Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

1 

### FINAL

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

REDUCING DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT

DAMAGE IN OHIO

Prepared By:

United States Depart ment of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Wildlife Services

In Cooperation with

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Mi gratory Bird Management Office

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, West Si ster Island National Wildlife Refuge

Ohio Department of Natural Resources

March 2006Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 Wildlif e 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 Wildlif e 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 REGARD ING REQUESTS FOR CDM ASSISTANCE

35

1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS 36

1.8 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIR ONMENTAL 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 Coope rating Agency in CDM in Ohio 40 1.9.2 Compliance with Other Laws, Execu tive 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 50Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

3 2.1.4 Effects on Aesthetic Values 51

2.1.5 Humaneness and Animal Welfare C oncerns 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 pr oposed in the pref erred alternative is contrary to the purpose and missi on 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 an d to reduce risks from DCCOs at airports. There is no need to expa nd 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-leth al CDM by Federal Agencies 59 3.2.3 Alternative 3. Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies 60

3.2.4 Alternative 4. No CD M 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 Implemen ted Before Lethal Methods 67

3.5 STANDARD OPERATING PROCE DURES (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 Wildli fe Species, Incl uding Threatened and Endangered Species 80

4.1.3 Effects on Human He alth and Safety 86

4.1.4 Effects on Aesthetic Values 91Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 PREPAR ERS 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 AR E LISTED AS ENDANGERED AND

THREATENED BY THE STATE OF OHIO 141

APPENDIX E: LOCATION AND SIZE OF DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT

BREEDING COLONIES IN TH E 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 RULEM AKING AND RECORD OF DECISION ON

DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMOR ANT MANAGEMENT 167

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

MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES 193Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

5 

### SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION

The United States Department of Agricultu re’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 Oh io Division of Wild life (ODW) propose to implement a double-crested cormorant (DCCO) damage management program in Ohio, including the implementation of the Public Resource Depredati on 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 natu ral 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 privat e property in Ohio when the resource owner (property owner) or manager request s assistance and any necessary permits and

authorizations are obtained. An IWDM strategy would be recommended and used, encompassing the use of practical and eff ective methods of preventing or reducing damage while minimizing harmful effects ofCDM measures on humans, target and nontarget species, and the environment. U nder this action, the ag encies could provide

technical assistance and direct operational damage management, including non-lethal and lethal management methods. When appropria te, 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 gi ven 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 respons e could be a combination of non-lethal and lethal methods, or there could be instances wh ere the application of lethal methods alone would be the most appropriate strategy. Landowner/resource manager permission would be obtained prior to conducti ng CDM activities. Manageme nt 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 populati ons is not threatened by CDM activities.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 OrderOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 Isla nd 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 Envir onmental 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 m eet human needs. These human uses often

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

human/wildlife interactions . Double-crested cormorants (hereafter, DCCOs; see Appendix B for a list of scientif ic names) are one of the wild life 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, negativ e impacts of increasing DCCO populations on vegetation and habitat used by other wildlife species, dama ge to private property from DCCO feces, and risks of aircraft collisions with DCCOs at or near airports. Wildlife damage management is the science of reduci ng 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 c onflicts 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 DC COs 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 Depr edation Order (PRDO) : The purpose of this order is to reduce the actual occurrence, and/or mi nimize the risk, of adverse impacts of DCCOs to public resources. Public re sources include fish (both free-swimming fish and stock at Federal, State, and trib al hatcheries that ar e intended for release in public waters), wildlife, pl ants, 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 (A L, 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 pr otects “public resources,” which are natural resources managed and conserve d by public agencies, as opposed to private individuals.

Ohio is one of several states experien cing DCCO damage. This Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates ways by which WS , the USFWS, and the Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODW) may work together to reso lve DCCO damage problems in Ohio.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

9 1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this EA is to analyze the environmental impacts of alternatives for addressing damage and conflicts invo lving DCCOs under the USFWS PRDO and Migratory Bird Permits (MBPs) in Ohio. Resources protected by such activities are freshwater aquaculture stocks, fish, wildlif e, plants and their habitats, property, and human health and safety. This EA consid ers 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 vegetati on, 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 Resource s (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 ag encies will work together to address the following questions in the EA.

• How can the lead and cooperating agen cies best respond to the need to reduce DCCO damage covered under the USFWS’ PRDO?

• How can the lead and cooperating agen cies best respond to the need to address all other types of DCCO damage not covered by the PRDO?Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 ha ve 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 e xpanding DCCO population. The need to protect natural resources, aquaculture, pr operty, 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 leav es and breaking tree branches) and are of concern in the Great Lakes regio n, including Ohio (USFWS 2003). DCCOs can displace colonial species such as black-crowned night-herons, egrets, great blue herons,gulls, and Caspian terns th rough habitat degradation and nest site competition (USFWS 2003). When these situ ations 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 vari ables, but in select circumstances, DCCOs can have a negative impact on r ecreational 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 Envir onmental Assessment

11 1.4.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Aquaculture

DCCOs can feed heavily on fish being ra ised for human consumption, and on fish raised for other purposes (USFWS 2003). When this occurs, there is a need to protect aquaculture facili ties from DCCO feeding. The principal species propagated by the Ohio state fish hatcheri es are saugeye, walleye, yellow perch, muskellunge, and bluegill. Additional fi sh threatened by DCCO predation at private hatcheries include rainbow trout, bass species, cat fish 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 DCCO s 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 breedi ng 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 (T horpe 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 hazar d to aircraft because of thei r body size and mass, slow flight speeds, and their natural tende ncy to fly in flocks. Wh ere 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 leav es 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 observedOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

12 to have no commercial timber value. Ho wever, tree damage may be perceived as a problem if these trees are rare species, or aesthetica lly valued (Bédard et al. 1999, Hatch and Weseloh 1999). For example, at Presqu’ile Provincial Park in Ontario, Canada, DCCOs nesting on Gull Is land have killed all of the trees spurring managers to protect the other is lands from the same fate. The goal for High Bluff Island was “to protect represen tative woodland flora and fauna and the aesthetic beauty of High Bluff Island while retaining maximum diversity of nesting colonial bird species” (PDC MSRC 2004). Destruction of nests and culling of adults has taken place on Hi gh Bluff Island to protect the natural woodlands which provide important nesti ng 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 tern s, and Caspian terns through habitat degradation and nest site competition (USFWS 2003). DCCOs have been known to take over heron nests. For exampl e, 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 nega tively influenced breeding distribution or productivity of either speci es 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 a nd 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 presen t at two and one colonies, respectively. The study assessed trends in each species ne sting 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 confli ct and 39% showed nest take-overs or colony decline/ ab andonment. At least nine black crowned night-heron colonies appear to have been abandoned after nest take-overs by DCCOs. More than half of great egre t and great blue heron colonies showed probable (or higher) threat from cormor ants. All black-crowned night-heron

colonies under threat were located between Lake Erie and the St. Lawrence River. Weseloh (2005) recommended that mana gers monitor DCCO nest placement

when DCCOs nest with herons and assess if threats occur.

DCCOs can have a negative impact on vege tation that provides nesting habitat for other birds (Jarvie et al. 1999, Shield castle and Martin 1999) and wildlife, including State and federally-listed thr eatened and endangered species (Korfanty et al. 1999). Cuthbert et al. (2002) did find that D CCOs have negative effects on normal plant growth and survival on a loca lized level in the Great Lakes region. Wires and Cuthbert (2001) identified vegeta tion die off as an important threat to 66% of the colonial waterbird colony site s identified as priori ty conservation sitesOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

13 in the U.S. Great Lakes. Of the 29 prio rity 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 havi ng an impact to herbaceous layers and trees. Damage to trees was mainly caused by guano deposition, and resulted in tree die off at breeding coloni es and roost sites. Impact s to the herbaceous layer were also reported due to guano deposition, and often this layer was reduced or eliminated from the colony site. In a ddition, survey respondents reported that DCCO impacts to avian species were mainly through habita t degradation and competition for nest sites (Wires et al. 2001).

Hebert et al (2005) conduc ted a study of the relations hip between DCCO density and vegetation on East Sister Island and Mi ddle Island in Lake Erie. In 2000, the year prior to their st udy, 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 negativel y correlated with forest cover. Whole

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

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

one transect in Middle Island that was heavily used by DC COs. 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 poten tial factors includin g pests, disease,

human disturbance and weathe r did not provide any tre nds or data that would explain the observed declines. The aut hors also observed that DCCOs tended to prefer live trees for nesting and abandone d dead trees. There appeared to be a pattern of expanding habitat loss that developed as tree s used by DCCOs died and DCCOs moved on to healthy, mo re stable nesting sites.

1.5.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources

Outdoor recreation, hunting, and sport fish ing make up a large part of Ohio’s economy. The tourism and spending generate d from sport fishing helps to create an enhanced quality of life and is a subs tantial portion of the local economies in the State. In 2003, 692,405 resident fish ing licenses, 40,763 nonresident fishing licenses and 82,798 temporary fi shing 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 stat es 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 fisher ies (USFWS 2003). DCCOs feed opportunistically on a variety of fish species, depending on location and prey availability (USFWS 2003). In the Great Lakes, fish sp ecies 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, andOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

14 lake/northern chub are also important prey fish species for DCCOs (Wires et al. 2001). DCCO foraging can have a negativ e 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, includi ng the number of birds presen t, the time of year when predation occurs, prey species co mposition and abundance, and physical characteristics of the body of water such as depth, water clarity, vegetation or other prey refuges, and proximity to DC CO 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 physica l/abiotic (dredging, dam construction, hydropower operation, siltation, etc.). Such ac tivities may lead to changes in fish species density, diversity, and/or compositi on 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, includ ing: (1) size of th e regional and local DCCO population; (2) the number, size, a nd distribution of ponds/raceways; (3) the size, distribution, density, health, a nd species composition of fish populations in the ponds/raceways; (4) the number, si ze, and distribution of natural wetlands in the immediate area; (5) the size, di stribution, density, health, and species composition of natural fish populations in the surrounding landscape; (6) the number, size, and distribution of suitab le 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 even ly 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 elimin ate DCCO conflicts but rather shifts them to a new location (Aderman and H ill 1995; Mott et al. 1998; Reinhold and Sloan 1999; Tobin et al. 2002). It is not uncomm on for some aquaculture producers in a region to suffer little or no economic damage from DCCOs, while others experience exceptionally high lo sses (Glahn and Bruggers 1995, Glahn et al. 2000b, Glahn et al. 1999, Glahn et al. 2002).

There are 45 license holders engaged in co mmercial 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 gr oups of fish species. Largemouth bass and bluegill are the two most commonly stoc ked species. The three most common types of fish production are food fish (fis h raised for consumption by humans), fryOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 exceed ing 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 st ate 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, yello w 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 si ze 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 se parate aquaculture facilities in applying for USFWS MBPs to manage DCCO predation to their fish

stocks.

The magnitude of DCCO economic impact s on the aquaculture industry varies depending upon many different factors incl uding, 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 concer n 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 aquacultu re 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 applyi ng for USFWS migratory bird depredation permits by providing supporting docume ntation to the USFWS (WS Form 37 1 ). WS has not been involved with operati onal control of depredating DCCOs at Ohio aquaculture facilities and does not anti cipate 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 aci d 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 ar e in place, and WS’s reco mmendations 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 Envir onmental 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 ve getation on privately-owned land (USFWS 2003). In some parts of th e country conflicts with DCCOs include complaints that large colonies of DC COs 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 priv ate 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 opera tional assistance (implementing CDM techniques) for DCCO damage to pr ivate 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 (T horpe 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, biologi cal, and behavioral characteristics of each bird. DCCOs are a part icular hazard to aircraft because of their body size and mass, slow flight speeds, and thei r natural tendency to fly in flocks. Blockpoel (1976) states that birds with sl ow flight speeds can create increased hazards to aircraft because they spend rela tively 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 dama ge when the bird weighs 70 or more ounces (4 1/3 pounds) versus a 50% probabi lity of plane damage for a six ounce (1/3 pound) bird (Anonymous 1992). Adu lt DCCOs can weigh up to 96 ounces (six pounds; Terres 1980).

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

there were 16 DCCO strikes to civil ai rcraft 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 la nding lights. The ai rcraft was out of service for three days, and repairs cost $1.7 million (Wright 2004). In September 2004, at Chicago O’Hare International Ai rport (Chicago, IL) a MD-80 struck a

flock of DCCOs. Several birds struck an engine resuling in an engine fire andOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

17 failure, and engine debris falling on a suburban Chicago neighborhood. The aircraft made an emergency landing a nd repairs cost $186,000 (Wright 2004). It is estimated that only 20 - 25% of all bird strikes are re ported (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 milita ry airports in Ohio with the greatest

risks of aircraft collisions with wild life have ongoing programs to reduce these risks. One particular Ohio airport re ports 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 sa fety associated with DCCOs is low. To date there have been no reported DCCO st rikes to aircraft in Ohio. However, because DCCO roosting and feeding sites may sometimes be found in close proximity to airports and military airbas es 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 ar e popular tourist attr actions as well as important areas for wildlife. Ohio’s island region is locat ed 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). Touris m 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 US FWS 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 a nd is also closed to the public. Green

Island and WSI have active DCCO nesti ng colonies. Anot her island, Turning Point Island (TPI), is a manmade island a nd 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 rese rvoirs during the construction of the Erie Canal (Peter john 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 repo rtedly was much larger (Peterjohn and Price 1991). Both of these colonies were reported gone by 1880’s due to unregulated hunting and egg collecting (Pet erjohn 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 ex istence in Ohio during the early 1900’s

and while the 1950’s -1970’s showed incr eased DCCO breeding activity within the state, their reproductive success was hampered by the use of DDT and otherOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

18 harmful pesticides (Peterjohn 1989, Peterj ohn and Rice 1991). It wasn’t until the 1980’s that DCCOs were observed again in large numbers dur ing both spring and fall migration. According to Peterjohn (1989) 6 pairs of cormorants built nests on Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge propert y 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 bega n 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 recen t years. For example, on Green Island DCCO density increased from no nesti ng pairs in 2003 to 857 nesting pairs in 2005 (ODW Data 2005). The number of ne sting 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 a nd comprise a substantial proportion of the population on La ke Erie. Furthermore, th ese nest counts fail to account for the migratory birds that pass through the area during their southern migration in the fall. Similar to the incr ease of cormorants on Lake Erie, nesting populations in Lakes Huron and Ontario co ntinue to rise. Thus, the number of cormorants observed during the nesting period on Lake Erie may be minimal compared to the number of individua ls present during the spring and fall migration.

Figure 1-1. The Lake Erie Islands Michigan Ontario

OhioOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

19 .

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000Number of DCCO nests

1 9 9 1
1 9 9 3

1 9 9 5
1 9 9 7

1 9 9 9 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5

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 Vegetati on 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 ne st in the large inland great blue heron colony on Winous Point and Ottawa Shooting Clubs but they have never established a self-sustaining population. Th e Lake Erie islands area of Ohio is important habitat for several state-liste d endangered birds including snowy egrets and cattle egrets. The following is a brie f 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 br eeding sites along we stern Lake Erie by 1920 (Peterjohn 1989). At one time ther e 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 ear ly 1950’s. However, in 1989 a small colony of 6 nests was established in s outheastern Butler County and in 2005 a second small colony of 8 nests was reporte d near Cincinnatti just 25 miles south of the Butler County colony in Hamilt on 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 aOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

20 200 acre wetland complex situated on the headwaters of the East Fork of Mill Creek inside the city limits of Hamilt on, 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-h eron nests with hatchlings and 4 nests with incubating adults were destroyed on G ilmore Ponds by either predation or a strong storm system (Hays and Dykstra 2000).

Hamilton County, Ohio boasted 200 black-c rowned night-heron nesting pairs in the 1940’s and 1950’s one of the two larg est 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 Po int Island. West Sister Island is the largest colony, with 500 pairs, and has b een 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 ni ght-heron nesting pairs making it the second largest colony in th e state (ODW unpub. data 2005).

Great Blue Heron - Great blue heron numbers we re 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 af ter 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 gr eat blue heron colonies throughout 52 counties statewide (Peterjohn and Rice 1991). Breeding great blue herons are

most numerous in colonies near the we stern 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 th e other waders were nearly ex tirpated 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 with in 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 summ er residents and breeders in the state (Peterjohn 1989). West Sist er Island retains the majo rity of the breeding great egrets in Ohio, with 827 nests, but tw o other Ohio islands, Turning Point and Green, also are consistent hosts to nesting egrets (O DW unpub. data 2005). Ohio may have several inland great egret coloni es within the southwestern Lake Erie marshes but these are not well established (Peterjohn and Rice 1991).Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 presen ce (Peterjohn 1989). After the feather market put pressures on regional populations snowy egrets were no longer sighted in Ohio and it was not unt il 1924 that a sing le 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 fi rst two confirmed snowy egret nests in Ohio (Peterjohn 1989). Breeders still o ccupy 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 egre t 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 ne st 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-c rowned night-heron population on WSI experienced a steady decline from 19 91 through 1999, from 1,113 pairs to 387 pairs. This decline has been mainly at tributed to habitat succession on the island (Shieldcastle and Martin 1999). Howeve r, 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 fluctu ation within this period is within sampling error, so no clear population tre nd is indicated. Bl ack-crowned nightherons appear to be responding well to labor-intensive WSINWR efforts to restore vegetation structure preferre d by night-herons (Doug Brewer, ONWR, pers. comm.), and the population may be stabilizing in line with currently available nesting habitat. However, th e DCCO population is rapidly expanding to areas near or occupied by black-crown ed 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. Numb ers of nesting great egrets decreased over the period of 1993 to 1998 and have been stab le to slightlyOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

22 decreasing since that time. Double-cres ted cormorants also appear to be influencing a shift of the great egre t population from a relatively uniform distribution, to a pattern of higher concentration in ar eas closer to the blackcrowned night-herons and away from DC COs. Double-crested cormorants began consistently nesting on WSI in 1992 a nd the number of breeding pairs has increased to 3,813 breeding pairs in 2005.

TPI is a 5.3-acre remnant of a stone br eakwall 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-cro wned night-herons (Figure 1-4). The black-crowned night-heron nesting populat ion on TPI has fluctuated between 47 and 300 pairs with no definitive trend ove r time. Snowy egrets are occasional nesters on TPI while cattle egret nest s peaked in 1996 with 73 pairs and has declined steadily with no pairs obser ved in 2005 (ODW Data 2005). A nesting survey in 2005 revealed 47 black-crown ed night-heron nests and 41 great egret nests. The number of nesting DCCO s increased rapidly from 1999 to 2002, and has been relatively stable from 2003-2005 w ith an increase of only eight nesting pairs. (Figure 1-4). In 2005, there we re 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

1 9 91

1 9 92

1 9 93

1 99

4 199 5 1996

1 9 97

1 9 98

1 99

9 2 00

0 2001 2002 2 0 03 2 0 04 2 00

5

YearEstimated 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 Envir onmental Assessment

23 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

1 9 8 3

1 9 8 5

1 9 8 7

1 9 8 9

1 9 9

1
1 9 9 3

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 9 2 0 0

1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 5

YearNumber of nests Black-crowned night heron Great egret Cattle egret Snowy egret

Double-crested cormorant

Figure 1-4. Turning Point Island coloni al 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 Clin ton, 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 num ber 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 federa lly-threatened and State-endangered Lake

Erie watersnake whose numbers have been greatly reduced on the humaninhabited, surrounding islands. It is uncer tain whether Lake Erie watersnakes would avoid large groups of DCCOs per se . However, Lake Erie watersnakes do prefer ground cover for shelter from pr edators and for thermoregulation during the hot part of summer days. If larg e amounts of DCCO feces kill the vegetation then there is likely to be a negative imp act 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, northe rn bog violet, Sprengel’s sedge, tufted fescue sedge, harebell and rock elm. The St ate-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 th e DCCO colonies on Lake Erie are having an adverse effect on the fi sh populations of Lake Erie, especiallyOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 thir d most targeted species by anglers in Ohio waters of Lake Erie, with mo st 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 charac terize DCCO diets in Lake Erie and their predatory impacts on these important fish sp ecies, the potential exists for adverse effects at some scale given research results from other large lakes.

Data collected from Lake Ontario can provide insight rega rding fish population impacts that may also be occurring in Lake Erie. In Lake Ontario, where

cormorant diets have been monitored si nce 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 cormor ant diet. Similar observations have

been noted on Lake Huron where the co rmorant population is the largest on the Great Lakes (Dr. Mark Ridgway, Onta rio Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR), personal communication). Thus, th e 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 res earch on Lake Erie (Bur et al. 1999) indicates that walleye, yellow perch, a nd smallmouth bass were not common food items, but the study covered only one year. More recently, cormorant regurgitant data collected by the United States Ge ological Survey (USGS) suggests that consumption of walleye and yellow perch may be quite high, perhaps approaching 50% of the diet in some areas (Mik e Bur, Sandusky Biological Station USGS, unpublished data). At high population de nsities, DCCOs can have adverse impacts on populations of fish that re present a small pe rcentage of the cormorant’s overall diet, because the sma ll 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 dens ities, or those whos e habitat lies in proximity to dense DCCO colonies and in years with low recruitment and/or a poor year class.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 genera lly 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 pr edation 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., gizzar d shad) have not. Smallmouth bass are vulnerable to predation in Lake Erie becau se they spend a larg portion of the year in shallow water habitats. DCCO pred ation 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 basi n (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 Sist er Islands as nesting colonies. Nest counts only provide an estimate of the num ber of nesting pairs. Immature and non-nesting birds also exist in the rookerie s and comprise a subs tantial portion of the population on Lake Erie. Hebert a nd Morrison (2003) estimated the number of non-breeding birds in Lake Erie at n early 6,200 birds bringi ng the total number

of resident adult cormorants in Lake Erie to more th an 33,000 individuals with the majority (29,000) nesting or residing in the western basi n. 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 Ch icken 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 communicati on). 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 corm orant consumption on Lake Erie using the bioenergetics model developed by Madenjian and Gabrey (1995) and found that cormorants consumed approximate ly 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 migran t 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 addi tion to gizzard shad and freshwater drum, biologists estimated 63.1 tons of yellow perch and 56.8 tons of walleyeOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

26 were consumed by DCCOs in the wester n basin in 2000. Bur et al. (1999) found that the mean length of yellow perch c onsumed by cormorants was 5.8 inches, a length typical of two-year old yellow perch. Mean leng th of walleye consumed by cormorants was 10.5 inches, which generally corresponds to a yearling walleye. Based upon this information, a nd 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 approximate ly 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 th e 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, La ke Erie Committee, and any mortality from DCCO predation on these species is presumed to be a component of assumed natural mortality rates by the Co mmittee. 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 cormor ant 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 base d upon existing nesting colonies on West, Middle, and East Sister , Green, Hen, Middle, a nd TPI (Figure 1-5).

Despite the fact that no smallmouth bass were found in the diets of cormorants during the diet study, the pot ential exists for signif icant impacts on smallmouth bass (Lantry et al. 2002) for several reas ons. First, smallmouth bass show very localized distributions (i.e., they aren ’t prone to large scale migration or movements). Second, smallmouth bass ha bitat overlaps si gnificantly with predicted locations of intense cormorant fo raging (Figure 1-6) (Stapanian et al. 2002). In fact, more than 50% of predic ted smallmouth bass habitat in the west basin is within areas predicted to be subject to intense co rmorant predation. Because of low resolution reporting for fi shery harvest and effort data, we do not have the ability to overlay smallmouth cat ch rates with the higher resolution smallmouth bass habitat. However, we can use some of the tagging data toOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

27 partially validate the smallmouth bass habita t maps (Figure 1-7). In fact, 70 % of tagged smallmouth bass were tagged in ar eas identified as smallmouth habitat, and 80% were tagged in areas subject to intense cormorant predation. These figures indicate that there is signif icant overlap in cormorant foraging and smallmouth bass distribution, and the potenti al exists for cormorants to exert pressure on the smallmouth resource, part icularly 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 Envir onmental Assessment

28 Figure 1-6. Predicted cormorant foraging areas and smallmouth bass habitat in western Lake Erie. Maps are ba sed upon substrate distribution and depth information.

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

western Lake Erie. Points are act ual smallmouth bass tagging locations.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 La ke Erie, as compared to years prior to DCCO establishment (ODNR, DOW La ke Erie Status Report 2004).

Several studies have estimated DCCO c onsume 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 studie s 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 signifi cant adverse effect on game fish populations (Wires et. al 2001), at least one rece nt 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 increas e in DCCO on Oneida Lake, and that the nature of this new mortality signal sugge sted 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 betw een 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 On eida 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 mi d-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 effo rts. Higher walleye and yellow perch mortality rates for sub-adults in the 1990s have been attributed to DCCO predation (Rudstam et al. 2004) St udies conducted from 1995 to 2000 found walleye and yellow perch comprised a larg e percentage of DCCO diets (40% to 82 % by number). Rudstam et al. (2004) indicated that DCCOs could have anadditive 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) es timated that preda tion by DCCOs on sub-Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 br eeding colonies reached sufficient density that damage to the vegetation occurred a nd the site was no longer attractive to some species, the birds could move to new locations. Unfortunately, human population expansion and land use have lim ited the number of alternative sites

available to colonial wate rbirds and have placed so ciological and biological

constraints on the number of birds th at 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 habita t damage and loss that historically would not have been a problem. Sociological considerations also limit the number of

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

human habitation. Both of these constraint s 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 con centrations 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 reach ing their sociological carrying capacity. The challenge for managers is to mainta in healthy wildlife po pulations and their habitats within the constraints posed by human land uses and tolerance for

wildlife.

The number of DCCOs in Ohio has increas ed from no breeding pairs in 1991 to 5,164 pairs in 2005. When nonbreeding bird s are included, the Ohio population of DCCOs is conservatively estimated at approximately 13,000 birds (Section 4.1.1). Data and observations by the biol ogists 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 bird s 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 in land colonies both approximately 100

miles from Lake Erie in addition to 3 co lonies 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, th e 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. Cumula tive impacts of CDM in Ohio and all other DCCO damage management programs will be monitored by the USFWSOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

31 and ODW to ensure that the long-term su stainability of DCCO populations is not jeopardized at the state, re gional, or national level.

Because of damage to important habita t and decreasing numbers of co-nesting colonial waterbirds, the lead and co operating agencies have proposed the following management objectives:

Lake Erie Islands The pattern of DCCO col onization, rapid population e xpansion and associated adverse impacts on vegetation and risks to co-nesting species has been observed

on several Lake Erie isla nds including Middle Island and East Sister Island (Hebert et al. 2005). Therefore, efforts would be made to co nfine DCCO nesting colonies on the Ohio portion of the Lake Erie islands and associated near shore areas to two sites (WSI and TPI). Effort s 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 2000 a ) which calls for the refuge to maintain nesting habitat for approximately 1,000 pairs great blue herons, 800 pa irs 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 exceede d 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 app ear to be adversely affecting vegetation or co-nesting species on th e 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 lik elihood, the number of breeding pairs at the site would be at or slightly above this level.

• Green Island . Management Objective – no bree ding pairs. Green Island is used as a nesting site by great egrets and great bl ue herons. The State and federally-listed Lake Erie watersnake also uses the island. Additionally six State-listed plants including the ro ck elm are located on the island and in close proximity to nesting DCCO s. The rate of DCCO population increase over the last two years (0-857 pairs from 2003-2005) has been alarming, especially given the relati vely 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 co ncerned that the island will be more easily overrun and degraded by DCCOs th an the larger islands. If DCCOsOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 th e 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 col onies are 100 miles or more

from the Lake Erie island colonies. Data from states like MN (USDA 2005) indicate that some inland colonies app ear to exist without causing problems, but in other areas, the pattern of rapid popul ation increases and associated damage management concerns can be similar to thos e noted for the Lake Erie islands. At present, there is little evidence of conflic ts with DCCOs at these sites. However,

ODW is concerned that ra pid 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 fo r 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 occurr ing 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 la ke and important for recreation and walleye fishing. The colony occupies a small island about 25 yards off shore and cottonwood trees along the s horeline. The colony contained 80 DCCO breeding pairs in 2005. The stat e-owned land is also home to a pair of nesting bald eagles and a gr eat blue heron rookery. The site contains only a limited number of mature trees and there are concerns that that the growing DCCO colony coul d eliminate the vegetation upon which the herons depend. This ma nagement objective is the minimum number of

birds to be maintained at the isla nd. In all likeli hood, the number of breeding pairs at the site would be at or slightly above this level.

• Portage Lakes. Management Objective - si x breeding pairs. The Portage Lakes (478 ha) consist of a string of 10 lakes in northeast Ohio. DCCOs have established a small colony (six pa irs) on a 0.1 ha island in the West

Reservoir. ODW would like to main tain 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 main tained at the site. In all likelihood, the number of breeding pairs at the site would be at or slightly above this level.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

33 The lead and cooperating agencies propos e to reduce DCCO numbers to target levels over the next 1-3 years using a va riety of techniques. These methods may include, but are not limited to, hazing, ha bitat modification, exclusion fencing or grids, egg and nest removal, egg oiling, and lethal removal of adults. These

methods should reduce the number of bird s utilizing the site s and associated adverse impacts on public resources.

Several research projects and monitori ng 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 c ontrol under the PRDO would be made on a case by case

basis after consultation with the involv ed action agencies (USFWS, ODNR, and WS). These Federal and State entities have established an informal DCCO Coordination Group to exchange inform ation 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 Coor dination Group have agreed that they will strive to work cooperatively togeth er, rather than independently on DCCO management issues in Ohio. However each agency retains its own authority to make management decisions. The lead a nd 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 assistan ce via site visits or phone consultations. Issues are addressed through an inte grated program for conducting CDM activities, which includes the use of non-lethal met hods by aquaculturists. If DCCO damage is substantial and recurri ng, WS works with the property owner to obtain a USFWS Migratory Bird Depredation Permit under which the property owner or manager is authorized to le thally 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 particip ating 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 al so provided a copy of the Wildlife Hazard Management at Airports manual (C leary and Dolbeer, 2005).Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

34 Currently, two airports in Ohio employ full time WS biologists who provide technical and direct (opera tional) assistance with wild life issues su rrounding their particular airport environment. One of thes e 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 pyr otechnics. 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 a nd 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 collec ting permit from the USFWS. Rifles

without silencers were used to cu ll the DCCOs and observers accompanied shooters to record any disturbance to othe r nesting birds. On ly one great egret

was seen to flush off of the nest duri ng 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 we re 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 DC COs from Green Island was to test the feasibility of eliminating the colony, how quickly the DCCOs would attempt to reestablish the colony, and to determin e how quickly herbace ous 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 in adequate to meet the study objective.

Management of Damage to Property: WS provides information on how to minimize the impacts of DCCOs on priv ate property. Property owners who contact WS are provided with information on genera l species biology, damage identification, and techniques for exclusi on or harassment. WS personnel explain techniques and resources for handling DCCO damage. If DCCO damage to private property (i.e. trees) is subs tantial and recurring, WS works with the property owner to obtain a USFWS Mi gratory Bird Depredation Permit under which the property owner is au thorized to lethally cont rol a designated number of

DCCOs. WS receives less than six of these types of requests annually.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 re quested services or information from WS. It does not include requests received or re sponded 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 ne cessarily 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 indivi duals involved in a damage s ituation; tools and methods used or recommended to alleviate the conflict; and the resource that is in need of protection. Table 1-1 provi des a summary of DCCO T echnical Assistance projects completed by the Ohio WS program for Fi scal Year 1998 to 2003. Wildlife Services Direct Control and Technical Assistance program s are described in Chapter 3 of this EA.

Table 1-1. Number of indepe ndent incidents for DCCO t echnical 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 3,800Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 in corporated by reference into this EA. The FEIS may be obtained by contacting the US DA, APHIS, WS Opera tional 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 (F EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) (68 Federal Register 58022) on the manageme nt 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 involvemen t in the management of DCCO damage throughout the United States. WS comple ted 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 dow nloading 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 pub lic involvement. It addresses all aspects of refuge management, including wildlife, habitats, and public use, with specific objectives and goa ls, and identifies strategies to meet those goals. The WSINWR CCP establishes a goal to preserve an d protect the largest wading bird colony within the Great Lakes ecosystem in accordan ce with the national w ilderness designation. The WSINWR CCP also aims to provide habita t conditions favorable to colonial nesting wading birds without compromising the wild erness integrity and while maintaining nesting habitat for approximately 1,000 great blue herons, 800 gr eat 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 ENVI RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

1.8.1 Actions Analyzed

This EA evaluates the imp acts of alternatives for CDM by the USFWS, WS and the cooperating agencies to protect aqu aculture, property, natural resources, and human health and safety on private and pub lic land or facilities within the State wherever such management is requested or deemed necessary.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

37 1.8.2 Period for which this EA is Valid

If it is determined that an additional EI S is not needed, this EA would remain valid until WS, USFWS and ODW along w ith other appropriate agencies, determine that new needs for action, cha nged 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 criter ia 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 ac tion includes areas in and around public and private facilities and properties and at other site s 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; pond s; rivers; swamps; marshes; islands; communally-owned homeowner/property ow ner association pr operties; boat marinas; natural areas; wildlife refuges; wildlife management areas; and airports and surrounding areas. Cormorant da mage management may be conducted on properties held in private, local govern ment, 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 a nd cooperating agencies are sp ecifically intending to conduct work at Green, WSI, TPI and the inland colonies at Portage Lakes and Grand Lakes, St. Mary. Because DCCO br eeding sites are mixed species colonies where control measures may negatively aff ect other colonial nesting waterbirds, such as great egrets, great blue herons and black-crowned night-herons, mixed species colonies will be assessed very car efully 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 privat e and public property sites or facilities within Ohio with specific analysis of activities propos ed for Lake Erie and two inland colonies. Because the program’s goa ls and directives are to reduce damage and to provide services when requested and considered necessary, within the constraints of available funding and workfo rce, it is conceivable that additionalOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

38 CDM efforts could occur. Thus, with the exception of certain CDM projects

conducted under the PRDO this EA antic ipates this potential expansion and analyzes the impacts of such efforts as part of the program.

With the exception of large projects li ke those planned for TPI, WSI, Green

Island and the inland colonies discusse d 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 wh ere they will occur are unknown but could be anywhere in a defined geographic ar ea. 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 determ ining methods and strategies to use or

recommend for individual actions conduc ted 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 here in and adopted or established as part of the final agency decisions.

Projects like the ones proposed for TP I, WSI, Green Island and the inland

colonies are not undertaken without cons iderable planning an d 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 res ources. Any benefits to fi sh resources are incidental to achieving the primary objectives of pr otecting 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 th ese 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 pr ojects are unlikely to differ from those addressed in this EA. The analyses in th is EA are intended to apply to any action that may occur in any locale and at any time and by the le ad and cooperating agencies and their authorized agents with in 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 comp ly with NEPA and still be able to accomplish the agencies’ mission.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

39 1.8.5 Summary of Public Involvement

Issues related to cormorant damage ma nagement were initially identified by natural resource staff within WS, USFW S, and ODW. The USFWS DCCO FEIS (2003) was used to further define the issu es and identify preliminary alternatives. As part of this process, and as required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), APHIS-NEPA, and DOI implementi ng regulations, this document and the subsequent Decision will be made ava ilable 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 altern atives raised during public involvement periods will be used in determining whet her 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 responsibiliti es 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 ag ency 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 fo r 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 permitsOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 Coopera ting Agency in CDM in Ohio

USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services. The USDA is authorized by law to protect American agriculture and other resources fr om 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 Envir onmental Assessment

41 “ The Secretary of Agriculture may c onduct a program of wildlife services with respect to injurious animal sp ecies and take any action the Secretary considers necessary in conducting th e program. The Secretary shall administer the program in a manner cons istent with all of the wildlife services authorities in effect on the da y 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 “erad ication” and “suppression” of wildlife populations. In 1988, Congress strengthened the legislative directive and author ity 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 activi ties and to enter into agreements with States, local jurisdictions , individuals, and public and private agencies, organizations, and instituti ons 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-or iented program. Before any operational wildlife damage management is conducted, an Agreement for Control or similar document must be completed by WS a nd the landowner/administrator. WS cooperates with other Fede ral, State, tribal, and local government entities, educational institutions, private prop erty owners and managers, and with appropriate land and wildlife management ag encies, as requeste d, with the goal of effectively and efficiently resolving wild life 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 author ities in managing the National Wildlife Refuge System; conserving migratory bird s, endangered species, certain marine mammals, and nationally significant fisher ies; 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 im plementation and enforcement of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amende d and with developing recovery plans for listed species.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

42 Ohio Division of Wildlife (ODW) . As authorized by Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 1531.04, “the division of wildlife, at the di rection of the chief of the division, shall do all of the following: (A) Pla n, develop, and institute programs and policies based on the best available info rmation, including biological information derived from professionally accepted pr actices in wildlife and fisheries management, with the approval of the direct or of natural resour ces; (B) Have and take the general care, protect ion, and supervision of the wildlife in th e 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 in terested, 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 fo r the protection, pres ervation, propagation, and management of wild animals and sanc tuaries and refuges for the propagation of those wild animals, and adopt and ca rry into effect such measures as it considers necessary in the perfor mance of its duties” (ORC §1531.04).

WS is in the process of updating th e current MOU that defines USDA-APHISWS participation in a cooperative wildlif e damage management program in Ohio. The MOU establishes a cooperative relati onship between WS, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Ohio Department of Hea lth (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, coordina ting and implementing wildlife damage management policies to prevent or minimize damage caused by wild animal species (including threatened and endangere d 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 author izes 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 Wild life 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 wi thin 24 hours of collection. The permittee (WS) must also obtain all applicable Fe deral permits. State hunting and trapping regulations do not apply pr ovided that the permittee is in full compliance with Federal laws, rules, and regulations.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

43 Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex (USFWS, WSINWR) . The Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge was establishe d in 1961 under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Ac t "....for use as an invi olate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migrator y birds." The Refuge was also established to preserve a por tion 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 consis ts of three separate refuges (Ottawa, Cedar Point and West Sister Island) th at total approximately 9,000 acres. The focus of the Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge Complex is to protect, enhance, and restore habitat for threatened and endange red species; provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds; provide spring and fall migration habitat for waterfowl and other migratory birds; provi de habitat for native resident flora and fauna; and provide the public with wild life-dependent recr eation opportunities.

West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge (WSINWR) is the oldest member of the Ottawa Complex and the most isolat ed. The 80-acre isla nd became a national wildlife refuge by Executive Order 7937 on August 2, 1937, and in 1975 was designated as a Federal wilderness ar ea 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 is land is home to the largest blue heron and great egret rookery in the United St ates 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 isla nd is not accessi ble to the public.

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

Decisions

A number of other Federal la ws, 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 th e APHIS Implementing Regulations for compliance with the National Environm ental Policy Act (NEPA) (7 CFR 372.5(c)). APHIS Implementing Regulations also provide that all technicalOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

44 assistance furnished by WS is categor ically excluded (7 CFR 372.5(c)) (60 Federal Register 6,000, 6,003 (1995)). Ho wever, WS, the USFWS, and ODW have decided to prepare this EA to a ssist in planning CD M activities and to clearly communicate with the public the an alysis 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. W ith the exception for certain projects covered by the PRDO described in Sectio ns 1.8.2 and 1.8.4, this analysis covers current and future CDM actions by the US FWS, WS and the cooperating agencies wherever they might be requested or needed within the State of Ohio.

Endangered Species Act (ESA) . It is Federal polic y, under the ESA, that all Federal agencies shall seek to conserve threatened and endangered (T&E) species

and shall utilize their aut horities in furtherance of the purposes of the Act (Sec.2(c)). WS conducts Section 7 consu ltations 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 likel y to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species . . . Each agency

shall use the best scientific and comme rcial data available" (Sec.7 (a)(2)).

As part of the DCCO FEIS (USFWS 2003), the US FWS completed an intraService biological evaluation and info rmal 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 regulati ons 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 “wilderne ss areas.” The Act directs each agency administering designated wilderness to preserve the wilderness character of areas within the NWPS, and to administer th e NWPS for the use and enjoyment of the American people in a way that will leav e these areas unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness. Wilderness is defined in section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act: “A wilderness, in contra st 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 untrammele d 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 Fe deral land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improve ments or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preser ve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected pr imarily 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 suffici ent size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaire d condition; and (4) may also containOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

45 ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educa tional, scenic, or

historic value.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e) . The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act obligates all Federal ag encies 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 w ithin 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 thei r plans, grants would be awarded for implementation purposes. In order to be elig ible for Federal approval, each state's plan was required to define boundaries of th e coastal zone, to identify uses of the area to be regulated by the state, the mech anism (criteria, sta ndards or regulations) for controlling such uses, and broad guide lines for priorities of uses within the coastal zone. In addition, this law estab lished a system of criteria and standards for requiring that Federal actions be c onducted 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 de termined that the Pr eferred Alternative would be consistent with the State's Coastal Zone Management Program. The Ohio Department of Natural Resource s, 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 (MBT A) provides the USFWS regulatory authority to protect familie s of birds that contain sp ecies 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 migrat ory 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 ope rational assistance. In severe cases of migratory bird damage, WS provides r ecommendations to the USFWS for theOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

46 issuance of depredation permits to private entities or other agencies. The ultimate responsibility for issuing such pe rmits 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 meas urable negative effect on migratory bird populations, is directed to develop and implement, a MOU with the USFWS that shall prom ote the conservation of mi gratory 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 Repatria tion Act requires Federal agencies to notify the Secretary of the Department that manages the Federal lands upon the discovery of Native American cultural item s on Federal or tribal lands. Federal projects would discontinue work until a reasonable effort has been made to protect the items and the prope r authority has been notified.

National Historic Preservation Ac t (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 histor ic 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 th at 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 prope rty, wildlife habitat, or landscapes, or involve the sale , lease, or transf er of ownership of any property. In general, such methods also do not ha ve 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 hist oric 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 propan e 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 ma nager 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 tem porary effects on the audible nature ofOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

47 a site and can be ended at any time to rest ore 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 Orde r 12898 - "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Popul ations and Low-Income Populations." Executive Order 12898, promotes the fair treat ment of people of all races, income levels and cultures with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regul ations and policies. Environmental justice (EJ) is the pursuit of equal ju stice and protection und er the law for all environmental statutes and regulations without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic st atus. EJ is a priority within the USDA (WS) and DOI (USFWS). Executive Order 12898 re quires 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 Execu tive Order 12898 principally through its compliance with NEPA. All WS and US FWS activities are ev aluated 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 consid ered 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 disproportiona tely from environmental health and safety risks for many reasons. CD M as proposed in this EA would only involve legally available and approved da mage management methods in situations

or under circumstances where it is hi ghly unlikely that children would be adversely affected. Therefore, impl ementation of CDM would not increase

environmental health or safe ty risks to children.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 analy zed in detail in Chapter 4:

• Effects on DCCO populations

• Effects on other wildlif e (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 a nd techniques like egg oiling that affect reproduction, will adve rsely affect the viability of DCCO populations. NEPA requires that Federal ag encies consider the cumulative impacts of their proposed actions and other known im pacts on the affected environment. Cumulative impacts on the regional DCCO population are addre ssed in the USFWS FEIS and impacts on DCCO populations in Oh io 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 rece nt years in temperat e regions of North America, with the first appearance of th e 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 repor ted 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 manifest ation of WNV is fatal encephalitis in humans, horses, and birds. WNV has been detected in at leas t 138 species, including DCCOs (CDC 2003). Although birds infected with WNV can die or become ill, mostOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 di sease (often fatal) in a large percentage of infected birds (Audubon 2003, CD C 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). Cu rrent 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 inf ected with WNV, they likely are not a major reservoir for the virus in Ohio a nd, at present, the ODH does not test DCCOs

for WNV.

Exotic Newcastle Disease

Exotic Newcastle Disease (END) is a contag ious 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 in fected 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 ne sting pairs in 2004. This demonstrates the ability of DCCO populati ons 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 agenci es, 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 wa terbirds (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 si tes, or it could adversely affect other species through disturbance of nesting activities. The num ber of species nesting in each colony, their longevity and the stab ility of their populations are among the factors that are important to consider in assessing their overall contribution to

waterbird conservation efforts in Ohio a nd 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 coopera ting agencies would select damage management methods that are as target-selective as pr acticable and apply CDM methods in ways which reduce the like lihood of disturbing, capturing or killing non-target species. The lead and cooperating agencies have agreed to consult withOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

50 one another before undertaking DCCO control activities at any of the sites in Ohio

where DCCOs co-nest with ot her colonial waterbirds.

As part of the DCCO FEIS (USFWS 2003), the USFWS completed an Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation on the manage ment of DCCOs in the United States. Of the federally-listed bird species in Oh io, only the piping plover and bald eagle are of potential concern as both are known to o ccur 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 conservati on measures recommended by the USFWS for the protection of T&E species in the Oh io 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 wh ich pose a threat to aircraft or air passenger safety. WS frequently us es pyrotechnics in noise harassment programs to disperse or move birds aw ay from an area. There is some potential fire hazard to agricultura l 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 misu se of firearms. To ensure safe use and firearms awareness, WS empl oyees 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. Si milarly, 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 damageOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

51 would not be curtailed or reduced to the minimum levels possible and practical. The potential impacts of no t conducting such work could lead to increased incidence of injuries, illne ss, or loss of human lives. These potential adverse effects ar e 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 subjec tive in nature and depends on what an observer regards as beautiful. The huma n 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 viewi ng wildlife. Conversely, others may see the same species as a detriment to aesthe tic 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 pe rsonal attitudes, values, and opinions

about the aesthetic value of wild life and the best ways to reduce conflicts/problems between humans and wildlife.

Wildlife populations provide a range of so cial and economic benefits (Decker and Goff 1987). These include direct bene fits related to consumptive and nonconsumptive use (e.g., wildlife-related recr eation, observation, harvest), indirect

benefits derived from vicarious wild life related experiences (e.g., reading, television viewing), and the personal enjoyment of know ing 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 (viewi ng 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 phot ographs 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 (Deck er and Goff 1987). Bequest is providing for future generations and pure existen ce 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, res ource owners, or neighbori ng residents. Potential impacts on aesthetic values include potent ial reductions in op portunities to view and enjoy DCCOs at specific sites wher e CDM is conducted, the potential that CDM might adversely affect co-nesti ng colonial waterbirds and reduce opportunities to view and enjoy these speci es, the risk that if left unmanaged, expanding DCCO populations may result in the elimination of some co-nestingOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

52 colonial waterbirds from certain site s and adversely affect bird viewing opportunities, and impact of CDM activi ties on opportunities to enjoy certain fishery resources.

There is also the possibilit y that increased volumes of DCCO droppings in water and on vegetation could decrease the aesth etic value of recreational areas. The highly acidic feces of DCCOs is detrimen tal to the survival of trees and other plant life. Based upon survey informa tion provided by Wires et al. (2001), biologists in the Great Lakes region re ported 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 recr eational use. Boaters, swimmers and fisherman may all be affected by height ened levels of guano in the water.

2.1.5 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Co ncerns of Methods Used by WS

DCCO control methods, especially leth al 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 w ildlife is an important but very complex concept that can be interpreted in a va riety of ways. Schmidt (1989) indicated that vertebrate pest damage management fo r 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 " . . . high ly unpleasant emotional response usually associated with pain and distress.” Howe ver, suffering " . . . can occur without pain . . . ,” and “. . . pain can occur without suffering . . .” (AVMA 1987). Because suffering carries with it the impli cation of a time frame, a case could be made for " . . . little or no suffering wh ere death comes immediately . . .” (CDFG 1991), thus shooting with firearms w ould generally meet this criteria.

Defining pain as a component in humane ness of WS methods appears to be a greater challenge than that of suffering. Pain obviously occurs in animals. Altered physiology and behavior can be i ndicators of pain, and identifying the causes that elicit pain res ponses 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 comp lexity of defining suffering, since " . . .Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

53 neither medical [n]or veterinary curricula explicitly address su ffering 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 ma y 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 c onstraints 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 su rrounding area. CDM on and

around the islands could affect boaters with noise from firearms or pyrotechnics. Additionally, boat traffic could be tempor arily prohibited near the islands during shooting operations. USFWS, ODW, and WS could plan for operations to occur

at dates and times when recreational wate rcraft numbers are lowest on the lake.

It is also possible that increased vo lumes of DCCO droppi ngs in water and on vegetation could decrease th e aesthetic value of recr eational areas. The highly

acidic feces of DCCOs are detr imental to the survival of trees and other plant life. Based upon survey information provided by Wi res 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 lo ss 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 recreatio nal 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 is land vegetation. The potential aesthetic loss of colonial wate rbird species is discussed in section 2.1.4.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

54 2.2 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NO T 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 conduc ted 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 sh own in Section 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, and therefore will not result in significant nationwide or st atewide 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 situ ations 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 Wilder ness Alliance, et al. vs. Hugh Thompson, Forest Supervisor for the Dixie National Fo rest, et al., the Unit ed 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 wild life damage management (Civil No. 92-C0052A January 20, 1993). Thus, there is j udicial 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 Envir onmental Assessment

55 WSI was designated a migratory bird refuge in 1937 to protect the heron rookery located there, and designated as a Federa l wilderness in 1975 primarily because of its value as a heron and egret rooker y. The USFWS, National Wildlife RefugeSystem, draft Wilderness Stewardship Policy Part 610 establishes a Nondegradation Principle (USFWS 2000 b ). This concept specifies that, at the time of wilderness designation, the conditions prev ailing in an area establish a benchmark of that area’s wilderness values, a nd that the USFWS will not allow these conditions to be degraded. Securing “an enduring resource of wilderness” by maintaining and restoring, where appropr iate, a wilderness area’s biological integrity, diversity, environmental health, and wilderness charac ter 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 ma nagement goal to preserve and protect the largest wading bird colony within the Great La kes ecosystem in accordance with the national wilderness designation; and 2) a habitat management goal to provide

habitat conditions favora ble to colonial nesti ng wading birds without compromising the wilderne ss integrity (USFWS 2000 a ). 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 (Figur e 1-3). However, as discussed in Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.6.1, the increasing D CCO 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-c rowned 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 Is land, have led the lead and cooperating agencies to conclude that allowing current high or increasing numbers of DCCOs to persis t on the refuge without so me 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 bree ding 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 Prefe rred Alternative will not adversely impact the public’s recreational use of the site.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 huma n 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 br oad-scale statewide reductions in DCCO

numbers.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

57 

### CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES

3.0 INTRODUCTION

Alternatives were developed fo r 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 av ailable to the USFWS Migratory Bird Office (issuing permits and oversight of the PR DO), the USFWS WSI National Wilderness Area and Wildlife Refuge (DCCO management at WSI) and WS (involvement in CDM). Although the lead and cooperating agencies ha ve 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 alte rnative to be selected in accordance with the standard practices and legal requirement s pertaining to each agency’s decision making process.

Although the agencies make independent deci sions, the decisions made by one agency can restrict the actions taken by the othe r agencies. For example, if the USFWS Migratory Bird Office and WS selected an alternative that allo wed 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 othe r locations in the state. Alternatively, if the USFWS Migratory Bird Office and WSI chose an altern ative that allowed for non-lethal and lethal CDM techniques, but WS selected a non-lethal on ly 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-le thal 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 po ssible to obtain a MBP for CDM. Details on the relationships among agency decisi ons 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 agenci es 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-leth al CDM by Federal AgenciesOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

58 • Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies

• Alternative 4 – No CDM by Federal Agencies.

• Alternative 5 – Integrated CDM Progr am, Excluding Implementation of the PRDO (No Action). This is the “N o 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 propos e to implement an integrated CDM program in the State of Ohio, includi ng 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 mi nimizing harmful effects of damage management measures on humans, ta rget and non-target species, and the environment. Under this action, the lead and cooperating agencies could provide

technical assistance and di rect operational damage management, including nonlethal and lethal management methods by applying the WS Decision Model (Slate et al. 1992). When appropr iate, physical exclusion, ha bitat modification, nest destruction, or harassment w ould be recommended and uti lized 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, prefer ence 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 da mage 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 st rength of this altern ative 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 subs et 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-le thal techniques at specific sites.

Double-crested cormorant conflict manageme nt activities would be conducted in the State, when requested and funde d, on private or public property, after receiving permission from the landown er/land manager. All management activities would comply with appropriate Federal, State, and local laws. The USFWS would be responsible for ensuri ng compliance with the PRDO and MBPs and that the long-term sustainability of regional DCCO populations is notOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 select ed, 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 contri bute to damage to public resources. However, experience of the cooperating agen cies indicates that lethal techniques would also be needed to adequately re duce 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 accor dance with Ohio Division of Soil and Water (ODSW) requirements. Pers onnel from ODW and ONWR would be specifically trained in the design and mainte nance of these facil ities by the OSUE.

Carcasses from other CDM activities woul d be disposed of in landfills in

accordance with State a nd Federal regulations.

3.2.2 Alternative 2. Only Non-leth al CDM by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, th e Federal agencies would onl y use and permit non-lethal techniques for DCCO management. WS woul d 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 le thal techniques to resolve conflicts with DCCOs. Permits are not required from the U SFWS for non-lethal CDM techniques. Entities requesting CDM assistance for da mage concerns from the lead and cooperating agencies would only be provi ded 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, info rmation on lethal CDM methods could still be available through sources such as USDA Agricultural Extension Service offices, USFWS, ODW, unive rsities, or pest cont rol organizations.

The USFWS FEIS on DCCO management pe rmits 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 le thal methods to take up to 10% of

local DCCO in combination with non-letha l methods to try and meet management goals (Section 1.5.6.3) at all sites under it s 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 Envir onmental 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 w ould not conduct operational CDM, but all permitting including giving other agencies (ODW) permission to work on Federal

lands would be considered a form of t echnical assistance and would be allowed. Impacts of this alternative would have been similar to Alte rnative 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 interm ediate level of CDM not analyzed in any

of the other alternatives a nd also allowed the agencies to consider the impacts of having CDM conducted at some but not all s ites that were under consideration in Alternative 1. Analysis of the second de sign of this alternative also gave the agencies the opportunity to address concer ns of individuals opposed to CDM on a National Wildlife Refuge (See Section 2.2.3).

Under this alternative, the Federal agencies woul d not be able to conduct operational CDM in Ohio, and would only provide technical assistance. WS

would be able to assist with site ev aluations 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 w ould not be conducted on Federal lands (e.g., WSINWR). Cormorant conflict management for the protection of public resources on the remaining Lake Erie is lands 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 agenci es would not participate in CDM. WS

would not conduct the cons ultations or complete the forms required by the

USFWS to issue MBPs and the USFWS w ould not issue MBPs. Non-lethal CDM techniques could still be used withou t a permit. Depending upon the agency(ies)

to select this alternativ e, information on CDM methods would still be available through other sources such as USDA Agri cultural Extension Service offices, USFWS, ODW, universities, or pe st control organizations.

As with Alternative 2, the USFWS w ould 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 met hods 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 combinationOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

61 with non-lethal methods to try and meet management goals (Section 1.5.6.3) at all sites under its juri sdiction (i.e., not at WSINWR). No CDM would be conducted at WSINWR because Federal agency (U SFWS) 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 a lternative can be interpreted as the continuation of current CDM practices. N one 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 conduc ted under MBPs and WS could provide technical and operationa l assistance with CDM conducted under MBPs. Migratory Bird Permits could be requeste d and issued for the reduction of DCCO impacts on sensitive species or their ha bitats (e.g., vegetation), but, with the exception of research projects, would gene rally not be issued for birds taking freeswimming fish from public waters. MBPs would be issued for damage to private property and for alleviation of hu man health and safety issues.

The management goals set for this EA we re established to protect vegetation and co-nesting birds, so overall objectives fo r the Lake Erie islands and near shore

areas will be the same as described fo r Alternative 1. WSINWR could grant approval for CDM conducted under MBPs.

3.3 CDM STRATEGIES AND METHODOLOGIES

3.3.1 Integrated Wildlife Da mage Management (IWDM)

The most effective approach to resolve wild life damage is to integrate the use of several methods simultaneously or seque ntially. 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 practic es (e.g., fish husbandry), habitat modification (e.g., exclusion, vegetation management), anim al behavior modification (e.g., scaring, roost dispersal), and removal of indi vidual 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 wild life damage management methods.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

62 The implementation of damage manageme nt actions is the responsibility of the requester. In some cases, WS provi des 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 t echnical 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 supervisi on of CDM activities. Direct damage management assistance may be initiated when the problem cannot effectively be resolved through technical assistan ce alone. When conducted by WS direct damage management assistance is not conducted until Agreements for Control or other comparable documents are co mpleted 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 dama ge management personnel are often required to effectively reso lve 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 indi viduals or organiza tions with DCCO damage, lectures, courses, and demons trations are provided to aquaculture producers, homeowners, state and count y 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 prof essional meetings and conferences so that wildlife professionals and the pub lic are updated on recent developments in damage management technology, programs, laws and regulations, and agency policies.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

63 Receive Request for

Assistance

Assess Problem

Evaluate Wildlife Damage Control

Methods

Formulate Wildlife

Damage Control

Strate gy

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 fisher ies, wildlife and other natural resources, and CDM t echniques. The lead and cooperating agencies also cooperate and exchange information with universities and other agencies and entities conduc ting 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 ad ministrative) 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 a ssess 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 effort s 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 an d property owner practices consist primarily of non-lethal preventative methods such as cultural methods and habitatOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 dama ges. 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 produci ng devices (to scare birds),

• Visual repellents and scari ng 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 r oosts or from breeding/nesting sites utilizing propane exploders, pyrot echnics, distress calls/sound producing devices, visual repellants or scarecr ows may help to limit or reduce DCCO activity in the area where damage is occurring.

Lasers are a non-lethal technique r ecently evaluated by USDA’s National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) (Blackwell et al. 2002, Glahn et al. 2000a). The low-powered laser has prove n 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 physic al 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 (Wir es 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 destr oying the embryo in the egg prior to hatching; physically breakin g eggs; or directly removing eggs from a nest and destroying them.

Egg oiling is a method for suppressing re production of birds by spraying a small quantity of food grade vegetable/co rn oil on eggs in nests. This method has an advantage over egg dest ruction in that birds generallyOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

65 continue incubating the eggs and do not renest. The EPA has ruled that the use of corn oil for this purpos e is exempt from registration requirements under the Federal Insec ticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide

Act.

Live traps/nets are various types of traps desi gned to capture birds alive. Cormorants captured in live traps, nets, or by hand would be humanely

euthanized.

Shooting is an effective dispersal tec hnique and a way to reduce bird numbers. Shooting with rifles or sh otguns 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 th e only practical method of removing DCCOs without spooking them or having a negative eff ect on other birds that are protected

under Federal law. This is the situat ion at Lake Erie. CDM programs in other parts of the United States and Ca nada have been experimenting with other types of firearms and ammun ition as alternatives for minimizing impacts on non-target species near DCCO s. As data become available, new shooting strategies will be incor porated as practical and appropriate (e.g., legal for use in Ohio). Birds ar e 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 cer vical vertebrae from the skull. The AVMA approves this technique as a humane method of euthanasia and

states that cervical dislocation wh en properly executed is a humane technique for euthanasia of poultry a nd 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 (CO 2 ) 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 CO 2 gas is released. The birds quickly die after inhaling the gas. CO 2 gas is a byproduct of anim al respiration, is common in the atmosphere, and is required by plan ts for photosynthesis. It is used to carbonate beverages for human co nsumption and is also the gas released by dry ice. The use of CO 2 by WS for euthanasia purposes isOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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, consider ing 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 co mposting 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 Extensi on Agency. Staff from ODW and the ONWR would be appropriately tr ained 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 com post 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 BU T 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 fr om further analysis because some DCCO damage problems can be resolved eff ectively 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 le thal 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 dama ge. 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 indicate d that the concept has many drawbacks (USDA 1997, Revised):Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 w ould 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 requ ests to assess and confirm damage, and certain types of damage could not be conclusively verified.

• Compensation would give little incen tive 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 fo r reducing threats to human health and safety or damage to public resources.

3.4.3 Non-lethal Methods Implem ented Before Lethal Methods

This alternative is similar to Alternat ive 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 pr ovided in the context of a modified IWDM approach. The Preferred Alternat ive recognizes non-lethal methods as an important dimension of IWDM, gives them first consideration in the formulation of each management strategy, and recomme nds or uses them when practical before recommending or using lethal met hods. The important distinction between

the Non-lethal-Methods-First Alternative and the Proposed Alternative is that the former alternative would require that al l non-lethal methods be used before any

lethal methods are recommended or used.

While the humaneness of the non-leth al management methods under this alternative would be comparable to the Proposed Program Alternative, the extra harassment caused by the required use of me thods 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 bi rds would be expected to congregate at sites where non-lethal management effo rts 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 measur es were implemented, DCCO damage would be expected to drop relative to th e reduction in loca lized populations of birds causing damage.

Since in many situations this alternat ive 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 Envir onmental Assessment

68 the Non-lethal-Methods -First Alternative is removed fr om further discussion in

this document.

3.5 STANDARD OPERATING PROC EDURES (SOPs) FOR CDM

The current WS program, nationwide and in Ohi o, 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 th e DCCO FEIS (USFWS 2003).

3.5.1 Standard Operating Procedures

Some key SOPs pertinent to the Preferre d Alternative and the other alternatives that will be incorporated into CDM activities, depending upon the alternative selected, include:

• A Decision Model thought process li ke the WS Decision Model (USDA 1997, Revised) will be used to id entify effective wildlife damage management strategies and their effects.

• Reasonable and prudent measures or alte rnatives to avoid averse affects on threatened and endangered species are identified through consultation with the USFWS and implemented to av oid effects to threatened and endangered species.

• Research is being conducted to impr ove CDM methods and strategies so as to increase selectivity for target species, to de velop 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 dete rmined to be low according to a formal risk assessment (USDA 1997 Re vised, 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 aut hority 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 Envir onmental Assessment

69 Effects on Target Species Populations

• CDM activities are directed at re solving DCCO damage problems by taking action against individual proble m 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 populati ons 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 confli cts, 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 c onducting control activ ities 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 pr oject (50 CFR 21.48(d)(9)). The

USFWS will review this advanced notification to determine if the proposed project would threaten the l ong-term sustainability of regional DCCO populations.

• When shooting nesting DCCOs, WS and ODW will attempt to remove both breeding adults from a specific ne st 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 star ve or be preyed upon at the nest.

• If determined practical and effectiv e, 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 P opulations Includ ing 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 determin e 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 su ch a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to non-target species (i.e. vi siting sites during early morning and

late afternoon hours to avoid thermal stress to eggs/nestlings, conductingOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

70 actions as early as possible in th e nesting season to reduce nestling abandonment, etc.).

• Egg oiling will only be used for gr ound and shrub nesting DCCOs to

minimize disturbances to co-nesti ng colonial waterbird species.

• Where appropriate, egg oiling activities will take place during night hours to minimize potential impacts to co-nes ting 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 co lonies, WS will use the smallest

caliber firearm that is effective a nd 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 caus e the least amount of dist urbances to co-nesting colonial waterbird species.

• WS and ODW have consulted with th e USFWS regarding potential effects

of control methods on threatened an d endangered species, and will abide by reasonable and prudent alternativ es 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 ba ld eagle and piping plover.

• Prior to any control action, WS will c onsult with the ODW to ensure that no actions taken under this plan will advers ely 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) – “Prioritizati on of waterbird colony sites for

conservation in the U.S. Great Lake s region” prior to conducting control activities at DCCO breeding coloni es. If WS and ODW propose to conduct control activities at any of th e sites identified in this report as priority sites for waterbird conser vation, 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 th e FEIS, PRDO (50 CFR 21.48) and USFWS migratory bird permits i ssued 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 migrat ory bird involved in such take, if any. The USFWS will review this information to ensure CDM activities will not adversely impact non-ta rget migratory bird species.

• In certain circumstances when c onducting control activ ities in DCCO breeding colonies, WS and ODW are required to notify the USFWS priorOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

71 to conducting control activities includ ing when other (non-target) bird species are present (50 CFR 21.48(d)(9)).

• Compost areas on Green Island and WS I 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 Envir onmental Assessment

72 

### CHAPTER 4: ENVIRO NMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.0 INTRODUCTION

Chapter 4 provides information needed for making informed decisions when selecting among the alternatives for meeting the pur pose and need for action. This chapter analyzes the environmental consequences of each alternative in re lation 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 select ed, impacts are analyzed for

each alternative as if all of the lead and cooperating agen cies had selected the same

alternative. This allows fo r analysis of the full range of potential impacts from the proposed alternatives while maintaining clar ity and avoiding undue repetition. Impacts of the lead and cooperating agen cies selecting differing altern atives will be intermediate to those presented in this chapter.

The following resource values within the St ate are not expected to be significantly impacted by any of the alternatives anal yzed: 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 discusse d in relationship to each of the alternatives analyzed, with emphasis on pot ential cumulative effects from methods employed, and including summary analyses of po tential 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 und er the National Historic Preservation Act: The actions of the lead and cooperating ag encies are not under takings 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 ge nerally 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 eith er quantitatively or qualitatively.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 wh en 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 pr operty, and risks to human health and safety and DCCO take for research project s 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. Th e only difference is that take for the protection of public resources would o ccur under the authority and procedures established for the PRDO (USFWS 2003). However, at a future time, this

alternative would also allo w for the lead and cooperating agencies to conduct actions for the protection of fishery res ources 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 pr ojects 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, wher ein projects for the protection of public fishery resources would be extremely limited. However, maximum annual take

would remain the same for both Alternat ives 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 pop ulation 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 nu mber 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 a nd public comment solicited if the lead and cooperating agencies propose to conduc t 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 viabi lity of the state, regional or national DCCO population.

Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, the Federal agenci es 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 c onsultations needed before USFWS could issue depredation permits, and the US FWS would not issue MBPs. LocalOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

74 governments, landowners and their designated agents (e.g., private damage management businesses) could onl y use non-lethal CDM techniques.

Under the PRDO the State does have the au thority 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 (USF WS 2003). ODW has indicated that it would use this authority on non-Federa l lands. The USFWS would not permit lethal CDM techniques on WSINWR but non- lethal methods could be used to try and meet management objectives defi ned in Section 1.5.6.3. A maximum of 270 DCCOs could be taken by OD W under this alternative (Table 4-1). This is approximately 2% of Ohio’s conserva tively 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 reas ons noted for Alternatives 5, the lead and cooperating agencies conclude that th is alternative would not jeopardize the long-term sustainability of DCCO populations at the st ate, 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 a ny operational CDM ac tivities and would be limited to providing advice on CDM. WS would still be able to complete the

WS Form 37 consultations needed be fore USFWS could issue depredation permits. Issuing permits is a kind of t echnical 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 designa ted agent, ODW, local government, or private wildlife damage management co mpanies because the Federal agencies would be prohibited from providing operational assistance with CDM.

The USFWS could also grant approval fo r 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 woul d occur under Alternatives 1 and 5. A maximum of 2,686 or approximately 21% of Ohio’s cons ervatively estimated summer DCCO population (see analysis of impacts for Alte rnative 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 und er the no action and proposed alternatives but greater than that for A lternatives 2 and 4. For reasons noted for Alternatives 1 and 5, the lead and cooperating agencies co nclude that this alternative would not jeopardize the long-term sustainability of DCCO populations at the state, regional,

or national level.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 be fore 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 popul ations at the state, regional, or

national level.

Alternative 5 - Integrated CDM Program , Excluding Implementation of the PRDO (No Action)

DCCOs range throughout North America, fr om the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast (USFWS 2003). During the last 20 years, the DCCO population has expanded to an estimated 372,000 nesti ng pairs; with the U.S. population (breeding and non-breeding bird s) conservatively estimated to be greater than 1 million birds (Tyson et al. 1999). The US FWS estimates the current continental population at approximately 2 million bird s (USFWS 2003). Tyson et al. (1999) found that the DCCO population increas ed 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). Th e number of breeding pairs of DCCOs in the Atlantic and Interior populati on 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 es timated 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, Tys on et al. 1999). Most D CCOs are found in Ohio during the spring, summer and fall mont hs when the breeding population and migrating birds are present. The cu rrent 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 st ate prior to that time, but the use of organochlorine pesticides (e.g., DDT) cause d marked declines in the nationwideOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

76 DCCO population and had temporarily resu lted 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 incr eased 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 breed ing 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; Port age Lakes – 6 pairs; ODW 2005). This population estimate does not include sub-a dults 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). A ssuming 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 a nd 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 c ounted 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 waterb irds). Permits would probably not be issued for the protection of free-swimmi ng fish populations, but permits could be issued for CDM at the specific sites wh ere hatchery fish are being released (USFWS 2003). All cormorant manageme nt 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 manage ment 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 prope rty 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 WSIN WR and a 44 to 52% reduction in the statewide population of DCCO s (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 manyOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

77 birds will disperse from the damage mana gement site to other breeding colonies throughout the region (USFWS 2003). Add itionally, 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 coul d be lethally removed annually under each alternative for the protection of vegeta tion and wildlife in the public domain. DCCO population numbers for each site on ly 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. 2 4 Annual

Maximum

Take

Alt. 3 Annual

Maximum

Take

Alt. 4 4 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 80 2 80 2 80 2 80 2 80 2

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 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Migrants – All Sites 3

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 manage ment 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 ha rassment of migrating

birds.

4. The state is allowed to take up to 10% of the br eeding 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 th e 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 a quaculture and private property and forOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

78 reduction in risks to human health and safe ty at airports. The highest number of DCCOs requested under scientif ic collecting permits in recent years was a request for 500 birds in 2005 for projects relati ng to DCCO damage at WSI and Green Island. (Table 4-2).

Table 4-2. Number of DCCOs that coul d 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

PRDO 1 5,752 – 6,752 270 1,986 270

Scientific Collecting Permits 2 300 0 500 0 300

MBPs – Damage to Property and Aquaculture, Risks

to Health and Safety 3 300 0 300 0 300

MBPs – Damage to

Public Resources 1 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 scient ific 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 annua l 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 Stat e. This would be about 51% of the current estimated summer DCCO populat ion in Ohio of 13,000 birds and a smaller but unknown percentage of all D CCOs (residents and mi grants) occurring

within the State. The FEIS concluded th at 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 impactsOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

79 beyond the maximum levels analyzed in th is 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 inst ances 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 not e that DCCOs and DCCO damage are not evenly divided among all states. Some st ates 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 a nd higher than averag e 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 nu mber 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 unde r the MBTA. Therefore, DCCOs are taken in accordance with applicable Federa l laws and regulations authorizing take of migratory birds and their eggs or young, including the USFWS Public Resource Depredation Order (PR DO) (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 leve ls as needed to assure cumulative take does not adversely affect the long-term sustai nability of populations (USFWS 2003, Appendix G). WS and ODW will report all CDM activities and the USFWS will

ensure that cumulative take does not ex ceed that which can be sustained by the population.

Based upon the above information, the l ead and cooperating agencies have determined that the impacts to the Ohio DCCO population from this alternative would not jeopardize the long-term sustainabi lity 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 Envir onmental Assessment

80 4.1.2 Effects on Other Fish and Wildlif e 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 Threaten ed 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. Unde r 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. Ho wever, if at a future time, data become available indicating that a new management objective would be beneficial for the protection of public fishery resources, th at type of work could be conducted under this alternative. The Federal agencies would not conduct or a pprove projects for the protection of public fishery resources that would lead to increases in take, decreases in population management goa ls, or other adverse environmental impacts beyond what is already analyzed in this EA without supplementing the EA (Section 1.8.4). All SOPs in Chapte r 3 and other provisions for protecting non-target species, including any reco mmendations and requirements resulting from Section 7 consultation with the USFWS and consultation with ODW, will be

identical to Alternative 5. Therefore, the lead and c ooperating agencies conclude

that this alternative woul d not have a cumulative adverse impact on non-target species.

Beneficial Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threaten ed and Endangered Species. The PRDO was established to allow for CDM activities specifically designed to benefit non-target species including co-nes ting birds, vegetation and fisheries. CDM programs can benefit those wildlife species that are adversely impacted by DCCO predation, DCCO compe tition for habitat, and/or the impact of large DCCO colonies on vegeta tion (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, a nd rare plant communities, particularly those occurring on Green Island, from adverse impacts associated with high densities of DCCOs. Lead and cooperat ing agency experience with non-lethal and lethal CDM techniques indicates th at an integrated CDM approach that allows access to all lega l CDM methods has the great est likelihood of rapidly achieving DCCO management objec tives for the Ohio colonies.

Alternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDM by Federal Agencies

Adverse Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threaten ed 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 w ould also not issue MBPs for DCCOOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 c onsent of the land owner/manager, in order to protect p ublic resources (USFWS 2003). ODW has

indicated that it would use this auth ority on non-Federal lands. The USFWS would not permit lethal CD M techniques on WSINWR.

The primary risk to non-targe t species from the use of non- lethal techniques is the risk of disturbing co-nesting species duri ng harassment, nest destruction and other

non-lethal CDM activities as described for the no-action al ternative. 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 spec ies. 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 magnit ude of impact on non-target species.

Without even the minor use of lethal tec hniques to reduce hab ituation to nonlethal CDM methods (DCCOs getting used to and not responding to frightening devices), this alternative will likely re quire 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 achie ve 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 likel y to take longer for ODW to achieve management objectives than under Alternatives 1 and 5.

The lead and cooperating agencies will co ntinue to utilize SOPs for harassment activities as discussed in Chapter 3 an d for Alternative 5 in order to reduce potential impacts on listed (F ederal and State) and non-lis ted species. Therefore,

risks associated with ODW’s use of lethal CDM alternatives unde r this alternative would be similar to Alternative 5, bu t overall impact would be lower than

Alternative 5 because less lethal CDM would be conducted.

Beneficial Impacts on Non-target Species Incl uding 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 con cerned that they may not be able to achieve CDM objectives with the exclusive use of non-leth al techniques. This is especially true for the Lake Erie isla nd colonies where the management objective is to rapidly reduce the local D CCO population from 5,070 to 2,950 breeding pairs.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

82 Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance by Federal Agencies

Adverse Impacts on Non-target Species Including Threaten ed and Endangered Species from CDM . Under this alternative, th e lead and cooperating agencies would not conduct operational CDM. WS woul d 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 popul ation. Therefore, it would still be possible for ODW to conduct CDM under th e 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 c ould 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 alte rnative is likely to have a lower level of risk to non-target species than the alr eady low level discussed for Alternative 5.

Beneficial Impacts on Non-target Species Incl uding Threatened and Endangered Species . Projects to protect wild life and plants on non-Federal lands would likely be identical to Alternat ives 1 and 5. However, CDM efforts at these sites may be complicated by the l ack 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 popula tion for reinvasion of the non-Federal

sites.

In the absence of CDM, DC CO 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 tr ees 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 li kely 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 Threaten ed and Endangered Species from CDM. Under this alternative, th e Federal agencies would not participate in CDM. The USFWS woul d not issue MBPs and would not grant approval for PRDO projects proposing to ta ke more than 10% of a local DCCO population. As with Altern ative 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 or der to protect public resources (USFWS 2003). ODW has indicated that it would use this auth ority on non-Federal lands. The USFWS would not permit lethal CDM techniques on WSINWR. The state, local governments, landowners and their de signated agents (e.g., private damageOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

83 management businesses) could use no n-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-le thal CDM would not be conducted on Federal lands (e.g., at WSINWR). Therefor e, 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 Incl uding Threatened and Endangered Species . Management objectives for ac tivities to protect wildlife and vegetation on non-Federal lands woul d be the same as all the other alternatives. The ability to achieve th e 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 furt her complicated by the lack of CDM on WSINWR (as with Alternative 3). Conve rsely, like Alternativ e 3, CDM activities

on non-Federal lands and the lack of CD M on WSINWR is likely to exacerbate adverse impacts of DCCOs on vegetation a nd other species of wildlife using the

site. Overall benefits to non-target species are lowe st for this alternative.

Alternative 5 - Integrated CDM Program , Excluding Implementation of the PRDO (No Action)

Adverse Impacts on Non-target Species (N ot Threatened or Endangered Species)

. Direct impacts on non-target species occu r 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 activ ities in Ohio is disturbance of conesting colonial waterbirds. If adults are startled from th e nest for too long or at the wrong time of day, there is potential fo r increased mortality rates for eggs and chicks. However, in most instances, mi gratory birds and othe r affected non-target wildlife may temporarily leave the immedi ate vicinity of scaring, but usually

return after conclusion of the action. Moor e et al. (2005) evaluated the impact of DCCO removal on co-nesting great blue her ons 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 interv al prior to DCCO removal, the intervals between DCCO re moval efforts and the period after DCCO removal was completed. Nest attendan ce 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 differen ce 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 colle cting permit showed little effect on the island’s breeding population. Rifles with and wit hout silencers were used to remove a

total of 363 double-crested cormorants fr om 28 test plots (25 meter radius) on WSI in May, 2005. Observers accompanied shooters to record any possibleOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 ca ught in live-traps and nets would be released. While every precaution is take n 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 populati ons 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 esta blished 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 a lternative 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-nes ting birds, rare plant communities). Programs to control DCCO damage can re duce negative competition for resources with co-nesting colonial waterbirds and can decrease adverse impacts on vegetation which benefits th e vegetation and the wildlife that uses the vegetation (Sections 1.5.1, 1.5.6.1) . Under this alternative, ac tions to protect free-swimming fish populations would be limited and th e impact on free-swimming fish would likely be minimal. However, since the management objectives for the proposed project were established fo r 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 w hy the lead and cooperating agencies believe the proposed level of CDM would be nefit wildlife and ve getation in Ohio. Experience by the lead and cooperating ag encies indicates that an integrated CDM program as would be permitted unde r this alternative would have the greatest potential to ach ieve management goals.

Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts. Special efforts are made to avoid jeopardizing T&E species through bi ological evaluations of the potential risks and the establishment of special restrictions or mitigation measures to minimize or negate any risks. Mitigati on measures to avoid adverse T&E effects are described in Chapter 3.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 sp ecies in the national consultation that could potentially be impacted by CDM actions in Ohio are the piping plover (migrant only), bald eagle, an d Lake Erie wate rsnake (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 CD M. The following is a list of

conservation measures to reduce risk s of adverse impacts on bald eagles and piping plovers from the national cons ultation 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 plove r nests or colonies and migrating plovers, and more than 750 feet fr om active bald eagle nests.

(ii) Other control activities such as egg oiling, cervical dislocation, CO 2 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 pl overs, 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 contro l activities that may affect areas designated as piping plover critical habitat in the Great Lakes Region are to make contact with the appropria te 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 pl overs 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 USFW S 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 havedetermined that CDM has the potential to affect the black-crowned nightheron, snowy egret, cattle egret, ba ld eagle, Lake Erie watersnakeOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 actio n, the lead and cooperating agencies

will consult with the ODW to ensure th at 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 St ate-listed bird species by virtue of protecting their habitat and is also lik ely 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 w ith the mitigation measures described here and in Chapter 3, this alternat ive will not adversely impact Statelisted species.

4.1.3 Effects on Human Health and Safety

4.1.3.1 Effects on Human Health and Safe ty from CDM Methods

Alternative 1 - Integrated CDM Program, Includi ng Implementation of the PRDO (Preferred Alternative)

The CDM methods to be used are identic al 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, CD M 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 fi rearms 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 experi ence of lead and cooperating agency personnel conducting CDM, risks to human health and safety are anticipated to be very low.

The State, local governments, landowne rs and their designated agents (e.g., private damage management businesses) co uld still use pyrotechnics or firearms in CDM programs and this activity would lik ely occur to a greater extent in the

absence of access to lethal CDM techniques. Hazards to humans and property could be greater under th is alternative if personn el conducting CDM activities have less training and experience than personnel with the lead and cooperating agencies. However, the lead and cooperat ing agencies would be able to provide

advice and information on the safe and proper use of these methods so risksOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

87 should be less than Alternative 4. Overal l 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 e ngage in direct operational use of any CDM methods. Risks to human safety from Federal use of firearms and pyrotechnics would hypothetically be lo wer than the no acti on 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 St ate would still be able to use lethal CDM techniques for the protection of pub lic 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, landowne rs and their designated agents (e.g., private damage management businesses) co uld still use pyrotechnics or firearms in CDM programs. Use of these methods by individuals with less training than the lead and cooperating agen cies 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 greate r under this altern ative if personnel conducting CDM activities have less training and experience than personnel with the lead and cooperating agencies. Howeve r, the lead and cooperating agencies would be able to provide advice and in formation 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 agenci es 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 fo r the protection of public resources. Risks associated with lethal CDM by the OD W will be similar to or slightly lower

than Alternative 5 be cause less lethal CDM will be conducted.

The State, local governments, landowne rs and their designated agents (e.g., private damage management businesses) co uld still use pyrotechnics or firearms in CDM programs and this activity would lik ely 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 pe rsonnel conducting CDM activities have less training and experience than personnel with the lead and cooperating agencies. The lead and cooperating agencies woul d not be able to provide advice and information on the safe and proper use of these methods so risks may be greaterOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 c oncerns include shooting with firearms and harassment with pyrotechnics. Firear ms and pyrotechnics would only be used by lead and cooperating agency personnel w ho are trained and e xperienced in the safe and legal use of firearms. WS pe rsonnel regularly receive refresher safety training to keep them aware of safety concerns and the other agencies have similar training requirements. There ha ve 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, policie s and directives, risks to human safety were low (USDA 1997, Revised, Appendix P). Ther efore, no adverse effects on human safety from use of these methods are e xpected. Agents acting under the authority of the lead and cooperating ag encies will be informed a nd 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 coloni es 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 boa t circling the island during the entire shooting period. The USFWS also broadcas t 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 pyrotec hnics or firearms in non-lethal CDM programs without permits from the USFW S. Hazards to humans and property could be greater under th is alternative if personn el conducting CDM activities have less training and experience than personnel with the lead and cooperating agencies. However, under this altern ative, personnel from the lead and cooperating agencies would be able to provi de 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 ra ther than doing it themselves which may also reduce risks associated with improper use of these methods. Overall

risks to human health and sa fety are likely to be low.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

89 4.1.3.2 Effects on Human Health an d 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 al ternative. Activities to address risks to human health and safety would not differ between the two alternatives.

Alternative 2 – Only Non-leth al CDM by Federal Agencies

Under this alternativ e, the lead and cooperating agen cies 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 hea lth and safety from DCCOs. The success

or failure of the use of non-lethal met hods can be quite variable. In some situations the implementati on of non-lethal controls such as harassment could actually increase the risk of human hea lth problems at other sites by causing the birds to move to other sites not previous ly affected. However, if the lead and cooperating agencies are pr oviding direct operational assistance in relocating DCCOs, coordination with lo cal authorities will be c onducted to assure they do

not re-establish in other undesi rable locations. This altern ative is unlikely to be as effective in reducing DCCO risks to huma n health and safety because there are some situations, like those at airpor ts, where non-lethal techniques may not provide a sufficiently rapid or controlled re sponse 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 al ternative than Alternative 5.

Alternative 3 – Only Technical As sistance by Federal Agencies

Under this alternativ e, the lead and cooperating agen cies 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 assist ance but no direct oper ational 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 nu mbers are maintained or increased, or implement recommendations from the lead and cooperating agencies for nonlethal and lethal control methods. De pending 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 conducte d by the lead and cooperating agencies. This potential risk would be less likely under this alte rnative than Alternative 4 when people requesting assistance rece ive and accept technical assistance

recommendations.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

90 In some situations the implementation of non-lethal controls such as harassment could actually increase the ri sk of human health problems at other sites by causing the birds to move to other sites not previ ously affected. This potential risk would be less likely under this a lternative than A lternative 4 when people requesting assistance receive and accept technical assi stance 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 alternativ e, the lead and cooperating agen cies would not participate in CDM. As discussed in Chapter 3, the US FWS would not be able to issue MBPs for the use of lethal techniques to addre ss 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. Re source owners and managers would be responsible for developing and implemen ting their own CDM program. Efforts by these individuals to reduce or prevent conflicts could result in less experienced persons implementing control methods, ther efore leading to a lesser likelihood of reducing DCCO hazards, than under the Preferred Alternative. As discussed for Alternative 2, there may be some situati ons where non-lethal techniques are not adequate to reduce the risk to human hea lth and safety. In other situations the implementation of non-lethal controls such as harassment could actually increase the risk of human health problems at othe r sites by causing the birds to move to sites not previously affected. Under th is alternative, human health problems

could increase if affected individuals we re 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 inju ry, illness, and loss of human life resulting from damage and conflicts a ssociated 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 accu mulations 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 reduci ng 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 useOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

91 lethal methods to remove DCCOs that ha d habituated or were not responding to frightening devices from th e path of an airplane.

In some situations the implementation of non-lethal controls such as harassment could actually increase the ri sk of human health problems at other sites by causing the birds to move to other sites not previ ously 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 lo cal area. If the lead and cooperating agencies are providing direct operati onal assistance in relocating DCCOs,

coordination with local author ities 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 jeop ardize the DCCO popula tion and DCCO viewing opportunities will still be available. In most cases, CDM activities will reduce but not eliminate local DCCO populations. Green Island is th e only site where the lead and cooperating agencies pr opose to stop the use of the site by breeding DCCOs. However, DCCO vi ewing opportunities would still be available on nearby islands. If propos ed management objectives were met for the Lake Erie island colonies (WSI, TP I, and Green Island), there would still be 1,900 to 2,400 breeding pairs of DCCO s plus associated juveniles and nonreproductive individuals for people recrea ting on Lake Erie to view and enjoy.

Positive impacts on the opportunity to en joy vegetation and co-nesting species of birds that can be negatively impact ed by high numbers of DCCOs would be greatest under this alternative and Altern ative 5 because thes e alternatives are anticipated to have the greatest benefici al impacts on non-target species (Section 4.1.2).

Alternative 2 – Only Non-leth al CDM by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative the Federal ag encies would only use non-lethal CDM techniques. People who oppose lethal control of wildlife by government but are tolerant of government involvem ent in non-lethal wildlife damage management might favor this alternativ e, especially since no lethal CDM

would be conducted at WSI. Howeve r, some lethal CDM would still be conducted by ODW under th e PRDO on non-Federal lands. People who have developed affectionate bonds with indivi dual wild birds would be less affected by the death of individual birds than under Alternative 5, but might still beOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

92 opposed to the dispersal or translocation of certain birds. On the Lake Erie island colonies, the ability of individua ls to enjoy viewing DCCOs would not

differ from Alternative 5 in that the management goa ls of the projects would remain the same. However, the fate of some of th e 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 aes thetic 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 alwa ys effective and, so this alternative is not anticipated to be as effective in reducing negative impacts of DCCOs on non-target species as Altern ative 1. However, Alternat ive 2 maybe more effective in protecting benefits of public resour ces than Alternative 5 because this

alternative would still a llow for action under the PRDO and therefore could be used to protect public fishery resources.

Alternative 3 – Only Technical As sistance by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, the Federal agen cies would be restri cted to providing

technical assistance on CDM methods. WS w ould 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 gove rnment 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 in dividual 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 op erational 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 ag encies would not c onduct any CDM in Ohio. People opposed to any governme nt involvement in CDM would favor this alternative. People concerned about the welfare of individual birds or the use of lethal CDM would prefer this a lternative over alternative 5 because the

lethal removal of DCCOs would be lowe r. However, entities other than the lead and cooperating agencies could s till use non-lethal techniques and some individuals might oppose dispersal or translocation of certain birds.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

93 Under this alternative, the lack of op erational 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. Bene ficial impacts of this alternative on the opportunity to enjoy ve getation, birds, or fisher ies 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 le ad 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 con tinue to be opposed. However, many persons who voice their opposition have no direct connection or opportunity to view or enjoy the pa rticular birds that would be killed by

lethal control activities. Lethal control actions would generally be restricted to sites already closed to the public an d 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 th e aesthetics of the environment since airport properties are closed to publ ic access. The abilities to view and

interact with DCCOs at these sites are us ually either restricted to viewing from a location outside boundary fences or are forbidden.

In some instances, large roosting or ne sting 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 incl uding black-crowned ni ght-herons and other colonial waterbirds co-nesting with DCCO s at the sites proposed for CDM. The enjoyment of recreational fishing, and, fo r 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 hatc hery fish are released. None of the CDM objectives in Section 1.5.6.3 were esta blished for the protection of fishery resources. However, if there was a n eed 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 Envir onmental 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 Alternativ e would be as descri bed for Alternative

5.

Alternative 2 – Only Non-leth al CDM by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative, lethal method s viewed as inhuma ne by some persons would not be used by the Federal agen cies. 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 alterna tive 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 technique s 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 c onducted at WSI, but it would still be higher than Alternatives 2 and 4. Individuals who believe lethal CDM techniques are inhumane might consider this alternativ e slightly preferable to

Alternative 5.

Alternative 4 - No CDM by Federal Agencies

Under this alternative the Federal agenci es would not be involved in CDM and

CDM would not be conducted on Federa l lands. ODW could use non-lethal CDM techniques and could s till use lower levels of le thal CDM techniques for the protection of public resources on non-Federal lands. Other non-Federal

entities could not use lethal CDM tec hniques but would still have access to

non-lethal CDM. Individuals who believe lethal CDM techniques are inhumane are likely to perceive this me thod 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 pe rformed by experienced professionals,Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

95 usually results in a quick death for targ et 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 euth anized. Some pe rsons 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 capture d alive would be euthanized. The most common method of euthanasia would be by d ecapitation, cervical dislocation or CO 2 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. Resear ch is continuing to bring new findings and products into practical use. Un til 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 coopera ting agencies are experienced and professional in their use of management methods so that they are as humane as possible under the constraints of curre nt technology, workforce and funding. Mitigation measures/SOPs used to maximi ze 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 DCCO s and disposal of carcasses would be

identical to Alternative 5. For reason s explained for Alternative 5, carcass disposal will not significantly advers ely impact soils, water or air quality.

Alternative 2 – Only Non-leth al 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 us e 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 Envir onmental Assessment

96 Alternative 3 – Only Technical As sistance by Federal Agencies

Lethal CDM would not be conducted at WSI so there would be no composting

of carcasses at that site. Le thal CDM by ODW under the PRDO and associated impacts relative to carca ss 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 A lternative 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 w ould be less than under Alternative 5.

There would be no other us e 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 resu lt 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 di sposed of via burial at an Ohio EPA approved sanitary landfill which accept s animal carcasses. The number of DCCOs that could be disposed of in a la ndfill 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 dispos al actions are conducted in accordance

with all State and Federal re gulations for the protection of the environment.

The ODW and USFWS would compost all co rmorants 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 author ity 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 St ate University Extension before they begin com posting (Keener et al. 2005).Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

97 The maximum number of DCCOs that w ould 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 ar eas on Green Island and WSI would not be placed over any likely Lake Erie wate rsnake 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 procedur es 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, f acilitate removal of compost material.

Dead animal composting can be describe d as "above ground bur ial in a bio-filter with pathogen kill by high temperature. " The decomposition process is anaerobic (lacking oxygen) in and around the anim al carcasses, but aerobic in the surrounding material where odorous gases are ingested by microorganisms and degraded to CO 2 and H 2 O. The amendment (sawdust) that surrounds the animal carcass or layers of carca sses provides carbon (energy) for the microorganisms

and serves as the biofi lter (Keener et. al. 2005).

The general procedure followed for compos ting carcasses is to first construct a base from sawdust or other acceptable am endment 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 scavenge rs and flies, minimizes water leachate in the case of high rainfalls for the uncoveredpile, and ensures adequate insulative value for the composting zone to reach 130 o F or higher (pathogen kill).

Composting of DCCO carcasses was c onducted 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 lowe r number of DCCOs (maximum = 4,766 birds) could be compos ted at WSI and a much lower number (maximum = 1,854 birds) would be com posted 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 Pa rk, 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 mate rial 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 thei r permit would allow them to hold at theOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 subj ect to Canadian regulations regarding

the amount of material retain ed at the site. The compos t would remain at the site and would not be distributed, so the agenci es 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 si te 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 Pro cedure - 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 te st will be used to determine if future testing needs to occur more frequently th an 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 accord ance with NEPA. If an amendment is needed, the public would have the opport unity 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 alternat ive that would not be possi ble under Alternative 5 so long as the cumulative adverse impacts do not exceed those analyzed in this EA. If the projects to protec t fishery resources enhance sport fish populations, then this alternative may have benefits to recreation that would not be possible under

Alternative 5.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

99 Alternative 2 – Only Non-leth al CDM by Federal Agencies

Although the total amount of lethal CD M (shooting) that could be conducted

would be much lower for non-Federal lands and would not occur on Federal lands, overall impacts on recreation resu lting from the use of firearms and pyrotechnics discussed for A lternative 5 may not be lowe r for this a lternative. Increased levels of non-lethal CDM, in cluding 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 activitie s 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 s port fishing discusse d in Alternative 1 would depend on whether or not the pr oject 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 CD M goals at non-Federal sites. Risks may be slightly higher because additi onal 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 be nefits to sport fishing discussed in Alternative 1 would depend on whethe r or not the project could be successfully executed without co nducting CDM on Federal lands.

Alternative 4 - No CDM by Federal Agencies

There would be no CDM con ducted at WSI so there would be no impacts on

recreational activities conducted near WS I. Although the total amount of lethal CDM (shooting) that could be c onducted would be mu ch lower for nonFederal lands, overall impacts on recrea tion resulting from the use of firearms and pyrotechnics discussed for Alternativ e 5 may not be lower at these sites. Increased levels of non-lethal CDM, in cluding 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 activitie s like the ones described for Alternative 5, then

increased closures of the area surroundi ng the treatment sites may result. Additional management effo rts may also be needed at sites near the large DCCO colony at WSI that would not be managed under this alternative.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

100 Any potential benefits to sport fish ing discussed in Alternative 1 would depend on whether or not the project could be successfully executed without conducting CDM on Federal lands and wh en 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 r ecreational water bodies. Activities by agency personnel under this alternativ e should have a minimal effect on

recreational use because these areas are al ready closed to public use. However when firearms or pyrotechnics will be used in CMD activities it might be necessary for agency personnel to estab lish a safe perimeter around the colonies and detour boat traffic away from thos e 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 shoo ting period. The USFWS also broadcast

a notice to mariners broadcast over channe l 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 incrementa l 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 collect ively significant, acti ons 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 th eir efforts and information on the impacts

of their activities and the activities of othe r 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 th e 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 Envir onmental Assessment

101 Cumulative Impacts on Wildlife Populations

As analyzed in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, CDM me thods used or recommended by the lead and cooperating agencies together with im pacts by other entities, will likely have no cumulative adverse effects on DCCO and non-targ et wildlife populations. The intent and expected result of this program is to preven t the continued loss of rare island vegetation

and critical colonial waterbir d nesting habitat attributed to the rapid increase in DCCO densities in Ohio. Take of DCCOs by all sour ces is anticipated to have no affect on the long-term sustainability of DCCO populations in Ohi o, 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 ar e implemented by the lead and cooperating agencies the potential lethal ta ke of non-target wildlife specie s is expected to be minimal to non-existent. The potential for benefici al impacts on vegetati on, sensitive wildlife populations is greatest for Alte rnatives 1 and 5 then decreasi ngly less under Alternatives 2, 3 and 4.

Cumulative Impact Pote ntial from CDM Methods

CDM methods used or recommended by the le ad and cooperating agencies may include

recommendations on exclusion th rough 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 envir onment. No cumulative adverse effects are anticipated from implementation of these CDM methods.

4.3 SUMMARY

Under the Preferred Alternative, the le thal removal of DCCOs by the lead and cooperating agencies would not have an adve rse impact on the long-te rm sustainability of DCCO populations in Ohio, the Region or th e United States, but some local reductions would occur. Given the SOP’s for the prot ection of nontarget species in Chapter 3 and the lead and cooperating ag encies’ commitment to adhere to all USFWS and ODW recommendations and requirements for the pr otection of State a nd Federally-listed threatened and endangered species, the Prefe rred Alternative will not adversely impact nontarget species populations. No risk to public safety is expected when the lead and cooperating agencies conduct or recomme nd CDM because trained and experienced wildlife biologists/specialists would be c onducting the work and providing guidance (technical assistance) to others conducting CD M. Potential risks to public safety are slightly higher from persons who reject as sistance and recommendati ons 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 publ ic safety from the actions of entities other than the lead and cooperating agencies are anticipated to be very low.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

102 Although some persons will likely be opposed to the lead and cooperating agencies conducting CDM activities on public and privat e 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 ea ch 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 Envir onmental 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 lethaltechniques 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 impactedby 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 uponefficacy 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 Envir onmental 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 onefficacy 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 impactedby 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 Envir onmental 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 uponefficacy 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 Envir onmental Assessment

106 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREP ARERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED

Tara E. Baranowski, Wildlife Technici an USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services Doug Brewer, Refuge Manager USFWS, ONWR Jonathon D. Cepek, District Supervis or USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services Shauna Hanisch, Wildlife Biologist USFWS Ron Huffman, Wildlife Bi ologist USFWS, ONWR Roger Knight, Fisheries Program Admi nistrator 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 Administra tor ODNR, Division of Wildlife David E. Sherman, Wildlife Biologi st ODNR, Division of Wildlife Mark Shieldcastle, Wetland Research Proj ect Leader ODNR, Division of Wildlife Jeff Tyson, Fisheries Biology Superv isor ODNR, Division of Wildlife Chris Vandergoot, Fisheries Biolog ist ODNR, Division of Wildlife Kimberly Wagner, Environmental Coordi nator USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services Angela Zimmerman, Endang. Species Coord. USFWS, Ohio Ecological Services

Field OfficeOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

107 

### CHAPTER 6: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED

ON THE EA

This chapter contains issues raised by th e 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. Th e 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 ra te 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 ye llow perch, smallmouth bass and walleye?

The agencies understand and appreciate the c oncerns people have rega rding the impact of DCCOs on fishery resources and presented info rmation on fish populations in Lake Erie

and an evaluation of available data on DC CO impacts in the EA Sections 1.5.2 and 1.5.6.2. While there is no questi on that there are a lot of D CCOs 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 a nd 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 sp ecies such as the alew ife and gizzard shad appear to be the most important prey. Stickleback

, sculpin, cyprinids, and yellow perch, and, at some localities, burbot, freshwat er drum, and lake/northern chub are also important prey fish species for DCCOs (W ires et al. 2001). The impact of DCCO foraging on any particular fish species de pends 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 wa lleye, yellow perch, and smallmouth bass were not common food items, but the study covered only one year. More recently, DCCO regurgitant data collect ed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) suggests that consumption of wa lleye 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 an alysis in the EA indicate that DCCOs have the potential to adversely impact fisher y resources in Lake Erie, the data is not definitive and action will not be taken specifi cally 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 benefi cial impact on fishery resources. The ODNR will closely monitor fish populations in ar eas where CDM may occur to see if CDM efforts are having an incidental be neficial impact on fish populations.

2. Double-crested cormorants are having an adverse impact on vegetation on Lake Erie islands. Loss of vegetation will advers ely impact other species on islands. Loss of vegetation will greatly reduce aesthetic enjoyment of islands. West Sister IslandOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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. We st Sister Island (WSI) is too important a rookery resource to lose.

We agree. Habitat loss for other co-nesting bi rds is the Service’s ma in concern on WSI. Population goals for black-crowned night-her ons, great egrets, grea t blue herons, and DCCO were set during the Comprehensive C onservation Plan (CCP) process for WSI (Section 1.7). Wires and Cuthbert (2001) iden tified WSI as the most important colonial waterbird colony site in the U.S. Great Lakes.

The agencies agree with concerns regard ing the impact of high DCCO densities on vegetation and co-nesting waterbirds. These co ncerns 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 acti ons 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. Pe rhaps DCCO feces contribute to the algal

blooms near DCCO colonies but there are othe rs 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 evid ence 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 discus sion 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 hazi ng 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 fact ors 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 EAOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

109 in Section 1.5.6.1. Information on recent increa ses 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 in crease if reduced to levels which have been seen in the recent past. Data from 1991 are not presen ted as a baseline management objective.

6. Double-crested cormorants have a longer hi story 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 presen ce. Double-crested cormorants have a stronger claim to these site s than these other species.

The management plan established by the agenci es is intended to pres erve habitat for all colonial waterbird species. All 3 egrets a nd 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-list ed birds. The ODNR has the responsibility to conserve and improve w ildlife resources, especially those whose presence in our state is in peril. Simila rly, 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 ni ght-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 comp letion of an EA and public review and

comment.

The agencies are not advocating the elimina tion 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 a pproach 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 wate rbirds. A population of at least 1,500 nesting pairs of DCCOs will be maintained at WS INWR. 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 monitori ng 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 intera ctions 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 availa ble, shifts in dist ribution over time for great egrets and great blue he rons have occurred as the DCCO population has increased.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

110 The nesting area of great blue herons has b een compressed into a smaller section of the island. Takeovers of great blue heron nest s by DCCOs have been observed. The great egret population was more even ly distributed throughout the island before the recent increases in DCCO density, and has shifted to concentrate in ar eas 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 Sist er Island and Sandusky host the only two Ohio nesting sites of black-crowned night-her ons but that is not true as they have

bred at other sites in recent decades and on ly 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 othe r 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 th e only colonies which have consistently contributed to Ohio’s small night-heron populat ion for the past 10 years. The 2 small colonies have not existed long enough to dete rmine if they will remain viable over the next 5-10 years.

9. Black-crowned night-heron numbers at WS I in 2005 are at the highest level in 10 years, so what’s the problem? EA shou ld acknowledge that fluctuation in blackcrowned night-heron populations is normal. Double-crested cormorant management should be considered on WSI on ly 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 blac k-crowned night-herons. Double-crested cormorant management for the protection of black-crowned night-herons could only be justified on the wilderness becaus e of the status of the bird as a state threatened species.

We agree that black-crowned night-herons have shown some vari ations in population levels, especially at TPI. The black-crown ed 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 succ ession on the island. However, since 1996, the black-crowned night-heron population at WSI ha s fluctuated between a high of 500 pairs (1996, 2005) and a low of 387 pairs (1999). The fluctuation with in this period is within sampling error, so no clear population tre nd is indicated. The population may be stabilizing in line with currently available nesting habitat. Habitat management to produce suitable nesting cover for black-crowne d 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 ar eas 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-crown ed night-herons. Double-cres ted cormorants also appear to be influencing a shift of the great egret population from a relatively uniformOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 pr oactive and stop the expansion of DCCO nesting on WSI before it directly impacts the night-herons.

As stated for Comment 6, the CCP sets re fuge 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 responsibil ity to try and meet th e goals set there to the best of our ability. WSI’s role as the mo st important colonial wa terbird colony site in the U.S. Great Lakes was established by Wire s and Cuthbert (2001). Criteria used to establish this ranking were based the divers ity of the species a nd their high population numbers. Their ranking score of 12 for WSI wa s 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 eg rets and black-crowned night-herons have somewhat peripheral distributions in Grea t Lakes and great blue herons and great egrets are abundant in the Upper Mississippi Valley/Grea t Lakes Region. Great blue herons are not obligate nesters on the islands frequented by DCCOs. Great blue herons are larger and more aggressi ve 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 othe r 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 her ons has been compressed into a smaller section of the island. This is particularly noticeable in the northeast quar ter of the island. Takeovers of great blue heron nests by DCCOs have been observe d. The great egret population at WSI was also more evenly distributed throughout the island before DC CO 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 resp onsibility 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 coul d 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 like ly that the egrets and night -herons choose to nest on theOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

112 islands because of the lack of human intrusion. Achievi ng a reduction in DCCO numbers through the exclusive use of hazing is likely to require mo re trips over a longer period of time than the proposed action. Hazing tr ips 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 vegetati on. On the Ohio Lake Erie islands, vegetation also provides habitat for other nestin g waterbirds (herons and egrets).

13. In the few instances where DCCOs h ave 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 is lands shows that DCCOs have increased in numbers and in the area occupied by their nest ing 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 stabiliz e at current levels, the curren t 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 th ese sites to TPI. Analysis of the possibility that management actions take n at one site could affect DCCO impacts at other sites that may not have CDM is addr essed for WSI under Alte rnative 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 successf ul in the US or

Canada.

Double-crested cormorant removal to protec t vegetation is a rela tively new technique, limited data are available; therefore, th e ODNR and WSINWR will monitor vegetation, co-nesting birds, and DCCO numbers on the is lands to determine if DCCO removal is having the anticipated beneficial impact on co-nesting birds and ve getation. 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 durin g 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 reso urces from highOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

113 densities of DCCOs during mi gration are the reason the pr oposed action includes the option to use hazing, reinforced with some leth al control, to decrea se the period of time large congregations of migrating DCCOs re main in areas where impacts on public resources are a concern (Section 4.1.1). The fact that this ty pe of activity could occur has been clarified in the description of the proposed altern ative (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 prot ected 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 nega tive 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 add ress DCCO damage problems. Something needs to be done immediately.

Activities proposed under the alternatives anal yzed in this EA w ill 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 DC COs were illegally killed by individuals frustrated over the perceived impact of DC COs on local fisheries. Individuals taking action outside the law cause harm not only to D CCOs, 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 percei ved failure of the agencies to address DCCO damage and that these indivi duals 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 migrator y birds in the United States , including DCCOs. Without a permit, killing of DCCOs, or any migratory bird or their eggs, is s ubject to penalties of the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act th at 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 sent ences of up to two years' probation and sixOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 Nationa l Fish and Wildlife

Foundation.

20. Double-crested cormorant problems coul d 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 sel ected as the management alternative. Therefore, use of regulated hunting is not an option legally av ailable 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 include d: (1) concerns about monitoring and preventing adverse impacts on co-nesting and lo ok-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 seri ous 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 Is land 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 fo r Construction, Development, and Land Management Activities (EA Appendix H) states that shor eline vegetation is an important component of Lake Erie watersnake’s su mmer habitat. Vegetation provides resting, basking, cover, and mating locations for th e 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 addr ess 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 subs et of the DCCO populat ion, to ensure that DCCOs are not displaced to an area where other problems c ould occur. Problems with harassment moving DCCOs and DCCO problem s is discussed in the response to Comments 13 and 64, and in the Chapter 4 anal ysis of impacts of Alternative 3 whereinOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

115 DCCOs may move to sites (WSINWR) wher e 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 pred ators that would feed on DCCO eggs would likely also adversely impact other co-nesti ng species directly by preying on eggs and young of co-nesting birds or indirectly by cau sing species like DCCO s which can use the ground or trees for nesting to quit using gr ound nests thereby increasing pressure on and competition for nesting sites in vegetation.

24. Opposes the preferred alternative on th e basis of its expansiveness and lack of any stated clear, objective parameters wh ich could be used to determine actions which might be taken in the future.

Population goals for black-crowned night-her ons, great egrets, grea t 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, a nd the level at which rapid habitat damage to vegetation due to DCCO guano was observe d. We will monitor habitat and bird populations on WSI, and take an adaptive approa ch to striking a balance between the conesting species on the island. The manageme nt 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 relativ ely new technique and little information is available. We set popul ation 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 bi rds 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 ag encies will take an adaptive management approach to continually refine methods and goa ls 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 Envir onmental Assessment

116 26. Double-crested cormorant effects on fi shery resources are prominently featured in the EA as a driving issue, but ar e not a demonstrated issue with ODNR.

Many people have expressed concerns about th e impact of DCCOs on fishery resources. The EA presents the current state of our know ledge on this issue in order to inform the public of the data available to the agencies on this issue and our re asons 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 trea tments on DCCOs? And how would all the variables present in the la ke affect any treatment?

ODNR will continue to monitor fish populations in Lake Erie and conduct research on DCCO impacts on fishery resources in the La ke Erie area. As discussed above it is possible that CDM actions take n to protect vegetation and co-nesting species may also have an incidental positive impact on fish ery 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 shooti ng to reinforce hazing were to be conducted for the protection of free -swimming fish populations.

28. Since much of the DCCO increase is th e 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 appare ntly directly impact the Great Lakes breeding population? Reducing the breedin g 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 addr ess specific DCCO damage issues in Ohio. Large scale populati on management was considered in the FEIS (USFWS 2003) and was not sel ected as a management alternative. Therefore, regionwide population management is not an altern ative available at th is time. However, DCCO management is being conducted in the Gulf States un der the Aquaculture Depredation Order and the PRDO. Such e fforts 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 D CCO populations. Mi nimum 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 agenci es must be determined by objective

standards and measurable milestones no t 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 evidenceOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

117 available. Since the agencies are advocati ng 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 ad aptive management approach to continually refine methods and goals as we gain informa tion 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 eg rets 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 authoriz ed after the best science is considered.

Commenter does not endorse the senseless kil ling of birds so insists on applying the best remedy based on sound science.

The agencies are responsible for conserving a nd improving fish and wildlife resources for all citizens, so we also do not endorse the se nseless 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 ma nagement 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 breedi ng DCCOs. Agencies wishing to take more than 10% of a local DCCO population are required to inform th e USFWS of the location of the proposed action(s), a description of the proposed cont rol activity, specifying what public resources are being impacted, how many birds are like ly to be taken and what approximate percentage they are of the total DCCOs pres ent, which other bird species are present (from past data and supplemented with curr ent data if new species are present). The USFWS has the option of disapproving the pr oposed action. The US FWS also requires post-project monitoring to eval uate the effects of control activities on DCCOs, nontarget species, and the public resources being prot ected. Additionally, d ecisions about DCCO

control under the PRDO would be made on a case by case basis afte r consultation with the involved action agencies (USFWS, OD NR, and WS). These Federal and State

entities have established an informal DCCO Coordination Group to exchange information on DCCO management and discuss sites where th ere may be a potential need to apply the DCCO PRDO in Ohio (Section 1.5.7).Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

118 32. Reducing the DCCO breeding population locally may be fruitless because it fails to consider the numbers, range, a nd 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 coor dinating with them. However, even if the other states/provin ces 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 wate rbirds do impact their nesting habitat, but DCCO impacts are more profound than the other species becaus e of their greater densities. No major tree loss occurred on the islands (o ther than normal wind/ice damage) before DCCOs arrived; however, tr ee loss has been quite evident since the

DCCO numbers have increased (during which time other wate rbirds have decreased or stayed stable).

34. Wants data to indicate that habitat n eeded for other species on the Lake Erie islands is limited because of DCCOs - everyt hing 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 cormor ants are negatively impacting forests on islands in the western ba sin 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 num bers.....Such actions would prevent potential damage by cormorants to remaining island habitats.”

The agencies do not want to let the docume nted destruction of vegetation by DCCOs on

other Lake Erie islands to occur on Ohio's is lands. 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 reducti on in DCCO numbers, and we believe that action is needed now, before the ve getation loss is irreversible.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

119 35. The action on WSI is inappropriate becaus e 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. Mana ging one species (DCCO) to protect other migratory bird species is not contrary to th e establishing legislation for the refuge. We

will not remove all DCCOs from the isla nd, but rather will manage DCCO population

numbers and distribution to minimize habita t 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 pr ocess 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 respons e on wilderness issues.

36. One of the management principles iden tified by the Wildern ess 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 a rea 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 mini mal tool use. We believe that this is the minimum tool needed to meet the CCP goals fo r 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 2000 b ). This concept specifies that,

at the time of wilderness de signation, the conditions prevai ling in an area establish a

benchmark of that area’s wilderness valu es, and that the USFWS will not allow these conditions to be degraded. (Dra ft policy, Section 1.4 (Q) USFWS 2000 b ). When WSINWR was designated, no cormorants were nesting on the island. We will maintain a population of DCCO on the isla nd at a level that does not degrade the habitat to a condition that is of lower health and qua lity 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 comp osition on islands changes. Land use changes originally favored black-crowned ni ght-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-se ttlement times, these processes were selfregulating. However, today because of the va stly 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 isOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

120 highly fragmented, there are few alternative ne sting 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 propos ed action does not involve eliminating DCCOs or the important role they play in eco systems, 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 wi ll impact rock elm, but removal of

DCCOs from the entire island seems excessi ve. Wants study of DCCO impacts on vegetation and then a more refined manageme nt 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 Caro linian 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 al ready several dead trees on the island, and the DCCOs have only been nesting there for 2 year s. 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 tre nd 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 potent ial 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 le vel with nest removal.

Information on the history of colonial waterbir ds 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, a nd 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 prev ious 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 c ease to exist, and it’s unlikely the vegetation

would ever recover because of the continue d presence of the DCCOs which will nest on the ground. If the DCCOs did leave, it woul d 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 r eason that the proposed action does not include management objectives intended to protect fishery resources (See Comment 1). The North American Waterb ird Conservation Plan stipulates thatOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

121 management decisions be based on science a nd that any proposed management actions thoroughly analyze the impacts of the pr oposed action on target and non-target

waterbirds. We believe the EA and the resu lting management plan are consistent with

the intentions of the North Amer ican Waterbird Conservation Plan.

40. Other than unjustified complaints there is no real problem with DCCOs at Portage Lakes - 6 pr is not biologically vi able - 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 mainta in 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 increas ed 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 hist ory 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 ag encies assert that D CCOs 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 ba sis 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 de scription of Alternativ e 5 which allows for continuation of ongoing programs, CDM activities have been conducted in the state prior to the completion of this EA. The anticipat ed level of take for these three types of damage will not change from the current level if Alternative 1 is se lected (See description of alternatives in Chapter 3 and anticipa ted DCCO take in Section 4.1.1). The EA analyzes the environmental impacts of alte rnatives for managing all types of DCCO damage to provide a cumulativ e impacts analysis for all CD M in Ohio and to allow the agencies to review and reconsider alte rnatives for existing CDM programs. CDM activities are only conducted when a need fo r 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 a nd measures need to be taken to reduce the risk and damage. The civil and military aviation communities including the FAAOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

122 recognize that the threat to human health and safety from aircra ft 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 cons equences of an aircraft striking a DCCO can be catastrophic. The goa l of airport wildlife hazard management programs is to prevent serious accidents from happening. It is unrealistic and inappropriate to contend that airport hazar d 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 al ewife 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 intro duced 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 lamp rey, 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 opportunist ic 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 populat ion, even if the agen cies were able to reduce non-native fish populations, the reduc tions could have the undesired impact of increasing DCCO foraging pressure on native fish.

47. It would be difficult to implemen t 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 re duce it's size appreciably.

A large scale population control option was considered but was not the management

alternative selected in the FE IS (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 over all 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 Envir onmental 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 o ccur to vegetation, local fish populations and co-nesting waterbird species before the D CCOs outstripped availa ble 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 si te was no longer attractive to some species, the birds could move to new locations. Unfortunately, hum an population expansion and land use have

limited the number of alternative sites availabl e to colonial waterbir ds and have placed sociological and biological c onstraints on the number of bird s that can be supported at the remaining locations. The primary biologica l constraint is that many sites supporting colonial waterbirds must be managed to su stain a wide variety of plant and animal species indefinitely. This ma y 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 b een considered a problem.

49. Double-crested cormorant guano and oth er bird guano ultimately enriches the soil. Double-crested cormorant guano is a natural addition that will partly

determine how the habitat will evolve. Ot her colonial birds have a similar but slower impact. This is a natural and accep table 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 im pacts 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. Howeve r, as stated for Comment 47, because of human alterations in land use, many site s supporting colonial wa terbirds must be managed to sustain a wide variety of plant and animal species indefinitely. In these areas, normal cycles of vege tation growth, waterbird use, and vegetation loss cannot be

allowed to continue becaus e they would adversely impact the limited amount of acceptable habitat available for some species.

50. Using shotguns will wound nontarget bird s 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 w ith 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 DC COs when there are virtually no nontargetOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

124 species are present. Additional information on the impacts of the proposed action on nontarget species including co-nesting wa terbirds is provided in EA Section 4.1.2.

51. The EA fails to adequately develop, de fine and consider reasonable alternatives to the proposed action.

The EA considers a full range of management alternatives includi ng, an alternative in which the Federal agencies are not invol ved 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 Fe deral 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-crest ed 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 addre ssed in Comment 10 above.

53. Neither black-crowned night-herons or gr eat egrets are truly in decline despite their listing in Ohio. These species are in creasing 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 in creasing 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 estim ated 1,565 black-crowned night-herons pairs currently in BCR 22. In addition, black-crowned ni ght-herons are a Resource Conservation Priority Species list for Re gion 3 of the USFWS (USFWS 2002). Thus, there are a number of reasons for manageme nt for black-crowned night-herons on WSI. In establishing State endangered and/or sensitiv e species laws, State legislatures establish that retaining State-listed wild life species within the boundary of the state is a priority for

the citizens of that state. Actions to protect roosting colo nies of black-crowned nightherons, and great egrets are consiste nt 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 Envir onmental Assessment

125 54. There should be areas of suitable habitat where DCCO should be allowed to exist and naturally breed with out interference, but Ohio ha sn'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 a llowed to breed undisturbed on WSI and TPI since they first arrived there, and the agencies plan on contin uing 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 rem oval 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 t hose 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 rela tively minimal disturbance. Only at Green

Island will the DCCOs be tota lly removed from the island, and the reasons for that decision are presented in th e 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 mentione d 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 ca n 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 th eir current locations. Endangered species are often scarce because th ey 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 in stead of simply moving the species.

57. Analysis of impacts on non-target speci es 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 sp ecies. 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 im pacts to colonial waterbirds are provided in Section 3.4. Moore et al. (2005) evaluate d the impact of DCCO removal on co-nestingOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

126 great blue herons and great egrets on La ke Ontario. For both species, there was no impact on the proportion of time spent in ne st attendance between control and treatment sites for the interval prior to DCCO rem oval, the intervals between DCCO removal efforts and the period after DCCO removal wa s completed. Nest at tendance 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 befo re 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 s ites so the temporary departur es by adults did not appear to adversely impact nontarget species. As with the pilot project s reported in the EA, observers will monitor the impact of the CD M 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 locati ons of co-nesting birds in the areas where CDM is conducted. This monitoring is also requ ired as part of the monitoring and review requirements established for the PRDO. Re sults of this monitoring activity will be reviewed annually and management activities will be adjusted accordingly. If necessary, the EA will be supplemented and made availa ble 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 Sec tion 7 Biological Eval uation to assess the impacts of the proposed action on federally-lis ted 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 prai rie 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. Th e 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 Eval uation for Ohio to avoid risks to federally listed species. USFWS guidelines for the prot ection of the Lake Erie watersnake have been added to the EA in Appendix H.

58. The EA violates the language and spir it 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 parame ters or restrictions on the locations ore circumstances under which DCCOs may be ki lled. 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 US FWS. Decisions about DCCO control under the PRDO would be made on a case by case ba sis after consultation with the involved action agencies (USFWS, ODNR, and WS). Additionally, the EA in Section 1.5.7Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

127 establishes a DCCO Coordination Group to exchange information on DCCO management and discuss sites where there ma y be a potential need to apply the DCCO PRDO in Ohio. The lead and cooperating agenci es have agreed that decisions on future PRDO CDM projects will be made only afte r consulting with the DCCO coordination group. As described in the EA, lethal CD M 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 pres ented as a justification for killing DCCOs but was presented in Section 2.1.1 as a fact or which may affect DCCO populations.

60. Aquaculture and property damage is not ju stification for use of lethal control. People who create artificial feeding oppo rtunities for DCCOs should be required to use non-lethal CDM methods. All aquacult ure and property damage can be solved

with non-lethal methods. Commenters provided information on information and experts we could use. Commenters encour age agencies to abandon implementation of the expanded AQDO.

Under the preferred alterna tive, non-lethal methods will be recommended to persons requesting assistance when determ ined 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 phys ical exclusion may not be ap propriate for all sites. A survey of Minnesota aquacultu re producers (Wires and Cuth bert 2003) reported that 67% of the producers said they spent 10% or more of their annual earni ngs to combat fisheating birds. Ninety-six pe rcent (96%) of respondents re ported that mechanical or physical alterations in their f acilities to reduce da mage were not physically feasible or

cost effective.

The agencies thank the commenters for th eir recommendations of non-lethal techniques for aquaculture facilities and means to redu ce risks to nontarget species at aquaculture facilities. The agencies st ay current on methods to reduc e risks to nontarget species through attendance at professional meetings, revi ew of the literature and participation in relevant studies. See also Appendix 4 of FE IS regarding use of ex clusion at aquaculture facilities (USFWS 2003).

Ohio is not one of the states included in the Aquaculture Depr edation Order (USFWS 2003).Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 loca tions from areas where the aquaculture

facilities are concentrated to areas of the st ate along the Mississippi River where there are lower concentrations of aquaculture facili ties (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 dama ge 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 locatio ns without nontarget species that would be advers ely 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 maximu m cumulative number of DCCOs that could

be taken under CDM in Ohio. The EA concl uded 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 an d ODNR to ensure that State and regional

take does not exceed levels that can be su stained by the DCCO population. Cumulative impact of CDM activities on the regiona l 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 a nd eggs to the USFWS to ensure that the cumulative impacts of CDM actions in Ohio a nd 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 (i ncluding impacts to DCCO populations) in the

EA is sufficient.

64. Lethal and/or non-lethal techni ques will only move the DCCOs and their problems.

Some commenters expressed conc ern that the non-lethal frig htening and habitat alteration techniques and the frightening affect that shooting would have on other DCCOs would spread the DCCO problem to other areas. Th e lead and cooperating agencies are aware that use of these techniques will cause the D CCOs to move to other areas in Ohio or in adjoining states. This eventuality is part of the reason that management objectives thatOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

129 involve maintaining current DCCO densities have been establishe d for TPI (See also Comment 13). It is unlikely that all the D CCOs will relocate to one site. Nevertheless, the agencies recognize that once CDM measur es are undertaken it wi ll be important to monitor changes in the distribution and a bundance of DCCOs throughout the state. The ODNR and WSINWR anticipate that they wi ll 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 dama ge 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 mo wing is ineffective in making the grass short because it must be repeated.

66. The EA needs to provide greater deta il on how the impacts and efficacy of program actions will be monitored.

Section 1.8 of the EA notes that the imp acts 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 incl ude an analysis of the number of DCCOs taken and all available reports and data on im pacts to nontarget species, population status for DCCOs and nontarget species, and effi cacy 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 U SFWS 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 de scription of the evidence supporting the conclusion that DCCOs are causing or will cau se impacts to a public resource; and a discussion of other limiting factors affec ting the resource (50 CFR 21.48(d)(10). The PRDO also requires that agencies notify th e USFWS and get USFW S approval if they intend to take more than 10% of a local DCCO population.

67. The use of DCCO removal to reduce da mage at aquaculture facilities by reducing DCCO density is doomed to failure.

Lethal control is not authorized at aquacultu re facilities for the purpose of reducing local DCCO populations. It is intended for the rem oval of specific depred ating individuals at the site. For example, in some cases, manage ment activities at the facility requires thatOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

130 openings be left for people a nd/or equipment to function under bird exclusion systems. At times, individual birds may learn to us e these openings. Removal of these birds eliminates the damage problem and reduces the likelihood that other individuals may learn the technique. In situa tions where frightening devices are used, lethal removal of

individuals that have learned to ignore the devices eliminat es the depredating individual and may prevent other birds from becoming accustomed to the device by reinforcing the perception that there is a real threat a ssociated with the frightening stimulus.

68. The EA is arbitrary, capricious and inadequate. We support a full EIS where the public receives full notice to comme nt on the proposal to kill DCCO.

The EA provides a thorough analysis of the n eed 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 su ch 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 acco rdance with the requirements for public notification and public comment periods of the USFWS and WS. The agencies followed all applicable laws, regulations, and guidelin es in analyzing potential impacts of their actions. In making an informed decision of potential environmental impacts, the agencies

used the best available scientific inform ation, 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, ha s 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. Additiona lly, this EA is tiered to the DCCO FEIS (USFWS 2003) which also evaluated im pacts of CDM including the PRDO and an expanded AQDO.

69. The EA indicates Ohio WS plans to co mpost shot birds on island habitats. At Presqu'ile Provincial Park (PPP) the On tario Ministry of the Environment Determined, after testing, that the birds were so contamin ated 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 Provi ncial 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 th e composting site and al so 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 composti ng was conducted. The mercury levels of 2.29 and 3.36 micrograms/gram dry weight obs erved in the compost were over theOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 mate rial 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 dispos al 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 Wate r (ODSW). The Ohio compost sites would not be subject to Canadian regulations regard ing 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 e nvironment and will test the mercury content of the compost and the soil below the compos t site at least every other year and more frequently if needed. Based on data from composting at Presqui’i le, 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 Ad ministrative 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 te st 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 di sposal procedures. If needed, the agencies will amend this analysis to address changes in environmental impacts and carcass disposal procedures in accordance with NE PA. 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 compos ting 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 vegetati on because the Provincial Ministry of the Environment acknowledged that DCCO activi ties at the park’s High Bluff and Gull Islands are natural processes, that DCCO s contribute to biodiversity and that population control measures will cause damage to other nesting colonial waterbirds, thus, negating any rationale of the Ontari o Ministry of Natural Resources to kill

DCCOs.

In the report presented by the Presqu’i le Double-crested Cormorant Management Scientific Review Committee (PDCMSRC 2004), it states that the goal for High Bluff Island was “to protect represen tative woodland flora and faun a and the aesthetic beauty of High Bluff Island while retaining maximum di versity 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 island s within the park. This was determinedOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

132 to be significant and worthy of action becau se the habitat found in the area used by DCCOs had value to a variety of specie s including tree-nes ting 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 vegetati on associated with high DCCO densities is a natu ral process. However, b ecause 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 i nvolved 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, regiona l 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 Envir onmental 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/sta tistics/economic_impact/fish_eco_impact.pdf

Audubon. 2003. West Nile Virus – Effects on Wildlife. www.audubon.org/bird/wnv/

AVMA (American Veterinary Medical Association). 19 87. 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. Johnso n, 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 Is sues 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 Is sues in the Midwest (M.E. Tobin, ed.). USDA Tech. Bull. No. 1879. 164pp.

Bent, A. C. 1964. Life Histories of North Am erican 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 202-211Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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. Dolb eer. 2005. Wildlife Hazard Manageme nt at Airports, second edition, July 2005. FAA/USDA pub.

Conover, M.R., W.C. Pitt, K.K. Kessl er, 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: Transm ission, Infection, & Symptoms. Environmental Risk Analysis Program, Cornell University – Department of Communication & Center for the Environment. http://environmentalr isk.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 Wild life: Economic and Social Perspectives. Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado, 424 p.

Dolbeer, R.A., S. E. Wright, and E. C. Cleary. 1995. Bi rd 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 airc raft: fighting for airspace in cr owded 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 ener gy 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 Envir onmental Assessment

135 Glahn, J.F., G. Ellis, P. Fioranelli and B.S. Dorr. 2000 a. Evaluation of moderate and low-powered lasers for dispersing double-crested cormorants from their night roosts. Proceedings of the 9 th Wildlife Damage Management Conferen ce (M.C. Brittingham, J. Kays, and R. McPeake, eds.).

Glahn, J.F., D.S. Reinhold, and C.A. Sloan. 2000b. R ecent population trends of double-crested cormorants wintering in the Delta region of Mississippi: Responses to roost dispersal and removal under a recent depredation order. Wate rbirds 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

3 rd 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 Aq uaculture and Fisheries Science - 34. Elsevier. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 676p.

Gremillet, D, S. Storch, and G. Pete rs. 2000. Determing food requirem ents in marine top predators: a comparison of three independent techniques in great cormorants, Ph alacrorax 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 Regi onal Aquaculture Center . Current Draft as of
March 29, 2000. http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquanic/ncr ac/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. Pool e 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 In spection 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. Bu ll. 1879. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

136 Lantry , B.F., T.H. Eckert, C.P. Schneider, A.S. Sc hiavone, 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 west ern 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 water front 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, Januar y-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 Soci ety 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-c rested 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/wildlif e/Fishing/propagate/faffp.htmOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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. Bu ll. 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 we lfare. Trans. N.Amer. Wild l. And Nat. Res. Conf.

54:468-475.

Shieldcastle, M.C. And L. Martin. 1999. Colonial wate rbird 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 a nd 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 Ameri can Wildlife Natural Reso urce Conference 57: 51-

62.

Stapanian , M.A, M.T. Bur, J.T. Ty son, T.W. Seamans, and B.F. Blackw ell. 2002. Foraging locations of

double-crested cormorants on west ern 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 Envir onmental Assessment

138 USDA, APHIS, ADC. 1997, Revised. Final Enviro nmental 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. Repo rt to Congress: Great Lakes Fishery Resources Restoration Study.

USFWS. 2000 a . West Sister Island National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge

USFWS. 2000 b . 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. Fo rney, 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 Fisherie s 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 a nd an assessment. Waterbird Society Meeting Abstracts, Jekyll Island GA, October 2005

Weseloh, D.V. C., and P.J. Ewins. 1994. Character istics 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 th e double-crested cormorant on the Great Lakes: winning the war against contaminants. Gr eat Lakes Fact sheet. Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada and Long Point Observatory.

Weseloh, D.V., P. J. Ewins, J. Str uger, 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. Jo shi. 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. Av ailable at: http://www.waterbirds.umn.edu/F2- CWBPrior.pdf .Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

139 Wright, S. 2004. Some significant wildlife strikes to civil aircraft in the Un ited States, 1990 - December 2003. Unpublished report, USDA APHIS WS National Wildlife Research Center, Sandusky, OH.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 Pr airie 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 - endangeredOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

141 APPENDIX C

SPECIES THAT ARE LISTED AS ENDANGERED AND THREATENED

BY THE STATE OF OHIO

PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND RELATI ONSHIP TO FEDERAL LAWS

The Division of Wildlife's mission is to c onserve and improve the fish and wildlife resources and their habitats, and promote thei r use and appreciation by the public so that these resources continue to enhance the quali ty of life for all Ohioans. The Division has legal authority over Ohio's fish and wild life, which includes about 56 species of mammals, 200 species of breeding birds, 84 sp ecies 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, Oh io law grants authority to the chief of the Division to adopt rules restricting the taking or possessio n of native wildlife threatened with statewide extirpation and to develop and periodica lly 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 hareOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 salamanderOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 riffleshellOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 ................................................P urple 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 nymphOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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

ThreatenedOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 pratensi s var. palustris ..........................American Cuckoo-flowerOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 .............................................Blu ebead-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 .............................................Cuspi date 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 ThoroughwortOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 GrassOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 ...............................................R ough 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 ..........................................Co astal Little Bluestem Schoenoplectus americanus .....................................Olney's Three-squareOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 ..............................................Pa inted 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 CressOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 .......................................Speckl ed Wood-lily Comptonia peregrina ........................................Sweet-fern Conyza ramosissima .........................................Bushy Horseweed

Cornus canadensis................................................ Bunchberry Croton glandulosus ..........................................Nort hern 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-leav ed Whitlow-grass Draba reptans ................................................Carolin a Whitlow-grass Eleocharis compressa .......................................Flat-stemmed Spike-rush Eleocharis flavescens .......................................Green Spike-rush Elymus trachycaulus .........................................Bearded Wheat Grass Epilobium strictum

.............................. .............Simple Willow-herbOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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-flowere d 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-tongueOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 LichenOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 MossOhio Cormorant Environmental Assessment155APPENDIX DLOCATION AND SIZE OF DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT BREEDINGCOLONIES IN THE STATE OF OHIO WITHINFORMATION ON CO-NESTINGCOLONIAL WATERBIRDS(ODNR, 2005)Colony site name OhioCountyDoublecrestedCormorant# nestsSnowy Egret# nestsGreat BlueHeron# nestsGreatEgret# nestsBlackcrownedNight-heron# nestsHerringGull# nestsWest Sister IslandOttawa 3,813 14 927 827 500 600Green IslandOttawa 857 0 91 4 0 40Turning PointIslandErie 409 0 0 41 47 3,000Grand Lakes St.MaryMercer 80 0 40 0 0 0Portage LakesSummit 6 0 0 0 0 0Total 5,165 14 1,058 872 547 3,640Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment156APPENDIX EINTERACTION AMONG AGENCY DECISIONSThis appendix provides details on how the decisions made by one of the lead agencieswould impact the actions and decisionsavailable to the other lead agencies, cooperating agencies, and otherindividuals that may needCDM or wish to conduct CDMresearch. Information on the selection ofAlternative 1 is not provided because selection of this alternative by any of the lead agencieswould not restrict alternatives and actions available to any other entity.Table 1. Impacts of agency selection ofAlternative 2 – Only Non-lethal CDMChoices Available to OtherDCCO Management EntitiesUSFWSAgency ChoosingAlternative 2 –Only Non-lethalCDMMigratoryBird Office (MBO)West Sister IslandNational Wildlife Refuge(WSINWR)Wildlife Services (WS)Ohio Division of Wildlife(ODW)OthersUSFWS MigratoryBird Office (MBO)___ WSINWR can choose thesame alternative as theMBO or it can choose tobe more, but not lessrestrictive than thealternative selected by theMBO. Therefore, if theMBO selects Alternative 2,the WSINWR may selectAlternatives 2,3 or 4.WS could select any otheralternative. However, theonly entity that couldreceive WS assistance withlethal CDM is ODWbecause the only type oflethal CDM that could beconducted would be takeof less than 10% of a localDCCO population underthe PRDO. There could beno other types of lethalDCCO removal because itwould require permitsfrom the MBO.A permit is not requiredfor non-lethal CDMODW could take less than10% of a local DCCOpopulation under thePRDO because this actiondoes not require approvalor a permit from the MBO.Non-lethal CDM does notrequire a permit from theMBO.No lethal CDM couldbe conducted by anyentity other than WS orODW because theMBO office would notbe issuing MBPs fortake of DCCOs. WSand ODW would beable to take less than10% of a local DCCOpopulation under thePRDO because thisaction does not requireapproval or a permitfrom the MBO.Non-lethal CDM doesnot require a permitOhio Cormorant Environmental Assessment157Choices Available to OtherDCCO Management EntitiesUSFWSAgency ChoosingAlternative 2 –Only Non-lethalCDMMigratoryBird Office (MBO)West Sister IslandNational Wildlife Refuge(WSINWR)Wildlife Services (WS)Ohio Division of Wildlife(ODW)OthersUSFWS WestSister IslandNational WildlifeRefuge (WSINWR)No impact on decisionsmade by the MBO.WSINWR can only selectalternatives that are morebut not less restrictive thanthe MBO.___ WS could select anyalternative. However, itwould only be able toassist WSI with non-lethalCDM. This decisionwould have no impact onWS CDM actions at anyother location.No impact on decisionsavailable to state.However, selection of thisalternative will likely havean impact on the need foraction and the efficacy ofCDM on nearby landsmanaged by the state.Entities wishing toconduct research atWSINWR would not beable to use lethalmethods.Decision by WSINWRhas no impact onavailability of CDMalternatives at any otherlocation.Wildlife Services(WS)No Impact No impact on alternativesavailable to WSINWR.However, WSINWRwould have to go to ODWfor assistance with lethaltake under the PRDO.WS would only assist withresearch and CDM usingnon-lethal methods.___ No impact on decisionsavailable to state under thePRDO.WS would not assist withconsultation and Form 37required for a depredationpermit from the USFWS.ODW would not be able toobtain a depredationpermit. State would beable to obtain researchpermits.WS would only assistODW with non-lethalCDM and research usingnon-lethal methods.WS would not assistwith consultation andform 37 required for adepredation permitfrom the USFWS.These entities wouldnot be able to obtain adepredation permit.These entities would beable to obtain researchpermits. WS wouldonly assist withresearch using nonlethal methods.Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment158Choices Available to OtherDCCO Management EntitiesUSFWSAgency ChoosingAlternative 2 –Only Non-lethalCDMMigratoryBird Office (MBO)West Sister IslandNational Wildlife Refuge(WSINWR)Wildlife Services (WS)Ohio Division of Wildlife(ODW)OthersOhio Division ofWildlife (ODW)No impact on decisionsmade by the MBO.No impact on alternativesavailable to WSINWR.WSINWR would have towork with WS forassistance with lethalCDM. Selection of thisalternative will likely havean impact on the need foraction and the efficacy ofCDM at WSINWR.WS could select anyalternative. However, itwould only be able toassist ODW with nonlethal CDM. This decisionwould have no impact onWS CDM actions on landsthat are not owned ormanaged by the state.___ Entities wishing toconduct research onlands owned ormanaged by the statewould not be able touse lethal methods.Decision by ODW hasno impact onavailability of CDMalternatives at any otherlocation.Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment159Table 2. Impacts of agency selection of Alternative 3 – Only Technical Assistance.Choices Available to OtherDCCO Management EntitiesUSFWSAgency ChoosingAlternative 3 –Only TechnicalAssistanceMigratoryBird Office (MBOWest Sister IslandNational Wildlife Refuge(WSINWR)Wildlife Services (WS)Ohio Division of Wildlife(ODW)OthersUSFWS MigratoryBird Office (MBO)___ WSINWR can selectalternatives that are thesame or more restrictivethan the MBO. Therefore,no CDM would beconducted at WSINWR.Permitting and approvalprocesses are a form oftechnical assistance so noimpact on CDMalternatives available toWSPermitting and approvalprocesses are a form oftechnical assistance so noimpact on CDMalternatives available toODW.Lack of CDM atWSINWR will likely havean impact on the need foraction and the efficacy ofCDM on lands nearWSINWR that aremanaged by the state.Permitting and approvalprocesses are a form oftechnical assistance sono impact onavailability of CDMand researchalternativesUSFWS WestSister IslandNational WildlifeRefuge (WSINWR)WSINWR can selectalternatives that are thesame or more restrictivethan the MBO. No impacton decisions made by theMBO___ WS could select anyalternative. WSINWRwould not requestassistance with CDM fromWS.No impact on decisionsavailable to state.However, selection of thisalternative will likely havean impact on the efficacyand need for action onlands near WSINWR thatare managed by the state.Decision by WSINWRhas no impact onavailability of CDMalternatives at any otherlocation.Wildlife Services(WS)No Impact No impact on alternativesavailable to WSINWR.However, WSINWRwould have to go to ODWfor operational assistancewith CDM under thePRDO.___ No impact on decisionsavailable to state.WS would assist withconsultation required for adepredation permit fromthe USFWS. ODW wouldWS would assist withconsultation and form37 required for adepredation permitfrom the USFWS.These entities would beable to obtain aOhio Cormorant Environmental Assessment160Choices Available to OtherDCCO Management EntitiesUSFWSAgency ChoosingAlternative 3 –Only TechnicalAssistanceMigratoryBird Office (MBOWest Sister IslandNational Wildlife Refuge(WSINWR)Wildlife Services (WS)Ohio Division of Wildlife(ODW)OthersWS would not provideoperational assistance withresearch.be able to obtaindepredation permits. Statewould be able to obtainresearch permits.WS would only be able toprovide technicalassistance with CDM andresearch.depredation permits.These entities wouldalso be able to obtainresearch permits.WS would only be ableto provide technicalassistance with CDMand research.Ohio Division ofWildlife (ODW)No Impact No impact on alternativesavailable to WSINWR.WSINWR would have togo to WS for operationalassistance with CDM.Lack of CDM on statelands near WSINWRwould likely have animpact on the need foraction and the efficacy ofCDM at WSINWR.No impact on alternativesavailable to WS. WSwould not assist ODWwith CDM. This decisionwould have no impact onWS CDM actions on landsthat are not owned ormanaged by the state.____ Decision by ODW hasno impact onavailability of CDMalternatives at any otherlocation.Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment161Table 3. Impacts of agency selection of Alternative 4 – No Federal CDM.Choices Available to OtherDCCO Management EntitiesUSFWSAgency ChoosingAlternative 4 – NoFederal CDMMigratoryBird Office (MBO)West Sister IslandNational Wildlife Refuge(WSINWR)Wildlife Services (WS)Ohio Division of Wildlife(ODW)OthersUSFWS MigratoryBird Office (MBO)___ WSINWR cannot select analternative that is lessrestrictive than thatselected by the MBO.Therefore, there would beno CDM on WSINWR.WS could select any otheralternative. However, theonly entity that couldreceive WS assistance withlethal CDM would beODW because the onlytype of lethal CDM thatcould be conducted wouldbe take of less than 10% ofa local DCCO populationunder the PRDO. Therecould be no other types oflethal DCCO removalbecause it would requirepermits from the MBO.Non-lethal CDM does notrequire a permit from theMBO.ODW could take less than10% of local DCCOpopulations on nonFederal lands under thePRDO because this actiondoes not require approvalor a permit from the MBO.Non-lethal CDM does notrequire a permit from theMBO.Lack of CDM atWSINWR will likely havean impact on the need foraction and the efficacy ofCDM on lands nearWSINWR that aremanaged by the state.No lethal CDM couldbe conducted becausethe MBO office wouldnot be issuing MBPsfor take of DCCOs.WS and ODW are theonly Ohio entities thatcan take DCCOs underthe PRDO.Non-lethal CDM doesnot require a permitfrom the MBO.USFWS WestSister IslandNational WildlifeRefuge (WSINWR)No impact on decisionsmade by the MBO___ WS could select anyalternative.WSINWR would notrequest CDM assistancefrom WS.No impact on decisionsavailable to state.However, selection of thisalternative will likely havean impact on the need foraction and the efficacy ofCDM on lands nearWSINWR that aremanaged by the state.Decision by WSINWRhas no impact onavailability of CDMalternatives or researchat any other location.Wildlife ServicesNo Impact No impact on alternatives ___ No impact on decisions WS would not assistOhio Cormorant Environmental Assessment162Choices Available to OtherDCCO Management EntitiesUSFWSAgency ChoosingAlternative 4 – NoFederal CDMMigratoryBird Office (MBO)West Sister IslandNational Wildlife Refuge(WSINWR)Wildlife Services (WS)Ohio Division of Wildlife(ODW)Others(WS)available to WSINWR.However, WSINWRwould have to go to ODWfor assistance with lethaltake under the PRDO.WS would not assist withCDM or research.available to state under thePRDO.WS would not assist withconsultation and form 37required for a depredationpermit from the USFWS.ODW would not be able toobtain a depredationpermit. State would beable to obtain researchpermits.WS would not assist withCDM or research.with consultation andForm 37 required for adepredation permitfrom the USFWS.These entities wouldnot be able to obtain adepredation permit.These entities would beable to obtain researchpermits.WS would not assistwith research.Ohio Division ofWildlife (ODW)No Impact No impact on alternativesavailable to WSINWR.WSINWR would have togo to WS for operationalassistance with CDM.Lack of CDM on statelands near WSINWRwould likely have animpact on the need foraction and the efficacy ofCDM at WSINWR.No impact on alternativesavailable to WS. WSwould not assist ODWwith CDM. This decisionwould have no impact onWS CDM actions on landsthat are not owned ormanaged by the state.____ Decision by ODW hasno impact onavailability of CDMalternatives at any otherlocation.Ohio Cormorant Environmental Assessment163Table 4. Impacts of agency selection of Alternative 5 – Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the PRDO (No Action)Choices Available to OtherDCCO Management EntitiesUSFWSAgency ChoosingAlternative 5 –Integrated CDMMigratoryBird Office (MBO)West Sister IslandNational Wildlife Refuge(WSINWR)Wildlife Services (WS)Ohio Division of Wildlife(ODW)OthersUSFWS MigratoryBird Office (MBO)___ WSINWR can only selectalternatives that are thesame or more restrictivethan the alternativeselected by the MBO.CDM activities would berestricted to the protectionof vegetation and wildlife(not public fisheryresources) under MBPsfrom the MBO. WSINWRwould not participate inactions to protect publicfishery resources.WS could select any otheralternative. However, WSassistance with protectionof public resources wouldbe restricted to thoseactivities permitted underMBPs, specifically theprotection of wildlife andvegetation resources butnot public fisheryresources.All other types of CDMand research would not beaffected.CDM activities would berestricted to the protectionof vegetation and wildlife(not public fisheryresources) as would beallowed under MBPs fromthe MBO.All other types of CDMand research would not beaffected.No impactUSFWS WestSister Island (WSI)No impact ___ WS could select anyalternative. CDMassistance for WSI wouldbe restricted to theprotection of wildlife andvegetation (not publicfishery resources) underMBPsThis decision would haveno impact on WS CDMand research actions at anyother location.No impact on decisionsavailable to state.However, selection of thisalternative would likelyhave an impact on theefficacy and need foraction on nearby landsmanaged by the state if theneed to protect publicfishery resources isdetermining managementobjectives.No impactWildlife ServicesNo Impact No impact on alternatives___ No impact on decisions No impactOhio Cormorant Environmental Assessment164Choices Available to OtherDCCO Management EntitiesUSFWSAgency ChoosingAlternative 5 –Integrated CDMMigratoryBird Office (MBO)West Sister IslandNational Wildlife Refuge(WSINWR)Wildlife Services (WS)Ohio Division of Wildlife(ODW)Others(WS)available to WSI.However, WSI would haveto go to ODW forassistance with lethal takefor the protection of publicfishery resources.WS could only assist withactivities to protect publicwildlife and vegetationresources as would bepermitted under MBPsavailable to state.WS could only assist withactivities to protect publicwildlife and vegetationresources as would bepermitted under MBPs.This decision would notrestrict WS’ ability toassist ODW with all othertypes of CDM andresearch.Ohio Division ofWildlife (ODW)No Impact No ImpactNo Impact. ODW wouldnot need WS’ assistancewith projects to protectpublic fishery resources._____ No ImpactOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 Envir onmental Assessment

166 Rock elm ( Ulmus thomasii ) Sprengel’s sedge ( Carex sprengelii ) Tufted fescue sedge ( Carex brevior )

LICHENS Elegant sunburst lichen ( Xanthoria elegans )Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

167 APPENDIX G

USFWS FINAL RULEMAKING AND RECORD OF DECISION ON

DOUBLE-CRESTED CORM ORANT MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 21

RIN 1018-AI39

Migratory Bird Permits; Re gulations 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-crest ed 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 (D EIS) 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 alte rnative, 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 th e 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-410 7, 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 S ecretary, 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 migratoryOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 Russi an 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, 1 976) 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 depr edation 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 Am erica,” mentioned in a Federal Regi ster 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 a lternatives 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 Hunti ng. The selected action in the FEIS is Alternative D, Public Resource Depredation Orde r. 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 lo ng term. In the future, if supported by biological evidence and appropriate monitoring resources, the Service may authorize mana gement 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 ne ed 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 DCCOOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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, co nsistent with program, Service, an d 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 Serv ice's objective will be to use available resources to collect data that can be used to reassess the popula tion 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-gover nmental 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 th e 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 cons ider all additional research that has been conducted that evaluates the effects of the pr oposed action on fish stocks and other resources. The Service strongly encourages all stakeholders to assist in gathering the needed data throug h 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 depr edation order, will provide substantive increases in scientific and management knowledge of DCCOs and th eir 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 partic ular, the following needs exist: greater demographic information (age-specific survival/mortality, age at fi rst 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 orig inally 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 attentiven ess to public comments and our deference to agency expertise. The chart below highlights these changes.

Proposed rule Final rule Justification

ADO 1 : 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 DOs 2 : 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/ suspensionOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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

PRDO 3 : 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, s ee ADDRESSES). DCCOs are native to North America and range widely there. Ther e 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, acco rding to Breeding Bi rd 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 D CCOs 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 prairi e provinces of Canada, includes th e 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 mont hs, are concentrated in the northe rn prairies, with the Canadian province of Manitoba hosting the largest number of br eeding 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 ra pidly 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 Envir onmental 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 year s (Dolbeer 1991, Glahn and Stickl ey 1995, Jackson and Jackson 1995, Glahn et al. 2000). Surveys conduct ed 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, unp ubl. 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 Me xico) 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 Californi a 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 y ears, the largest increases in the region have taken place in the Columbia River Estuary, wher e 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 declin es 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 th e 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 lik ely 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 fr om the available science: (1) DCCOs are generalist predators whose diet varies consider ably 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 ve rsa; (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 toOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

172 determine whether a similar situation exists in their location, and undertake appropriate control actions to mitigate negative eff ects, 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 s ite 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 va ries with scale. While large-scal e impacts on regional or continental bird populations have not been documented (Cuthbert et al. 2002), there is eviden ce 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 a bundance (Wires et al. 2001, USFWS 2001). Some biologists have also expressed concern about incide ntal 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 aquacu lture 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 fac ilities, and USDA researcher s have found that as much as 75 percent of

the diet of DCCOs in these areas co nsists of catfish (Glahn et al. 19 99). 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. Research ers have estimated the value of catfish at harvest to be about 5 times more than the replacement cost of fi ngerlings, 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 attack s, and noisemakers used to scare aw ay 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 Migrator y 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 ex ists and an [APHIS/WS] of ficial certifies that all other deterrence devices and management practices have failed.” The two depredation orders that we areOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 loca lized 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 benef it 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 availabl e 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. Leth al control techniques are an impor tant, and in many cases necessary, part of a resource manager’s “tool box.”

Comment 2: States and other agencies don’t have su fficient 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 actio n, Alternative D, in no way precludes regional coordination or consideration of population objectives, despite being ch iefly 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 cl early the case. That is, it is unclear whether fewer cormorants would actually mean fewer problems (since sometimes distribution is as important as number in determiningOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 increase d 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, wh ich 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 rec ognize that factors other than DCCOs cont ribute to resource impacts such as fishery declines. However, an exhaustive and comprehens ive analysis of these myri ad factors is outside the scope of the EIS. Our focus is chie fly on addressing conflicts caused by cormorants and then attempting to manage DCCOs, or the resources them selves, 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 author izing 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 “reason able 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 Presid ent. 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 protectio n 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 Envir onmental 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, privat e 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 depr edation 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 eff ective 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 feasib le, 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 be ing humane for the euthanization of birds.

Comment 14: The Service needs to be tter 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 th e nation to increase public awar eness 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 th is rulemaking only authorize take of DCCOs in certain locations and timeframes, and by certain agencies, to en sure 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 sign ificant 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 de predation order. As we were considering options for addressing DCCO conflicts more eff ectively, it became clear that, since ma ny conflicts tend to be localized in nature, a sensible and flexible solution was to allo w local agencies more author ity 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 Envir onmental 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 budg et request, we have asked for increased financial resources to implement the DCCO sel ected action. This figure specifi cally includes money that could be used in cooperative efforts with States and other ag encies 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 Stat es to the aquaculture depredation order is necessary at this time. Private, commercial, freshwater aquacu lture 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 meas ures 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-Ba sed Initiative to Manage Double-Crested Cormorant Damage to Southern Aquaculture” notes that “Coordin ated 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 effec tive 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. Vege tation/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 Envir onmental 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. Howe ver, we are not specifically a res earch agency. Ou r involvement in research consists mainly of providing financial assistan ce 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 leadersh ip 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 stud ies 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 economi c 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 ma nagement 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 fr om 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 Fede ral Government (as oppose d 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, prope rty, 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 w ithout 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 Envir onmental 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 wildlif e species is difficult, and it is made all the more so when that species (such as the DCCO) is of little dir ect 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 quantitativ e analysis of the economic benefits associated with DCCO was not possible at this time due to lack of st udies 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 agen cy 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 agen cies 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 di rect 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 allo w 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 nece ssarily the case for impacts to private resources. In cases of significant economic damage caused by DCCO s, private landowners may request a depredation permit from the appropriate Service Regi onal Migratory Bird Permit Office.Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 evalua te 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 change d 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 curren tly 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 farm s in the southern United St ates 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 Serv ice 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 commercia l aquaculture stock. The issuance of depredation permits for damage at private fish farms is a high prio rity 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 mult ispecies 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 an d 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 cons idered 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 depreda tion. We understand that there are concerns aboutOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

180 all of the “what ifs” that could conceivably take pl ace in the absence of guidelines. We have made the purpose of the depredation orders clear, and we trust th at 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 w ith 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 conservatio n 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 threat en 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 analys is 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 re search 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 adva nce notification for certain actions, including information on the locatio n 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 occu rred, but we believe this process is sufficient.

Comment 47: The proposed rule seems to violate th e Service’s mission to “cons erve, 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 do ing this on their own in local situations (DCCO management efforts on Little Galloo Island in New York are a good example). The public resourceOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 ar eas 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 co rmorants 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 depr edation 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 th at does not threaten huma n 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 fue ling 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 Envir onmental 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 enfo rcement 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 themselv es and thus violates th e Fifth Amendment to the

Constitution.

Service Response: While any take, unless permitted, is prohibited by statute, the Service directs its

enforcement efforts on those individu als or companies that take migrator y 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 s ees 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 freshw aters 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 Enviro nmental Quality’s regulation for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508), we published a DEIS in D ecember 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. Th is 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 th e Secretary, insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out...is no t 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 th reatened, endangered, or candidate species.

Executive Order 12866

In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, th is 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 thisOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 cormor ant 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 w ith other agencies’ actions or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. Th e 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 jurisd ictions” under the Act’s definition. Effects on other small entities, such as aquacultural pr oducers, will be positive bu t 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, individua l industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. It will not have si gnificant 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 Pape rwork Reduction Act of 19 95 (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 Fe deral 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 lis ted 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 fina l 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 estimate d .5 burden hours per response; we estimate that § 21.47(d)(9) will have 900 annual responses at an es timated 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 re sponses 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 tota l of 960 respondents will annually submit a total ofOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

184 1,105 responses to the recordkeeping and reporting requ irements 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 intere sted 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 Servi ce 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 th e private sector. We have determined, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Refo rm 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 “si gnificant regulatory action” under th e Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Takings Implication Assessment

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this action does not have si gnificant 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 prop erty 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 di rect effect on fiscal cap acity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intr ude on State policy or administration. It will allow, but will not require, States to develop and implemen t their own DCCO management programs. Therefore,

in accordance with Executive Order 1 3132, this action does not have sign ificant federalism effects and does not have sufficient federalism implications to wa rrant 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, “G overnment-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 Orde r 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 actio n is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

RECORD OF DECISIONOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

185 The Record of Decision for management of double-c rested 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 doub le-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 a lternatives 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 y ears, combined with other environmental and social factors, have led to greater occu rrences of both real and perceive d conflicts with human and natural resources. In 1999, in response to urgings from the public and from State and Fe deral wildlife agencies, the Service decided to prepare a progra mmatic EIS, in cooperation with th e Wildlife Services program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant H ealth Inspection Service (APH IS/WS), to evaluate the significance of, and consider alternatives to ad dress, conflicts associ ated 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 discussion s, key issues were identified. Key issues can be placed into two general categories: (1) impacts caused by DCCOs (includi ng impacts to other birds, fish, vegetation, aquaculture, Federally liste d 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 enviro nmental categories for which effects of the different

alternatives were considered.

The alternatives were also considered in terms of th eir ability to fulfill the purpose of the proposed action:

to reduce resource conflicts associat ed 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 alterna tives reflect general management approaches to the alleviation of DCCO resource damages. Six alterna tives 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 aquacultureOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

186 depredation order that allows commercial, freshwateraquaculture 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 ta ke 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 D CCOs, 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 vici nity of aquaculture facilities during the months of October, November, December, Januar y, February, March, and April. Depredation permits would continue

to be used to address conflicts outside th e 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 agen cies. These seasons would coincide with those for waterfowl hunting.

DECISION

The Service’s decision is to implemen t the preferred alternative, Alternativ e 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 DECISIONOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

187 As stated in the CEQ regulations, “the agency’s pref erred 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 prefer red 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 eff ective 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, w ildlife, 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 In creased 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 Po pulation Reduction Alternative (E) was not selected because of uncertainty about the actual relationship between cormorant numbers and distribution and subsequent damages. The Regulated Hunting Alterna tive (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 propos e 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-creste d 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 a nd State and Federal fish hatcheries.

(b) In what areas can this depredation order be implemented? This depredation order applies to commercial freshwate r 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 or der allow and who can participate?Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 f ound 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 aquacultu re 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, Februa ry, March, and April.

(3) Authorized employees of the Wildlife Services prog ram of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Insp ection 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 Anim al and Plant Health Inspection Serv ice. Wildlife Services directive 2.330 outlines this certification process.

(2) Double-crested cormorants may be taken only by shooting with firearms, in cluding 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 mu seums 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 or der, 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 cormor ants in the southeastern States: the anhinga, which occurs across the southeaste rn United States, and the neotropic cormorant, which is found in varying numbers in Texas, Louisiana, an d Oklahoma. Both species can be mistaken for doublecrested cormorants, but take of these two species is no t authorized under this depredation order. Personsoperating under this order must immediately report the take of a migratory bird species other than doublecrested cormorants to the appropriate Servic e 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 Envir onmental Assessment

189 (i) To protect wood storks and bald eagles, the following conservation measures must be observed within any geographic area where Endanger ed 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 f eet 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 Of fice, that wood storks and bald eagles will not be adversely affected.

(iii) If adverse effects are anticipated from the co ntrol 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, numb er, 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 doubl e-crested cormorant populations is threatened by that Agency’s or individual’s action(s),. The crite ria and procedures for suspension, revocation, reconsideration, and appeal are outlined in §§13.27 th rough 13.29 of this subchapter. For the purposes of this rule, “issuing officer” means th e Regional Director and “permit” me ans 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 freshw aters in the States of Al abama, 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 or der allow and who can participate?Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

190 (1) This depredation order authorizes State fish an d wildlife agencies, Federally recognized Tribes, and

State Directors of the Wildlife Servi ces program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (collectively termed “Agencie s”) 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 cormoran ts 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 u tilize nonlethal control methods such as harassment and

exclusion devices when these are considered effectiv e 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 CO 2 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 mu seums 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 or der, 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 cormor ants in the southeastern States: the anhinga, which occurs across the southeaste rn 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 repo rt the take of a migratory bird species other than

double-crested cormorants to th e appropriate Service Regional Mi gratory 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 Envir onmental 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 mo re 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 fro m active bald eagle nests; (B) Other control activities such as eg g oiling, cervical dislocation, CO 2 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 approp riate 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 co ntrol 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 ac tion that would individually , or a succession of such actions that would cumulatively, kill more than 10 pe rcent of the double-crested cormorants in a breeding colony, it must first provide written notification to th e 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, sp ecifying what public resources are being impacted, how many birds are likely to be taken and what approx imate 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 activ ity 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 r ecords of all activities, including those of designated agents, carried out under this order. On an annual basis, Agencies must pr ovide the Service Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office with a report detailing ac tivities 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 Envir onmental Assessment

192 (ii) A statement of efforts being made to minimize inci dental 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 impact s to public resources by double-crested cormorants and a statement of the management ob jectives 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 repo rting 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 necessa ry to reduce or eliminate local breeding populations

of double-crested cormorants to reduce th e occurrence of re source 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 po pulations is threatened by the action(s) of that Agency, Tribe, or State Director. The criteria and pr ocedures 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, 2003Ohio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

193 APPENDIX H

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE LAKE ERIE WATERSNAKE

MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR CONS TRUCTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND

LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

May 2, 2003

The Lake Erie watersnake is a federally-li sted threatened species that occurs on the

islands in the western basin of Lake Erie. Wh en 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 activitie s. “Harm” is further defined as any action that injures or disrupts the normal behavior patterns of the sn ake. Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act states that “it is unlawful for any person subject to th e 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 ear ly in the planning stag es for project design

assistance.

The Service has developed the following guidelin es to assist in avoiding take of Lake Erie watersnakes. These season-based guide lines utilize the most current scientific information available and present a genera l overview of watersnake habitat. The guidelines may change as new information becomes available. Although implementation of these guidelines does not remove legal liabi lity associated with take of a Federally threatened species, the Service believes th at if you follow these guidelines, you are not likely to incidentally take Lake Erie waters nakes. Furthermore, these guidelines discuss the area of habitat used by 90% of the La ke Erie watersnake population, however all Lake Erie watersnakes are protected fr om 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 suitab le sites located above water level on both

the island shoreline and island interior. Re search indicates that 90% of Lake Erie watersnakes hibernate within 528 feet (161 m) of the shoreline. Suitable winter hibernation sites include the following locati ons: 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, drai nage tiles, building pads, and piled debris on the ground surface. During hibernation, La ke Erie watersnakes are unable to move and are vulnerable to any dist urbance of their hibernation s ites. Any excavation activity, removal of suitable tree roots, destruction of human-made structures (walls, etc.) orOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

194 disturbance of other suitable hibernation habitat sites may cause take of Lake Erie

watersnakes.

At island sites where suitable winter hibernation habitat ex ists, excavation activity should not occur during the hibernati on season. Activities to be av oided 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 mu st occur during the winter m onths, 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 pr oject, discuss options, address species needs, and fi nd 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 waters nakes, excavation of any kind in potential

suitable winter hibernation habitat within 528 ft (161 m) of shor e should be avoided between October 15 and April 15. Hibernati ng snakes cannot move at all during low winter temperatures, and are sensitive to di sturbance. Excavati on activities occurring between April 16 and May 31, or between Se ptember 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 Fahr enheit, the watersnakes are sluggish and experience difficulty in moving away from ex cavation 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 watersnake s 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 cont ain suitable hibernation hab itat (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 La ke Erie watersnakes. Anyone uncertain about

whether or not a site contains suitable wi nter hibernation habi tat 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 stru ctures such as docks, breakwater rocks, and shoreline erosion barriers pr ovide important shelter, bree ding and foraging habitat for

Lake Erie watersnakes. The watersnakes fora ge for small fish and amphibians near theseOhio Cormorant Envir onmental Assessment

195 locations and use spaces among rocks in the st ructures and along the shoreline for rest, reproduction, and protection from predators.

The shoreline/vegetation inte rface on the islands, as well as interior island ponds, inlets, bays, and marinas are vital to both the summ er and winter survival of Lake Erie watersnakes. Any kind of excavation or remova l 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 avoi d 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 complianc e 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 temp erature 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 temp erature above 60o F. Mow at dusk, on high setting.

The Service encourages preservation or constr uction of structures with designs beneficial to watersnakes (e.g., certain rock walls, rock-f illed 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/wat er/coastal/pubs/cmguide9.pdf . When conducting such activities, you should also contact us early for techni cal assistance in exploring alternatives or pursuing nece ssary 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 natura l ponds), for example the installation of a new dock or shoreline erosion protection struct ure, 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 pr oject planning process, construction projects during warm months (i.e., from June th rough September) in suitable summer habitatOhio Cormorant Envir onmental 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 pers on should contact us immediately in our Reynoldsburg, Ohio, office (614-469-6923 extens ions 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 in to them and becoming trapped. Holes or trenches should be inspected for Lake Er ie watersnakes before being filled.

Land Management Guidelines

Tree Removal

Tree root masses may provide suitable hibernat ion 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 lo cations. Within 69 feet (21 m) of shore, heavy machinery should be limited to paved ro ads, ramps, etc. so as not to harm watersnakes that may have retreated unde r rocks, logs, and other material.

Mowing

Shoreline vegetation is an important component of Lake Erie watersnake summer habitat. Vegetation provides resting, bask ing, cover, and mating locations for the snake, while it also provides habitat for native birds, fis h, amphibians, and mammals, helps to stabilize banks and prevent erosion, and helps to pr omote improved water quality. Landowners are encouraged to avoid mowing within 69 feet (21 m) of the shorel ine to protect these important habitat and water qua lity 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 thes e 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 wi ldlife biologist Mega n Seymour (ext.16). For questions about Lake Erie watersnake bi ology or about the Endangered Species Act, contact endangered species bi ologist Angela Zimmerman (e xt. 22). All questions may

also be directed to the office’s S upervisor, Dr. Mary Knapp (ext. 12).