[House Report 106-916]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-916
======================================================================
REGULATIONS FOR HUNTING SEASONS FOR DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS
_______
September 29, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3118]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 3118) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue
regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that authorize
States to establish hunting seasons for double-crested
cormorants, having considered the same, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 3118 is to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to issue regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act that authorize States to establish hunting seasons for
double-crested cormorants.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
Double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) are
large, greenish-black colonial waterbirds that have been
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act since 1972. There
are about 30 species of cormorants worldwide, including six in
North America, of which the double-crested cormorant is the
most common. Their diet consists almost entirely of fish. The
average cormorant weighs about 4.2 pounds and is capable of
consuming about 25 percent of its weight each day in fish. The
double-crested cormorant is found throughout much of North
America at some time during the year. Cormorants nest from
southwest Alaska, central Alberta and James Bay south to the
Gulf of Mexico. Most cormorant populations migrate from
northerly breeding grounds south to the Gulf of Mexico, but
populations in Florida and much of the Pacific coast are
resident year-round. Cormorants are gregarious, and almost
always nest and roost in colonies close to a convenient food
supply.
Called ``duck-crows'' by early settlers, cormorant
populations have undergone dramatic changes over the last three
decades. Cormorant populations crashed during the 1960s and
1970s, as a result of widespread use of toxic chemicals such as
DDT and PCBs. DDT and its biological breakdown-products have
been linked to reproductive failure and eggshell thinning in
many species of birds, while PCBs have been linked to
deformities. PCBs and DDT are persistent, fat soluble chemicals
that accumulate in the food chain. Predators such as fish-
eating cormorants concentrate these chemicals by consuming
large quantities of contaminated fish. By 1973, cormorant
nesting pairs decreased by 86 percent in the Great Lakes, from
approximately 900 in the early 1950s to 125 in 1973. The
cormorant disappeared on Lakes Michigan and Superior, and only
about 10 pairs remained on Lake Ontario. Populations in other
parts of the United States suffered a similar decline.
Cormorant populations recovered significantly following the
banning of the sale of DDT and other persistent organic
pollutants. Registration of all DDT products was discontinued
in 1985. However, sales of existing stocks were allowed until
December 31, 1990. Since 1990, the cormorant nesting population
on the Great Lakes has increased to more than 93,000 pairs. The
cormorant is now more numerous on the Great Lakes than at any
time in recorded history. Likewise, populations in other areas
have seen tremendous increases. The total population of double-
crested cormorants in the U.S. and Canada is now estimated to
be more than one million birds. The decline in contaminant
levels since the 1970s is not the only factor that has allowed
cormorant populations to increase at such a rapid rate.
Scientists believe that increasing numbers of smaller fish,
such as smelt and alewife in the Great Lakes, contributed to
the bird's rapid population growth. In recent years, the rate
of growth in the cormorant population of the Great Lakes
appears to have slowed as a result of outbreaks of disease and
a limited food supply.
Despite a slower growth rate, the existing large
populations of cormorants have created conflicts between the
birds, other wildlife and humans throughout the United States.
Their ability to consume large quantities of fish is believed
to affect sport fish populations and displace other waterbirds,
such as herons and gulls. At aquaculture facilities, cormorants
can consume large quantities of fish before they are ready for
market. Their propensity to roost in large flocks and deposit
large amounts of excrement in a single location has been cited
for killing trees and other vegetation. Cormorants have also
been blamed for creating ``toxic islands'' from the
accumulation of their excrement in areas around the Great Lakes
where they frequently roost.
The impacts of cormorant populations on sport fish in the
Great Lakes and other areas is not completely understood.
Anglers and some scientists believe that in addition to eating
young sport fish such as bass, lake trout, and Pacific salmon,
cormorants compete with these fish in the Great Lakes for prey
species such as smelt and alewife. Fishermen, resort owners,
fish farmers, lakefront property owners, and others along the
Mississippi River and the Great Lakes are calling for cormorant
population reductions. Many natural resource managers believe
that cormorants generally have only a minor impact on sport
fish populations, but they recognize that cormorants may have a
significant impact on sport fish populations in localized areas
where fish or cormorants are concentrated in high densities,
such as hatchery release sites and spawning areas. Research
conducted by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYDEC) and the U.S. Geological Survey's
Biological Research Division in 1998 established a link between
cormorants and smallmouth bass in the eastern basin of Lake
Ontario. The findings of this research suggested that excessive
mortality of smallmouth bass occurred after the cormorant
population exceeded 1,500 breeding pairs.
Despite the uncertainty of cormorant populations on sport
fisheries, cormorants have severe economic consequences on
private aquaculture producers, particularly catfish farmers
along the southern portion of the Mississippi River. Losses due
to cormorant predation have been estimated to reach 3 to 7
percent of the catfish crop each year. Catfish farmers each
spend thousands of dollars annually to harass and repel
cormorants from their ponds. Several methods are available to
alleviate depredation of cormorants on fish stocks, including
nonlethal harassment, roost dispersal, oiling eggs to prevent
hatching and other forms of lethal control. Nonlethal
harassment techniques are widely used to move or deter
cormorants from a particular area, but eventually the birds
become habituated to the techniques, rendering them ineffective
at preventing depredation on fish stocks. In such cases, lethal
control may be necessary to supplement and enhance nonlethal
control methods.
Since cormorants are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, their nests and eggs cannot be disturbed and birds cannot
be captured or killed unless a depredation permit is obtained
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Since 1972,
USFWS has issued depredation permits to individual fish farmers
on a case-by-case basis to control cormorant populations. In
1988, USFWS issued a Depredation Order permitting the take of
double-crested cormorants at aquacultural facilities and State-
operated hatcheries without a permit in 13 States, provided
that lethal controls are used in conjunction with a nonlethal
harassment program certified by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Wildlife Services. The Depredation Order applies to
Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina,
Tennessee and Texas. In some of these States, a State
depredation permit is still required. Aquaculture facilities
outside these States need to apply for a depredation permit
from the USFWS on a case-by-case basis to implement a lethal
control program. Between 1994 and 1999, USFWS issued 1,479
depredation permits. Including cormorants harvested under the
Order, the number of cormorants taken annually in each State
has had no detectable effect on subsequent wintering
populations.
Earlier this year, NYDEC issued a draft environmental
impact statement (DEIS) with recommended alternatives for
managing cormorants in the eastern basin of Lake Ontario,
including lethal removal and nest suppression. The comment
period for the DEIS closed on April 12, 2000. Implementation of
the recommended alternative will require approval of the USFWS,
which has the authority to regulate the harvest of birds under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Currently, there is no
established hunting season for cormorants. The harvest of
cormorants is strictly controlled by the USFWS through the use
of depredation permits and the Depredation Order. USFWS issued
permits to the States of Vermont and New York in 1999 allowing
the oiling of eggs to protect avian and plant diversity on
cormorant nesting islands.
It is unclear when the USFWS will issue its final
regulations on the management of double-crested cormorants.
This legislation is an interim solution to address this out-of-
control population problem. It does not interfere in any way
with the completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
which the USFWS will publish on this issue.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 3118 was introduced on October 20, 1999, by
Congressman John M. McHugh (R-NY). The bill was referred to the
Committee on Resources, and within the Committee to the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. On
May 11, 2000, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. In
his testimony, Mr. Daniel M. Ashe of the USFWS stated that
``the Service does not oppose the idea of establishing a
hunting season on double-crested cormorants.'' On July 20,
2000, the Subcommittee met to consider H.R. 3118. There were no
amendments offered and the bill was reported favorably to the
full Resources Committee by voice vote. On September 20, 2000,
the full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. There
were no amendments and the bill was ordered favorably reported
to the House of Representatives by voice vote.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations
are reflected in the body of this report.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United
States grants Congress the authority to enact this bill.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this
bill does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on
Government Reform on this bill.
4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for this bill from Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, September 27, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3118, a bill to
direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that authorize states to
establish hunting seasons for double-crested cormorants.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
H.R. 3118--A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue
regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that authorize
states to establish hunting seasons for double-crested
cormorants
H.R. 3118 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
issue regulations authorizing states to establish hunting
seasons for double-crested cormorants. CBO estimates that
implementing H.R. 3118 would have no significant impact on the
federal budget. Within six months of the bill's enactment, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would have to issue regulations
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to carry out the
legislation, but this would involve minimal expense.
The bill would not affect direct spending or receipts;
therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. H.R. 3118
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no
costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Deborah Reis.
The estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
compliance with public law 104-4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
preemption of state, local or tribal law
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
changes in existing law
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
The double-crested cormorant is a non-game, colonial
nesting bird protected since 1972 under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA, 16 U.S.C. 703-712). The majority claims that
a resurgent double-crested cormorant population is solely
responsible for declining sport fisheries throughout the bird's
original and expanded range. They stress that the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (the Service) has ignored this problem for
years and declined to take appropriate action to control
cormorant depredation and other impacts. The only recourse
acceptable to the majority is to amend the MBTA to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to issue regulations to allow the
State to establish regulated hunts in order to cull the double-
crested cormorant population, and theoretically, restore
depleted sport fish stocks.
Unfortunately, this summation is a convenient
simplification of the issue. H.R. 3118 is a flawed remedy not
grounded in biological science, but based primarily on the
speculation of sport anglers and outfitters. A broad-based hunt
for double-crested cormorant would likely be both wasteful and
ineffective, and we are deeply concerned that H.R. 3118 would
purposely undermine the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process as it applies to the protection and management
of other non-game bird species listed under the MBTA.
We acknowledge that the double-crested cormorant population
has recovered from its precarious status in the early 1970s and
that now this species has re-colonized its historic range
throughout much of coastal and interior North America. We also
note that human activities (e.g., sport fish stocking,
aquaculture and catfish farming, reduced use of pesticides and
other toxic substances, habitat enhancement, etc.) have
contributed significant towards the restoration of this
population by creating favorable environmental conditions. As a
result, some double-crested cormorant colonies may be perceived
as nuisances in certain geographic areas of the United States,
notably in the southeast and in the Great Lakes region.
However, the consensus of wildlife biologists, as
demonstrated in surveys and the scientific literature, strongly
refutes the majority's principal argument. The reality, as
expressed in the 1999 scientific paper, Double-crested
cormorant Impacts on Sport Fish: Literature Review, Agency
Survey, and Strategies, is that [cormorant] depredation ``in
most natural situations has a minor impact on commercial or
sport fish populations.'' Investigations of [cormorant] stomach
contents indicate that fish species of value by commercial or
sport anglers generally make up a very small proportion of a
double-crested cormorant's diet, usually less than 3 percent in
natural conditions. In fact, the amount of game fish consumed
by double-crested cormorants has been found to be generally 5
percent of the total quantity caught by commercial and sport
anglers. The report concludes by stating that ``a strategy of
reducing cormorant populations to benefit sport fish
populations is biologically unwarranted.''
Also, contrary to the majority's assertions, the Service
has taken actions to address nuisance double-crested cormorant
depredation; especially depredation affecting catfish farms and
other aquaculture operations in the southeastern United States.
In 1986, the Service, in coordination with other Federal
agencies and the States, began to issue depredation permits to
allow the take of double-crested cormorants at aquaculture
facilities where there were documented economic impacts.
According to 1997 data, as of 1993-1994 close to 2,300
depredation permits had been issued by the Service which
resulted in an annual take of approximately 8,200 cormorants
per year. And in 1998, the Service issued a broad depredation
order to allow catfish farmers and other commercial
aquaculturalists in 13 States to take double-crested cormorant
impacting their operations. The Service estimated that this
standing order could produce an annual take of up to 92,000
cormorants, or roughly 10 percent of the continental population
of the species if aggressively implemented by the State, the
aquaculture industry and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Wildlife Services program.
Most recently, on November 8, 1999, the Service published a
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) and national management plan for double-crested
cormorants. This action was intended to address various impacts
caused by population and range expansion of the bird in the
contiguous United States. The EIS is expected to identify and,
where possible, quantify impacts caused by increasing cormorant
populations. The EIS is also expected to suggest management
strategies to resolve such conflicts and identify factors
needed to justify the implementation of control measures. Over
1,450 comments were received during the public scoping period
which ended on June 30, 2000. The Service expects to release
its draft EIS for public review in November, 2000. The EIS will
provide the requisite scientific analysis necessary to develop
a comprehensive management strategy, including consideration of
non-lethal control alternatives other than a regulated hunt
that are more focused, less wasteful, and genuinely helpful
towards the restoration of sport fisheries. We also not that
the EIS could include recommendations for new depredation
control activities. But at least in this instance, such
proposals would be based on science and targeted to the areas
that need action.
Simply because double-crested cormorants, as a small part
of their diet, consume game fish cherished by sport anglers,
that factor alone is not sufficient justification for Congress
to authorize a hunt for a non-game bird protected under the
MBTA. In fact, the longstanding policy of the Service is to
deny such requests because rarely is there a verifiable
biological connection or associated economic impact. Yet H.R.
3118 would overturn a prudent conservation policy in favor of a
short-sighted management scheme. Moreover, this flawed strategy
would inflict unnecessary mortality on non-nuisance cormorant
colonies without any reasonable assurance that sport fish
populations would actually recover. In fact, we suspect that
sport fish populations might recover more quickly through the
implementation of control measures to address other deleterious
human activities affecting sport fish populations, such as
polluted run-off, aquatic nuisance species, acidification of
lakes and ponds, and habitat loss.
These birds should not be unfairly singled out when no
credible scientific evidence has been presented to the
Committee to justify the authorization of a broad-based hunt,
and especially, when a science-based national management
strategy for double-crested cormorants is within reach. The
Service has consistently communicated its strong preference to
be allowed to complete this EIS free from congressional
interference. Rather than default to the strategy proposed in
H.R. 3118, we believe it would be far wiser for the Congress to
suspend action until the full range of management alternatives
in the EIS can be evaluated and a national strategy proposed.
To that end, we urge the Service to expedite the completion of
this important EIS.
George Miller.
Patrick J. Kennedy.
Mark Udall.
Rush Holt.
Frank Pallone, Jr.
Donna Christensen.
Joseph Crowley.