned night-herons is also having a stabilizing 

effect, as black-crowned night-herons are readily using the managed area. However, the 

DCCO population is rapidly expanding to areas near or occupied by black-crowned 

night-herons, leading the USFWS and ODNR to be concerned for the loss of additional 

nesting habitat for black-crowned night-herons. Double-crested cormorants also appear 

to be influencing a shift of the great egret population from a relatively uniform 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

111 

distribution to a pattern of higher concentration in areas closer to the black-crowned 

night-herons and away from DCCOs. Because the night-herons have such a small 

breeding population in Ohio, the agencies would like to be proactive and stop the 

expansion of DCCO nesting on WSI before it directly impacts the night-herons. 

As stated for Comment 6, the CCP sets refuge management goals for black-crowned 

night-herons, great egrets, great blue herons, and DCCOs. Since the CCP is the guiding 

document for the refuge, we have a responsibility to try and meet the goals set there to 

the best of our ability. WSI’s role as the most important colonial waterbird colony site in 

the U.S. Great Lakes was established by Wires and Cuthbert (2001). Criteria used to 

establish this ranking were based the diversity of the species and their high population 

numbers. Their ranking score of 12 for WSI was the highest for any colony in the U.S. 

Great Lakes; the next highest score was 9, with the majority of islands having a score of 

4-5. 

10. There is no biological justification to undertake DCCO management at WSI to 

protect great blue herons and great egrets as they are not listed in the state or rare 

in the US. Great blue herons, great egrets and black-crowned night-herons have 

somewhat peripheral distributions in Great Lakes and great blue herons and great 

egrets are abundant in the Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Region. Great 

blue herons are not obligate nesters on the islands frequented by DCCOs. Great 

blue herons are larger and more aggressive than any other co-nester including 

DCCOs and are not in demonstrable trouble. There is no evidence of DCCOs 

having an adverse impact on great blue herons. 

We agree that great blue herons have other nest sites than the islands. However the 

DCCOs do appear to be causing some problems for the great blue herons at WSI. The 

nesting area of great blue herons has been compressed into a smaller section of the island. 

This is particularly noticeable in the northeast quarter of the island. Takeovers of great 

blue heron nests by DCCOs have been observed. The great egret population at WSI was 

also more evenly distributed throughout the island before DCCO appeared, and at present 

has shifted to concentrate in areas without DCCO or areas with low DCCO numbers. 

As stated for comments 6 and 9, the CCP sets refuge management goals for blackcrowned night-herons, great egrets, great blue herons, and DCCO. Since the CCP is the 

guiding document for WSINWR, we have a responsibility to try and meet the goals set 

there to the best of our ability. WSI’s role as the most important colonial waterbird 

colony site in the U.S. Great Lakes was established by Wires and Cuthbert (2001). 

11. EA should consider using continuous human presence on islands (Green in 

particular) to deter DCCOs. Volunteers could be used to keep birds off islands in 

exchange for "island vacation" or daily hazing expeditions could be made from 

South Bass island. 

Continuous human presence on the islands would impact the other nesting species (egrets 

and herons). It's highly likely that the egrets and night-herons choose to nest on the 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

112 

islands because of the lack of human intrusion. Achieving a reduction in DCCO numbers 

through the exclusive use of hazing is likely to require more trips over a longer period of 

time than the proposed action. Hazing trips or continuous human presence would 

undoubtedly negatively impact other nesting species. 

12. Destruction of scarce Carolinian vegetation is an important issue but only at 

Green Island. Destruction of vegetation at other sites does not justify lethal CDM 

methods. 

Protection of vegetation is important when plant species or communities have ecological 

value, as in the case of Carolinian vegetation. On the Ohio Lake Erie islands, vegetation 

also provides habitat for other nesting waterbirds (herons and egrets). 

13. In the few instances where DCCOs have taken some territory from other 

nesting colonial waterbirds over the past 15 years their numbers are tapering off on 

their own. 

Data from WSI and the other Lake Erie islands shows that DCCOs have increased in 

numbers and in the area occupied by their nesting activities. To date, there is no evidence 

that the number of breeding DCCOs on WSI or Green Island is stabilizing although there 

is some evidence that this might be the case for TPI. Even if the breeding population of 

DCCOs at WSI were to stabilize at current levels, the current density of DCCOs is having 

unacceptable impacts on vegetation and the need for action would remain. The 

population at TPI may not continue to remain stable if CDM actions are conducted at 

Green and West Sister Islands because birds may move from these sites to TPI. Analysis 

of the possibility that management actions taken at one site could affect DCCO impacts at 

other sites that may not have CDM is addressed for WSI under Alternative 3 and similar 

impacts may be anticipated for TPI if CDM is conducted at WSI and Green Island, but no 

effort is made to maintain current numbers at TPI. 

14. EA provides no data to prove that DCCO removal is successful in the US or 

Canada. 

Double-crested cormorant removal to protect vegetation is a relatively new technique, 

limited data are available; therefore, the ODNR and WSINWR will monitor vegetation, 

co-nesting birds, and DCCO numbers on the islands to determine if DCCO removal is 

having the anticipated beneficial impact on co-nesting birds and vegetation. There are 

data indicating that CDM efforts can reduce the density of nesting DCCOs 

(http://llojibwe.com). Impacts of DCCO removal on woody vegetation, both positive and 

negative, will take time to manifest. 

15. There are so many DCCOs present during migration they must be having 

adverse impacts on vegetation. 

Impact of DCCOs on vegetation and co-nesting species is discussed in Comment 2 and in 

EA Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.6.1. Concerns about impacts on pubic resources from high 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

113 

densities of DCCOs during migration are the reason the proposed action includes the 

option to use hazing, reinforced with some lethal control, to decrease the period of time 

large congregations of migrating DCCOs remain in areas where impacts on public 

resources are a concern (Section 4.1.1). The fact that this type of activity could occur has 

been clarified in the description of the proposed alternative (Section 3.2.1) 

16. Double-crested cormorants need to be eliminated from the Great Lakes area. 

The DCCO is a native bird to Ohio and protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The 

birds are a valuable part of the ecosystem, and should not be eliminated. At high 

densities, they have a negative impact on vegetation, but such impacts should be reduced 

by the proposed CDM. 

17. Double-crested cormorant damage around Canadian islands in other areas of 

the Great Lakes should be managed. 

The scope of this EA is limited to Ohio. The need for DCCO damage management in 

areas outside of Ohio is outside the scope of this EA. However, the USFWS monitors 

DCCO populations and CDM activities in all states and works closely with Canadian 

natural resource officials to ensure that the cumulative impact of actions taken under the 

PRDO are not placing regional or national DCCO populations at risk (USFWS 2003). 

18. Prompt action is needed to address DCCO damage problems. Something needs 

to be done immediately. 

Activities proposed under the alternatives analyzed in this EA will start in April 2006. 

19. Frustrated individuals may try and take matters into their own hands and 

remove the DCCOs themselves even if it is against the law. 

On Little Galloo Island in Lake Ontario in 1998 and on Little Charity Island in Saginaw 

Bay in 2000, hundreds of adult and juvenile DCCOs were illegally killed by individuals 

frustrated over the perceived impact of DCCOs on local fisheries. Individuals taking 

action outside the law cause harm not only to DCCOs, but to other species that nest with 

them. In the case of Little Charity Island, this included herons, egrets, gulls, and terns. 

The agencies are aware that some individuals in Ohio are also extremely frustrated with 

the perceived impact of DCCOs on fisheries and the perceived failure of the agencies to 

address DCCO damage and that these individuals have considered illegal actions like 

those taken at Little Galloo and Little Charity Islands. 

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is the federal agency with primary management 

responsibility over all migratory birds in the United States, including DCCOs. Without a 

permit, killing of DCCOs, or any migratory bird or their eggs, is subject to penalties of 

the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act that include a $5,000 fine and/or six months 

imprisonment. It also protects nests and eggs. The 10 individuals found guilty of the 

incident at Little Galloo Island received sentences of up to two years' probation and six 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

114 

months of in-home confinement, plus up to $2,500 each in fines. The judge also ordered 

the men to make a cumulative contribution of $27,500 to the National Fish and Wildlife 

Foundation. 

20. Double-crested cormorant problems could be solved with a regulated hunting 

season for DCCOs. 

Use of regulated hunting to address conflicts with DCCOs was analyzed in the FEIS 

(USFWS 2003) and was not selected as the management alternative. Therefore, use of 

regulated hunting is not an option legally available for CDM at this time. The FEIS 

acknowledged that regulated hunting would be an economical way to kill numerous 

DCCOs at minimal expense to the government. However, reasons provided in the FEIS 

for not selecting regulated hunting included: (1) concerns about monitoring and 

preventing adverse impacts on co-nesting and look-alike species; (2) the fact that birds 

taken during a hunting season might not be the ones causing problems, and (3) the 

agencies and numerous commenters had serious ethical reservations about permitting a 

non-traditional species to be hunted when it cannot be eaten or widely utilized. 

21. Double-crested cormorants on Green Island will not adversely impact the Lake 

Erie watersnake. Snakes use low vegetation and leaf litter on hot summer days, but 

it is not critical habitat. No data exist to prove that DCCOs are predators on 

watersnakes or that watersnakes will avoid groups of DCCOs. Young and even 

mature snakes are eaten by herons and egrets not DCCOs. 

The DCCOs impact the snakes through the elimination of vegetation not by consuming 

the snakes. Information presented in the EA was based on consultation with staff from 

the USFWS Reynoldsburg Ecological Services Field Office regarding impacts of the 

proposed action on federally listed species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lake Erie 

Watersnake Management Guidelines for Construction, Development, and Land 

Management Activities (EA Appendix H) states that shoreline vegetation is an important 

component of Lake Erie watersnake’s summer habitat. Vegetation provides resting, 

basking, cover, and mating locations for the snake. Agency uncertainty regarding 

interactions between snakes and DCCOs is clearly stated in the EA Section 1.5.6.1. 

22. Harassment is not acceptable because it would just move the problem to other 

areas. 

The preferred alternative would allow for access to a full range of CDM methods to 

reduce damage by DCCOs to habitat. An integrated approach will allow us to select, 

evaluate, and refine the best method to address the problem. We plan to evaluate the 

effectiveness of harassment, in particular for fall migrating and staging DCCOs. We plan 

to assess harassment by radio-tracking a subset of the DCCO population, to ensure that 

DCCOs are not displaced to an area where other problems could occur. Problems with 

harassment moving DCCOs and DCCO problems is discussed in the response to 

Comments 13 and 64, and in the Chapter 4 analysis of impacts of Alternative 3 wherein 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

115 

DCCOs may move to sites (WSINWR) where CDM is not conducted and in the FEIS 

(USFWS 2006). 

23. Agencies should seek to use natural predation to control eggs and nestlings. 

This method was not considered because predators that would feed on DCCO eggs would 

likely also adversely impact other co-nesting species directly by preying on eggs and 

young of co-nesting birds or indirectly by causing species like DCCOs which can use the 

ground or trees for nesting to quit using ground nests thereby increasing pressure on and 

competition for nesting sites in vegetation. 

24. Opposes the preferred alternative on the basis of its expansiveness and lack of 

any stated clear, objective parameters which could be used to determine actions 

which might be taken in the future. 

Population goals for black-crowned night-herons, great egrets, great blue herons, and 

DCCO were set during the CCP process for WSI. Double-crested cormorant population 

targets for WSI are based on the CCP goals, and the level at which rapid habitat damage 

to vegetation due to DCCO guano was observed. We will monitor habitat and bird 

populations on WSI, and take an adaptive approach to striking a balance between the conesting species on the island. The management objectives are defined in Section 1.5.6.3 

of the EA. Any further action, other than what is outlined in the EA, would require a 

supplement to this EA. 

25. It is not possible to determine when the proposed program would be considered 

successful or unsuccessful and terminated. 

Double-crested cormorant removal to protect vegetation is a relatively new technique and 

little information is available. We set population targets based on the best scientific 

evidence we have to date. The ODNR and WSINWR will monitor vegetation, co-nesting 

birds, and DCCO densities on the islands to determine if DCCO removal is having the 

anticipated beneficial impact on co-nesting birds and vegetation. Indicators of success 

will be: (1) recovery of damaged vegetation, (2) stable or increasing populations of conesting waterbirds, and/or (3) expansion in the distribution of co-nesting species. 

Impacts of DCCO removal on woody vegetation, both positive and negative, take time to 

manifest, and it is possible that it may take years before impacts on vegetation are readily 

apparent. However, impacts of the CDM activities will be monitored and reported 

annually through annual monitoring reports for the EA and the annual reporting 

requirements required under the PRDO. The agencies will take an adaptive management 

approach to continually refine methods and goals as we gain a better understanding of the 

dynamics at work at the CDM sites. The EA would have to be supplemented before 

CDM activities that have greater impacts than those proposed in the EA could be 

conducted. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

116 

26. Double-crested cormorant effects on fishery resources are prominently featured 

in the EA as a driving issue, but are not a demonstrated issue with ODNR. 

Many people have expressed concerns about the impact of DCCOs on fishery resources. 

The EA presents the current state of our knowledge on this issue in order to inform the 

public of the data available to the agencies on this issue and our reasons for not including 

protection of free-swimming fish as a factor driving current management objectives at 

this time. See response to Comment 1 above. 

27. If the health of Lake Erie fisheries were to increase or decrease, how would the 

variance be coupled with any control treatments on DCCOs? And how would all the 

variables present in the lake affect any treatment? 

ODNR will continue to monitor fish populations in Lake Erie and conduct research on 

DCCO impacts on fishery resources in the Lake Erie area. As discussed above it is 

possible that CDM actions taken to protect vegetation and co-nesting species may also 

have an incidental positive impact on fishery resources. Population monitoring efforts 

should be able to determine if this is the case. However, the EA would have to be 

supplemented if lethal CDM other than shooting to reinforce hazing were to be conducted 

for the protection of free-swimming fish populations. 

28. Since much of the DCCO increase is the result of habitat conditions on their 

winter territory, how are the issues of DCCOs over-wintering in the Gulf States 

being addressed insofar as they apparently directly impact the Great Lakes 

breeding population? Reducing the breeding population locally may be fruitless 

because it fails to consider the numbers, range, and migration of North American 

DCCOs. 

The management actions proposed in this EA are designed to address specific DCCO 

damage issues in Ohio. Large scale population management was considered in the FEIS 

(USFWS 2003) and was not selected as a management alternative. Therefore, regionwide population management is not an alternative available at this time. However, 

DCCO management is being conducted in the Gulf States under the Aquaculture 

Depredation Order and the PRDO. Such efforts will undoubtedly kill some birds that 

nest in Ohio, but it is not possible to quantify the number. Monitoring of DCCO 

populations and CDM efforts in all states where the PRDO and AQDO are in effect by 

the USFWS will ensure that the cumulative impact of these actions are not having an 

adverse impact on regional or national DCCO populations. Minimum DCCO population 

numbers have been set for WSI, TPI and the inland lakes to ensure the continued 

presence of DCCOs in the state. 

29. Future actions by the control agencies must be determined by objective 

standards and measurable milestones not subjective or ad hoc determinations. 

The management objectives established in the EA are based on the data available to the 

agencies on the specific sites where CDM is proposed and the best scientific evidence 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

117 

available. Since the agencies are advocating a proactive approach, they are proposing to 

take action before damage becomes irreversible and/or slow and difficult to reverse (e.g., 

loss of trees). The agencies will use an adaptive management approach to continually 

refine methods and goals as we gain information from the monitoring of the results of the 

CDM program and review of newly published studies. The EA would have to be 

supplemented before CDM activities that would have greater impacts than those 

proposed in the EA could be conducted. The EA would also have to be supplemented 

before CDM activities could be conducted for the protection of fishery resources. 

30. Alternative solutions to problem of increasing DCCO population should be 

sought in terms of habitat limitations and the potential establishment of alternative 

waterbird colony sites. 

Typical nesting habitat for egrets and black-crowned night-herons is available on the 

mainland, but for some reason (possibly human intrusion or predators), these waterbirds 

have not utilized the mainland habitat. 

31. Wants local control to be done with proper oversight and review on a case-bycase basis and should only be authorized after the best science is considered. 

Commenter does not endorse the senseless killing of birds so insists on applying the 

best remedy based on sound science. 

The agencies are responsible for conserving and improving fish and wildlife resources for 

all citizens, so we also do not endorse the senseless killing of birds. We came to the 

conclusion that Alternative 1 is the best management option based on the best science 

available, and we will continue to make management decisions based on the best science 

available. All actions taken under the PRDO are monitored by the USFWS through 

requirements for reporting actions taken under the PRDO and through USFWS review 

and approval process required for any projects that propose to take more than 10% of a 

local population of breeding DCCOs. Agencies wishing to take more than 10% of a local 

DCCO population are required to inform the USFWS of the location of the proposed 

action(s), a description of the proposed control activity, specifying what public resources 

are being impacted, how many birds are likely to be taken and what approximate 

percentage they are of the total DCCOs present, which other bird species are present 

(from past data and supplemented with current data if new species are present). The 

USFWS has the option of disapproving the proposed action. The USFWS also requires 

post-project monitoring to evaluate the effects of control activities on DCCOs, nontarget 

species, and the public resources being protected. Additionally, decisions about DCCO 

control under the PRDO would be made on a case by case basis after consultation with 

the involved action agencies (USFWS, ODNR, and WS). These Federal and State 

entities have established an informal DCCO Coordination Group to exchange information 

on DCCO management and discuss sites where there may be a potential need to apply the 

DCCO PRDO in Ohio (Section 1.5.7). 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

118 

32. Reducing the DCCO breeding population locally may be fruitless because it 

fails to consider the numbers, range, and migration of North American DCCOs. A 

local control program should be considered in light of the regional population and 

the fact that the same problem may occur annually. 

See response to Comment 28. Other states and provinces adjacent to Ohio are controlling 

DCCO impacts in their locales, and the Ohio action agencies are coordinating with them. 

However, even if the other states/provinces do nothing, we have a responsibility to 

preserve the waterbird nesting habitat in our jurisdiction in Ohio, and that can be done 

most efficiently with Alternative 1. 

33. All tree-nesting colonial waterbirds impact habitat of tree nesting species - 

problem is not solely attributable to DCCOs. 

We agree that all tree-nesting colonial waterbirds do impact their nesting habitat, but 

DCCO impacts are more profound than the other species because of their greater 

densities. No major tree loss occurred on the islands (other than normal wind/ice 

damage) before DCCOs arrived; however, tree loss has been quite evident since the 

DCCO numbers have increased (during which time other waterbirds have decreased or 

stayed stable). 

34. Wants data to indicate that habitat needed for other species on the Lake Erie 

islands is limited because of DCCOs - everything described in the EA is a potential 

scenario not an actual problem. 

Middle Island, a Canadian Lake Erie island 20 miles east of WSI, and East Sister Island, 

also in Lake Erie, support some of the last remnants of Carolinian vegetation in Canada. 

A study on the impacts of increasing numbers of nesting DCCOs was published in the 

Journal of Wildlife Management by Hebert et al. in 2005 and is summarized in Section 

1.5.1. The authors concluded, “ These results suggest that cormorants are negatively 

impacting forests on islands in the western basin of Lake Erie. Cormorants appear to 

pose a threat to unique Lake Erie island plant communities and the habitats they provide 

for other wildlife species. If these islands are to be preserved, management of cormorant 

populations will be an important consideration. At a minimum, steps could be taken to 

ensure that cormorants do not start breeding in large numbers on islands that, to date, 

have not been colonized in significant numbers.....Such actions would prevent potential 

damage by cormorants to remaining island habitats.” 

The agencies do not want to let the documented destruction of vegetation by DCCOs on 

other Lake Erie islands to occur on Ohio's islands. Current data indicate that DCCOs are 

negatively impacting the islands' vegetation, and it's our responsibility to be proactive and 

prevent further loss to the vegetation. Our management actions may take several years 

before the vegetation responds to the reduction in DCCO numbers, and we believe that 

action is needed now, before the vegetation loss is irreversible. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

119 

35. The action on WSI is inappropriate because of the status of the site as a national 

wildlife refuge set aside for migratory birds and a Federal Wilderness area. 

Addressed in section 2.2.3 of EA. Managing one species (DCCO) to protect other 

migratory bird species is not contrary to the establishing legislation for the refuge. We 

will not remove all DCCOs from the island, but rather will manage DCCO population 

numbers and distribution to minimize habitat degradation to protect other co-nesting 

species. Population goals for black-crowned night-herons, great egrets, great blue 

herons, and DCCO were set during the CCP process for WSI. We have a responsibility 

to manage the island to meet the population goals for all of the species that use the island. 

See Question 36 for response on wilderness issues. 

36. One of the management principles identified by the Wilderness Society is to 

"allow natural processes to operate freely within wilderness areas.” (description of 

processes as natural and not good or bad). Double-crested cormorants are a native 

species and managing DCCOs in a wilderness area directly violates this principle. 

Addressed in section 2.2.3 of EA. WSI is a National Wildlife Refuge with a National 

Wilderness Area overlay. The Wilderness Act does not outlaw management in 

wilderness areas; it does set parameters for minimal tool use. We believe that this is the 

minimum tool needed to meet the CCP goals for the refuge. We also believe that failure 

to take action would violate the Non-Degradation Principle of the draft Wilderness 

Stewardship Policy Part 610 (Section 2.2.3, USFWS 2000b). This concept specifies that, 

at the time of wilderness designation, the conditions prevailing in an area establish a 

benchmark of that area’s wilderness values, and that the USFWS will not allow these 

conditions to be degraded. (Draft policy, Section 1.4 (Q) USFWS 2000b). When 

WSINWR was designated, no cormorants were nesting on the island. We will maintain a 

population of DCCO on the island at a level that does not degrade the habitat to a 

condition that is of lower health and quality than the 1975 benchmark condition. In 

addition, the USFWS Wilderness Area Management Policy allows for the inclusion of 

wildlife damage management in wilderness areas (6 RM 8). 

37. Regardless of human desires, species composition on islands changes. Land use 

changes originally favored black-crowned night-herons and other herons and egrets. 

Vegetation succession subsequently favored egrets, herons and DCCOs instead of 

black-crowned night-herons. Many species of wildlife alter the habitat they occupy 

and this is a natural process, enhancing carrying capacity for some species while 

reducing it for others. Double-crested cormorants play an important role as 

predators in ecosystems. 

We agree that species composition, as well as population numbers and distribution, are in 

a constant state of change. During pre-settlement times, these processes were selfregulating. However, today because of the vastly altered landscape, management actions 

must sometimes be taken to keep species in balance with the available habitat, or to 

mitigate unacceptable damage to other species that are in decline due to loss of habitat. 

In Ohio, where there are large areas cleared for agriculture and the natural habitat is 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

120 

highly fragmented, there are few alternative nesting locations for waterbird species that 

may be displaced by DCCO habitat destruction. We believe that failure to manage 

DCCO impacts will result in an increasingly adverse effect on the habitat and co-nesting 

bird populations on the islands. The proposed action does not involve eliminating 

DCCOs or the important role they play in ecosystems, but rather is intended to use an 

adaptive management approach which will allow for continued support of DCCOs and 

other colonial waterbirds and their habitats. 

38. Double-crested cormorants potentially will impact rock elm, but removal of 

DCCOs from the entire island seems excessive. Wants study of DCCO impacts on 

vegetation and then a more refined management plan. Status of great blue herons 

and great egrets does not warrant DCCO control on Green Island. 

Green Island is part of a habitat known as Carolinian Forest. Due to the scarcity of this 

habitat in Ohio and the small size of Green Island, the ODNR does not want any trees or 

vegetation lost due to DCCOs. There are already several dead trees on the island, and the 

DCCOs have only been nesting there for 2 years. The agencies are also concerned about 

the rapid increase in DCCO numbers at the island. Evidence from other Lake Erie 

islands indicates that allowing the current trend in DCCO use of Green Island to continue 

would have unacceptable impacts on vegetation (Hebert et al 2005). The agencies also 

hope that once the DCCOs are removed from the island, non-lethal tactics may be 

sufficient to keep them from nesting on Green Island. See also responses to comments 8, 

10, and 21. 

39. Grand-Lakes St. Mary's is a historic breeding site for DCCOs and to limit the 

DCCOs at this site because of potential conflicts with anglers shows no 

consideration of the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan - Recommends 

that this colony be maintained at least 100 pr of DCCOs. Population can be 

maintained at this level with nest removal. 

Information on the history of colonial waterbirds in Ohio has been added to the EA in 

Section 1.5.6.1. Great blue herons have had a colony at Grand Lake St. Mary's for at 

least 20 years. The DCCOs recolonized the site in the late 1990s, and in recent years the 

DCCOs have encroached on the heron rookery and are displacing the herons. Therefore, 

we wish to reduce the DCCO colony to previous population levels at which there was no 

competition for nesting space between the two species. If this colony was allowed to 

increase to 100 nests and maintained at that level, the vegetation including trees, would 

be killed. The heron rookery would likely cease to exist, and it’s unlikely the vegetation 

would ever recover because of the continued presence of the DCCOs which will nest on 

the ground. If the DCCOs did leave, it would be at least 20-30 years before the 

vegetation recovered to its present state. 

 

Reduction of the DCCOs at St. Mary’s has nothing to do with fisheries. The current state 

of our information on the impacts of DCCOs on fisheries is the reason that the proposed 

action does not include management objectives intended to protect fishery resources (See 

Comment 1). The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan stipulates that 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

121 

management decisions be based on science and that any proposed management actions 

thoroughly analyze the impacts of the proposed action on target and non-target 

waterbirds. We believe the EA and the resulting management plan are consistent with 

the intentions of the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. 

40. Other than unjustified complaints there is no real problem with DCCOs at 

Portage Lakes - 6 pr is not biologically viable - recommend maintaining site at 100 

pr. Population can be maintained at this level with nest removal. 

The DCCOs are currently nesting on a wooded and vegetated island that is approximately 

0.1 acre in size. The ODNR wants to maintain vegetation on the island, and although the 

DCCOs have already caused some damage, we feel that keeping the colony at 6 pairs will 

allow both DCCOs and vegetation to persist. If the colony increased to 100 pairs, the 

island would quickly become denuded. 

41. Want a public education campaign to inform residents that the DCCO is a 

native bird with a long history in the state and is a component of natural ecosystems 

not a pest. Real problem is public fear about DCCOs. 

The Division has a public education component as an objective in its DCCO management 

plan. Educational efforts are also included in the agencies’ response to DCCO damage as 

discussed in Section 3.3.1. At no time do the agencies assert that DCCOs are not a native 

species. However, additional information on the history of DCCOs and other colonial 

waterbirds in Ohio has been added to the EA Sections 1.5.6 and 1.5.6.1. See also 

response to comment 14, EA appendix G. 

42. Impacts on aquaculture, property and risks to aircraft impacts are minimal and 

can be dealt with on a case by case basis and do not justify a statewide control 

program with a 50% reduction in the DCCO population. 

As stated in Sections 1.5.8 and 1.6 and the description of Alternative 5 which allows for 

continuation of ongoing programs, CDM activities have been conducted in the state prior 

to the completion of this EA. The anticipated level of take for these three types of 

damage will not change from the current level if Alternative 1 is selected (See description 

of alternatives in Chapter 3 and anticipated DCCO take in Section 4.1.1). The EA 

analyzes the environmental impacts of alternatives for managing all types of DCCO 

damage to provide a cumulative impacts analysis for all CDM in Ohio and to allow the 

agencies to review and reconsider alternatives for existing CDM programs. CDM 

activities are only conducted when a need for action has been confirmed and only at the 

location where the damage is occurring. As outlined in Section 1.5.6.3, management 

objectives which involve reducing the numbers of breeding DCCOs at local sites are 

based on the need to protect vegetation and wildlife. 

Even though risks to aircraft and property damage may occur infrequently, they are a 

legitimate concern for the wildlife agencies and measures need to be taken to reduce the 

risk and damage. The civil and military aviation communities including the FAA 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

122 

recognize that the threat to human health and safety from aircraft collisions with wildlife 

is increasing (Dolbeer 2000, MacKinnon et al. 2001). Airport operators must exercise 

“due diligence” in managing wildlife hazards including assessing wildlife hazards at the 

airport and, if needed, implementing a wildlife hazard management plan (FAA 

regulations in CFR 14 Part 139.337; Dolbeer 2004). As stated in the EA, because of the 

size and body characteristics of DCCOs (Section 1.5.5), the consequences of an aircraft 

striking a DCCO can be catastrophic. The goal of airport wildlife hazard management 

programs is to prevent serious accidents from happening. It is unrealistic and 

inappropriate to contend that airport hazard reduction practices should wait until after a 

serious accident has occurred. 

45. Should consider limiting food or habitat. When food is reduced by other means, 

as happened with the recent collapse of alewife populations on Lake Huron, the 

incidence of DCCO nest success collapsed accordingly. 

We would like to avoid the collapse of any fishery. When a fishery collapses, multiple 

species are impacted, not just the overabundant and/or introduced species. We cannot 

limit the available habitat without impacting other nesting species. 

46. Agencies should seek to manage DCCO densities by reducing populations of 

non-native fish in Lake Erie. This would also solve some problems for native fish 

populations. 

Other than chemical control for sea lamprey, there are no other proven methods for 

controlling non-native fishes in the Great lakes, certainly not to levels that would impact 

DCCOs. Additionally, DCCOs are opportunistic predators that do not differentiate 

between native and non-native fish. They take whatever species are most abundant and 

easy to catch. With the current DCCO population, even if the agencies were able to 

reduce non-native fish populations, the reductions could have the undesired impact of 

increasing DCCO foraging pressure on native fish. 

47. It would be difficult to implement a large scale DCCO population control 

program using known methods. Weseloh and Collier (1995) state that sanctioned 

and unsanctioned control of the DCCO population only slowed its population 

growth and probably did not reduce it's size appreciably. 

A large scale population control option was considered but was not the management 

alternative selected in the FEIS (USFWS 2003). Accordingly, this EA, which is tiered to 

the FEIS, does not propose implementing a large-scale population control program. The 

goal of the program is not to reduce overall DCCO population, but to reduce DCCO 

damage at specific sites through a combination of lethal and non-lethal means. In some 

areas, the goal is to maintain the density of breeding pairs at current levels. The agencies 

plan to monitor the ability of the program to meet its target objectives through nest counts 

and vegetation surveys. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

123 

48. The DCCO population can be expected to eventually outstrip its food supply, 

drop in numbers and eventually stabilize itself. 

While this is true, the impacts that would occur to vegetation, local fish populations and 

co-nesting waterbird species before the DCCOs outstripped available food or habitat 

would be unacceptable. As discussed in the EA Section 1.5.6.3, historically, when 

colonial waterbird breeding colonies reached sufficient density that damage to the 

vegetation occurred and the site was no longer attractive to some species, the birds could 

move to new locations. Unfortunately, human population expansion and land use have 

limited the number of alternative sites available to colonial waterbirds and have placed 

sociological and biological constraints on the number of birds that can be supported at the 

remaining locations. The primary biological constraint is that many sites supporting 

colonial waterbirds must be managed to sustain a wide variety of plant and animal 

species indefinitely. This may make it necessary to manage bird populations at breeding 

sites at lower densities than were previously there to prevent habitat damage and loss that 

historically would not have been considered a problem. 

49. Double-crested cormorant guano and other bird guano ultimately enriches the 

soil. Double-crested cormorant guano is a natural addition that will partly 

determine how the habitat will evolve. Other colonial birds have a similar but 

slower impact. This is a natural and acceptable process and should be presented to 

the public as such. 

We agree that colonial waterbirds do impact their nesting habitat with their guano, but in 

some areas DCCO densities are such that impacts are more rapid and profound than those 

caused by the other species. No major tree loss occurred on the islands (other than 

normal wind/ice damage) before DCCOs arrived; however, tree loss is quite evident since 

the DCCO numbers have increased. However, as stated for Comment 47, because of 

human alterations in land use, many sites supporting colonial waterbirds must be 

managed to sustain a wide variety of plant and animal species indefinitely. In these 

areas, normal cycles of vegetation growth, waterbird use, and vegetation loss cannot be 

allowed to continue because they would adversely impact the limited amount of 

acceptable habitat available for some species. 

50. Using shotguns will wound nontarget birds and disturb all species in the colony. 

Even when professional shooters were used at Presqu’ile, dead and dying birds were 

found in the lake, dangling from trees, leaving the site, dying in nests, etc. Level of 

suffering and injury is inhumane and unacceptable. It was very upsetting for the 

public to see the wounded birds flaying in the water. 

Every effort will be made to kill the birds with one shot. In addition, the agencies will 

strive to retrieve and humanely dispatch wounded birds. We will use suppressed .22 

rifles when the DCCOs are taken off of the nests. Every attempt will be made to cease 

killing of breeding adult DCCOs by the time of chick hatching so that young are not left 

to starve, die of exposure or be preyed upon at the nest. We will only use shotguns as a 

hazing technique in the fall for staging DCCOs when there are virtually no nontarget 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

124 

species are present. Additional information on the impacts of the proposed action on 

nontarget species including co-nesting waterbirds is provided in EA Section 4.1.2. 

51. The EA fails to adequately develop, define and consider reasonable alternatives 

to the proposed action. 

The EA considers a full range of management alternatives including, an alternative in 

which the Federal agencies are not involved in DCCO management in Ohio, an 

alternative in which the Federal agencies would only permit or use non-lethal CDM 

methods and an alternative in which the Federal agencies would permit and use the full 

range of available CDM methods. 

52. Great blue herons, gulls and Caspian terns are not threatened or endangered 

and do not need protection. Double-crested cormorants provide habitat for other 

colonial nesting birds such as Caspian and common terns. 

Impacts on gulls and terns are not addressed as part of the specific need for action for the 

management objectives discussed in Section 1.5.3. They are discussed in a more general 

sense in the EA because DCCOs have impacted these species in other locations. Impacts 

on great blue herons are addressed in Comment 10 above. 

53. Neither black-crowned night-herons or great egrets are truly in decline despite 

their listing in Ohio. These species are increasing overall in the Great Lakes Region 

despite the increasing DCCO population. Political boundaries are arbitrary and 

status of black-crowned night-herons and great egrets in Ohio is biologically 

meaningless given that the species are increasing overall, and this should not be 

used as justification for killing DCCOs. 

Wires and Cuthbert (2001) identified WSI as the most important colonial waterbird 

colony site in the U.S. Great Lakes. The CCP for WSINWR set management goals for all 

species on the island, not just DCCO. The CCP is the document used to direct base 

management decisions at WSINWR. The draft Upper Miss/Great Lakes Waterbird 

Conservation Plan calls for a population goal of approximately 3,000 black-crowned 

night-herons pairs in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 22, which includes WSI. WSI 

contains approximately a third of the estimated 1,565 black-crowned night-herons pairs 

currently in BCR 22. In addition, black-crowned night-herons are a Resource 

Conservation Priority Species list for Region 3 of the USFWS (USFWS 2002). Thus, 

there are a number of reasons for management for black-crowned night-herons on WSI. 

In establishing State endangered and/or sensitive species laws, State legislatures establish 

that retaining State-listed wildlife species within the boundary of the state is a priority for 

the citizens of that state. Actions to protect roosting colonies of black-crowned nightherons, and great egrets are consistent with the CCP for WSINWR, Resource 

Conservation Priorities Species list for the USFWS Region 3 and the spirit and intentions 

of the State endangered species act. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

125 

54. There should be areas of suitable habitat where DCCO should be allowed to 

exist and naturally breed without interference, but Ohio hasn't designated such an 

area. Are there sections of the Islands were DCCOs could be allowed to breed 

without interference 

Double-crested cormorants have been allowed to breed undisturbed on WSI and TPI 

since they first arrived there, and the agencies plan on continuing to allow that to happen 

on portions of TPI and WSI. Approximately one half of the DCCOs will not be disturbed 

at all on WSI. We plan to focus our removal efforts on locations where the DCCOs are 

infringing upon egret and heron nesting areas. A significant portion of the island will be 

left undisturbed by control activities, and the DCCOs can breed there without 

interference. WSINWR will maintain at least 1,500 nesting pairs of DCCOs on the 

island. The management objective for TPI is to maintain 400 nesting pairs of DCCOs on 

the island and to only remove those individuals that are posing the most imminent threat 

to night-heron nesting habitat. At most, the EA proposes removing 10% of the breeding 

pairs on the island which should result in relatively minimal disturbance. Only at Green 

Island will the DCCOs be totally removed from the island, and the reasons for that 

decision are presented in the response to Comment 38. 

55. Exponential growth does not occur in nature and use of the term is fear 

mongering. 

The only time exponential growth is mentioned in the EA is for Green Island, and we 

believe that going from 0 nests to 15 to 857 nests over the period of 2003 to 2005 is 

accurately described by exponential growth. 

56. If artificial methods are to be used to protect plants use horticulture. There are 

countless areas in Ohio where rock elms can grow in total absence of DCCOs or any 

other bird capable of producing significant guano. 

We wish to preserve the rock elm and other endangered species in their current locations. 

Endangered species are often scarce because they are indicators of the health of an 

ecosystem. If the endangered species is being threatened, steps should be taken to 

remove the threat to the species instead of simply moving the species. 

57. Analysis of impacts on non-target species is inadequate. You cannot remove one 

species without serious disruption to co-nesting species. Causing birds to 

"temporarily leave" could clearly result in nest abandonment by federally listed 

species and other sensitive and declining species. Final EA must provide academic 

peer-reviewed scientific evidence that implementation of the PRDO will not 

jeopardize regional or local populations of nontarget birds or other nontarget 

species. 

This issue has been evaluated in Section 4.1.2 of the EA and in the FEIS (USFWS 2003). 

Specific measures to reduce potential adverse impacts to colonial waterbirds are provided 

in Section 3.4. Moore et al. (2005) evaluated the impact of DCCO removal on co-nesting 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

126 

great blue herons and great egrets on Lake Ontario. For both species, there was no 

impact on the proportion of time spent in nest attendance between control and treatment 

sites for the interval prior to DCCO removal, the intervals between DCCO removal 

efforts and the period after DCCO removal was completed. Nest attendance declined for 

both species during the DCCO removal periods (35±20 min). Herons disturbed during 

the DCCO removal returned to the nest in 11 - 14 min (longest unattended=50±30 min) 

and all egrets returned to nests before the DCCO removal had ended (longest 

unattended=6±4 min). There was no difference in the nest success of herons or egrets 

between treated and untreated sites so the temporary departures by adults did not appear 

to adversely impact nontarget species. As with the pilot projects reported in the EA, 

observers will monitor the impact of the CDM activities on co-nesting birds. In the 

unlikely event that CDM activities would have impacts greater than those anticipated in 

the EA, CDM activities would be discontinued or modified to address the problem. The 

agencies will monitor the number and locations of co-nesting birds in the areas where 

CDM is conducted. This monitoring is also required as part of the monitoring and review 

requirements established for the PRDO. Results of this monitoring activity will be 

reviewed annually and management activities will be adjusted accordingly. If necessary, 

the EA will be supplemented and made available for public review and comment if based 

on the new information, impacts of the action are anticipated to exceed those predicted 

and analyzed in the EA. 

The USFWS has conducted an Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation to assess the 

impacts of the proposed action on federally-listed species and has determined that the 

proposed action will have no effect on the Indiana bat, Karner blue butterfly, Lakeside 

daisy, Northern monkshood, or Eastern prairie fringed orchid. Given the provisions 

detailed in the PRDO regulations (50 CFR 21.48 (d)(8)), in the EA, and in the IntraService Section 7 Biological Evaluation the proposed action is not likely to adversely 

affect the piping plover, bald eagle, or Lake Erie watersnake. The lead and cooperating 

agencies will abide by measures in the PRDO regulations (50 CFR 21.48 (d)(8)), the EA 

and the Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation for Ohio to avoid risks to federally 

listed species. USFWS guidelines for the protection of the Lake Erie watersnake have 

been added to the EA in Appendix H. 

58. The EA violates the language and spirit of the MBTA because the Act requires 

that only birds that are causing or about to cause significant damage may be killed. 

The proposed action does not put any parameters or restrictions on the locations ore 

circumstances under which DCCOs may be killed. The killing of DCCOs would be 

indiscriminate and would not target the offending DCCOs.

This issue was addressed in the FEIS and in the Final rule and decisions for the FEIS. 

The PRDO states that DCCOs may only be taken in circumstances where there is 

evidence that they are currently causing damage to public resources or where there is a 

reasonable expectation of damage. All actions to be taken under the PRDO are subject to 

reporting and review requirements of the USFWS. Decisions about DCCO control under 

the PRDO would be made on a case by case basis after consultation with the involved 

action agencies (USFWS, ODNR, and WS). Additionally, the EA in Section 1.5.7 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

127 

establishes a DCCO Coordination Group to exchange information on DCCO 

management and discuss sites where there may be a potential need to apply the DCCO 

PRDO in Ohio. The lead and cooperating agencies have agreed that decisions on future 

PRDO CDM projects will be made only after consulting with the DCCO coordination 

group. As described in the EA, lethal CDM would be conducted at the sites where 

DCCOs are causing damage or where increases in DCCO densities beyond current levels 

can be reasonably expected to result in damage. 

59. Disease transmission is not a justification for killing DCCOs. 

We agree. Disease transmission was not presented as a justification for killing DCCOs 

but was presented in Section 2.1.1 as a factor which may affect DCCO populations. 

60. Aquaculture and property damage is not justification for use of lethal control. 

People who create artificial feeding opportunities for DCCOs should be required to 

use non-lethal CDM methods. All aquaculture and property damage can be solved 

with non-lethal methods. Commenters provided information on information and 

experts we could use. Commenters encourage agencies to abandon implementation 

of the expanded AQDO. 

Under the preferred alternative, non-lethal methods will be recommended to persons 

requesting assistance when determined practical and effective for the given situation. We 

agree that physical exclusion can, under the right circumstances, be an extremely 

effective CDM method. However, the efficacy of methods like frightening devices, even 

when properly applied, is usually limited by the ability of birds to become accustomed to 

a frightening stimulus if it is not occasionally reinforced by a real threat (such as a dead 

bird) and some methods like physical exclusion may not be appropriate for all sites. A 

survey of Minnesota aquaculture producers (Wires and Cuthbert 2003) reported that 67% 

of the producers said they spent 10% or more of their annual earnings to combat fisheating birds. Ninety-six percent (96%) of respondents reported that mechanical or 

physical alterations in their facilities to reduce damage were not physically feasible or 

cost effective. 

The agencies thank the commenters for their recommendations of non-lethal techniques 

for aquaculture facilities and means to reduce risks to nontarget species at aquaculture 

facilities. The agencies stay current on methods to reduce risks to nontarget species 

through attendance at professional meetings, review of the literature and participation in 

relevant studies. See also Appendix 4 of FEIS regarding use of exclusion at aquaculture 

facilities (USFWS 2003). 

Ohio is not one of the states included in the Aquaculture Depredation Order (USFWS 

2003). 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

128 

61. Coordinated efforts to harass DCCOs like that used in Mississippi should be 

used to address aquaculture problems in Ohio. 

Double-crested cormorants tend to forage in areas in relatively close proximity to roost 

sites (Glahn and King 2004). The coordinated harassment efforts used in Mississippi are 

designed to get DCCOs to move roost locations from areas where the aquaculture 

facilities are concentrated to areas of the state along the Mississippi River where there are 

lower concentrations of aquaculture facilities (Glahn and King 2004). The applicability 

of this technique to DCCO problems in Ohio will depend on the source of the DCCOs 

causing damage. If the DCCOs causing the damage are coming from nesting areas, then 

this method may not be applicable because it would entail harassing DCCOs until they 

left the site. This level of harassment would have unacceptable impacts on co-nesting 

species. Additionally, with the exception of Green Island, the agencies do not want to 

eliminate DCCOs from the breeding colonies, just reduce their density. If however, the 

damage is caused by non-breeding individuals roosting in locations without nontarget 

species that would be adversely impacted by the harassment effort, then this may be a 

viable option. 

63. The EA sets no limits on the number of DCCOs that may be taken annually. In 

combination with CDM activities in other states, activities in Ohio may contribute to 

regional population declines. Analysis of cumulative impacts on the DCCO 

population is inadequate. 

The EA provides an estimate of the maximum cumulative number of DCCOs that could 

be taken under CDM in Ohio. The EA concluded that the impact of this take under any 

of the alternatives would not jeopardize the long-term sustainability of DCCO 

populations at a state, regional, or national level. Double-crested cormorant management 

will be coordinated among WS, the USFWS and ODNR to ensure that State and regional 

take does not exceed levels that can be sustained by the DCCO population. Cumulative 

impact of CDM activities on the regional and national DCCO population is also 

addressed in the FEIS (USFWS 2003). As specified in 50 CFR 21.48, on an annual basis 

the agencies will report all take of DCCOs and eggs to the USFWS to ensure that the 

cumulative impacts of CDM actions in Ohio and the other PRDO States are not adversely 

affecting the long-term sustainability of DCCOs in Ohio the region or nationwide. 

Furthermore, as described in Section 1.8, the agencies will, on an annual basis, review 

this EA to ensure the analysis provided (including impacts to DCCO populations) in the 

EA is sufficient. 

64. Lethal and/or non-lethal techniques will only move the DCCOs and their 

problems. 

Some commenters expressed concern that the non-lethal frightening and habitat alteration 

techniques and the frightening affect that shooting would have on other DCCOs would 

spread the DCCO problem to other areas. The lead and cooperating agencies are aware 

that use of these techniques will cause the DCCOs to move to other areas in Ohio or in 

adjoining states. This eventuality is part of the reason that management objectives that 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

129 

involve maintaining current DCCO densities have been established for TPI (See also 

Comment 13). It is unlikely that all the DCCOs will relocate to one site. Nevertheless, 

the agencies recognize that once CDM measures are undertaken it will be important to 

monitor changes in the distribution and abundance of DCCOs throughout the state. The 

ODNR and WSINWR anticipate that they will radio mark 15 cormorants with radio 

transmitters. These radios will allow biologists to track the birds after they have been 

hazed from their roosts on Green or West Sister Islands, thus helping the agencies 

evaluate the effectiveness of non-lethal control. Radio-marked birds will also be 

monitored during lethal control to determine if the birds move to other areas in response 

to lethal control. 

65. Lethal management of DCCO damage is ineffective at alleviating DCCO 

damage because it may have to be repeated. 

The ability of DCCO populations to sustain the proposed level of DCCO removal and to 

eventually return to treatment sites does not mean individual bird damage management 

actions are not successful in reducing damage, only that periodic bird damage 

management actions are necessary in many damage situations. This is true for most nonlethal damage management techniques as well as lethal damage management techniques. 

To say that a technique is ineffective because it must be repeated if new birds colonize 

the site is analogous to saying that lawn mowing is ineffective in making the grass short 

because it must be repeated. 

66. The EA needs to provide greater detail on how the impacts and efficacy of 

program actions will be monitored. 

Section 1.8 of the EA notes that the impacts of CDM activities will be monitored 

annually. Actions taken under the PRDO will also be reviewed by the Ohio DCCO 

Coordination Group. This review will include an analysis of the number of DCCOs 

taken and all available reports and data on impacts to nontarget species, population status 

for DCCOs and nontarget species, and efficacy and impacts of new or existing CDM 

methods. When actions are taken under the authority of the PRDO, the agencies are 

required, on an annual basis, to provide the USFWS with a description of the impacts or 

anticipated impacts to public resources by DCCOs and a statement of the management 

objectives for the area in question; a description of the evidence supporting the 

conclusion that DCCOs are causing or will cause impacts to a public resource; and a 

discussion of other limiting factors affecting the resource (50 CFR 21.48(d)(10). The 

PRDO also requires that agencies notify the USFWS and get USFWS approval if they 

intend to take more than 10% of a local DCCO population. 

67. The use of DCCO removal to reduce damage at aquaculture facilities by 

reducing DCCO density is doomed to failure. 

Lethal control is not authorized at aquaculture facilities for the purpose of reducing local 

DCCO populations. It is intended for the removal of specific depredating individuals at 

the site. For example, in some cases, management activities at the facility requires that 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

130 

openings be left for people and/or equipment to function under bird exclusion systems. 

At times, individual birds may learn to use these openings. Removal of these birds 

eliminates the damage problem and reduces the likelihood that other individuals may 

learn the technique. In situations where frightening devices are used, lethal removal of 

individuals that have learned to ignore the devices eliminates the depredating individual 

and may prevent other birds from becoming accustomed to the device by reinforcing the 

perception that there is a real threat associated with the frightening stimulus. 

68. The EA is arbitrary, capricious and inadequate. We support a full EIS where 

the public receives full notice to comment on the proposal to kill DCCO. 

The EA provides a thorough analysis of the need for action and the impacts associated 

with the various alternatives. Each issue is fully explained and analyzed against each 

alternative to allow the reader an objective way to evaluate potential outcomes of each 

alternative. By conducting such a systematic and objective analysis, and using the best 

available scientific information, data and expert advice, WS, the USFWS and the ODNR 

are able to make an informed decision as required by NEPA. The EA was made 

available for the public to review in accordance with the requirements for public 

notification and public comment periods of the USFWS and WS. The agencies followed 

all applicable laws, regulations, and guidelines in analyzing potential impacts of their 

actions. In making an informed decision of potential environmental impacts, the agencies 

used the best available scientific information, data and expert advice, including the 

DCCO FEIS (USFWS 2003). The Finding and Decision for this EA, based on the 

analysis and responses to public comments, has determined that the proposed action will 

not have a significant impact on the human environment in Ohio and that an EIS need not 

be prepared for CDM in the State. Additionally, this EA is tiered to the DCCO FEIS 

(USFWS 2003) which also evaluated impacts of CDM including the PRDO and an 

expanded AQDO. 

69. The EA indicates Ohio WS plans to compost shot birds on island habitats. At 

Presqu'ile Provincial Park (PPP) the Ontario Ministry of the Environment 

Determined, after testing, that the birds were so contaminated by mercury that all 

the bodies had to be removed from the island compost site and taken to a hazardous 

waste site for disposal. If Ohio WS shoots birds, this likely possibility for disposal 

needs to be taken into consideration. 

The agencies have contacted the Ontario Ministry of Parks regarding the DCCO 

composting situation at Presqu’ile (S. Grigg, pers. comm.). The Park’s plan involved 

composting DCCOs at the site and then using the compost in site management activities 

in other locations at the Park. Under Provincial regulations, the Park was required to 

obtain a waste disposal permit in order to compost DCCOs. The permit limited the total 

amount of material that could be held at the composting site and also required that the 

compost be tested for the presence of several compounds, including mercury, prior to 

using the material at other locations in the Park. The compost was tested in each of the 

two years that DCCO removal and composting was conducted. The mercury levels of 

2.29 and 3.36 micrograms/gram dry weight observed in the compost were over the 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

131 

amount permitted in order to distribute compost, but were not so high that the material 

had to be removed from the site. The Park could have left the material in the compost 

site. However, if the material was left on site, the Park was concerned that they would 

exceed their limit for the amount of material that could be held at the compost site and 

chose to have the compost removed. The material was taken to a conventional landfill in 

accordance with all applicable regulations, not a hazardous waste disposal site as stated 

by the commenter. 

As stated in Section 3.2.3.3, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

determined that the proposed composting facilities are more like a farm animal 

composting operation than a solid waste disposal facility regulated by the Ohio EPA. 

Farm animal composting in Ohio falls under the regulation of the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water (ODSW). The Ohio compost sites would 

not be subject to Canadian regulations regarding the amount of material at the site. The 

compost will remain at the sites and will not be distributed, so the agencies are not 

required to test the compost for the presence of mercury. Nonetheless, the agencies share 

the public’s concern about mercury in the environment and will test the mercury content 

of the compost and the soil below the compost site at least every other year and more 

frequently if needed. Based on data from composting at Presqui’ile, we anticipate that 

one year’s accumulation of DCCO compost at the Ohio sites will be well below the 

regulatory mercury limit set by Ohio EPA (0.2 mg/L determined by the Toxicity 

Characteristic Leeching Procedure - Ohio Administrative Code 3745-51-24). The first 

test will allow the agencies to monitor the consequences of using the same compost site 

over a period of two years. Results from the test will also be used to determine if future 

testing needs to occur more frequently than every other year and to determine if the 

agencies need to change or modify carcass disposal procedures. If needed, the agencies 

will amend this analysis to address changes in environmental impacts and carcass 

disposal procedures in accordance with NEPA. If an amendment is needed, the public 

would have the opportunity to review and comment on the new data and proposed 

procedures. Additional data on composting has been added to EA Section 4.1.6. 

70. EA should not use Presqu'ile Provincial Park as an example of a situation where 

individuals have chosen to protect vegetation because the Provincial Ministry of the 

Environment acknowledged that DCCO activities at the park’s High Bluff and Gull 

Islands are natural processes, that DCCOs contribute to biodiversity and that 

population control measures will cause damage to other nesting colonial waterbirds, 

thus, negating any rationale of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to kill 

DCCOs. 

In the report presented by the Presqu’ile Double-crested Cormorant Management 

Scientific Review Committee (PDCMSRC 2004), it states that the goal for High Bluff 

Island was “to protect representative woodland flora and fauna and the aesthetic beauty 

of High Bluff Island while retaining maximum diversity of nesting colonial bird species” 

and further, that the activity of DCCOs had been identified as resulting in the loss of and 

damage to woodland vegetation on the two islands within the park. This was determined 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

132 

to be significant and worthy of action because the habitat found in the area used by 

DCCOs had value to a variety of species including tree-nesting waterbirds. 

The scenario a Presqu’ile is not unlike the one identified in the EA for several sites in 

Ohio. The EA in Section 1.5.3 acknowledges that the loss in vegetation associated with 

high DCCO densities is a natural process. However, because of limitations of and 

expectations and management objectives for the sites where the damage is occurring 

these processes cannot be permitted to continue unchecked. The agencies with 

management responsibility for the sites were involved in the EA and have concurred that 

CDM actions proposed for the protection of vegetation and wildlife at these sites is 

warranted. Furthermore, the proposed action does not propose to eliminate DCCOs from 

Ohio and will not jeopardize State, regional or national DCCO population and will not 

have an adverse impact on biodiversity. Impacts of the proposed action on non-target 

species are addressed in Section 4.1.2 and discussed in Comment 57. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

133 

APPENDIX A 

LITERATURE CITED 

Aderman, A.R., and E.P. Hill. 1995. Locations and numbers of double-crested cormorants using winter 

roosts in the Delta region of Mississippi. Colonial Waterbirds 18 (Spec. Pub. 1):143-151. 

Anonymous. 1992. Airports - breeding grounds for bird strikes. Flight Safety Foundation. Airport 

Operations Vol. 18., No. 4. Arlington, VA. 4p. 

American Sportfishing Association 2002. Sportfishing in America: Values of Our Traditional Pastime. 

 http://www.asafishing.org/asa/images/statistics/economic_impact/fish_eco_impact.pdf

Audubon. 2003. West Nile Virus – Effects on Wildlife. www.audubon.org/bird/wnv/

AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). 1987. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical 

Association. Panel Report on the Colloquium on Recognition and Alleviation of Animal Pain and 

Distress. 191: 1186-1189. 

Beaver, B.V., W. Reed, S. Leary, B. McKiernan, F. Bain, R. Schultz, B.T. Bennett, P. Pascoe, E. Shull, L. 

C. Cork, R. Franis-Floyd, K.D. Amass, R. Johnson, R.H. Schmidt, W. Underwood, G.W. Thorton, 

and B. Kohn. 2001. 2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. Journal of American Vet. 

Medical Association 218: 669-696. 

Bedard, J., A. Nadeau, and M. Lepage. 1995. Double-crested cormorant culling in the St. Lawrence River 

Estuary. Colonial Waterbirds 18 (Spec. Pub. 1): 78-85. 

Bedard, J., A. Nadeau, and M. Lepage. 1999. Double-crested cormorant culling in the St. Lawerence 

River Estuary: Results of a 5 year program. Pages 147-154 In Symposium on Double-crested 

Cormorants: Population Status and Management Issues in the Midwest (M.E. Tobin, ed.). USDA 

Tech. Bull. No. 1879. 164pp. 

Belyea, G.Y., S.L. Maruca, J.S. Diana, P.J. Schneeberger, S.J. Scott, R.D. Clark, Jr., J.P. Ludwig, and C.L. 

Summer. 1999. Impact of double-crested cormorant predation on the yellow perch population of 

the Les Cheneaux Islands of Michigan. Pages 47-59 In Symposium on Double-crested 

Cormorants: Population Status and Management Issues in the Midwest (M.E. Tobin, ed.). USDA 

Tech. Bull. No. 1879. 164pp. 

Bent, A. C. 1964. Life Histories of North American Petrels and Pelicans and Their Allies. Dover 

Publications, Inc. New York. 

Bishop, R. C. 1987. Economic values defined. Pages 24 -33 in D. J. Decker and G. R. Goff, eds. Valuing 

wildlife: economic and social perspectives. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 424 p. 

Blackwell, B.F., G.E. Bernhardt, R.A. Dolbeer. 2002. Lasers as non-lethal avian repellents. J. Wildl. 

Manage. 66: 250-258. 

Bur, M.T., S.L. Tinnirello, C.D. Lovell, and J.T. Tyson 1999. Diet of Double-crested Cormorant in 

Western Lake Erie. Pages 73-85 In Symposium on Double-crested Cormorants: Population Status 

and Management Issues in the Midwest (M.E. Tobin, ed.). USDA Tech. Bull. No. 1879. 164pp. 

Burnett , J.A.D., N.H. Ringler, B.F. Lantry, and J.H. Johnson. 2002. Double-crested cormorant predation 

on yellow perch in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 28(2)L 202-211 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

134 

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1991. California Department of Fish and Game. Final 

Environmental Document - bear hunting. Sections 265, 365, 367, 367.5. Title 14 Calif. Code of 

Regs. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, State of California, April 25, 1991. 13pp. 

CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention). 2003. West Nile Virus. 

www.cdc.gov.ncidod/dvbid/westnile/birds&mammals.htm.

Cleary, E.C. and R.A. Dolbeer. 2005. Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports, second edition, July 

2005. FAA/USDA pub. 

Conover, M.R., W.C. Pitt, K.K. Kessler, T.J. Dubow, and W.A. Sanborn. 1995. Review of human injuries, 

illnesses and economic-based losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 23:407-414. 

Cornell University. 2003. West Nile Virus: Transmission, Infection, & Symptoms. Environmental Risk 

Analysis Program, Cornell University – Department of Communication & Center for the 

Environment. http://environmentalrisk.cornell.edu/WNV/Summary2.cfm

Craven, S.R. and E. Lev. 1987. Double-crested cormorants in the Apostle Islands, Wisconsin, USA: 

population trends, food habits, and fishery depredations. Colonial Waterbirds 10:64-71. 

Cuthbert, F.J., Wires, L.R., McKearnan, J.E. 2002. Potential impacts of nesting double-crested cormorants 

on great blue herons and black-crowned night-herons in the U.S. Great Lakes Region. Journal of 

Great Lakes Research 28: 145-154. 

Decker, D. J. and G. R. Goff. 1987. Valuing Wildlife: Economic and Social Perspectives. Westview 

Press. Boulder, Colorado, 424 p. 

Dolbeer, R.A., S. E. Wright, and E. C. Cleary. 1995. Bird and other wildlife strikes to civilian aircraft in 

the U. S., 1994. Interim report DTFA01_91_Z_02004. USDA for FAA, FAA Technical Center, 

Atlantic City, New Jersey. 8p. 

Dolbeer, R.A. 2000. Birds and aircraft: fighting for airspace in crowded skies. Proceedings of the 

Vertebrate Pest Conference 19: 37-43. 

Dunn, E.H. 1975. Caloric intake of nestling double-crested cormorants. Auk 92:553-565. 

Dunn, E.H. 1975. Growth, body components and energy content of nestling double-crested cormorants. 

Condor 77:431-38. 

Fowle, M.R. 1997. Population dynamics, food habits, and bioenergetics of double-crested cormorant 

nesting colonies in Lake Champlain. M.S. thesis, Wildlife and Fisheries Biology Program, School 

of Natural Resources, University of Vermont. 

Glahn, J.F. and K.E. Bruggers. 1995. The impact of double-crested cormorants on the Mississippi delta 

catfish industry: a bioenergetic model. Colonial Waterbirds 18 (Spec. Publ. 1):137-142. 

Glahn, J.F., M.E. Tobin, and J.B. Harrel. 1999. Possible effects of catfish exploitation on overwinter body 

condition of double-crested cormorants. Pg 107-113 in (M.E. Tobin, Tech. Coord.) Symposium 

on double-crested cormorants: Population status and management issues in the Midwest. 9 

December 1997., Milwaukee, WI. Tech. Bull. 1879. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

135 

Glahn, J.F., G. Ellis, P. Fioranelli and B.S. Dorr. 2000a. Evaluation of moderate and low-powered lasers for 

dispersing double-crested cormorants from their night roosts. Proceedings of the 9th Wildlife 

Damage Management Conference (M.C. Brittingham, J. Kays, and R. McPeake, eds.). 

Glahn, J.F., D.S. Reinhold, and C.A. Sloan. 2000b. Recent population trends of double-crested cormorants 

wintering in the Delta region of Mississippi: Responses to roost dispersal and removal under a 

recent depredation order. Waterbirds 23(1): 38-44, 2000. 

Glahn, J.F., S.J. Werner, T. Hanson, and C.R. Engle. 2002. Cormorant depredation losses and their 

prevention at catfish farms: Economic considerations. in (L. Clark, Tech. Ed.) Proceedings of the 

3rd NWRC Special Symposium, “Human conflicts with wildlife: Economic considerations.” 

August 1-3, 2000. Fort Collins, CO. 

Glahn, J.F. and D.T. King. 2004. Bird Depredation. In Biology and culture of channel catfish. C.S. Tucker 

and J.A. Hargreaves, Eds. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science - 34. Elsevier. 

Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 676p. 

Gremillet, D, S. Storch, and G. Peters. 2000. Determing food requirements in marine top predators: a 

comparison of three independent techniques in great cormorants, Phalacrorax carbo carbo. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 78: 1567-1579. 

Gunderson, J.L. and P. Tucker 2000. A White Paper on the Status and Needs of Baitfish Aquaculture in the 

North Central Region for the North Central Regional Aquaculture Center. Current Draft as of 

March 29, 2000. 

http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/ncrac/wpapers/baitfish32900.htm#REFERENCES

Hatch, J.J. and D.V. Weseloh. 1999. Double-crested cormorant: (Phalacrocorax auritus). In The Birds of 

North America, No. 441 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. 

Hebert , C.E. and H.A. Morrison. 2003. Consumption of fish and other prey items by Lake Erie waterbirds. 

J. Great Lakes Res. 29(2): 213-227. 

Hebert, C. E., J. Duffe, D. V. C. Weseloh, E. M. T. Senese, G. D. Haffner. 2005. Unique island habitats 

may be threatened by double-crested cormorants. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:57-65. 

Jarvie, S. H. Blokpoel, and T. Chipperfield. 1999. A geographic information system to monitor nest 

distributions of double-crested cormorants and black-crowned night-herons at shared colony sites 

near Toronto, Canada. Pg 121-129 in (M.E. Tobin, Tech. Coord.). Symposium on double-crested 

cormorants: Population status and management issues in the Midwest. 9 December 1997., 

Milwaukee, WI. Tech. Bull. 1879. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service. 

Johnson , J.H., R.M. Ross, and R.D. McCullough. 2002. Little Galloo Island, Lake Ontario: A review of 

nine years of double-crested cormorant diet and fish consumption information. J. Great Lakes Res. 

28(2): 182-192. 

Korfanty, C., W.G. Miyasaki, and J.L. Harcus. 1999. Review of the population status and management of 

double-crested cormorants in Ontario. Pg 131-145 in (M.E. Tobin, Tech. Coord.) Symposium on 

double-crested cormorants: Population status and management issues in the Midwest. 9 December 

1997., Milwaukee, WI. Tech. Bull. 1879. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

136 

Lantry , B.F., T.H. Eckert, C.P. Schneider, A.S. Schiavone, R.D. McCullough, and J.H. Johnson. 2002. The 

relationship between the abundance of smallmouth bass and double-crested cormorants in the 

eastern basin of Lake Ontario. J. Great Lakes Res. 28(2): 193-201. 

Lemmon, C.R., G. Burgbee, and G.R. Stephens. 1994. Tree damage by nesting double-crested cormorants 

in Connecticut. Connecticut Warbler 14:27-30. 

Lewis, H.F. 1929. The natural history of the double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Ru-MiLou Books, Ottawa, Ontario. 

Linnell, M. A., M. R. Conover, T. J. Ohashi. 1999. Biases in bird strike statistics based on pilot reports. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 63:997-1003. 

Linnell, M.A., M.R. Conover, and T.J. Ohashi. 1996. Analysis of bird strikes at a tropical airport. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 60: 935-945. 

Ludwig, J.P., C.N. Hull, M.E. Ludwig, and H.J. Auman. 1989. Food habits and feeding ecology of nesting 

double-crested cormorants in the upper Great Lakes, 1986-1989. Jack-Pine Warbler 67:117-129. 

Madenjian, C. P., J. T. Tyson, R. L. Knight, M. W. Kershner, and M. J. Hansen. 1996. First-year growth, 

recruitment, and maturity of walleyes in western Lake Erie. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 125:821-830. 

Madenjian, C.P. and S.W. Gabrey. 1995. Waterbird predation on fish in western Lake Erie: a bioenergetics 

model application. The Condor 97: 141-153. 

McKay, H., R. Furness, I. Russell, D. Parrott, M. Rehfisch, G. Watola, J. Packer, M. Armitage, E. Gill and 

P. Robertson. 1999. The assessment of the effectiveness of management measures to control 

damage by fish-eating birds to inland fisheries in England and Wales. Report to the Ministry of 

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. MAFF Project VC0107. 

Manuwal, D. 1989. Nuisance waterfowl at public waterfront parks in Seattle metropolitan area. Final Rpt. 

To Interlocal Waterfowl Manage. Comm. College of Forest Resour., Univ. WA Seattle, WA. Page 

48. 48pp. 

Meronek, T.G. 1993. The status of the bait industry in the north central region. M.S. thesis, University of 

Wisconsin – Stevens Point. 

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). 2002. Provisional Surveillance Summary of the West 

Nile Virus Epidemic – United States, January-November 2002. Center for Disease and 

Surveillance; December 20, 2002. Vol. 51; No. 50. 

Moore, D. D. V. C. Weseloh, P Careless, and D. Tyerman. 2005. Effects of culling cormorants on 

sympatrically nesting herons and egrets on Lake Ontario. Waterbird Society Meeting Abstracts, 

Jekyll Island GA, October 2005 

Mott, D.F., J.F. Glahn, P.L. Smith, D.S. Reinhold, K.J. Bruce, and C.A. Sloan. 1998. An evaluation of 

winter roost harassment for dispersing double-crested cormorants away from catfish production 

areas in Mississippi. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26 (3): 584-591. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Fish and Fish Food Propagators List. 

 http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/Fishing/propagate/faffp.htm
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

137 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). 2005. 2004 Lake Erie Status Report. Ohio Department 

of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Columbus, Ohio. 

Peterjohn, B. G. 1989. The Birds of Ohio. Indiana University Press. 

Presqu’ile Double-crested Cormorant Management Scientific Review Committee 2004. Presqu’ile 

Provincial Park Double-crested Cormorant Management: Recommendations. Ontario Ministry of 

Natural Resources. 14 pp. 

Rappole, J.H., S.R. Derrickson, and Z. Hubalek. 2000. Migratory birds and the spread of West Nile virus 

in the Western Hemisphere. Emerging Infectious Diseases 6(4):319-328. 

Reinhold, D.S. and C.A. Sloan.1999. Strategies to reduce double-crested cormorant depredation at 

aquaculture facilities in Mississippi. Pg 99-105 in (M.E. Tobin, Tech. Coord.) Symposium on 

double-crested cormorants: Population status and management issues in the Midwest. 9 December 

1997., Milwaukee, WI. Tech. Bull. 1879. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 

Robinson, M. 1996. The potential for significant financial loss resulting from bird strikes in or around an 

airport. Proceedings of the Bird Strike Committee Europe 22: 353-367. 

Rudstam, L. G., A. J. VanDeValk, C. M. Adams, J. T. H. Coleman, J. L. Forney, and M. E. Richmond. 

2004. Cormorant predation and the population dynamics of walleye and yellow perch in Oneida 

Lake. Ecological Applications, 14(1) 149-163 

Schmidt, R. 1989. Wildlife management and animal welfare. Trans. N.Amer. Wildl. And Nat. Res. Conf. 

54:468-475. 

Shieldcastle, M.C. And L. Martin. 1999. Colonial waterbird nesting on west sister island national wildlife 

refuge and the arrival of double-crested cormorants. Pg 115-119 in (M.E. Tobin, Tech. Coord.) 

Symposium on double-crested cormorants: Population status and management issues in the 

Midwest. 9 December 1997., Milwaukee, WI. Tech. Bull. 1879. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 

Skagen, S. K., C. P. Melcher, and E. Muths. 2001. The interplay of habitat change, human disturbance and 

species interactions in a waterbird colony. American Midland Naturalist. 145:18-28. 

Slate, D.A., R. Owens, G. Connolly, and G. Simmons. 1992. Decision making for wildlife damage 

management. Transactions of the North American Wildlife Natural Resource Conference 57: 51-

62. 

Stapanian , M.A, M.T. Bur, J.T. Tyson, T.W. Seamans, and B.F. Blackwell. 2002. Foraging locations of 

double-crested cormorants on western Lake Erie: site characteristics and spatial associations with 

prey fish densities. J. Great Lakes Res. 28(2): 155-171. 

Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Wings Bros. New York, 

New York. 

Thorpe, J. 1996. Fatalities and destroyed civil aircraft due to bird strikes, 1912-1995. Proceedings of the 

International Bird Strike Conference 23: 17-31. 

Tobin, M.E., D.T. King, B.S. Dorr, and D.S. Reinhold. 2002. The effect of roost harassment on cormorant 

movements and roosting in the Delta region of Mississippi. Waterbirds 25(1):44-51. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

138 

USDA, APHIS, ADC. 1997, Revised. Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA, APHIS, ADC 

Operational Support Staff, 4700 River Road, Unit 87, Riverdale, MD 20737. 

United States Department of Interior (USDI)/United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. Waterbird 

Conservation for the Americas. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center; Laurel, MD. 

http://www.mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/cwb/. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1995. Report to Congress: Great Lakes Fishery Resources 

Restoration Study. 

USFWS. 2000a. West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Ottawa 

National Wildlife Refuge 

USFWS. 2000b. Draft Wilderness Stewardship Policy Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of 1964. Part 610, 

Chapters 1-7, Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

USFWS. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Double-crested Cormorant Management. U.S. 

 Dept. of the Interior, USFWS, Div. of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive MS 

 634, Arlington, VA 22203. http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/cormorant/cormorant.html . 

VanDeValk, A.J., C.M. Adams, L.G. Rudstam, J.L. Forney, T.E. Brooking, M.A. Gerken, B.P. Young, and 

J.T. Hooper. 2002. Comparison of angler and cormorant harvest of walleye and yellow perch in 

Oneida Lake, New York. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:27-39. 

Weber, W.J. 1979. Health Hazards from Pigeons, European starlings, and English sparrows. Thompson 

Publ. Fresno, Calif. 138pp. 

Weseloh, D. V. C., 2005. The threat to black-crowned night-heron colonies form nesting double-crested 

cormorants on the great lakes: a protocol and an assessment. Waterbird Society Meeting 

Abstracts, Jekyll Island GA, October 2005 

Weseloh, D.V. C., and P.J. Ewins. 1994. Characteristics of a rapidly increasing colony of double-crested 

cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) in Lake Ontario: population size, reproductive parameters and 

band recoveries. J. Great Lakes Res. 20(2):443-456. 

Weseloh, D.V. and B. Collier. 1995. The rise of the double-crested cormorant on the Great Lakes: winning 

the war against contaminants. Great Lakes Fact sheet. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment 

Canada and Long Point Observatory. 

Weseloh, D.V., P. J. Ewins, J. Struger, P. Mineau, C. A. Bishop, et al. 1995. Double-crested Cormorants 

 of the Great Lakes: Changes in population size, breeding distribution and reproductive output 

between 1913 and 1991. Colon. Waterbirds 18 (Spec. Publ.1):48-59. 

Whan, B. 2005. The Reports. Ohio Cardinal 28(4):141. 

Wildlife Society, The. 1990. Conservation policies of the Wildlife Society. The Wildlife Society. Wash., 

D.C. 20 pp. 

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert, D.R. Trexel, and A.R. Joshi. 2001. Status of the Double-crested Cormorant 

(Phalacrocorax auritus): Eastern and Central North America. USFWS Report. 

Wires, L.R. and Cuthbert, F.J. 2001. Prioritization of waterbird colony sites for conservation in the U.S. 

Great Lakes. Final Report to USFWS. Available at: http://www.waterbirds.umn.edu/F2-

CWBPrior.pdf . 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

139 

Wright, S. 2004. Some significant wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the United States, 1990 - December 

2003. Unpublished report, USDA APHIS WS National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, OH. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

140 

APPENDIX B 

SPECIES THAT ARE FEDERALLY-LISTED AS THREATENED OR 

ENDANGERED IN THE STATE OF OHIO 

(T= Threatened, E= Endangered) 

Federally Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species in Ohio 

MAMMALS PLANTS 

Indiana bat - endangered Running buffalo clover - endangered 

Northern monkshood - threatened 

BIRDS Lakeside daisy - threatened

Bald eagle - threatened Small whorled pogonia - threatened 

Piping plover - endangered Prairie fringed orchid - threatened 

Kirtland’s warbler - endangered Virginia spiraea - threatened 

REPTILE 

Eastern massasauga – candidate 

Copperbelly watersnake – threatened 

Lake Erie watersnake - threatened 

FISH 

Scioto madtom - endangered 

INSECTS 

Hine's emerald dragonfly – endangered 

Karner blue butterfly – endangered 

Mitchell's satyr butterfly – endangered 

American burying beetle - endangered 

MOLLUSKS 

Fanshell - endangered 

Purple catspaw - endangered 

White catspaw - endangered 

Northern riffleshell - endangered 

Pink mucket - endangered 

Clubshell - endangered 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

141 

APPENDIX C 

SPECIES THAT ARE LISTED AS ENDANGERED AND THREATENED 

BY THE STATE OF OHIO 

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL LAWS 

The Division of Wildlife's mission is to conserve and improve the fish and wildlife 

resources and their habitats, and promote their use and appreciation by the public so that 

these resources continue to enhance the quality of life for all Ohioans. The Division has 

legal authority over Ohio's fish and wildlife, which includes about 56 species of 

mammals, 200 species of breeding birds, 84 species and subspecies of amphibians and 

reptiles, 170 species of fish, 100 species of mollusks, and 20 species of crustaceans 

(ODNR 2005). 

In addition, there are thousands of species of insects and other invertebrates which fall 

under the Division's jurisdiction. Furthermore, Ohio law grants authority to the chief of 

the Division to adopt rules restricting the taking or possession of native wildlife 

threatened with statewide extirpation and to develop and periodically update a list of 

endangered species (Ohio Revised Code 1531.25). 

DEFINITIONS 

A species is considered endangered, if it is threatened with extirpation from the state. 

The danger may result from one or more causes, such as habitat loss, pollution, predation, 

interspecific competition, or disease. 

A species is considered threatened, whose survival in Ohio is not in immediate jeopardy, 

but to which a threat exists. Continued or increased stress will result in its becoming 

endangered. 

MAMMALS 

Endangered

Myotis sodalist......................................................Indiana Bat 

Neotoma magister..................................................................Allegheny woodrat 

Felis rufus......................................................... bobcat 

Ursus americanus...................................................black bear 

Lepus americanus................................................ snowshoe hare 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

142 

BIRDS 

Endangered 

Botaurus lentiginosus...............................................American bittern 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus..........................................bald eagle 

Circus cyaneus........................................................northern harrier 

Falco peregrinus......................................................peregrine falcon 

Rallus elegans.........................................................king rail 

Grus canadensis......................................................Sandhill crane 

Charadrius melodus.................................................Piping plover 

Sterna hirundo........................................................Common tern 

Chlidonias niger......................................................Black tern 

Sphyrapicus varius..................................................Yellow-bellied sapsucker 

Thryomanes bewickii................................................Bewick's wren 

Lanius ludovicianus.................................................Loggerhead shrike 

Vermivora chrysoptera.............................................Golden-winged warbler 

Dendroica kirtlandii................................................Kirtland's warbler *E 

Chondestes grammacus............................................Lark sparrow 

Pandion haliaetus...................................................Osprey 

Cygnus buccinator...................................................Trumpeter swan 

Egretta thula..........................................................Snowy egret 

Bubulcus ibis.........................................................Cattle egret 

Threatened 

Bartramia longicauda.............................................Upland sandpiper 

Nycticorax nycticorax.............................................Black-crowned night-heron 

Nyctanassa violacea...............................................Yellow-crowned night-heron 

Tyto alba..............................................................Barn owl 

Junco hyemalis......................................................Dark-eyed junco 

Catharus guttatus..................................................Hermit thrush 

Ixobrychus exilis...................................................Least bittern 

Empidonax minimus..............................................Least flycatcher 

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES 

Endangered 

Nerodia erythrogaster neglecta..............................copperbelly watersnake 

Thamnophis radix radi.............................................eastern plains garter snake 

Crotalus horridus horridus........................................timber rattlesnake 

Nerodia sipedon insularum........................................Lake Erie watersnake 

Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis..................eastern hellbender 

Ambystoma lateral....................................................blue spotted salamander

Aneides aeneus.........................................................green salamander 

Eurycea lucifuga......................................................cave salamander

Scaphiopus holbrookii..........................................eastern spadefoot

Sistrurus catenatus...............................................massasauga 

Threatened 

Clonophis kirtlandii...................................................Kirtland's snake 

Clemmys guttata......................................................spotted turtle 

Pseudotriton montanus.............................................mud salamander 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

143 

FISH 

Threatened 

Salvelinus fontinalis..........................................Brook trout 

Notropis boops................................................Bigeye shiner 

Exoglossum laurae............................................Tonguetied minnow 

Moxostoma valenciennesi....................................Greater redhorse 

Percina copelandi.............................................Channel darter 

Anguilla rostrata...............................................American eel 

Clinostomus funduloides......................................Rosyside dace 

Notropis dorsalis...............................................Bigmouth shiner 

Erimyzon sucetta...............................................Lake chubsucker 

Percina shumardi..............................................River darter 

Etheostoma camurum.........................................Bluebreast darter 

Etheostoma tippecanoe........................................Tippecanoe darter 

Polyodon spathula...........................................................paddlefish 

Endangered

Ichthyomyzon bdellium.......................................Ohio lamprey 

Ichthyomyzon fossor..........................................Northern brook lamprey 

Ichthyomyzon greeleyi........................................Mountain brook lamprey 

Acipenser fulvescens..........................................Lake sturgeon 

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus................................Shovelnose sturgeon 

Lepisosteus oculatus..........................................Spotted gar 

Lepisosteus platostomus......................................Shortnose gar 

Coregonus artedi..............................................Cisco (or Lake herring) 

Hiodon alosoides..............................................Goldeye 

Macrhybopsis aestivalis......................................Speckled chub 

Opsopoeodus emiliae.........................................Pugnose minnow 

Notropis ariomus.............................................Popeye shiner 

Notropis heterodon...........................................Blackchin shiner 

Notropis heterolepis..........................................Blacknose shiner 

Hybognathus nuchalis.......................................Mississippi silvery minnow 

Cycleptus elongates..........................................Blue sucker 

Catostomus catostomus......................................Longnose sucker 

Ictalurus furcatus.............................................Blue catfish 

Noturus eleutherus...........................................Mountain madtom 

Noturus stigmosus............................................Northern madtom 

Noturus trautmani............................................Scioto madtom *E 

Aphredoderus sayanus.......................................Pirate perch 

Fundulus diaphanus menona...............................Western banded killifish 

Etheostoma maculatum......................................Spotted darter 

MOLLUSKS 

Endangered 

Epioblasma triquetra.........................................Snuffbox 

Fusconaia ebena..............................................Ebonyshell 

Cyprogenia stegaria..........................................Fanshell 

Ellipsaria lineolata...........................................Butterfly 

Elliptio crassidens crassidens..............................Elephant-ear 

Epioblasma o. obliquata....................................Purple catspaw 

Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua.........................White catspaw 

Epioblasma torulosa rangiana.............................Northern riffleshell 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

144 

Fusconaia maculata maculata................................Long-solid 

Lampsilis orbiculata............................................Pink mucket 

Lampsilis ovata.................................................Sharp-ridged pocketbook 

Lampsilis teres..................................................Yellow sandshell 

Ligumia nasuta..................................................Eastern pondmussel 

Megalonaias nervosa..........................................Washboard 

Plethobasus cyphyus............................................Sheepnose 

Pleurobema clava...............................................Clubshell 

Pleurobema cordatum..........................................Ohio pigtoe 

Pleurobema rubrum.............................................Pyramid pigtoe 

Quadrula cylindrica cylindrical...............................Rabbitsfoot 

Quadrula metanevra............................................Monkeyface 

Quadrula nodulata..............................................Wartyback 

Toxolasma lividus................................................Purple lilliput 

Villosa fabalis....................................................Rayed bean 

Villosa lienosa.........................................................Little spectaclecase 

Threatened 

Ligumia recta....................................................Black sandshell 

Obliquaria reflexa..............................................Threehorn wartyback 

Truncilla donaciformis.............................................Fawnsfoot 

Unimerus tetralasmus..........................................Pondhorn 

BUTTERFLIES AND MOTHS 

Endangered 

Erynnis persius.................................................Persius dusky wing 

Incisalia irus..........................................................Frosted elfin 

Lycaeides melissa samuelis...................................Karner blue 

Lycaena helloides..............................................Purplish copper 

Calephelis muticum............................................Swamp metalmark 

Speyeria idalia.................................................Regal fritillary 

Pyrgus cantaureae wyandot.................................Grizzled skipper 

Neonympha mitchellii.........................................Mitchell's satyr 

Cycnia inopinatus.............................................Unexpected cycnia 

Catocala gracilis...................................................Graceful underwing 

Spartiniphaga inops 

Hypocoena enervata 

Papaipema silphii 

Papaipema beeriana 

Lithophane semiusta 

Trichoclea artesta 

Tricholita notata 

Melanchra assimilis 

Epiglaea apiata.....................................................Pointed sallow 

Ufeus plicatus 

Ufeus satyricus 

Erythroecia hebardi..........................................Hebard's noctuid moth 

 

Threatened 

Boloria selene.................................................Silver-bordered fritillary 

Catocala antinympha..........................................Wayward nymph 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

145 

Spartiniphaga panatela 

Fagitana littera 

Faronta rubripennis................................................The pink-streak 

 

CADDISFLIES 

Endangered 

Chimarra socia 

Oecetis eddlestoni 

Brachycentrus numerosus 

Threatened

Psilotreta indecisa 

Hydroptila albicornis 

Hydroptila artesa 

Hydroptila koryaki 

Hydroptila talledaga 

Hydroptila valhalla 

BEETLES 

Endangered 

Pseudanophthalmus krameri.................................Kramer's cave beetle 

Pseudanophthalmus ohioensis...............................Ohio cave beetle 

Nicrophorus americanus......................................American burying beetle 

Threatened 

Cicindela hirticollis 

Cicindela marginipennis..........................................Cobblestone tiger beetle 

 

CRAYFISHES

Threatened

Orconectes sloanii.............................................Sloan's crayfish 

DRAGONFLIES

Endangered

Somatochlora hineana........................................Hine's emerald 

Aeshna clepsydra..............................................Mottled darner 

Gomphus externus.............................................Plains clubtail 

Cordulia shurtleffi.............................................American emerald 

Helocordulia uhleri............................................Uhler's sundragon 

Leucorrhinia frigida...........................................Frosted whiteface 

Nannothemis bella.............................................Elfin skimmer 

Aeshna Canadensis............................................Canada darner 

Dorocordulia libera...........................................Racket-tailed emerald 

Somatochlora walshii.........................................Brush-tipped emerald 

Ladona deplanata.............................................Blue corporal 

Ladona julia...................................................Chalk-fronted corpora 

Libellula flavida...............................................Yellow-sided skimmer 

 

Threatened
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

146 

Ophiogomphus carolus.......................................Riffle snaketail 

DAMSELFLIES

Endangered

Ischnura kellicott.................................................. Lilypad forktail 

Argia bipunctulata............................................Seepage dancer 

Threatened

Calopteryx aequabilis........................................River jewelwing 

 

MIDGES 

Endangered

Rheopelopia acra 

Threatened

Bethbilbeckia floridensis 

Apsectrotanypus johnsoni 

Radotanypus florens 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Endangered 

Acer pensylvanicum............................................Striped Maple 

Aconitum noveboracense.....................................Northern Monkshood 

Aconitum uncinatum...........................................Southern Monkshood 

Agalinis auriculata.............................................Ear-leaved-foxglove 

Agalinis purpurea var. parviflora...........................Small Purple-foxglove 

Agalinis skinneriana..........................................Skinner's-foxglove 

Agrostis elliottiana............................................Elliott's Bent Grass 

Amelanchier sanguinea.......................................Rock Serviceberry 

Andropogon glomeratus......................................Common Broom-sedge 

Arabis divaricarpa.............................................Limestone Rock Cress 

Arabis drummondii............................................Drummond's Rock Cress 

Arabis hirsuta var. pycnocarpa..............................Western Hairy Rock Cress 

Arabis missouriensis..........................................Missouri Rock Cress 

Arabis patens.........................................................Spreading Rock Cress 

Aralia hispida..................................................Bristly Sarsaparilla 

Arenaria patula................................................Spreading Sandwort 

Arethusa bulbosa..............................................Dragon's-mouth 

Aristida necopina..............................................False Arrow-feather 

Artemisia campestris..........................................Beach Wormwood 

Aster surculosus...............................................Creeping Aster 

Astragalus neglectus..........................................Cooper's Milk-vetch 

Aureolaria pedicularia var. ambigens.....................Prairie Fern-leaved False Foxglove 

Aureolaria pedicularia var. pedicularia..................Woodland Fern-leaved False Foxglove 

Baptisia australis.............................................Blue False Indigo 

Bartonia paniculata..........................................Screw-stem 

Botrychium lanceolatum.....................................Triangle Grape Fern 

Botrychium simplex...........................................Least Grape Fern 

Calamagrostis porteri ssp. Insperata......................Bartley's Reed Grass 

Campanula rotundifolia.......................................Harebell 

Cardamine pratensis var. palustris..........................American Cuckoo-flower 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

147 

Carex alopecoidea.............................................Northern Fox Sedge 

Carex arctata...................................................Drooping Wood Sedge 

Carex bushii....................................................Bush's Sedge 

Carex cephaloidea.............................................Thin-leaved Sedge 

Carex crinita var. brevicrinis................................Short-fringed Sedge 

Carex decomposita............................................Cypress-knee Sedge 

Carex disperma................................................Two-seeded Sedge 

Carex echinata.................................................Little Prickly Sedge 

Carex garberi..................................................Garber's Sedge 

Carex limosa...................................................Mud Sedge 

Carex longii....................................................Long's Sedge 

Carex louisianica..............................................Louisiana Sedge 

Carex lucorum.................................................Fire Sedge 

Carex merritt-fernaldii.......................................Fernald's Sedge 

Carex planispicata.................................................Flat-spiked Sedge 

Carex pseudocyperus.............................................Northern Bearded Sedge 

Carex retrorsa.......................................................Reflexed Bladder Sedge 

Carex siccata...................................................Hay Sedge 

Carex striatula.................................................Lined Sedge 

Carex timida...................................................Timid Sedge 

Chrysopsis graminifolia......................................Silk-grass 

Clintonia borealis.............................................Bluebead-lily 

Coeloglossum viride...........................................Long-bracted Orchid 

Collinsonia verticillata........................................Early Stoneroot 

Corallorhiza trifida.............................................Early Coral-root 

Crataegus uniflora.............................................Dwarf Hawthorn 

Cuscuta coryli..................................................Hazel Dodder 

Cuscuta cuspidate.............................................Cuspidate Dodder 

Cuscuta indecora...............................................Pretty Dodder 

Cyperus lancastriensis.........................................Many-flowered Umbrella-sedge 

Cyperus refractus..............................................Reflexed Umbrella-sedge 

Cyperus retrofractus...........................................Rough Umbrella-sedge 

Cypripedium candidum.......................................White Lady's-slipper 

Cypripedium parviflorum var. parviflorum................Small Yellow Lady's-slipper 

Desmodium glabellum........................................Hairy Tick-trefoil 

Desmodium sessilifolium.....................................Sessile Tick-trefoil 

Draba brachycarpa.............................................Little Whitlow-grass 

Drosera intermedia.............................................Spathulate-leaved Sundew 

Dryopteris celsa................................................Log Fern 

Dryopteris clintoniana.........................................Clinton's Wood Fern 

Dryopteris filix-mas............................................Male Fern 

Echinodorus berteroi...........................................Burhead 

Eleocharis engelmannii........................................Engelmann's Spike-rush 

Eleocharis geniculata..........................................Caribbean Spike-rush 

Eleocharis ovata.................................................Ovate Spike-rush 

Eleocharis parvula..............................................Least Spike-rush 

Eleocharis quinqueflora........................................Few-flowered Spike-rush 

Eleocharis robbinsii.............................................Robbins' Spike-rush 

Eleocharis wolfii................................................Wolf's Spike-rush 

Epilobium angustifolium.......................................Fireweed 

Equisetum variegatum..........................................Variegated Scouring-rush 

Eriocaulon aquaticum..........................................White-buttons 

Erysimum arkansanum..........................................Western Wallflower 

Erythronium rostratum..........................................Golden-star 

Eupatorium hyssopifolium........................................Hyssop Thoroughwort 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

148 

Euphorbia purpurea...............................................Glade Spurge 

Euphorbia serpens.................................................Round-leaved Spurge 

Fissidens hyalinus..................................................Filmy Fissidens 

Froelichia floridana................................................Common Cottonweed 

Galium labradoricum..............................................Bog Bedstraw 

Galium palustre....................................................Marsh Bedstraw 

Gentiana puberulenta..............................................Prairie Gentian 

Gentiana saponaria................................................Soapwort Gentian 

Gentiana villosa.....................................................Sampson's Snakeroot 

Geranium bicknellii.................................................Bicknell's Crane's-bill 

Gnaphalium viscosum..............................................Winged Cudweed 

Heteranthera reniformis...........................................Mud-plantain 

Heuchera longiflora................................................Long-flowered Alum-root 

Hieracium longipilum..............................................Long-bearded Hawkweed 

Hydrocotyle umbellate.............................................Navelwort 

Hymenoxys herbacea...............................................Lakeside Daisy 

Hypericum canadense..............................................Canada St. John's-wort 

Hypericum denticulatum...........................................Coppery St. John's-wort 

Hypericum gymnanthum...........................................Least St. John's-wort 

Hypnum pretense....................................................Wrinkled-leaved Marsh Hypnum 

Iris brevicaulis......................................................Leafy Blue Flag 

Isoetes engelmannii................................................Appalachian Quillwort 

Isotria medeoloides................................................Small Whorled Pogonia 

Juncus diffusissimus................................................Diffuse Rush 

Juncus greenei......................................................Greene's Rush 

Juncus interior......................................................Inland Rush 

Juncus platyphyllus.................................................Flat-leaved Rush 

Juniperus communis...............................................Ground Juniper 

Koeleria macrantha................................................June Grass 

Lactuca hirsute.....................................................Hairy Tall Lettuce 

Lathyrus venosus...................................................Wild Pea 

Ledum groenlandicum.............................................Labrador-tea 

Leersia lenticularis................................................Catchfly Grass 

Linaria Canadensis................................................Old-field Toadflax 

Lipocarpha drummondii..........................................Drummond's Dwarf Bulrush 

Magnolia macrophylla.............................................Bigleaf Magnolia 

Monarda punctata..................................................Dotted Horsemint 

Moneses uniflora...................................................One-flowered Wintergreen 

Muhlenbergia cuspidate...........................................Plains Muhlenbergia 

Myrica pensylvanica...............................................Bayberry 

Myriophyllum heterophyllum.....................................Two-leaved Water-milfoil 

Myriophyllum verticillatum ......................................Green Water-milfoil 

Najas gracillima ....................................................Thread-like Naiad 

Nuphar variegate...................................................Bullhead-lily 

Oenothera clelandii................................................Cleland's Evening-primrose 

Ophioglossum engelmannii.......................................Limestone Adder's-tongue 

Oryzopsis asperifolia..............................................Large-leaved Mountain-rice 

Oxalis montana....................................................White Wood-sorrel 

Panicum commonsianum..........................................Commons' Panic Grass 

Panicum lindheimeri...............................................Lindheimer's Panic Grass 

Panicum perlongum................................................Long-panicled Panic Grass 

Panicum philadelphicum..........................................Philadelphia Panic Grass 

Panicum praecocius................................................Early Panic Grass 

Panicum scoparium.................................................Velvet Panic Grass 

Panicum spretum....................................................Narrow-headed Panic Grass 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

149 

Panicum tuckermanii...............................................Tuckerman's Panic Grass 

Panicum villosissimum.............................................Villous Panic Grass 

Panicum yadkinense................................................Spotted Panic Grass 

Paxistima canbyi...................................................Cliff-green 

Penstemon laevigatus..............................................Smooth Beard-tongue 

Phacelia dubia......................................................Small-flowered Scorpion-weed 

Phacelia ranunculacea............................................Blue Scorpion-weed 

Phlox latifolia......................................................Mountain Phlox 

Phyllanthus caroliniensis.........................................Carolina Leaf-flower 

Placidium lachneum...............................................Brown Stipplescale 

Plantago cordata...................................................Heart-leaved Plantain 

Plantago patagonica .............................................Woolly Plantain 

Platanthera blephariglottis.......................................White Fringed Orchid 

Platanthera psycodes..............................................Small Purple Fringed Orchid 

Pluchea camphorate...............................................Camphor-weed 

Poa saltuensis......................................................Pasture Blue Grass 

Poa wolfii...........................................................Wolf's Blue Grass 

Podostemum ceratophyllum......................................Riverweed 

Polygala cruciata.................................................Cross-leaved Milkwort 

Polygala curtissii.................................................Curtiss' Milkwort 

Polygala paucifolia...............................................Gay-wings 

Polygonum cilinode..............................................Mountain Bindweed 

Polygonum setaceum var. interjectum.........................Bristly Smartweed 

Populus balsamifera.............................................Balsam Poplar 

Potamogeton friesii...............................................Fries' Pondweed 

Potamogeton gramineus.........................................Grass-like Pondweed 

Potamogeton hillii................................................Hill's Pondweed 

Potamogeton praelongus.......................................White-stemmed Pondweed 

Potamogeton pulcher............................................Spotted Pondweed 

Potamogeton robbinsii...........................................Robbins' Pondweed 

Potamogeton tennesseensis.....................................Tennessee Pondweed 

Potentilla arguta.................................................Tall Cinquefoil 

Potentilla paradoxa.............................................Bushy Cinquefoil 

Prenanthes aspera...............................................Rough Rattlesnake-root 

Prenanthes trifoliolata..........................................Gall-of-the-earth 

Prunus mexicana.................................................Bigtree Plum 

Pteridium aquilinum var. pseudocaudatum..................Tailed Bracken 

Pycnanthemum verticillatum var. pilosum...................Hairy Mountain-mint 

Pyrola chlorantha................................................Green-flowered Wintergreen 

Ramalina intermedia.............................................Rock Ramalina 

Ramalina pollinaria...................................................Chalky Ramalina 

Ranunculus pusillus..............................................Low Spearwort 

Rhododendron calendulaceum..................................Flame Azalea 

Rhododendron nudiflorum var. nudiflorum...................Pinxter-flower 

Rhynchospora recognita.........................................Tall Grass-like Beak-rush 

Ribes triste.........................................................Swamp Red Currant 

Rosa blanda.......................................................Smooth Rose 

Saccharum alopecuroideum.....................................Silver Plume Grass 

Sagittaria graminea.............................................Grass-leaved Arrowhead 

Salix pedicellaris.......................................................Bog Willow 

Salix petiolaris....................................................Slender Willow 

Scheuchzeria palustris...........................................Scheuchzeria 

Schizachne purpurascens........................................False Melic 

Schizachyrium littorale..........................................Coastal Little Bluestem 

Schoenoplectus americanus.....................................Olney's Three-square 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

150 

Schoenoplectus smithii...........................................Smith's Bulrush 

Schoenoplectus subterminalis...................................Swaying-rush 

Scleria oligantha..................................................Tubercled Nut-rush 

Silene caroliniana var. wherryi.................................Wherry's Catchfly 

Silene nivea........................................................Snowy Campion 

Silphium laciniatum..............................................Compass-plant 

Sisyrinchium atlanticum.........................................Atlantic Blue-eyed-grass 

Sisyrinchium mucronatum.......................................Narrow-leaved Blue-eyed-grass 

Smilax pulverulenta..............................................Downy Carrion-flower 

Solidago puberula................................................Dusty Goldenrod 

Solidago sphacelata..............................................False Goldenrod 

Sorbus decora....................................................Western Mountain-ash 

Sparganium emersum............................................Small Bur-reed 

Spiraea virginiana...............................................Appalachian Spiraea 

Streptopus lanceolatus..........................................Rose Twisted-stalk 

Tortella inclinata................................................Curved Tortella 

Toxicodendron rydbergii.......................................Northern Poison-ivy 

Triadenum walteri...............................................Walter's St. John's-wort 

Trichomanes boschianum.......................................Appalachian Filmy Fern 

Trichostema dichotomum var. lineare........................Narrow-leaved Bluecurls 

Trifolium reflexum...............................................Buffalo Clover 

Trifolium stoloniferum..........................................Running Buffalo Clover 

Trillium undulatum..............................................Painted Trillium 

Trollius laxus.....................................................Spreading Globeflower 

Urtica chamaedryoides.........................................Spring Nettle 

Utricularia cornuta.............................................Horned Bladderwort 

Utricularia geminiscapa........................................Two-scaped Bladderwort 

Vaccinium myrtilloides.........................................Velvet-leaved Blueberry 

Valeriana ciliata.................................................Prairie Valerian 

Verbesina occidentalis.........................................Yellow Crown-beard 

Vernonia missurica.............................................Missouri Ironweed 

Viburnum opulus var. americanum..........................Highbush-cranberry 

Viola missouriensis............................................Missouri Violet 

Viola nephrophylla.............................................Northern Bog Violet 

Viola pedatifida................................................Prairie Violet 

Viola primulifolia..............................................Primrose-leaved Violet 

Viola tripartita var. glaberrima.............................Wedge-leaved Violet 

Viola walteri...................................................Walter's Violet 

Xyris difformis.................................................Variable Yellow-eyed-grass 

VASCULAR PLANTS 

Threatened 

Acalypha virginica var. deamii.................................Deam's Three-seeded Mercury 

Acorus americanus................................................American Sweet-flag 

Actaea rubra...................................................Red Baneberry 

Adlumia fungosa..............................................Mountain-fringe 

Agalinis gattingeri............................................Gattinger's-foxglove 

Ammophila breviligulata....................................American Beach Grass 

Androsace occidentalis......................................Western Rock-jasmine 

Anemone cylindrica...........................................Prairie Thimbleweed 

Antennaria virginica.........................................Shale Barren Pussy-toes 

Apocynum sibiricum.........................................Clasping-leaved Dogbane 

Arabis lyrata..................................................Lyre-leaved Rock Cress 

Armoracia lacustris..........................................Lake Cress 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

151 

Asplenium bradleyi..........................................Bradley's Spleenwort 

Asplenium ruta-muraria....................................Wall-rue 

Aster drummondii.................................................Drummond's Aster 

Aster dumosus................................................Bushy Aster 

Aster oblongifolius..........................................Shale Barren Aster 

Aster ontarionis..............................................Bottomland Aster 

Aster solidagineus...........................................Narrow-leaved Aster 

Astragalus canadensis......................................Canada Milk-vetch 

Betula pumila................................................Swamp Birch 

Botrychium biternatum..........................................Sparse-lobed Grape Fern 

Botrychium multifidum......................................Leathery Grape Fern 

Bromus nottowayanus.......................................Satin Brome 

Buchnera americana........................................Bluehearts 

Calamintha arkansana......................................Limestone Savory 

Calla palustris................................................Wild Calla 

Callitriche verna.............................................Vernal Water-starwort 

Calopogon tuberosus........................................Grass-pink 

Carex albolutescens..........................................Pale Straw Sedge 

Carex appalachica...........................................Appalachian Sedge 

Carex bicknellii...............................................Bicknell's Sedge 

Carex brevior.................................................Tufted Fescue Sedge 

Carex brunnescens...........................................Brownish Sedge 

Carex conoidea...............................................Field Sedge 

Carex crus-corvi.............................................Raven-foot Sedge 

Carex lupuliformis...........................................False Hop Sedge 

Carex mesochorea...........................................Midland Sedge 

Carex oligosperma...........................................Few-seeded Sedge 

Carex pallescens...................................................Pale Sedge 

Carex projecta................................................Necklace Sedge 

Carex purpurifera............................................Purple Wood Sedge 

Carex sprengelii...................................................Sprengel's Sedge 

Celtis tenuifolia..............................................Dwarf Hackberry 

Chimaphila umbellata.......................................Pipsissewa 

Chionanthus virginicus..........................................Fringe-tree 

Chrysogonum virginianum.................................Golden-knees 

Cirsium carolinianum.......................................Carolina Thistle 

Clintonia umbellulata.......................................Speckled Wood-lily 

Comptonia peregrina........................................Sweet-fern 

Conyza ramosissima.........................................Bushy Horseweed 

Cornus canadensis................................................Bunchberry 

Croton glandulosus..........................................Northern Croton 

Cuscuta glomerata..........................................Glomerate Dodder 

Cuscuta pentagona..........................................Five-angled Dodder 

Cyperus acuminatus.........................................Pale Umbrella-sedge 

Cyperus schweinitzii........................................Schweinitz' Umbrella-sedge 

Cypripedium reginae.......................................Showy Lady's-slipper 

Dalibarda repens............................................Robin-run-away 

Deschampsia flexuosa......................................Crinkled Hair Grass 

Descurainia pinnata........................................Tansy Mustard 

Draba cuneifolia............................................Wedge-leaved Whitlow-grass 

Draba reptans................................................Carolina Whitlow-grass 

Eleocharis compressa.......................................Flat-stemmed Spike-rush 

Eleocharis flavescens.......................................Green Spike-rush 

Elymus trachycaulus.........................................Bearded Wheat Grass 

Epilobium strictum...........................................Simple Willow-herb 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

152 

Eryngium yuccifolium............................................Rattlesnake-master 

Eupatorium album...........................................White Thoroughwort 

Eupatorium aromaticum....................................Small White Snakeroot 

Euthamia remota..................................................Great Lakes Goldenrod 

Galactia volubilis............................................Milk-pea 

Gentiana alba................................................Yellowish Gentian 

Glyceria acutiflora...........................................Sharp-glumed Manna Grass 

Gratiola virginiana..........................................Round-fruited Hedge-hyssop 

Gratiola viscidula............................................Short's Hedge-hyssop 

Gymnocarpium dryopteris..................................Common Oak Fern 

Helianthemum bicknellii....................................Plains Frostweed 

Helianthemum canadense..................................Canada Frostweed 

Helianthus mollis............................................Ashy Sunflower 

Heuchera parviflora........................................Small-flowered Alum-root 

Heuchera villosa............................................Hairy Alum-root 

Hexalectris spicata..........................................Crested Coral-root 

Hieracium canadense.......................................Canada Hawkweed 

Hypericum boreale..........................................Northern St. John's-wort 

Hypericum ellipticum.......................................Few-flowered St. John's-wort 

Hypericum kalmianum..........................................Kalm's St. John's-wort 

Iris verna...........................................................Dwarf Iris 

Juncus secundus.............................................One-sided Rush 

Krigia dandelion............................................Potato-dandelion 

Krigia virginica.............................................Virginia Dwarf-dandelion 

Lathyrus japonicus..........................................Inland Beach Pea 

Lathyrus ochroleucus......................................Yellow Vetchling 

Leavenworthia uniflora....................................Michaux's Leavenworthia 

Lechea minor.....................................................Thyme-leaved Pinweed 

Lechea pulchella............................................Leggett's Pinweed 

Lechea tenuifolia...........................................Narrow-leaved Pinweed 

Liatris cylindracea.........................................Slender Blazing-star 

Lilium philadelphicum....................................Wood Lily 

Lipocarpha micrantha....................................Dwarf Bulrush 

Lithospermum caroliniense...............................Plains Puccoon 

Luzula bulbosa...................................................Southern Woodrush 

Manfreda virginica........................................American Aloe 

Matelea obliqua............................................Angle-pod 

Melampyrum lineare......................................Cow-wheat 

Melanthium virginicum...................................Bunchflower 

Melanthium woodii.......................................Wood's-hellebore 

Melica nitens....................................................Three-flowered Melic 

Menyanthes trifoliata.....................................Buckbean 

Myriophyllum sibiricum.................................American Water-milfoil 

Nothoscordum bivalve....................................False Garlic 

Oenothera oakesiana....................................Oakes' Evening-primrose 

Oenothera parviflora....................................Small-flowered Evening-primrose 

Oryzopsis racemosa......................................Mountain-rice 

Panicum bicknellii.......................................Bicknell's Panic Grass 

Panicum boreale.........................................Northern Panic Grass 

Panicum leibergii..........................................Leiberg's Panic Grass 

Panicum meridionale......................................Southern Hairy Panic Grass 

Panicum verrucosum......................................Warty Panic Grass 

Passiflora incarnata........................................Maypop 

Penstemon canescens......................................Gray Beard-tongue 

Penstemon pallidus.........................................Downy White Beard-tongue 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

153 

Physalis virginiana.........................................Virginia Ground-cherry 

Plagiothecium latebricola.................................Lurking Leskea 

Platanthera ciliaris.........................................Yellow Fringed Orchid 

Platanthera leucophaea....................................Prairie Fringed Orchid 

Pleopeltis polypodioides...................................Little Gray Polypody 

Poa paludigena.............................................Marsh Spear Grass 

Pogonia ophioglossoides..................................Rose Pogonia 

Polygala incarnata.........................................Pink Milkwort 

Polygala polygama.........................................Racemed Milkwort 

Polygonum robustius.......................................Coarse Smartweed 

Prosartes maculata.............................................Nodding Mandarin 

Prunus pumila var. cuneata...............................Sand Cherry 

Quercus falcate.............................................Spanish Oak 

Quercus marilandica.......................................Blackjack Oak 

Ramalina petrina...........................................Appalachian Trail Ramalina 

Rhododendron maximum..................................Great Rhododendron 

Ribes missouriense.........................................Missouri Gooseberry 

Sagittaria cuneata..........................................Wapato 

Sagittaria rigida............................................Deer's-tongue Arrowhead 

Salix candida................................................Hoary Willow 

Scleria pauciflora..........................................Few-flowered Nut-rush 

Senecio pauperculus.......................................Balsam Squaw-weed 

Silene caroliniana var. pensylvanica...................Carolina Catchfly 

Silene regia.................................................Royal Catchfly 

Sisyrinchium montanum..................................Northern Blue-eyed-grass 

Solidago odora.............................................Sweet Goldenrod 

Solidago squarrosa.............................................Leafy Goldenrod 

Sparganium androcladum................................Keeled Bur-reed 

Sphenopholis obtusata var. obtusata...................Prairie Wedge Grass 

Spiranthes romanzoffiana................................Hooded Ladies'-tresses 

Sporobolus heterolepis....................................Prairie Dropseed 

Stipa spartea................................................Porcupine Grass 

Tofieldia glutinosa.........................................False Asphodel 

Triadenum tubulosum.....................................Large Marsh St. John's-wort 

Triglochin maritimum.....................................Seaside Arrow-grass 

Triphora trianthophora...................................Three-birds Orchid 

Ulmus thomasii.............................................Rock Elm 

Utricularia intermedia....................................Flat-leaved Bladderwort 

Vaccinium oxycoccos.....................................Small Cranberry 

Viburnum molle............................................Soft-leaved Arrow-wood 

Viola pedata................................................Birdfoot Violet 

Wolffiella gladiata.........................................Wolffiella 

Xyris torta.........................................................Twisted Yellow-eyed-grass 

Zizania aquatica...........................................Wild Rice 

LICHENS 

Endangered 

Collema bachmanianum..........................................Bachman's Jelly Lichen 

Collema coccophorum........................................Tar Jelly Lichen 

Collema conglomeratum......................................Dotted Jelly Lichen 

Collema fuscovirens...........................................Dusky Jelly Lichen 

Parmotrema madagascariaceum............................Madagascar Ruffle Lichen 

Punctelia perreticulata.......................................Reticulate Speckled Shield Lichen 

Sticta beauvoisii...............................................Fringed Moon Lichen 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

154 

Xanthoria elegans.............................................Elegant Sunburst Lichen 

Threatened 

Canoparmelia texana.........................................Texas Shield Lichen 

Dibaeis absoluta...............................................Pink Dot Lichen 

MOSSES 

Endangered 

Barbula indica var. indica...................................Twisted Teeth Moss 

Buxbaumia minakatae........................................Ethereal Elf Cap Moss 

Campylostelium saxicola.........................................Rock-loving Swan-necked Moss 

Diphyscium cumberlandianum..............................Cumberland Grain o' Wheat Moss 

Lycopodiella margueritae....................................Northern Prostrate Club-moss 

Lycopodiella subappressa....................................Northern Appressed Club-moss 

Lycopodium lagopus..........................................One-coned Club-moss 

Philonotis fontana var. caespitosa ..........................Tufted Moisture-loving Moss 

Pohlia elongata var. elongata ...............................Narrow-necked Pohl's Moss 

Sphagnum bartlettianum......................................Bartlett's Peat Moss 

Sphagnum riparium............................................Shore-growing Peat Moss 

Tomentypnum nitens................................................ Fuzzy Hypnum Moss 

Weissia sharpii.......................................................Sharp's Green-cushioned Moss 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

155 

APPENDIX D 

LOCATION AND SIZE OF DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT BREEDING COLONIES IN THE STATE 

INFORMATION ON CO-NESTING COLONIAL WATERBIRDS 

(ODNR, 2005) 

Colony site name Ohio 

County 

Doublecrested 

Cormorant 

# nests 

Snowy Egret 

# nests 

Great Blue 

Heron 

# nests 

Great 

Egret 

# nests 

Blackcrowned 

Night-hero

# nests 

West Sister Island Ottawa 3,813 14 927 827 5Green Island Ottawa 857 0 91 4 Turning Point Island 

Erie 409 0 0 41 

Grand Lakes St. Mary 

Mercer 80 0 40 0 

Portage Lakes Summit 6 0 0 0 Total 5,165 14 1,058 872 5
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

156 

APPENDIX E 

INTERACTION AMONG AGENCY DECISIONS 

This appendix provides details on how the decisions made by one of the lead agencies would impact the actions a

available to the other lead agencies, cooperating agencies, and other individuals that may need CDM or wish to c

research. Information on the selection of Alternative 1 is not provided because selection of this alternative by an

would not restrict alternatives and actions available to any other entity. Table 1. Impacts of agency selection of Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM 

Choices Available to Other DCCO Management Entities 

USFWS 

Agency Choosing 

Alternative 2 – 

Only Non-lethal 

CDM Migratory Bird Office (MBO) West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR) Wildlife Services (WS) Ohio Division of Wi

(ODW) 

USFWS Migratory Bird Office (MBO) 

___ WSINWR can choose the 

same alternative as the MBO or it can choose to be more, but not less restrictive than the alternative selected by the MBO. Therefore, if the MBO selects Alternative 2, the WSINWR may select Alternatives 2,3 or 4. 

WS could select any other alternative. However, the only entity that could receive WS assistance with lethal CDM is ODW because the only type of lethal CDM that could be conducted would be take of less than 10% of a local DCCO population under the PRDO. There could be no other types of lethal DCCO removal because it would require permits from the MBO. A permit is not required for non-lethal CDM 

ODW could take less 10% of a local DCCO population under the PRDO because this acdoes not require approor a permit from the MNon-lethal CDM doerequire a permit from MBO. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

157 

Choices Available to Other DCCO Management Entities 

USFWS 

Agency Choosing 

Alternative 2 – 

Only Non-lethal 

CDM Migratory Bird Office (MBO) West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR) Wildlife Services (WS) Ohio Division of Wi

(ODW) 

USFWS West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR)

No impact on decisions made by the MBO. WSINWR can only select alternatives that are more but not less restrictive than the MBO. 

___ WS could select any 

alternative. However, it would only be able to assist WSI with non-lethal CDM. This decision would have no impact on WS CDM actions at any other location. 

No impact on decisionavailable to state. However, selection of alternative will likely an impact on the need action and the efficacCDM on nearby lands managed by the state. 

Wildlife Services (WS)

No Impact No impact on alternatives 

available to WSINWR. However, WSINWR would have to go to ODW for assistance with lethal take under the PRDO. WS would only assist with research and CDM using non-lethal methods. 

___ No impact on decision

available to state undePRDO. WS would not assist wconsultation and Form required for a depredapermit from the USFWODW would not be aobtain a depredation permit. State would bable to obtain research permits. WS would only assist ODW with non-lethal CDM and research usnon-lethal methods. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

158 

Choices Available to Other DCCO Management Entities 

USFWS 

Agency Choosing 

Alternative 2 – 

Only Non-lethal 

CDM Migratory Bird Office (MBO) West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR) Wildlife Services (WS) Ohio Division of Wi

(ODW) 

Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODW) 

No impact on decisions made by the MBO. 

No impact on alternatives available to WSINWR. WSINWR would have to work with WS for assistance with lethal CDM. Selection of this alternative will likely have an impact on the need for action and the efficacy of CDM at WSINWR. 

WS could select any alternative. However, it would only be able to assist ODW with nonlethal CDM. This decision would have no impact on WS CDM actions on lands that are not owned or managed by the state. 

___ 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

159 

Table 2. Impacts of agency selection of Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance. 

Choices Available to Other DCCO Management Entities 

USFWS Agency Choosing Alternative 3 – 

Only Technical 

Assistance Migratory Bird Office (MBO West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR) Wildlife Services (WS) Ohio Division of Wi

(ODW) 

USFWS Migratory Bird Office (MBO) 

___ WSINWR can select 

alternatives that are the same or more restrictive than the MBO. Therefore, no CDM would be conducted at WSINWR. 

Permitting and approval processes are a form of technical assistance so no impact on CDM alternatives available to WS 

Permitting and approvprocesses are a form otechnical assistance so impact on CDM alternatives available ODW. Lack of CDM at WSINWR will likely an impact on the need action and the efficacCDM on lands near WSINWR that are managed by the state. 

USFWS West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR)

WSINWR can select alternatives that are the same or more restrictive than the MBO. No impact on decisions made by the MBO 

___ WS could select any 

alternative. WSINWR would not request assistance with CDM from WS. 

No impact on decisionavailable to state. However, selection of alternative will likely an impact on the efficand need for action on lands near WSINWR are managed by the st

Wildlife Services (WS)

No Impact No impact on alternatives 

available to WSINWR. However, WSINWR would have to go to ODW for operational assistance with CDM under the PRDO. 

___ No impact on decision

available to state. WS would assist with consultation required depredation permit frothe USFWS. ODW w
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

160 

Choices Available to Other DCCO Management Entities 

USFWS Agency Choosing Alternative 3 – 

Only Technical 

Assistance Migratory Bird Office (MBO West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR) Wildlife Services (WS) Ohio Division of Wi

(ODW) 

WS would not provide operational assistance with research. 

be able to obtain depredation permits. would be able to obtaresearch permits. WS would only be abprovide technical assistance with CDM research. 

Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODW) 

No Impact No impact on alternatives 

available to WSINWR. WSINWR would have to go to WS for operational assistance with CDM. Lack of CDM on state lands near WSINWR would likely have an impact on the need for action and the efficacy of CDM at WSINWR. 

No impact on alternatives available to WS. WS would not assist ODW with CDM. This decision would have no impact on WS CDM actions on lands that are not owned or managed by the state. 

____ 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

161 

Table 3. Impacts of agency selection of Alternative 4 – No Federal CDM. 

Choices Available to Other DCCO Management Entities 

Agency Choosing USFWS 

Alternative 4 – No 

Federal CDM Migratory 

Bird Office (MBO) 

West Sister Island 

National Wildlife Refuge 

(WSINWR) 

Wildlife Services (WS) Ohio Division of Wi

(ODW) 

USFWS Migratory Bird Office (MBO) 

___ WSINWR cannot select an 

alternative that is less restrictive than that selected by the MBO. Therefore, there would be no CDM on WSINWR. 

WS could select any other alternative. However, the only entity that could receive WS assistance with lethal CDM would be ODW because the only type of lethal CDM that could be conducted would be take of less than 10% of a local DCCO population under the PRDO. There could be no other types of lethal DCCO removal because it would require permits from the MBO. Non-lethal CDM does not require a permit from the MBO. 

ODW could take less 10% of local DCCO populations on nonFederal lands under thPRDO because this acdoes not require approor a permit from the MNon-lethal CDM doerequire a permit from MBO. Lack of CDM at WSINWR will likely an impact on the need action and the efficacCDM on lands near WSINWR that are managed by the state. 

USFWS West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR)

No impact on decisions made by the MBO 

___ WS could select any 

alternative. WSINWR would not request CDM assistance from WS. 

No impact on decisionavailable to state. However, selection of alternative will likely an impact on the need action and the efficacCDM on lands near WSINWR that are managed by the state. 

Wildlife Services No Impact No impact on alternatives ___ No impact on decision
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

162 

Choices Available to Other DCCO Management Entities 

Agency Choosing USFWS 

Alternative 4 – No 

Federal CDM Migratory 

Bird Office (MBO) 

West Sister Island 

National Wildlife Refuge 

(WSINWR) 

Wildlife Services (WS) Ohio Division of Wi

(ODW) 

(WS) available to WSINWR. 

However, WSINWR would have to go to ODW for assistance with lethal take under the PRDO. WS would not assist with CDM or research. 

available to state undePRDO. WS would not assist wconsultation and form required for a depredapermit from the USFWODW would not be aobtain a depredation permit. State would bable to obtain research permits. WS would not assist wCDM or research. 

Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODW) 

No Impact No impact on alternatives 

available to WSINWR. WSINWR would have to go to WS for operational assistance with CDM. Lack of CDM on state lands near WSINWR would likely have an impact on the need for action and the efficacy of CDM at WSINWR. 

No impact on alternatives available to WS. WS would not assist ODW with CDM. This decision would have no impact on WS CDM actions on lands that are not owned or managed by the state. 

____ 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

163 

Table 4. Impacts of agency selection of Alternative 5 – Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the PRDO 

Choices Available to Other DCCO Management Entities 

Agency Choosing USFWS 

Alternative 5 – 

Integrated CDM Migratory 

Bird Office (MBO) 

West Sister Island 

National Wildlife Refuge 

(WSINWR) 

Wildlife Services (WS) Ohio Division of Wi

(ODW) 

USFWS Migratory Bird Office (MBO) 

___ WSINWR can only select 

alternatives that are the same or more restrictive than the alternative selected by the MBO. CDM activities would be restricted to the protection of vegetation and wildlife (not public fishery resources) under MBPs from the MBO. WSINWR would not participate in actions to protect public fishery resources. 

WS could select any other alternative. However, WS assistance with protection of public resources would be restricted to those activities permitted under MBPs, specifically the protection of wildlife and vegetation resources but not public fishery resources. All other types of CDM and research would not be affected. 

CDM activities would restricted to the proteof vegetation and wild(not public fishery resources) as would ballowed under MBPs the MBO. All other types of CDand research would naffected. 

USFWS West Sister Island (WSI)

No impact ___ WS could select any 

alternative. CDM assistance for WSI would be restricted to the protection of wildlife and vegetation (not public fishery resources) under MBPs This decision would have no impact on WS CDM and research actions at any other location. 

No impact on decisionavailable to state. However, selection of alternative would likehave an impact on the efficacy and need for action on nearby landmanaged by the state need to protect public fishery resources is determining managemobjectives. 

Wildlife Services No Impact No impact on alternatives ___ No impact on decision
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

164 

Choices Available to Other DCCO Management Entities 

Agency Choosing USFWS 

Alternative 5 – 

Integrated CDM Migratory 

Bird Office (MBO) 

West Sister Island 

National Wildlife Refuge 

(WSINWR) 

Wildlife Services (WS) Ohio Division of Wi

(ODW) 

(WS) available to WSI. 

However, WSI would have to go to ODW for assistance with lethal take for the protection of public fishery resources. WS could only assist with activities to protect public wildlife and vegetation resources as would be permitted under MBPs 

available to state. WS could only assist activities to protect puwildlife and vegetatioresources as would be permitted under MBPThis decision would nrestrict WS’ ability to assist ODW with all otypes of CDM and research. 

Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODW) 

No Impact No Impact No Impact. ODW would 

not need WS’ assistance with projects to protect public fishery resources. 

_____ 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

165 

APPENDIX F 

LIST OF SCIENTIFIC NAMES 

BIRDS 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) 

Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) 

Cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis) 

Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) 

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias) 

Great egret (Ardea alba) 

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) 

Snowy egret (Egretta thula) 

FISH 

Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) 

Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus) 

Brown trout (Salmo trutta) 

Burbot (Lota lota) 

Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) 

Crappie (Pomoxis spp.) 

Freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens) 

Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) 

Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) 

Lake/northern chub (Couesius plumbeus) 

Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides salmoides) 

Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Saugeye (Sander vitreus x Sander canadense) 

Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) 

Stickleback (Eucalia inconstans) 

Striped bass (Morone saxatilis x M. chrysops) 

Walleye (Sander vitreus) 

Yellow perch (Perca flavescens) 

MOLLUSKS 

Zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) 

REPTILES 

Lake Erie watersnake (Nerodia sipedon insularum) 

PLANTS 

Harebell (Campanula rotundifolia) 

Northern bog violet (Viola nephrophylla) 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

166 

Rock elm (Ulmus thomasii) 

Sprengel’s sedge (Carex sprengelii) 

Tufted fescue sedge (Carex brevior) 

LICHENS 

Elegant sunburst lichen (Xanthoria elegans) 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

167 

APPENDIX G 

USFWS FINAL RULEMAKING AND RECORD OF DECISION ON 

DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT MANAGEMENT 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 21 

RIN 1018-AI39 

 

Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Double-Crested Cormorant Management 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule and notice of record of decision. 

SUMMARY: Increasing populations of the double-crested cormorant have caused biological and 

socioeconomic resource conflicts. In November 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) 

completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on double-crested cormorant management. In 

March 2003, a proposed rule was published to establish regulations to implement the DEIS proposed 

action, Alternative D. In August 2003, the notice of availability for a Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) was published, followed by a 30-day comment period. This final rule sets forth 

regulations for implementing the FEIS preferred alternative, Alternative D (establishment of a public 

resource depredation order and revision of the aquaculture depredation order). It also provides responses to 

comments we received during the 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule. The Record of 

Decision (ROD) is also published here. 

DATES: This final rule will go into effect on [insert date 30 days following date of publication in the 

Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: Comments can be mailed to the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203; or emailed to 

cormorants@fws.gov; or faxed to 703/358-2272. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

The Service is the Federal agency with primary responsibility for managing migratory birds. Our authority 

is based on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which implements conventions 

with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and Russia. The double-crested cormorant (DCCO) is 

Federally protected under the 1972 amendment to the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and 

Game Mammals, February 7, 1936, United States–Mexico, as amended, 50 Stat. 1311, T.S. No. 912. The 

take of DCCOs is strictly prohibited except as authorized by regulations implementing the MBTA. 

As we stated in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register in March 2003, the authority for the 

regulations set forth in this rule is the MBTA. The MBTA authorizes the Secretary, subject to the 

provisions of, and in order to carry out the purposes of, the applicable conventions, to determine when, if at 

all, and by what means it is compatible with the terms of the conventions to allow the killing of migratory 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

168 

birds. DCCOs are covered under the terms of the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and 

Game Mammals with Mexico. The DCCO is a nongame, noninsectivorous bird for which the applicable 

treaty does not impose specific prohibitions or requirements other than the overall purpose of protection so 

as not to be exterminated and to permit rational utilization for sport, food, commerce, and industry. In the 

FEIS for this action, the Service has considered all of the statutory factors as well as compatibility with the 

provisions of the convention with Mexico. The Russian convention (Convention between the United States 

of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning the Conservation of Migratory Birds 

and Their Environment, concluded November 19, 1976) provides an authority to cover DCCOs even 

though not listed in the Appendix. To the extent we choose to apply the convention, it contains an 

exception from the prohibitions that may be made for the protection against injury to persons or property. 

We note, therefore, that there is no conflict between our responsibility for managing migratory birds and 

our selected action. 

Regulations governing the issuance of permits for migratory birds are contained in title 50, Code of Federal 

Regulations, parts 13 and 21. Regulations in subpart D of part 21 deal specifically with the control of 

depredating birds. Section 21.41 outlines procedures for issuing depredation permits. Sections 21.43 

through 21.47 deal with special depredation orders for migratory birds to address particular problems in 

specific geographical areas. Section 21.47 addresses DCCOs at aquaculture facilities. 

While the Service has the primary responsibility for regulating DCCO management, on-the-ground 

management activities are largely carried out by entities such as State fish and wildlife agencies, the 

Wildlife Services program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS/WS), and, in some cases, by private citizens. APHIS/WS was a cooperating agency in the 

development of the DEIS and FEIS. Additionally, States and Canadian provinces were involved through 

the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

On March 17, 2003 we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (68 FR 12653). We solicited 

comments on the proposed rule until May 16, 2003. During that time, we received approximately 9,700 

letters, emails, and faxes. About 85 percent of these comments were opposed to the proposed action, the 

vast majority of which were driven by mass email/letter campaigns promoted by nongovernmental 

organizations. 

This final rule reflects consideration of comments received on the proposed rule. The final rule 

promulgates regulations to implement the selected action described in the FEIS. We published the notice of 

availability for the FEIS in the Federal Register on August 11, 2003 (68 FR 47603). Copies of the FEIS 

may be obtained by writing us (see ADDRESSES) or by downloading it from our website at 

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/cormorant/cormorant.html. The Wires et al. report “Status of the 

double-crested cormorant in North America,” mentioned in a Federal Register notice of November 8, 1999 

(64 FR 60828), may also be downloaded at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/cormorant/status.pdf. 

The FEIS examined six management alternatives for addressing conflicts with DCCOs: (A) No Action, (B) 

Nonlethal Control, (C) Increased Local Damage Control, (D) Public Resource Depredation Order, (E) 

Regional Population Reduction, and (F) Regulated Hunting. The selected action in the FEIS is Alternative 

D, Public Resource Depredation Order. This alternative is intended to enhance the ability of resource 

agencies to deal with immediate, localized DCCO damages by giving them more management flexibility. 

To address DCCO populations from a broader and more coordinated perspective, a population objectives 

approach will likely need to be considered over the long term. In the future, if supported by biological 

evidence and appropriate monitoring resources, the Service may authorize management that focuses on 

setting and achieving regional population goals. At that time, a cormorant management plan will be 

developed. Until then, our strategy will continue to focus on alleviating localized damages. 

We acknowledge that there is a need for more information about DCCOs and their impacts on resources 

across a variety of ecological settings. We also recognize that more rigorous monitoring efforts would be 

helpful in thoroughly assessing the impacts of the selected action on DCCO populations. While DCCO 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

169 

populations are currently tracked by a number of regional and national surveys, the Service concurs with 

many reviewers of the proposed rule, and recognizes that better information on population status and trends 

is desirable. For this reason, consistent with program, Service, and Department goals and priorities and 

subject to available funds, the Service intends to use all reasonable means to implement an improved 

DCCO population monitoring program of sufficient rigor to detect meaningful population changes 

subsequent to implementation of this action. The Service's objective will be to use available resources to 

collect data that can be used to reassess the population status of DCCOs by 2009, in advance of a decision 

whether or not to extend the depredation orders. This assessment may involve a Service- sponsored 

technical workshop, with various agency and non-governmental representatives, to discuss optimum survey 

methodologies. Also as part of that assessment, we will compile and evaluate available data on population 

trends of other species of birds that nest or roost communally with DCCOs to determine if negative impacts 

might be occurring to these species. 

The Service has weighed these deficiencies against the costs of taking no action, and we believe it is 

prudent to move forward as outlined in this final rule. In making a decision about whether or not to extend 

the depredation orders, the Service will review and consider all additional research that has been conducted 

that evaluates the effects of the proposed action on fish stocks and other resources. The Service strongly 

encourages all stakeholders to assist in gathering the needed data through well-designed scientific research. 

Our expectation is that the annual reports in the depredation orders, especially the monitoring and 

evaluation data associated with the public resource depredation order, will provide substantive increases in 

scientific and management knowledge of DCCOs and their impacts. We urge States, Tribes, and Federal 

agencies involved in DCCO control to, wherever possible, design monitoring programs to provide useful 

information on the effects of DCCO control on public resources. We also urge all relevant governmental 

and nongovernmental entities to work together, whenever possible, to coordinate research and management 

activities at the local and regional scale. In particular, the following needs exist: greater demographic 

information (age-specific survival/mortality, age at first breeding, reproductive output, and philopatry) for 

use in modeling to help predict population responses to management scenarios; region-wide surveys of 

DCCOs to document changes in breeding populations; assessments of DCCO-caused fish mortality in 

relation to other mortality factors at the local level; studies to examine mechanisms within fish populations 

that may buffer the effects of DCCO predation, including investigation of whether different fish life-stages 

or species complexes are differentially affected by DCCOs; studies to quantify the impacts of DCCOs on 

vegetation and other waterbirds; studies to determine how DCCO population processes respond to changes 

in population density resulting from control activities; and studies to address human dimensions of DCCO 

conflicts and possible solutions through education and outreach. 

The selected action establishes a public resource depredation order in 50 CFR 21.48 and amends 50 CFR 

21.47, the aquaculture depredation order that was originally created in 1998. In the proposed rule, we 

presented draft regulations and opened a 60-day public comment period. Differences between this final 

rule and the proposed rule reflect both our attentiveness to public comments and our deference to agency 

expertise. The chart below highlights these changes. 

Proposed rule Final rule Justification 

ADO1: Winter roost 

control authorized from 

October to March 

Winter roost control authorized 

from October to April 

[21.47(c)(2)] 

Public and agency comments indicate that 

DCCOs continue to congregate in large 

numbers in April and these birds have a 

major impact on adjacent aquaculture 

facilities 

Both DOs2: Statement 

that take of any species 

protected by the 

Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) is not authorized 

Same, plus conservation 

measures added [21.47(d)(8); 

21.48(d)(8)] 

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, 

we completed informal consultation; this 

led to development of conservation 

measures to avoid adverse effects to any 

species protected by the ESA 

Both DOs: General 

statement that authority 

Added specific suspension and 

revocation procedures 

For consistency’s sake, we believe it is 

important to have a revocation/ suspension 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

170 

under depredation orders 

can be revoked 

[21.47(d)(10); 21.48(d)(13)] process outlined 

Both DOs: OMB 

information collection 

control number not 

 specified 

Added OMB approval number 

of 1018-0121 and expiration 

date [21.47(e); 21.48(e)] 

We received this number in May 2003, 

after publication of proposed rule and 

comment period 

PRDO3: Recipients of 

donations of birds killed 

must have a scientific 

collecting permit 

This requirement removed 

[21.48(d)(6)(i)] 

The proposed rule would have been more 

stringent than what is currently allowed in 

50 CFR 21.12(b) and we do not consider 

stricter rules necessary 

PRDO: Agencies must 

provide a one-time notice 

of their intent to act 

under the order 

Added an advance notification 

requirement for take of >10% of 

a breeding colony [21.48(d)(9)] 

We wanted to address concerns about there 

being no opportunity for us to review, and 

even suspend, control actions before they 

take place 

PRDO: Annual reporting 

period set at Sept. 1 to 

Aug. 31 

Changed reporting period to Oct. 

1 to Sept. 30 [21.48(d)(11)] 

The State of New York requested this 

change to better accommodate fall 

harassment activities 

PRDO: Monitoring 

requirements for 

population level 

activities 

Changed the word “monitor” to 

“evaluate”; added requirement 

that data from this section be 

included in annual report; and 

removed (11)(iii) [21.48(d)(12)] 

This section ensures that agencies will 

consider (and take action to avoid) impacts 

to nontarget species and will evaluate the 

effects of control actions at breeding 

colonies, without being cost-prohibitive 1

 Aquaculture Depredation Order 

2 Aquaculture and Public Resource Depredation Orders 

3

 Public Resource Depredation Order 

Population Status of the Double-Crested Cormorant

The information in this section is derived from the FEIS (to obtain a copy, see ADDRESSES). DCCOs are 

native to North America and range widely there. There are essentially five different breeding populations, 

variously described by different authors as: Alaska, Pacific Coast, Interior, Atlantic, and Southern (Hatch 

and Weseloh 1999, Wires et al. 2001). The continental population is estimated at 2 million birds (including 

breeders and nonbreeders). For the United States as a whole, according to Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) 

data, the breeding population of DCCOs increased at a statistically significant rate of approximately 7.5 

percent per year from 1975-2002 (Sauer et al. 2003). However, growth rates for the different breeding 

populations vary considerably from this average. 

Atlantic. Approximately 23 percent of the DCCO breeding population is found in the Atlantic region 

(Tyson et al. 1999), which extends along the Atlantic coast from southern Newfoundland to New York City 

and Long Island (Wires et al. 2001). Atlantic DCCOs are migratory and occur with smaller numbers of 

great cormorants. From the early 1970s to the early 1990s, the Atlantic population increased from about 

25,000 pairs to 96,000 pairs (Hatch 1995). While this population declined by 6.5 percent overall in the 

early to mid-1990s, some colonies were still increasing during this period. The most recent estimate of the 

Atlantic population is at least 85,510 breeding pairs (Tyson et al. 1999). 

Interior. Nearly 70 percent of the DCCO breeding population is found in the Interior region (Tyson et al. 

1999), which reaches across the prairie provinces of Canada, includes the Canadian and U.S. Great Lakes, 

and extends west of Ohio to southwestern Idaho (Wires et al. 2001). Interior DCCOs are strongly 

migratory and, in the breeding months, are concentrated in the northern prairies, with the Canadian 

province of Manitoba hosting the largest number of breeding DCCOs in North America (Wires et al. 2001). 

Additionally, large numbers of Interior DCCOs nest on or around the Great Lakes (Hatch 1995, Wires et al. 

2001). Since 1970, when 89 nests were counted during a severe pesticide-induced population decline 

(Weseloh et al. 1995), DCCO numbers have increased rapidly in the Great Lakes, with breeding surveys in 

2000 estimating 115,000 nests there (Weseloh et al. 2002). From 1990 to 1997, the overall growth rate in 

the Interior region was estimated at 6 percent with the most dramatic increases occurring in Ontario, Ohio, 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

171 

and Wisconsin. The Interior population (including Canada) numbers is at least 256,212 breeding pairs 

(Tyson et al. 1999). 

Southern. The Southern region includes Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas (Wires et al. 2001). Most DCCOs in this 

region are winter migrants from the Interior and Atlantic regions; the number of these wintering birds has 

increased dramatically in recent years (Dolbeer 1991, Glahn and Stickley 1995, Jackson and Jackson 1995, 

Glahn et al. 2000). Surveys conducted by APHIS/WS biologists suggest that winter numbers in the delta 

region of Mississippi have increased by nearly 225 percent since the early 1990s (over 73,000 DCCOs were 

counted in the 2001-2002 winter surveys; G. Ellis, unpubl. data). Breeding DCCOs in this region are also 

on the rise, with some nesting occurrences representing first records and others recolonizations (Wires et al. 

2001). Today, approximately 4 percent of the DCCO breeding population occurs in this region, numbering 

at least 13,604 breeding pairs (Tyson et al. 1999). 

Pacific Coast and Alaska. Approximately 5-7 percent of North America=s DCCOs are found in this 

population, which has approximately 27,500 nesting pairs (including Mexico) according to Carter et al. 

(1995b) or at least 17,084 pairs (not including Mexico) according to Tyson et al. (1999). Carter et al. 

(1995) documented recent increases in California and Oregon, and declines in British Columbia, 

Washington, and Baja California. Tyson et al. (1999) did not consider Mexican populations and calculated 

a decline for the entire West Coast-Alaska region. In the past 20 years, the largest increases in the region 

have taken place in the Columbia River Estuary, where East Sand Island supports the largest active colony 

along the coast with 6,390 pairs in 2000 (Carter et al. 1995b, Collis et al. 2000, Wires et al. 2001). 

Increases at East Sand Island coincided with declines in British Columbia, Washington, and locations in 

interior Oregon, and the rapid increase undoubtedly reflected some immigration from these other areas 

(Carter et al. 1995). 

Impacts of Double-crested Cormorants on Public Resources

Fish. In order to fully understand fisheries impacts related to predation, DCCO diet must be evaluated in 

terms of the number of DCCOs in the area, the length of their residence in the area, and the size of the fish 

population of concern (Weseloh et al. 2002). While most, but not all, studies of cormorant diet have 

indicated that sport or other human-valued fish species do not make up high percentages of DCCO diet, 

conclusions about actual fisheries impacts cannot be based on diet studies alone. Nisbet (1995) referred to 

this as the “body-count” approach (i.e., counting the numbers of prey taken rather than examining the 

effects on prey populations) and noted that it is necessary to also “consider functional relationships between 

predation and output parameters.” 

Stapanian (2002) observed that “Rigorous, quantitative studies suggest that the effects of cormorants on 

specific fisheries appear to be due in part to scale and stocks of available prey.” Indeed, negative impacts 

are typically very site-specific and thus DCCO-fish conflicts are most likely to occur on a localized scale. 

Even early cormorant researcher H.F. Lewis recognized that cormorants could be a local problem at some 

fishing areas (Milton et al. 1995). In sum, the following statements about DCCO feeding habits and 

fisheries impacts can be concluded with confidence from the available science: (1) DCCOs are generalist 

predators whose diet varies considerably between seasons and locations and tends to reflect fish species 

composition; (2) The present composition of cormorant diet appears to have been strongly influenced by 

human-induced changes in the natural balance of fish stocks; (3) “Impact” can occur at different scales, 

such that ecological effects on fish populations are not necessarily the same as effects on recreational or 

commercial catches, or vice versa; (4) Cormorant impact is generally most significant in artificial, highly 

managed situations; and (5) Because environmental and other conditions vary locally, the degree of 

conflicts with cormorants will vary locally. 

Research in New York’s Oneida Lake and eastern Lake Ontario has examined data on DCCO diets and fish 

populations (walleye and yellow perch in Oneida Lake and smallmouth bass in Lake Ontario) and 

concluded that cormorant predation is likely a significant source of fish mortality that is negatively 

impacting recreational catch (Adams 1999, Rudstam 2000, Lantry et al. 1999). Based on these studies, the 

Service will allow the authorized agencies and Tribes acting under the public resource depredation order to 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

172 

determine whether a similar situation exists in their location, and undertake appropriate control actions to 

mitigate negative effects, if applicable. 

Other Birds. Weseloh et al. (2002) observed that nesting DCCOs could impact other colonial waterbirds in 

at least three ways: by DCCO presence limiting nest site availability, by DCCOs directly taking over nest 

sites, or by falling guano and nesting material from DCCO nests leading to the abandonment of nests 

below. Habitat destruction is another concern reported by biologists (USFWS 2001). The significance of 

DCCO-related effects on other birds varies with scale. While large-scale impacts on regional or continental 

bird populations have not been documented (Cuthbert et al. 2002), there is evidence that species such as 

black-crowned night-herons, common terns, and great egrets can be negatively impacted by DCCOs at a 

site-specific level (Jarvie et al. 1999, Shieldcastle and Martin 1999, USFWS 2001, Weseloh et al. 2002). 

Biologists from several States and provinces have reported or expressed concern about impacts to other 

bird species in relation to increased cormorant abundance (Wires et al. 2001, USFWS 2001). Some 

biologists have also expressed concern about incidental impacts to co-nesting species caused by DCCO 

control efforts (both lethal and nonlethal). We believe that such impacts are preventable and easily 

mitigated to a level of insignificance. For example, New York biologists conducting DCCO control work 

in eastern Lake Ontario have successfully managed to avoid negative impacts to other species such as 

Caspian terns, herring gulls, and ring-billed gulls (USFWS 2003). 

Vegetation and Habitat. Cormorants destroy their nest trees by both chemical and physical means. 

Cormorant guano, or excrement, is highly acidic and kills ground vegetation and eventually the nest trees. 

In addition, cormorants damage vegetation by stripping leaves for nesting material and by breaking 

branches due to the combined weight of the birds and their nests. Vegetation and habitat destruction 

problems tend to be localized in nature. For example, resource professionals from the Great Lakes region 

are concerned about loss of plant diversity associated with increasing cormorant numbers at some breeding 

sites (Weseloh and Ewins 1994, Moore et al. 1995, Lemmon et al. 1994, Bédard et al. 1995, Shieldcastle 

and Martin 1999). 

Aquaculture. Cormorant depredation at commercial aquaculture facilities, particularly those in the 

southern catfish-producing region, remains economically significant. DCCOs move extensively within the 

lower Mississippi valley during the winter months (Dolbeer 1990). In the delta region of Mississippi, 

cormorants have been found to forage relatively close to their night roosting locations with most birds 

traveling an average distance of less than 20 km from their night roosting locations to their day roosts 

(King et al. 1995). Cormorants that use day roosts within the catfish-producing regions of the delta 

typically forage at aquaculture facilities, and USDA researchers have found that as much as 75 percent of 

the diet of DCCOs in these areas consists of catfish (Glahn et al. 1999). Losses from cormorant predation 

on fingerling catfish in the delta region of Mississippi have been estimated at approximately 49 million 

fingerlings each winter, valued at $5 million. Researchers have estimated the value of catfish at harvest to 

be about 5 times more than the replacement cost of fingerlings, placing the total value of catfish consumed 

by DCCOs at approximately $25 million (Glahn et al. 2000). Total sales of catfish growers in Mississippi 

amounted to $261 million in 2001 (USDA-NASS 2002). 

Hatcheries. DCCO impacts to hatcheries are related to predation, stress, disease, and financial losses to 

both hatcheries and recipients of hatchery stock. Hatchery fish may be stressed by the presence of DCCOs, 

wounds caused by unsuccessful attacks, and noisemakers used to scare away DCCOs. This stress can lead 

to a decrease in growth factors as feeding intensity decreases. Additionally, disease and parasites can be 

spread more easily by the presence of fish-eating birds. State and Federal hatchery managers, particularly 

in the upper Midwest (e.g., Wisconsin, Ohio) and the south (e.g., Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas), 

have reported significant depredation problems at hatcheries (USFWS 2001). Currently, Director’s Order 

No. 27, “Issuance of Permits to Kill Depredating Migratory Birds at Fish Cultural Facilities,” dictates that 

“kill permits [for fish-eating birds] will be issued for use at public facilities only when it has been 

demonstrated that an emergency or near emergency exists and an [APHIS/WS] official certifies that all 

other deterrence devices and management practices have failed.” The two depredation orders that we are 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

173 

proposing would supersede this Director’s Order (for DCCOs only) by giving managers at State, Federal, 

and Tribal fish hatcheries more authority to control DCCOs to protect fish stock. 

Environmental Consequences of Action

We analyzed our action in the FEIS. Our environmental analysis indicates that the action will cause the 

estimated take of <160,000 DCCOs, which is not predicted to have a significant negative impact on 

regional or continental DCCO populations; will cause localized disturbances to other birds but these can be 

minimized by taking preventive measures, leading to the action having beneficial effects overall; will help 

reduce localized fishery and vegetation impacts; will not adversely affect any Federally listed species; is 

likely to help reduce localized water quality impacts; will help reduce depredation of aquaculture and 

hatchery stock; is not likely to significantly benefit recreational fishing economies or commercial fishing; 

may indirectly reduce property damages; and will have variable effects on existence and aesthetic values, 

depending on perspective. 

References 

A complete list of citation references is available upon request from the Division of Migratory Bird 

Management (see ADDRESSES). 

Responses to Significant Comments 

During the public comment period on the proposed rule, we received approximately 9,700 emails, letters, 

and faxes. We provide our responses to significant comments here. 

Comment 1: The Service should protect, not kill, DCCOs. 

Service Response: In the wildlife management field, the control of birds through the use of humane, but 

lethal, techniques can be an effective means of alleviating resource damages, preventing further damages, 

and/or enhancing nonlethal techniques. It would be unrealistic and overly restrictive to limit a resource 

manager’s damage management methods to nonlethal techniques, even if “nonlethal” included nest 

destruction and/or egg oiling. Lethal control techniques are an important, and in many cases necessary, 

part of a resource manager’s “tool box.” 

Comment 2: States and other agencies don’t have sufficient resources to effectively control DCCOs. 

Service Response: Agencies will need to decide whether or not cormorant management is a high enough 

priority for them to justify committing resources to it. We have tried to keep reporting and evaluation 

requirements such that they are unlikely to be cost prohibitive. We have also allowed agencies to designate 

“agents” to act under the orders. Our budget does not currently allow us to provide financial assistance to 

States and other agencies for cormorant control. 

Comment 3: The Service needs to manage DCCOs through a coordinated, regional population objectives 

approach. 

Service Response: The selected action, Alternative D, in no way precludes regional coordination or 

consideration of population objectives, despite being chiefly a localized damage control approach. We are 

keeping the option open of taking this approach in the future, given greater biological information and the 

necessary funding. 

Comment 4: The Service needs to reduce overall DCCO populations. 

Service Response: At this time, we believe that the evidence better supports Alternative D, a localized 

damage control strategy rather than Alternative E, a large-scale population reduction strategy. While many 

stakeholders portray cormorant conflicts as being a simple overabundance problem whose solution is 

population reduction, that is not clearly the case. That is, it is unclear whether fewer cormorants would 

actually mean fewer problems (since sometimes distribution is as important as number in determining 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

174 

impacts), what the necessary scale of control would be, and whether or not that scale of control is 

biologically, socially, and economically feasible. 

Comment 5: States should be granted full authority to control DCCOs as needed. 

Service Response: Under the MBTA, we have the ultimate responsibility for cormorant management. 

While we can grant States and other agencies increased authority, giving them “full authority” without any 

limitations and requirements would abdicate our responsibilities. 

Comment 6: The final rule should authorize the use of all effective DCCO control methods at aquaculture 

facilities. 

Service Response: The final rule authorizes shooting, which is considered very effective, to be used at 

aquaculture facilities. There is no evidence of the need for other techniques to be used. 

Comment 7: The Service needs to more fully address other causes of fish depletion. 

Service Response: We recognize that factors other than DCCOs contribute to resource impacts such as 

fishery declines. However, an exhaustive and comprehensive analysis of these myriad factors is outside the 

scope of the EIS. Our focus is chiefly on addressing conflicts caused by cormorants and then attempting to 

manage DCCOs, or the resources themselves, to alleviate those conflicts. 

Comment 8: There should be a hunting season on DCCOs. 

Service Response: While we recognize the validity of hunting as a wildlife management tool, we believe 

that the risks associated with it outweigh any potential benefits. We are gravely concerned about the 

negative public perception that would arise from authorizing hunting of a bird with little consumptive (or 

“table”) value. While it is true that this has been done in the past for other species (e.g., crows), public 

attitudes are different today than they were 30 years ago when those decisions were made. Additionally, a 

number of hunters commented that they did not support hunting as a means of cormorant control. 

Therefore, it is our position that hunting is not, on the whole, a suitable technique for reducing cormorant 

damages. 

Comment 9: The Service should add Montana and New Hampshire to the public resource depredation 

order. 

Service Response: We determined that the most crucial States to include in the public resource depredation 

order were those States with DCCOs from the increasing Interior and Southern populations or States 

affected by those populations (e.g., those with high numbers of migrating birds). Other States with 

cormorant conflicts are not precluded from cormorant control but would have to obtain depredation 

permits. 

Comment 10: The Service should remove DCCOs from MBTA protection. 

Service Response: In our view, this is not a “reasonable alternative.” DCCOs have been protected under 

the MBTA since 1972. Removing DCCOs from MBTA protection would not only be contrary to the intent 

and purpose of the original treaty, but would require amending it, a process involving lengthy negotiations 

and approval of the U.S. Senate and President. Since DCCOs are protected by family (Phalacrocoracidae)

rather than by species, the end result could be the loss of protection for all North American cormorant 

species in addition to that of DCCOs. At this time, there is adequate authority for managing cormorant 

conflicts within the context of their MBTA protection and, thus, we believe the suggestion to remove 

DCCOs from MBTA protection is not practical, necessary, or in the best interest of the migratory bird 

resource. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

175 

Comment 11: Private landowners should be allowed to control DCCOs on their lands. 

Service Response: The take of DCCOs and other migratory birds is regulated by the MBTA and, in most 

cases, requires a Federal permit. Under the aquaculture depredation order, private commercial aquaculture 

producers in 13 States are allowed to control DCCOs on their fish farms without a Federal permit. 

However, all other individuals who experience damages to private resources must contact the appropriate 

Service Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office for a depredation permit. There is not sufficient justification 

for authorizing “private landowners” in general to take DCCOs without a Federal permit. 

Comment 12: The proposed action will be more effective if agencies coordinate with each other. 

Service Response: Yes, this is true. While agencies are not required under the public resource depredation 

order to coordinate with each other, they are entirely free to do so. 

Comment 13: Humaneness and the use of nonlethal methods should be emphasized. 

Service Response: Wherever feasible, we have required the use of nonlethal methods before killing is 

allowed. All authorized control techniques for killing birds outside of the egg are approved by the 

American Veterinary Medical Association as being humane for the euthanization of birds. 

Comment 14: The Service needs to better educate the public about DCCOs. 

Service Response: We have prepared fact sheets for public distribution. Information about DCCOs is 

available at our website http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/cormorant/cormorant.html. Our intention is to 

distribute fact sheets on the depredation orders in the near future. Beyond DCCOs, we participate in 

numerous outreach activities around the nation to increase public awareness about the importance of 

migratory birds and other Federal trust species. 

Comment 15: The Service needs to issue permits to allow DCCOs to be shot legally at anytime. 

Service Response: The authorization of virtually unregulated shooting of DCCOs would clearly not be a 

fulfillment of our responsibilities under the MBTA, since it could lead to extermination of the species. We 

can only allow take under appropriately adopted regulations that are consistent with our obligations and the 

relevant treaties. The depredation orders issued in this rulemaking only authorize take of DCCOs in certain 

locations and timeframes, and by certain agencies, to ensure this take is consistent with the purpose for 

which the depredation order was established. 

Comment 16: DCCOs are being scapegoated for fishery declines. 

Service Response: The Service recognizes that many factors other than DCCOs can contribute to fishery 

declines. However, studies have shown that in some cases cormorants are a significant contributing factor 

to these declines and therefore we believe that DCCO management, where there is evidence of real 

conflicts, is likely to have beneficial impacts. 

Comment 17: The Service is dumping the burden of DCCO control on the States; the Service should take 

care of the DCCO problem since they created it. 

Service Response: The public resource depredation order is not a requirement being forced upon the States 

(or any other agency). The decision ultimately lies with individual agencies to choose whether or not to use 

the authority granted to them by the public resource depredation order. As we were considering options for 

addressing DCCO conflicts more effectively, it became clear that, since many conflicts tend to be localized 

in nature, a sensible and flexible solution was to allow local agencies more authority in deciding when to 

control cormorants. The Service did not “create” the cormorant problem. Their population increases are 

due to many factors, most of which are entirely out of our control. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

176 

Comment 18: The Service should provide financial support for DCCO control. 

Service Response: We are currently unable to provide funding to other agencies under the public resource 

depredation order. However, in our Congressional budget request, we have asked for increased financial 

resources to implement the DCCO selected action. This figure specifically includes money that could be 

used in cooperative efforts with States and other agencies to conduct cormorant monitoring, research, and 

management. 

Comment 19: California and Wisconsin should be added to the aquaculture depredation order. 

Service Response: We do not believe that adding States to the aquaculture depredation order is necessary 

at this time. Private, commercial, freshwater aquaculture producers can obtain depredation permits to take 

DCCOs at their fish farms. 

Comment 20: The final rule should allow proactive measures to be taken so problems can be dealt with 

before they become serious. 

Service Response: The rule does allow for proactive measures to a certain extent. Both depredation orders 

allow DCCOs to be taken when “committing or about to commit depredations.” The public resource 

depredation order takes this a step further by allowing for take of DCCOs to prevent depredations on public 

resources. 

Comment 21: Expansion of the aquaculture depredation order to authorize winter roost control should not 

be allowed. 

Service Response: The USDA report, “A Science-Based Initiative to Manage Double-Crested Cormorant 

Damage to Southern Aquaculture” notes that “Coordinated and simultaneous harassment of cormorants can 

disperse them from night roosts and reduce damage at nearby catfish farms” and cites three scientific 

studies that support this claim. It then concludes that shooting at roosts “might enable farmers to reduce the 

number of birds on their farms significantly....” Part of the logic behind this is that studies in the 

Mississippi Delta have shown that, while DCCOs move widely in general, they tend to exhibit high roost 

fidelity. This implies that shooting birds at roosts (where turnover is lower) is likely to be more effective at 

alleviating damages than shooting birds just at ponds (where turnover is higher). 

Comment 22: Actions in the proposed rule should not be allowed to take place. 

Service Response: Clearly, we and our cooperators, APHIS Wildlife Services disagree with this statement. 

The Record of Decision below explains our rationale. 

Comment 23: Hatcheries and fish farms should only be allowed to use nonlethal methods. 

Service Response: Shooting is a legitimate and effective technique for scaring away or killing depredating 

birds that, when done in a controlled manner, has no adverse impact on populations. 

Comment 24: Habitat damage caused by DCCOs has not been quantified or confirmed. 

Service Response: This statement is incorrect. Vegetation/habitat damage has been both confirmed and 

quantified. See the FEIS, section 4.2.4, for more details. 

Comment 25: APHIS Wildlife Services should be granted full authority to manage migratory birds. 

Service Response: Under the MBTA and other laws, the Service has been delegated full responsibility for 

authorizing the take of and management of migratory bird populations. It would require an act of Congress 

to grant APHIS this authority. We do not support such action. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

177 

Comment 26: The Service should take the lead in DCCO research. 

Service Response: The Migratory Bird Management Program monitors over 800 bird species in North 

America, including cormorants. However, we are not specifically a research agency. Our involvement in 

research consists mainly of providing financial assistance to researchers. In fewer cases, we are involved in 

direct research activities (such as color banding work being done in Lake Ohio by the USFWS Green Bay 

Field Office). We recognize that we have a leadership role to play in encouraging DCCO research. 

Comment 27: The proposed rule is not based on “sound science.” 

Service Response: The Service recognizes the importance of resource management being science-based, 

and we will always defer to well-designed scientific studies when such information is available. In this 

case, the Service relied on scientific studies as well as the best available biological knowledge to make its 

decision. Additionally, social, political, and economic factors contribute to the Service’s decisions 

regarding whether or not to address a problem. Our position is that there is sufficient biological and 

socioeconomic justification to pursue a solution and sufficient biological information to meet the 

requirements of the MBTA and to support this rulemaking action. 

Comment 28: The Service is caving in to “political pressure” and “special interests.” 

Service Response: Given the fact that DCCO populations are not at risk in the areas where the depredation 

orders are authorized, and the Service is granted management flexibility under the MBTA, we believe it is 

appropriate to permit control of local DCCO populations. We have considered input from all stakeholders 

and believe that our decision reflects an appropriate balance of the public interest. Our goal in this and 

every other issue under our jurisdiction is to make informed, impartial decisions based on scientific and 

other considerations. 

Comment 29: The Service should stay with the No Action alternative. 

Service Response: In recent years, it has become clear from public and professional feedback that the status 

quo is not adequately resolving DCCO conflicts for many stakeholders. Furthermore, our environmental 

analysis indicated that conflicts were more likely to be resolved under other options than under Alternative 

A. 

Comment 30: The proposed rule is a wrongful abdication of the Service’s MBTA responsibilities. 

Service Response: We disagree. Rather than an abdication of our responsibilities, this rule is an exercise of 

them. The public resource depredation order by no means puts an end to the Federal role in migratory bird 

management. The conservation of migratory bird populations is and will remain the Service’s 

responsibility. Second, while the MBTA gives the Federal Government (as opposed to individual States) 

the chief responsibility for ensuring the conservation of migratory birds, this role does not preclude State 

involvement in management efforts. Bean (1983) described the Federal/State relationship as such 

(emphases added): 

“It is clear that the Constitution, in its treaty, property, and commerce clauses, contains ample support for 

the development of a comprehensive body of federal wildlife law and that, to the extent such law conflicts 

with state law, it takes precedence over the latter. That narrow conclusion, however, does not 

automatically divest the states of any role in the regulation of wildlife or imply any preference for a 

particular allocation of responsibilities between the states and the federal government. It does affirm, 

however, that such an allocation can be designed without serious fear of constitutional hindrance. In 

designing such a system, for reasons of policy, pragmatism, and political comity, it is clear that the states 

will continue to play an important role either as a result of federal forbearance or through the creation of 

opportunities to share in the implementation of federal wildlife programs.” 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

178 

Nowhere in the MBTA is the implementation of migratory bird management activities limited to the 

Federal Government. In fact, the statute specifically gives the Secretary of Interior the authority to 

determine when take of migratory birds may be allowed and to adopt regulations for this purpose. 

Additionally, we’ve ensured that this rule does not conflict with the Convention for the Protection of 

Migratory Birds and Game Mammals between the U.S. and Mexico (under which cormorants are 

protected). Finally, the depredation orders specifically limit the authority of non-Federal entities through 

the terms and conditions, including suspension and revocation procedures, advance notification 

requirements, and other restrictions. We would also note that we have the authority to amend this rule in 

the future if DCCO population status or other conditions demand it. 

Comment 31: The Service should more fully consider the economic value of DCCOs and activities 

associated with them such as birding and photography. 

Service Response: Assigning economic value to any wildlife species is difficult, and it is made all the more 

so when that species (such as the DCCO) is of little direct use to humans. However, this should not be read 

to imply that we have no regard for the indirect and intangible values of cormorants as a native part of the 

North American avifauna. As such, we stated clearly in the FEIS (p. 6) that DCCOs “have inherent value 

regardless of their direct use to humans.” A quantitative analysis of the economic benefits associated with 

DCCO was not possible at this time due to lack of studies in this area. The Service welcomes submission 

of such studies and will consider them in its analysis of future depredation orders, if applicable. 

Comment 32: In addition to the Service, States and APHIS Wildlife Service should have a say in revoking 

authority under the depredation orders. 

Service Response: Since, under the MBTA, the Service is the chief agency responsible for migratory bird 

management, it is our responsibility to decide when to revoke an agency’s or individual’s authority under 

the depredation orders. We do, however, give agencies a chance to appeal any revocation decisions. 

Comment 33: The public resource depredation order has no sound biological underpinning. 

Service Response: We have analyzed the available biological information in the FEIS. We believe our 

decision is supported by the information available at this time. 

Comment 34: Proposed rule contains too much “red tape.” 

Service Response: We can understand that some people see the rule as having too many mandatory terms 

and conditions but these are necessary to ensure that the depredation orders are used for their stated 

purposes and to safeguard cormorant populations and other Federal trust species (e.g., other migratory birds 

and ESA-protected species). We tried to make the final rule as flexible as we could without compromising 

these factors. 

Comment 35: The public resource depredation order should be expanded to include damages to private 

property as well. 

Service Response: The public resource depredation order does not provide direct relief to private 

landowners experiencing DCCO conflicts. This is partly because such conflicts have not been welldocumented and partly because our practice is not to allow the take of migratory birds, a public resource, to 

alleviate minor damages to private resources (a similar example would be hawks that take privately owned 

game birds). While the biological and other justification for implementing the aquaculture and public 

resource depredation orders is strong, this is not necessarily the case for impacts to private resources. In 

cases of significant economic damage caused by DCCOs, private landowners may request a depredation 

permit from the appropriate Service Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

179 

Comment 36: Requiring monitoring at all control sites is too much of a burden; agencies should be able to 

use best available information. 

Service Response: We understand that strict monitoring requirements (i.e., population surveys) can be cost 

prohibitive and that, to a certain degree such monitoring is the Service’s responsibility. It is important that 

agencies thoroughly evaluate the impacts of their management actions on DCCOs and, in some cases, on 

other resources, but we don’t want these requirements to be so cost prohibitive that agencies are unable to 

take any action. Thus, in the final rule, we changed slightly the wording in §21.48(d)(12) to account for 

this. 

Comment 37: Monitoring should be required no less than once every 3 years. 

Service Response: The Service currently surveys or sponsors surveys of colonial waterbirds every 5-10 

years. We believe that such frequency is adequate to ensure the long-term conservation of populations of 

DCCOs and other migratory birds. 

Comment 38: The winter roost control season should be extended to include April. 

Service Response: Since numbers of DCCOs at fish farms in the southern United States are known to peak 

in March and April, and to cause the most damage at that time, we added April to the months in which 

roost control can occur. 

Comment 39: Monitoring requirements under the public resource depredation order are too vague. 

Service Response: We may provide future guidelines for monitoring and evaluation for the benefit of other 

agencies. Until such guidelines are issued, the Service intends to rely on States, Tribes, and APHIS 

Wildlife Services to develop and implement protocols for evaluation of the effects of control actions. 

Comment 40: The proposal is likely to inflame relations between tribal and nontribal interests. 

Service Response: We have not seen sufficient evidence to evaluate whether or not this is indeed likely to 

occur. 

Comment 41: The aquaculture depredation order should be expanded to include all 48 States. 

Service Response: At this time, we do not believe the available evidence indicates that expansion beyond 

13 States is necessary to further protect commercial aquaculture stock. The issuance of depredation 

permits for damage at private fish farms is a high priority and, therefore, it is generally a quick process for 

aquaculture producers to obtain a depredation permit through their Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office. 

Comment 42: Under the public resource depredation order, nonlethal techniques (e.g., harassment) should 

not be prescribed as a mandatory first step at multispecies breeding colonies because of the risk of 

disturbance. 

Service Response: We understand that harassment efforts can have secondary impacts on other colonially 

nesting birds and that is precisely why we did not require such efforts to be used first but rather stated that 

they be used “when these are considered effective and practicable by the responsible Agency.” We have 

since changed it to read that agencies “should first utilize nonlethal control methods such as harassment and 

exclusion devices when these are considered effective and practicable and not harmful to other nesting 

birds.” 

Comment 43: The Service should issue guidelines making it clear what constitutes depredation on a public 

resource. 

Service Response: In developing the rule, USFWS wanted to maximize the flexibility of other agencies in 

determining what constitutes a public resource depredation. We understand that there are concerns about 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

180 

all of the “what ifs” that could conceivably take place in the absence of guidelines. We have made the 

purpose of the depredation orders clear, and we trust that our agency partners will not abuse their authority. 

If they do, we have the option to suspend or revoke their authority under the depredation order or to amend 

this rule. 

Comment 44: In the proposed rule, the only advanced requirement for agencies to initiate a control program 

is to submit a one-time notice to the Service. The rule does not require evaluation of potential impacts 

before control actions occur. 

Service Response: In the final rule, under the public resource depredation order, we have added a clause for 

advance notification of control actions that would take 10% or more of the birds in a breeding colony. This 

will allow us to review such actions for compliance with the purpose of the order and for impacts on overall 

cormorant populations. Inherent in the idea of this public resource depredation order is the Service’s trust 

in the professionalism and conservation expertise of the States, Tribes, and APHIS Wildlife Services. At 

the same time, we will continue our role of providing oversight to ensure that the cumulative effects of 

activities under the depredation orders do not threaten the long-term conservation of DCCO populations. 

Comment 45: There is no process outlined for disputing control at a particular site. Control activities might 

come into conflict with ongoing research activities. 

Service Response: We do not intend to establish guidelines for dispute resolution or public notice of 

proposed control efforts. In some cases, NEPA analysis will be necessary and this will open the door for 

limited public input regarding specific management actions. We cannot guarantee that conflicts won’t 

occur between control and research activities. Researchers will need to coordinate with local resource 

agencies (as, presumably, they are already doing) on this issue. 

Comment 46: The public resource depredation order should have a requirement for agencies to formally 

assess a control site before control is carried out to determine potential impacts to other species. 

Service Response: We do not intend to require formal assessment of control sites before control is 

conducted. The final rule requires that agencies must provide advance notification for certain actions, 

including information on the location and a description of the proposed control activity, specifying what 

public resources are being impacted, how many birds are likely to be taken and what approximate 

percentage they are of total DCCOs present, and which species of other birds are present. Additionally, in 

their annual reports, agencies must provide us with detailed information on why they’re conducting control 

actions, including what they’re doing to minimize effects on other species. Agencies don’t have to report 

this information until after control actions have occurred, but we believe this process is sufficient. 

Comment 47: The proposed rule seems to violate the Service’s mission to “conserve, protect, and enhance 

fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.” 

Service Response: We do not in any way believe that the rule interferes with our conservation mission. 

Our responsibility is to ensure the long-term conservation of DCCO populations, and we will do so. A 

mission is a general statement of an agency’s vision that, by its very nature, cannot encompass every 

potential management responsibility. We believe that managing certain species to address economic or 

social concerns, while ensuring the long-term conservation of such species is consistent with our mission. 

Comment 48: The Service has not established a process by which other agencies could set population 

goals. 

Service Response: At some point in the future, we may initiate a process for setting population goals. 

States and other agencies are fully capable of doing this on their own in local situations (DCCO 

management efforts on Little Galloo Island in New York are a good example). The public resource 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

181 

depredation order does not authorize regional population management, and, therefore, regional goals are 

not yet necessary. 

Comment 49: The return of an extirpated species to its former breeding range is a positive ecological event. 

Service Response: Weseloh et al. (1995, p48) wrote that DCCO population increases in North America 

“have involved more than just a re-occupation of areas which experienced severe population declines or 

extirpations...previously unoccupied breeding and wintering areas have now been colonized” and gave 

three citations supporting this hypothesis. Regardless of whether or not DCCOs had previously occurred in 

some parts of their range, we have to manage and conserve them by today’s standards, not those of a 

hundred (or more) years ago. Our intent under the final rule is not to eliminate cormorants on a regional or 

national level but to manage them, even to the point of reducing local populations, so that there are fewer 

impacts to natural and human resources. We fully understand that fish-eating birds are a natural part of the 

ecosystem and that, within limits prescribed by the need to consider the bigger picture than “ecological” 

factors alone, population recovery is a positive event. 

Comment 50: Only State wildlife agencies should be allowed to take or permit the take of DCCOs at 

nesting colonies in their State. 

Service Response: Under the public resource depredation order, any agency that takes DCCOs must have 

landowner permission and, if required, a State permit to take DCCOs. We believe that these clauses are 

sufficient to avoid compromising State oversight. 

Comment 51: Issuing a resource depredation order for DCCOs under the proposed rule would set a 

dangerous precedent for fish-eating birds in the United States and in other nations to our south. 

Service Response: We do not agree with the statement that the depredation orders are a “dangerous” 

precedent. Each conflict must be evaluated on its own merits. If problems with other fish-eating birds 

arise in the future, we will give full and fair consideration to these issues. 

Comment 52: The Service should require safe management practices when DCCO control is conducted to 

protect birders. 

Service Response: Conducting DCCO control in a manner that does not threaten human health or safety is 

the responsibility of the agencies and individuals carrying out the actions. 

Comment 53: The scientific and public outcry against the Service’s proposed rule should be convincing. 

Sound science is being supplanted by perceptions fueling political cries for substantial lethal population 

controls. 

Service Response: We would note that there is also public outcry against the status quo and in support of 

the final rule. We believe that our decision is supported by the available data. Furthermore, the rule 

requires that agencies who act under the public resource depredation order have sound reasoning for doing 

so. 

Comment 54: The Service must publish a Final EIS, Record of Decision, and appropriate Section 7 

consultation documents prior to engaging in the rulemaking process. 

Service Response: This is not a correct statement of the requirements of either the National Environmental 

Policy Act or the Endangered Species Act. Issuance of these regulations is in compliance with both of 

these laws. 

Comment 55: The Service cannot establish depredation orders for DCCOs because they are not a 

“migratory game bird” pursuant to 50 CFR 21.42. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

182 

Service Response: This is incorrect because our authority for issuing a depredation order comes from the 

MBTA, not 50 CFR 21.42. Section 21.42 is a regulation adopted by the Service that allows the Director to 

issue depredation orders under certain circumstances. This new regulation is in addition to 21.42. 

Comment 56: The Service needs to specify how the depredation orders will be enforced. 

Service Response: We have law enforcement agents in every State who investigate violations of Federal 

wildlife laws. Providing the details of how they work is neither necessary nor sensible since such details 

could prevent the prosecution of those who violate the terms and conditions of the orders. 

Comment 57: The requirement to report unauthorized take of migratory birds or threatened and endangered 

species requires individuals to incriminate themselves and thus violates the Fifth Amendment to the 

Constitution. 

Service Response: While any take, unless permitted, is prohibited by statute, the Service directs its 

enforcement efforts on those individuals or companies that take migratory bird species outside the scope of 

the depredation orders. It is incumbent on those who will be working under the orders to have a working 

knowledge of what is authorized and to properly act under its terms and conditions. Failure to report would 

be grounds to revoke authorization. The Service sees the reporting requirements not as an attempt to 

identify the unlawful take of migratory birds but as a management tool to reduce unauthorized take. 

Cormorant Regulations Under the Rule 

This final rule implements the FEIS selected action in the following ways: (1) it revises the 1998 

aquaculture depredation order that allows APHIS/WS to protect public and private aquacultural stock in the 

13 States listed in 50 CFR 21.47 by also allowing the take of DCCOs at winter roost sites and at State and 

Federal fish hatcheries; and (2) it establishes a new depredation order authorizing State fish and wildlife 

agencies, Federally recognized Tribes, and APHIS/WS to take DCCOs without a Federal permit to protect 

public resources on public and private lands and freshwaters in 24 States (the 13 States listed in 50 CFR 

21.47 and 11 additional States). Both of the actions revise subpart D of 50 CFR 21. 

NEPA Considerations

In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulation for implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR 1500-1508), we published a DEIS in December 2001, followed by a 100-day public comment 

period. In August 2003, both the Service and the Environmental Protection Agency published notices of 

availability for the FEIS in the Federal Register. This FEIS is available to the public (see ADDRESSES). 

Endangered Species Act Considerations

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884) provides 

that “Each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, insure that 

any action authorized, funded, or carried out...is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] 

habitat....” We completed a biological evaluation and informal consultation (both available upon request; 

see ADDRESSES) under Section 7 of the ESA for the action described in this final rule. In the letter of 

concurrence between the Division of Migratory Bird Management and the Division of Endangered Species, 

we concluded that the inclusion of specific conservation measures in the final rule satisfies concerns about 

the four species (piping plover, interior least tern, bald eagle, and wood stork) and therefore the proposed 

action is not likely to adversely affect any threatened, endangered, or candidate species. 

Executive Order 12866

In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this action is a significant regulatory action 

subject to Office of Management and Budget review. OMB has made this determination of significance 

under the Executive Order. OMB has determined that this action raises novel legal or policy issues. This 

rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect any economic 

sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. The purpose of this 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

183 

rule is to help reduce adverse effects caused by cormorants, thereby providing economic relief. The total 

estimated economic impact of DCCOs is less than $50 million per year. Assuming that landowners (e.g., 

aquaculture producers) and other stakeholders utilize, informally or formally, some degree of cost-benefit 

analysis, the financial expenses to control cormorant problems should not exceed the damages incurred. 

Thus we can assume that the total annual economic effect of this rule will be less than $50 million. 

This rulemaking action will not create inconsistencies with other agencies’ actions or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by another agency. The selected action is consistent with the policies and 

guidelines of other Department of the Interior bureaus. This action will not materially affect entitlements, 

grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the preparation of flexibility 

analyses for actions that will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, 

which includes small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. Because of the structure of 

wildlife damage management, the economic impacts of our action will fall primarily on State governments 

and APHIS/WS. These do not qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions” under the Act’s definition. 

Effects on other small entities, such as aquacultural producers, will be positive but are not predicted to be 

significant. Thus, we have determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is not required. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act. It will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, nor will it cause a major 

increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions. It will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 

enterprises. 

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has approved the information collection requirements included in this final rule under 

OMB control number 1018-0121, which expires on May 31, 2006. Agencies may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

We will collect information from State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and private aquaculture producers who 

conduct DCCO management under the authority of the depredation orders. The specific monitoring and 

reporting requirements associated with this rule are listed below. The information collected will help us to 

determine how many DCCOs are being taken and for what purposes. 

In response to public comments on the proposed rule (68 FR 12653, March 17, 2003), we added one new 

information collection requirement in this final rule that was not included in the proposed rule. That new 

requirement is advance notification to the Service of any control actions that would take more than 10 

percent of a breeding DCCO population. This new requirement is located in § 21.48 (d)(9) and adds 165 

hours to the total annual hour burden of these information collection requirements. 

The information collections associated with this final rule are in §§ 21.47(d)(7), (d)(8), and (d)(9) and 

21.48(d)(7), (d)(8), (d)(9), (d)(10) and (d)(12) and are listed below in the amendments to 50 CFR part 21. 

The breakdown of the information collection burden is as follows: We estimate that §§ 21.47(d)(7) and 

(d)(8) will have 50 annual responses at an estimated .5 burden hours per response; we estimate that § 

21.47(d)(9) will have 900 annual responses at an estimated 2 burden hours per response; we estimate that 

§§ 21.48(d)(7) and (d)(8) will have 10 annual responses at an estimated .5 burden hours per response; we 

estimate that § 21.48(d)(9) will have 75 annual responses at an estimated average of 3 burden hours per 

response; we estimate that § 21.48(d)(10) will have 60 annual responses at an estimated 20 burden hours 

per response; and we estimate that § 21.48(d)(12) will have 10 annual responses at an estimated 80 burden 

hours per response. Overall, we estimate that a total of 960 respondents will annually submit a total of 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

184 

1,105 responses to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with these depredation orders. 

Each response will require an average of 3.67 hours to complete, for a total of 4,055 hours per year for all 

of the information collection and recordkeeping requirements in this final rule. 

OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 require that interested members of the public and affected agencies 

have an opportunity to comment on information collection and record keeping activities. If you have any 

comments on this information collection at any time, please contact the Service Information Collection 

Officer, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to assess the effects of Federal regulatory 

actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. We have determined, in compliance 

with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that the selected 

action would not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments, and will not produce a Federal 

mandate of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State government or private entities. 

Therefore, this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Takings Implication Assessment

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this action does not have significant takings implications and 

does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This action will not result in the physical 

occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, 

this action will help alleviate private and public property damage and allow the exercise of otherwise 

unavailable privileges. 

Federalism Effects

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given statutory 

responsibility over these species by the MBTA. While legally this responsibility rests solely with the 

Federal Government, in the best interest of the migratory bird resource we work cooperatively with States 

and other relevant agencies to develop and implement the various migratory bird management plans and 

strategies. This action does not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or 

responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. It will allow, 

but will not require, States to develop and implement their own DCCO management programs. Therefore, 

in accordance with Executive Order 13132, this action does not have significant federalism effects and does 

not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

Civil Justice Reform 

Under Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this policy does not unduly 

burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President’s memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951) and Executive Order 13175, we have 

determined that this action has no significant effects on Federally recognized Indian Tribes. In order to 

promote consultation with Tribes, a copy of the DEIS was mailed to all Federally recognized Tribes in the 

continental United States. 

Energy Effects–Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect 

energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As the selected action is not expected to significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

RECORD OF DECISION 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

185 

The Record of Decision for management of double-crested cormorants in the United States, prepared 

pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations at 40 CFR 1505.2, is herein published 

in its entirety. 

This Record of Decision (ROD) has been developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in 

compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of NEPA. The purpose of this ROD is to 

document the Service’s decision for the selection of an alternative for managing resource damages 

associated with the double-crested cormorant (DCCO). Alternatives have been fully described and 

evaluated in the August 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on DCCO management in the 

United States. 

This ROD is intended to: (a) state the Service’s decision, present the rationale for its selection, and describe 

its implementation; (b) identify the alternatives considered in reaching the decision; and (c) state whether 

all means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from implementation of the selected alternative have 

been adopted (40 CFR 1505.2). 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Increases in DCCO populations over the past 25 years, combined with other environmental and social 

factors, have led to greater occurrences of both real and perceived conflicts with human and natural 

resources. In 1999, in response to urgings from the public and from State and Federal wildlife agencies, the 

Service decided to prepare a programmatic EIS, in cooperation with the Wildlife Services program of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS/WS), to evaluate the 

significance of, and consider alternatives to address, conflicts associated with DCCOs. 

KEY ISSUES 

Public involvement occurred throughout the EIS and rulemaking process. From 1999 to 2003, we held 22 

public meetings over the course of more than 10 months of total public comment. Through public scoping 

(the first stage of public comment) and agency discussions, key issues were identified. Key issues can be 

placed into two general categories: (1) impacts caused by DCCOs (including impacts to other birds, fish, 

vegetation, aquaculture, Federally listed species, water quality, hatcheries, recreational fishing economies, 

and commercial fishing); and (2) impacts caused by control actions (including impacts to DCCO 

populations, other birds, Federally listed species, and existence and aesthetic values). In the EIS 

environmental analysis, these issues made up the environmental categories for which effects of the different 

alternatives were considered. 

The alternatives were also considered in terms of their ability to fulfill the purpose of the proposed action: 

to reduce resource conflicts associated with DCCOs in the contiguous United States, to enhance the 

flexibility of natural resource agencies in dealing with DCCO-related resource conflicts, and to ensure the 

long-term conservation of DCCO populations. 

ALTERNATIVES 

Since the FEIS is a programmatic document, the alternatives reflect general management approaches to the 

alleviation of DCCO resource damages. Six alternatives were examined in the EIS: (A) No Action, (B) 

Nonlethal, (C) Increased Local Damage Control, (D) Public Resource Depredation Order, (E) Regional 

Population Reduction, and (F) Regulated Hunting. 

Alternative A

Alternative A is essentially the no change, or status quo, alternative. The main features of this alternative 

are the issuance of a small number of depredation permits to address DCCO conflicts; an aquaculture 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

186 

depredation order that allows commercial, freshwater aquaculture producers in 13 States to shoot DCCOs 

without a permit; unregulated nonlethal harassment of DCCOs; and Director’s Order No. 27, which 

prevents most public fish hatcheries from conducting lethal take of DCCOs. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would not allow the take of DCCOs or their eggs. Only harassment methods and physical 

exclusion devices would be used to prevent or control DCCO damages. 

Alternative C

Alternative C would allow for increased take of DCCOs, through a revision of our cormorant damage 

management practices, but agencies and individuals would still have to obtain a depredation permit. It 

would also revise the aquaculture depredation order to allow winter roost control. 

Alternative D

Alternative D, the selected action, creates a public resource depredation order to authorize State fish and 

wildlife agencies, Federally recognized Tribes, and APHIS/WS to take DCCOs found committing or about 

to commit, and to prevent, depredations on the public resources of fish (including hatchery stock at Federal, 

State, and Tribal facilities), wildlife, plants, and their habitats. This authority applies to all lands and 

freshwaters (with appropriate landowner permission) in 24 States (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin). 

This alternative also revises the aquaculture depredation order by specifying that it is applicable to 

commercial freshwater facilities and State and Federal fish hatcheries, and by authorizing APHIS/WS 

employees to take DCCOs at roost sites in the vicinity of aquaculture facilities during the months of 

October, November, December, January, February, March, and April. Depredation permits would continue 

to be used to address conflicts outside the authority of the depredation orders. 

Alternative E

Alternative E would reduce regional DCCO populations to pre-determined levels. Population objectives 

would be developed on an interdisciplinary, interagency basis and would be based on the best available 

data, while giving consideration to other values. Control would be carried out at nesting, roosting, 

wintering, and all other sites in order to achieve those objectives as rapidly as possible without adversely 

affecting other protected migratory birds or threatened and endangered species. 

Alternative F

Under Alternative F, frameworks to develop seasons and bag limits for hunting DCCOs would be 

established jointly by Federal and State wildlife agencies. These seasons would coincide with those for 

waterfowl hunting. 

DECISION 

The Service’s decision is to implement the preferred alternative, Alternative D, as it is presented in the final 

rule. This decision is based on a thorough review of the alternatives and their environmental consequences. 

Other Agency Decisions

A Record of Decision will be produced by APHIS/WS. The responsible officials at APHIS/WS will adopt 

the FEIS. 

RATIONALE FOR DECISION 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

187 

As stated in the CEQ regulations, “the agency’s preferred alternative is the alternative which the agency 

believes would fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, 

environmental, technical and other factors.” The preferred alternative has been selected for implementation 

based on consideration of a number of environmental, regulatory, and social factors. Based on our 

analysis, the preferred alternative would be more effective than the current program; is environmentally 

sound, cost effective, and flexible enough to meet different management needs around the country; and 

does not threaten the long-term sustainability of DCCO populations or populations of any other natural 

resource. 

Alternative D was selected because it allows greater responsiveness in addressing localized resource 

damages (and will therefore be more effective at reducing or preventing them) than the No Action 

Alternative. It will provide a net benefit to fish, wildlife, and plants by allowing agencies to control 

DCCOs to protect these resources from damages. It will also alleviate economic damages to aquaculture. 

Through successful implementation of mitigation measures, it will not result in negative impacts to DCCO 

populations, other migratory birds, or Federally listed species. As such, this alternative represents the 

environmentally preferable alternative. 

The No Action Alternative (A) was not selected for implementation because by itself it would not 

adequately address resource damages caused by DCCOs. The Nonlethal Management Alternative (B) was 

not selected because it severely limits the scope of allowable control techniques and would not adequately 

address resource damages caused by DCCOs. The Increased Local Damage Control Alternative (C) was 

not selected because it does not provide other agencies with the flexibility needed to adequately address 

resource damages caused by DCCOs. The Regional Population Reduction Alternative (E) was not selected 

because of uncertainty about the actual relationship between cormorant numbers and distribution and 

subsequent damages. The Regulated Hunting Alternative (F) was not selected because hunting is not a 

biologically or socially acceptable means of reducing DCCO damages. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21 

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

 

For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby propose to amend part 21, of subchapter B, chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 21–[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 21 is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Pub. L. 95–616; 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Pub. L. 106-108; Section 3 of the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 704), 40 Stat. 755. 

2. In Subpart D, revise § 21.47 to read as follows: 

§ 21.47 Depredation order for double-crested cormorants at aquaculture facilities. 

(a) What is the purpose of this depredation order?

The purpose of this depredation order is to help reduce depredation of aquacultural stock by double-crested 

cormorants at private fish farms and State and Federal fish hatcheries. 

(b) In what areas can this depredation order be implemented?

This depredation order applies to commercial freshwater aquaculture facilities and to State and Federal fish 

hatcheries in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Mississippi, 

North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

(c) What does this depredation order allow and who can participate?
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

188 

(1) This depredation order authorizes landowners, operators, and tenants (or their employees or agents) 

actually engaged in the commercial, Federal, or State production of freshwater aquaculture stocks to take, 

without a Federal permit, double-crested cormorants when they are found committing or about to commit 

depredations to aquaculture stocks. This authority is applicable only during daylight hours and only within 

the boundaries of freshwater commercial aquaculture facilities or State and Federal hatcheries. 

(2) This depredation order authorizes employees of the Wildlife Services program of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to take double-crested cormorants, with 

appropriate landowner permission, at roost sites in the vicinity of aquaculture facilities, at any time, day or 

night, during the months of October, November, December, January, February, March, and April. 

(3) Authorized employees of the Wildlife Services program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service may designate agents to carry out control, provided these individuals 

act under the conditions of the order. 

(d) What are the terms and conditions of this order?

(1) Persons operating under paragraph (c)(1) of this section may only do so in conjunction with an 

established nonlethal harassment program as certified by officials of the Wildlife Services program of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Wildlife Services directive 

2.330 outlines this certification process. 

(2) Double-crested cormorants may be taken only by shooting with firearms, including rifles. Persons 

using shotguns are required to use nontoxic shot as listed in 50 CFR 20.21(j). 

(3) Persons operating under this depredation order may use decoys, taped calls, or other devices to lure 

within gun range birds committing or about to commit depredations. 

(4) Persons operating under this depredation order must obtain appropriate landowner permission before 

implementing activities authorized by the order. 

(5) Double-crested cormorants may not be killed contrary to the laws or regulations of any State, and none 

of the privileges of this section may be exercised unless the person possesses the appropriate State or other 

permits, if required. 

(6) Persons operating under this depredation order must properly dispose of double-crested cormorants 

killed in control efforts: 

(i) Individuals may donate birds killed under authority of this order to museums or other such scientific and 

educational institutions for the purposes of scientific or educational exhibition; 

(ii) Individuals may also bury or incinerate birds taken; and 

(iii) Individuals may not allow birds taken under this order, or their plumage, to be sold, offered for sale, 

bartered, or shipped for purpose of sale or barter. 

(7) Nothing in this depredation order authorizes the take of any migratory bird species other than doublecrested cormorants. Two look-alike species co-occur with double-crested cormorants in the southeastern 

States: the anhinga, which occurs across the southeastern United States, and the neotropic cormorant, which 

is found in varying numbers in Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Both species can be mistaken for doublecrested cormorants, but take of these two species is not authorized under this depredation order. Persons 

operating under this order must immediately report the take of a migratory bird species other than doublecrested cormorants to the appropriate Service Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office. 

(8) Nothing in this depredation order authorizes the take of any species protected by the Endangered 

Species Act. Persons operating under this order must immediately report the take of species protected 

under the Endangered Species Act to the Service. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

189 

(i) To protect wood storks and bald eagles, the following conservation measures must be observed within 

any geographic area where Endangered Species Act protection applies to these species: All control 

activities are allowed if the activities occur more than 1,500 feet from active wood stork nesting colonies, 

more than 1,000 feet from active wood stork roost sites, and more than 750 feet from feeding wood storks, 

and if they occur more than 750 feet from active bald eagle nests. 

(ii) At their discretion, landowners, operators, and tenants may contact the Regional Migratory Bird Permit 

Office to request modification of the measures listed above in paragraph (d)(8)(i) of this section. Such 

modification can occur only if the Regional Director determines, on the basis of coordination between the 

Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office and the Endangered Species Field Office, that wood storks and bald 

eagles will not be adversely affected. 

(iii) If adverse effects are anticipated from the control activities in a geographical area where Endangered 

Species Act protection applies to wood storks or bald eagles, either during the intra-Service coordination 

discussions described above or at any other time, the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office will initiate 

consultation with the Endangered Species Field Offices. 

(9) Persons operating under this depredation order must: 

(i) Keep a log recording the date, number, and location of all birds killed each year under this authorization; 

(ii) Maintain this log for a period of 3 years (and maintain records for 3 previous years of takings at all 

times thereafter); and 

(iii) Each year, provide the previous year’s log to the appropriate Service Regional Migratory Bird Permit 

Office. Regional Office addresses are found in § 2.2 of subchapter A of this chapter. 

(10) We reserve the right to suspend or revoke the authority of any Agency or individual granted by this 

order if we find that the specified purpose, terms, and conditions have not been adhered to by that Agency 

or individual or if the long-term sustainability of double-crested cormorant populations is threatened by that 

Agency’s or individual’s action(s),. The criteria and procedures for suspension, revocation, 

reconsideration, and appeal are outlined in §§13.27 through 13.29 of this subchapter. For the purposes of 

this rule, “issuing officer” means the Regional Director and “permit” means the authority to act under this 

depredation order. For purposes of §13.29(e), appeals shall be made to the Director. 

(e) Does this rule contain information collection requirements?

Yes. The information collection requirements in this section are approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 1018-0121. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, 

and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

(f) When does this depredation order expire?

This depredation order will automatically expire on April 30, 2009, unless revoked or extended prior to that 

date. 

3. In Subpart D, add § 21.48 to read as follows: 

§ 21.48 Depredation order for double-crested cormorants to protect public resources. 

(a) What is the purpose of this depredation order?

The purpose of this depredation order is to reduce the occurrence and/or minimize the risk of adverse 

impacts to public resources (fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats) caused by double-crested cormorants. 

(b) In what areas can this depredation order be implemented?

This depredation order applies to all lands and freshwaters in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Ohio, Mississippi, Missouri, New 

York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, and 

Wisconsin. 

(c) What does this depredation order allow and who can participate?
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

190 

(1) This depredation order authorizes State fish and wildlife agencies, Federally recognized Tribes, and 

State Directors of the Wildlife Services program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (collectively termed “Agencies”) to prevent depredations on the public resources 

of fish (including hatchery stock at Federal, State, and Tribal facilities), wildlife, plants, and their habitats 

by taking without a permit double-crested cormorants found committing or about to commit, such 

depredations. 

(2) Agencies may designate agents to carry out control, provided those individuals act under the conditions 

of the order. 

(3) Federally recognized Tribes and their agents may carry out control only on reservation lands or ceded 

lands within their jurisdiction. 

(d) What are the terms and conditions of this order?

(1) Persons operating under this order should first utilize nonlethal control methods such as harassment and 

exclusion devices when these are considered effective and practicable and not harmful to other nesting 

birds by the responsible Agency. 

(2) Double-crested cormorants may be taken only by means of egg oiling, egg and nest destruction, cervical 

dislocation, firearms, and CO2 asphyxiation. Persons using shotguns must use nontoxic shot, as listed in 50 

CFR 20.21(j). Persons using egg oiling must use 100 percent corn oil, a substance exempted from 

regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act. 

(3) Persons operating under this depredation order may use decoys, taped calls, or other devices to lure 

within gun range birds committing or about to commit depredation of public resources. 

(4) Persons operating under this depredation order must obtain appropriate landowner permission before 

implementing activities authorized by the order. 

(5) Persons operating under this depredation order may not take double-crested cormorants contrary to the 

laws or regulations of any State, and none of the privileges of this section may be exercised unless the 

person possesses the appropriate State or other permits, if required. 

(6) Persons operating under this depredation order must properly dispose of double-crested cormorants 

killed in control efforts: 

(i) Individuals may donate birds killed under authority of this order to museums or other such scientific and 

educational institutions for the purposes of scientific or educational exhibition; 

(ii) Individuals may also bury or incinerate birds taken; and 

(iii) Individuals may not allow birds taken under this order, or their plumage, to be sold, offered for sale, 

bartered, or shipped for purpose of sale or barter. 

(7) Nothing in this depredation order authorizes the take of any migratory bird species other than doublecrested cormorants. Two look-alike species co-occur with double-crested cormorants in the southeastern 

States: the anhinga, which occurs across the southeastern United States, and the neotropic cormorant, which 

is found in varying numbers in Texas, Louisiana, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Both species can be mistaken for 

double-crested cormorants, but take of these two species is not authorized under this depredation order. 

Persons operating under this order must immediately report the take of a migratory bird species other than 

double-crested cormorants to the appropriate Service Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office. 

(8) Nothing in this depredation order authorizes the take of any species protected by the Endangered 

Species Act. Persons operating under this order must immediately report the take of species protected 

under the Endangered Species Act to the Service. 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

191 

(i) To protect piping plovers, interior least terns, wood storks, and bald eagles, the following conservation 

measures must be observed within any geographic area where Endangered Species Act protection applies 

to these species: 

(A) The discharge/use of firearms to kill or harass double-crested cormorants or use of other harassment 

methods are allowed if the control activities occur more than 1,000 feet from active piping plover or 

interior least tern nests or colonies; occur more than 1,500 feet from active wood stork nesting colonies, 

more than 1,000 feet from active wood stork roost sites, and more than 750 feet from feeding wood storks; 

or occur more than 750 feet from active bald eagle nests; 

(B) Other control activities such as egg oiling, cervical dislocation, CO2 asphyxiation, egg destruction, or 

nest destruction are allowed if these activities occur more than 500 feet from active piping plover or interior 

least tern nests or colonies; occur more than 1,500 feet from active wood stork nesting colonies, more than 

1,000 feet from active wood stork roost sites, and more than 750 feet from feeding wood storks; or occur 

more than 750 feet from active bald eagle nests; 

(C) To ensure adequate protection of piping plovers, any Agency or its agents who plan to implement 

control activities that may affect areas designated as piping plover critical habitat in the Great Lakes 

Region are to obtain prior approval from the appropriate Regional Director. Requests for approval of 

activities in these areas must be submitted to the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office. The Regional 

Migratory Bird Permit Office will then coordinate with the Endangered Species Field Office staff to assess 

whether the measures in paragraph (B) are adequate. 

(ii) At their discretion, Agencies or their agents may contact the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office to 

request modification of the above measures. Such modification can occur only if the Regional Director 

determines, on the basis of coordination between the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office and the 

Endangered Species Field Office, that the species listed in (8)(i) will not be adversely affected. 

(iii) If adverse effects are anticipated from the control activities in a geographical area where Endangered 

Species Act protection applies to any of the four species listed in (8)(i), either during the intra-Service 

coordination discussions described above or at any other time, the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office 

will initiate consultation with the Endangered Species Field Offices. 

(9) Responsible Agencies must, before they initiate any control activities in a given year, provide a onetime written notice to the appropriate Service Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office indicating that they 

intend to act under this order. 

(i) Additionally, if any Agency plans a single control action that would individually, or a succession of such 

actions that would cumulatively, kill more than 10 percent of the double-crested cormorants in a breeding 

colony, it must first provide written notification to the appropriate Service Regional Migratory Bird Permit 

Office. This letter must be received no later than 30 days in advance of the activity and must provide: 

(A) the location (indicating specific colonies, if applicable) of the proposed control activity; 

(B) a description of the proposed control activity, specifying what public resources are being impacted, 

how many birds are likely to be taken and what approximate percentage they are of total DCCOs present, 

and which species of other birds are present; and 

(C) contact information for the person in charge of the control action. 

(ii) The Regional Director may prevent any such activity by notifying the agency in writing if the Regional 

Director deems the activity a threat to the long-term sustainability of double-crested cormorants or any 

other migratory bird species. 

 (10) Persons operating under this order must keep records of all activities, including those of designated 

agents, carried out under this order. On an annual basis, Agencies must provide the Service Regional 

Migratory Bird Permit Office with a report detailing activities conducted under the authority of this order, 

including: 

(i) By date and location, a summary of the number of double-crested cormorants killed and/or number of 

nests in which eggs were oiled; 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

192 

(ii) A statement of efforts being made to minimize incidental take of nontarget species and a report of the 

number and species of migratory birds involved in such take, if any; 

(iii) A description of the impacts or anticipated impacts to public resources by double-crested cormorants 

and a statement of the management objectives for the area in question; 

(iv) A description of the evidence supporting the conclusion that double-crested cormorants are causing or 

will cause these impacts; 

(v) A discussion of other limiting factors affecting the resource (e.g., biological, environmental, and 

socioeconomic); and 

(vi) A discussion of how control efforts are expected to, or actually did, alleviate resource impacts. 

(11) Agencies must provide annual reports to the appropriate Service Regional Migratory Bird Permit 

Office, as described above, by December 31 for the reporting period October 1 of the previous year to 

September 30 of the same year. For example, reports for the period October 1, 2003, to September 30, 

2004, would be due on or before December 31, 2004. The Service will regularly review Agency reports 

and will periodically assess the overall impact of this program to ensure compatibility with the long-term 

conservation of double-crested cormorants and other resources. 

(12) In some situations, Agencies may deem it necessary to reduce or eliminate local breeding populations 

of double-crested cormorants to reduce the occurrence of resource impacts. 

(i) For such actions, Agencies must: 

(A) Comply with paragraph 9 of this subsection; 

(B) Carefully plan activities to avoid disturbance of nontarget species; 

(C) Evaluate effects of management activities on cormorants at the control site; 

(D) Evaluate, by means of collecting data or using best available information, effects of management 

activities on the public resources being protected and on nontarget species; and 

(E) Include this information in the report described above in paragraph (d)(10) of this subsection. 

(ii) Agencies may coordinate with the appropriate Service Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office in the 

preparation of this information to attain technical or other assistance. 

(13) We reserve the right to suspend or revoke the authority of any Agency, Tribe, or State Director granted 

by this order if we find that the specified purpose, terms, and conditions have not been adhered to or if the 

long-term sustainability of double-crested cormorant populations is threatened by the action(s) of that 

Agency, Tribe, or State Director. The criteria and procedures for suspension, revocation, reconsideration, 

and appeal are outlined in §§13.27 through 13.29 of this subchapter. For the purposes of this rule, “issuing 

officer” means the Regional Director and “permit” means the authority to act under this depredation order. 

For purposes of §13.29(e), appeals shall be made to the Director. 

(e) Does this rule contain information collection requirements?

Yes. The information collection requirements in this section are approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 1018-0121. Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, 

and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

(f) When does this depredation order expire?

This depredation order will automatically expire on April 30, 2009, unless revoked or extended prior to that 

date. 

Date: September 25, 2003
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

193 

APPENDIX H 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE 

MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND 

LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 

May 2, 2003 

The Lake Erie watersnake is a federally-listed threatened species that occurs on the 

islands in the western basin of Lake Erie. When an agency or individual is involved in 

Lake Erie island development activities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

encourages the use of caution to avoid take of Lake Erie watersnakes. “Take” is defined 

as to pursue, harm, harass, hunt, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any of these activities. “Harm” is further defined as any action that injures or 

disrupts the normal behavior patterns of the snake. Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act states that “it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to take any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the 

United States.” The Service recommends that anyone planning a development project on 

the Lake Erie islands should contact us early in the planning stages for project design 

assistance. 

The Service has developed the following guidelines to assist in avoiding take of Lake 

Erie watersnakes. These season-based guidelines utilize the most current scientific 

information available and present a general overview of watersnake habitat. The 

guidelines may change as new information becomes available. Although implementation 

of these guidelines does not remove legal liability associated with take of a Federally 

threatened species, the Service believes that if you follow these guidelines, you are not 

likely to incidentally take Lake Erie watersnakes. Furthermore, these guidelines discuss 

the area of habitat used by 90% of the Lake Erie watersnake population, however all 

Lake Erie watersnakes are protected from take, no matter where they occur. 

Winter Hibernation Habitat Guidelines

Lake Erie watersnakes enter hibernation in September and October, and emerge in April 

and May. The watersnakes hibernate in suitable sites located above water level on both 

the island shoreline and island interior. Research indicates that 90% of Lake Erie 

watersnakes hibernate within 528 feet (161 m) of the shoreline. Suitable winter 

hibernation sites include the following locations: cracks and crevices in bedrock; rock 

piles; animal burrows; tree root masses and cavities; and human-made structures such as 

rock walls, erosion barriers, foundations, drainage tiles, building pads, and piled debris 

on the ground surface. During hibernation, Lake Erie watersnakes are unable to move 

and are vulnerable to any disturbance of their hibernation sites. Any excavation activity, 

removal of suitable tree roots, destruction of human-made structures (walls, etc.) or 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

194 

disturbance of other suitable hibernation habitat sites may cause take of Lake Erie 

watersnakes. 

At island sites where suitable winter hibernation habitat exists, excavation activity should 

not occur during the hibernation season. Activities to be avoided include, but are not 

limited to, digging foundations, burying utility lines, removing suitable tree roots or 

hollow tree bases, and destroying suitable human-made structures (walls, foundations, 

etc.). If such activities must occur during the winter months, excavators should contact 

us early to seek our technical assistance in exploring methods to avoid take of Lake Erie 

watersnakes. Contacting us early allows us to review a proposed project, discuss options, 

address species needs, and find solutions while avoiding project delays. If take is 

unavoidable, early planning also will help to ensure compliance with Sections 7 and 10 of 

the Endangered Species Act, while avoiding project delays. 

In order to avoid taking Lake Erie watersnakes, excavation of any kind in potential 

suitable winter hibernation habitat within 528 ft (161 m) of shore should be avoided 

between October 15 and April 15. Hibernating snakes cannot move at all during low 

winter temperatures, and are sensitive to disturbance. Excavation activities occurring 

between April 16 and May 31, or between September 15 and October 14 should only be 

conducted when air temperatures are above 60 degrees Fahrenheit. When the air 

temperature is less than 60 degrees Fahrenheit, the watersnakes are sluggish and 

experience difficulty in moving away from excavation equipment. The construction site 

should be actively monitored for snakes before and during construction by an individual 

that can identify a Lake Erie watersnake. If Lake Erie watersnakes are encountered during 

excavation, operations should cease immediately and the monitoring individual should 

contact us promptly at our Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Field Office (614-469-6923 extensions 

12, 15, 16, or 22). Exercising these precautions will help avoid injuring or killing 

hibernating Lake Erie watersnakes. 

In locations that do not contain suitable hibernation habitat (e.g., locations composed 

purely of topsoil covered by short grasses and forbs with no cracks or crevices present), 

ground disturbing activities during the hibernation period (i.e., after October 15 and before 

April 15) are not likely to cause take of Lake Erie watersnakes. Anyone uncertain about 

whether or not a site contains suitable winter hibernation habitat should contact our 

Reynoldsburg office. 

Summer Habitat Guidelines

During warm months (i.e., from June through September), 90% of Lake Erie watersnakes 

are found within 69 feet (21 m) of the Lake Erie island shoreline, and within the same 

distance of ponds, inlets, bays, and marinas within the interior of the islands. Cliffs with 

crevices, rocky shorelines, and rock-filled structures such as docks, breakwater rocks, and 

shoreline erosion barriers provide important shelter, breeding and foraging habitat for 

Lake Erie watersnakes. The watersnakes forage for small fish and amphibians near these 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

195 

locations and use spaces among rocks in the structures and along the shoreline for rest, 

reproduction, and protection from predators. 

The shoreline/vegetation interface on the islands, as well as interior island ponds, inlets, 

bays, and marinas are vital to both the summer and winter survival of Lake Erie 

watersnakes. Any kind of excavation or removal of shrubs, standing or downed trees, root 

masses, animal burrows, piled rock, cliffs, or bedrock within 69 feet (21 m) of the 

shoreline, ponds, inlets, bays, and marinas may cause take of the Lake Erie watersnake. 

For this reason, if you plan to conduct such activities, you should contact the Service 

early to seek technical assistance in exploring alternatives that avoid take. Contacting us 

early allows us to review a proposed project, discuss options, address species needs, and 

find solutions while avoiding project delays. If take is unavoidable, early planning also 

will help to ensure compliance with Sections 7 and 10 of the Endangered Species Act, 

while avoiding project delays. 

Summary of habitat management practices, timing, and location where applicable. 

Time Location Recommendation 

Oct 15-

April 15 

Within 528 feet 

(161 m) of shore 

No Excavation. 

April 16-

May 31 

Within 528 feet 

(161 m) of shore 

Excavation only when temperature above 60o F. 

Mow at dusk, on high setting. 

June 1-

Sept 14 

Within 69 feet (21 

m) of shore 

Coordinate all construction and excavation 

projects along shoreline with Service. 

Sept 15-

Oct 14 

Within 528 feet 

(161 m) of shore 

Excavation only when temperature above 60o F. 

Mow at dusk, on high setting. 

The Service encourages preservation or construction of structures with designs beneficial 

to watersnakes (e.g., certain rock walls, rock-filled crib docks, and rock erosion barriers, 

etc.) because such structures may provide shelter for the snake. When building or 

replacing a dock, the Service recommends that you refer to the Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources (ODNR) Coastal Guidance Sheet No. 9. This can be obtained by 

contacting ODNR at 419-626-7980, or online at 

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/coastal/pubs/cmguide9.pdf. When conducting such 

activities, you should also contact us early for technical assistance in exploring 

alternatives or pursuing necessary compliance with Sections 7 and 10 of the Endangered 

Species Act. Furthermore, any project that will impact the shoreline or waters of Lake 

Erie (including marinas, wetlands, and natural ponds), for example the installation of a 

new dock or shoreline erosion protection structure, must be coordinated with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to ensure compliance with the Clean Water Act. The 

Buffalo District of the Corps can be contacted at (716) 879-4330. 

In addition to contacting us early in the project planning process, construction projects 

during warm months (i.e., from June through September) in suitable summer habitat 
Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment 

196 

should be actively monitored for Lake Erie watersnakes. The monitoring should be 

conducted before and during construction by a person that can identify a Lake Erie 

watersnake. If watersnakes are encountered within the project area during construction, 

operations should cease and the monitoring person should contact us immediately in our 

Reynoldsburg, Ohio, office (614-469-6923 extensions 12, 15, 16, or 22). Finally, any 

holes or trenches that are dug should be filled in as soon as possible to prevent 

watersnakes from inadvertently falling into them and becoming trapped. Holes or 

trenches should be inspected for Lake Erie watersnakes before being filled. 

Land Management Guidelines

Tree Removal

 

Tree root masses may provide suitable hibernation habitat for the Lake Erie watersnake. 

If you are planning on removing trees on your property, the Service recommends that 

only the above-ground portion of the tree be removed. The root mass should be left 

underground, so as not to disturb hibernation locations. Within 69 feet (21 m) of shore, 

heavy machinery should be limited to paved roads, ramps, etc. so as not to harm 

watersnakes that may have retreated under rocks, logs, and other material. 

Mowing 

 

Shoreline vegetation is an important component of Lake Erie watersnake summer habitat. 

Vegetation provides resting, basking, cover, and mating locations for the snake, while it 

also provides habitat for native birds, fish, amphibians, and mammals, helps to stabilize 

banks and prevent erosion, and helps to promote improved water quality. Landowners 

are encouraged to avoid mowing within 69 feet (21 m) of the shoreline to protect these 

important habitat and water quality features. During late April and May as Lake Erie 

watersnakes are emerging from hibernation, and during late September and early October 

as Lake Erie watersnakes are entering into hibernation, lawn mowing within 69 feet (21 

m) of the shore should be completed at dusk, when the snakes will have taken cover for 

the night. Mowing during these time frames should utilize a high setting, and the area to 

be mowed should be actively monitored for Lake Erie watersnakes. 

Questions

Three people are available in the Service’s Reynoldsburg, Ohio office to answer any 

questions you may have about the Lake Erie watersnake. You may contact our office 

Monday through Friday, 8am-4pm by dialing 614-469-6923. For questions about U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers permits, contact wildlife biologist Megan Seymour (ext.16). 

For questions about Lake Erie watersnake biology or about the Endangered Species Act, 

contact endangered species biologist Angela Zimmerman (ext. 22). All questions may 

also be directed to the office’s Supervisor, Dr. Mary Knapp (ext. 12).