ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REDUCING DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANT DAMAGE IN WISCONSIN FINAL Prepared By: United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services in Cooperation with: United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management Office United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Horicon, Gravel Island and Green Bay National Wildlife Refuges Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources April 20, 2009 This page left intentionally blank Wisconsin Cormorant Environmental Assessment ii 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 Aquaculture.......................................................................... 10 1.4.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources................................................................ 11 1.4.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Wildlife and Native Vegetation, Including T&E Species.... 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.............................................................................................................................12 1.5.1 Double-crested Cormorants in Wisconsin ....................................................................... 12 1.5.2 Potential DCCO Impact on Aquaculture.......................................................................... 13 1.5.3 Potential DCCO Impact on Fishery Resources................................................................ 17 1.5.4 Potential DCCO Impact on Wildlife and Native Vegetation, Including T&E Species.... 28 1.5.5 Potential DCCO Impact on Property ............................................................................... 38 1.5.6 Potential DCCO Impact on Human Health and Safety.................................................... 39 1.5.7 Wisconsin DCCO Coordination Group ........................................................................... 40 1.5.8 Proposed Initial DCCO Population Management Objectives for Breeding Colonies In and Near Green Bay. .............................................................................................................. 40 1.5.9 Examples of Cormorant Damage Management Activities in Wisconsin......................... 46 1.6 WS RECORD KEEPING REGARDING REQUESTS FOR CDM ASSISTANCE ......................47 1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS...........................................48 1.8 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT...............................................................49 1.8.1 Actions Analyzed............................................................................................................. 49 1.8.2 Period for Which this EA is Valid ................................................................................... 49 1.8.3 American Indian Tribes and Land ................................................................................... 49 1.8.4 Site Specificity................................................................................................................. 49 1.6.5 Summary of Public Involvement ..................................................................................... 51 1.9 AUTHORITY AND COMPLIANCE.............................................................................................51 1.9.1 Authority of each Cooperating Agency in CDM in Wisconsin ....................................... 53 1.9.2 Compliance with Other Laws, Executive Orders, Treaties, and Court Decisions............ 55 CHAPTER 2: ISSUES 61 2.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................61 2.1 SUMMARY OF ISSUES................................................................................................................61 2.1.1 Effects on DCCO Populations ......................................................................................... 61 2.1.2 Effects on other Wildlife and Fish Species, Including Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................................................................. 63 2.1.3 Effects on Human Health and Safety............................................................................... 64 2.1.3.1 Effects on Human Health and Safety from CDM Methods............................... 64 2.1.3.2 Effects on Human Health and Safety from Not Conducting CDM ................... 64 2.1.4 Effects on Aesthetic Values............................................................................................. 65 2.1.5 Humaneness and Animal Welfare Concerns of Methods Used by WS ........................... 66 2.2 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE........................................66 2.2.1 Impacts on Biodiversity ................................................................................................... 66 2.2.2 A “Threshold of Loss” Should Be Established Before Allowing Any Lethal CDM ....... 67 2.2.3 An ongoing monitoring program is needed to assess impacts on DCCO populations..... 67 2.2.4 Fisheries in the Great Lakes are already at risk from invasive species, nutrient loading wetlands destruction and other threats. ............................................................................ 67 2.2.5 The EA fails to provide adequate scientific data proving need for action. ...................... 68 Wisconsin Cormorant Environmental Assessment 3 2.2.6 If expanded control is permitted, it will be fueled by public pressure not real scientific need.................................................................................................................................. 70 2.2.7 Control of a native bird to protect a non-native fish species (brown trout), even if that species provides recreational benefit to a small portion of the human population, is ethically questionable....................................................................................................... 70 2.2.8 There is no proof that DCCO removal would protect/enhance target fish populations. .. 70 2.2.9 Please conduct CDM to protect fish at Lake Largo. ........................................................ 71 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 72 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED IN DETAIL................................................................................72 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................73 3.1.1 Alternative 1. Integrated CDM Including Implementation of the AQDO and PRDO (Proposed Action)............................................................................................................ 73 3.1.3 Alternative 3. Only Technical Assistance....................................................................... 75 3.1.5 Alternative 5. - Integrated CDM Program, Excluding Implementation of the PRDO (No Action) ............................................................................................................................. 77 3.2 CDM STRATEGIES AND METHODOLOGIES ..........................................................................77 3.2.1 Integrated Wildlife Damage Management (IWDM)........................................................ 77 3.2.2 Decision Making.............................................................................................................. 79 3.2.3.1 Non-lethal Methods ........................................................................................... 80 3.2.3.2 Lethal Methods.................................................................................................. 81 3.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE 82 3.3.1 Lethal CDM Only ............................................................................................................ 82 3.3.2 Compensation for DCCO Damage Losses....................................................................... 82 3.3.3 Increase DCCO Population Reduction and/or Elimiante DCCOs ................................... 82 3.3.4 Non-lethal Methods Implemented Before Lethal Methods.............................................. 83 3.4 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR CDM IN WISCONSIN..................................84 3.4.1 Standard Operating Procedures - General........................................................................ 84 3.4.2 Additional Mitigation Specific to the Issues.................................................................... 85 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 88 4.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................88