[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10550-10561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5485]



[[Page 10550]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 21

RIN 1018-AE11


Migratory Bird Permits; Establishment of a Depredation Order for 
the Double-Crested Cormorant

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service) 
establishes a depredation order for the double-crested cormorant 
(Phalacrocorax auritus). In those States in which double-crested 
cormorants have been shown to be seriously injurious to commercial 
freshwater aquaculture, and when found committing or about to commit 
depredations upon aquaculture stocks, persons engaged in the production 
of commercial freshwater aquaculture stocks may, without a Federal 
permit, take or cause to be taken such double-crested cormorants as 
might be necessary to protect aquaculture stocks.

DATES: This rule is effective March 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at U.S. Fish and Wildlife, 
Room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, 
Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, MBMO, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) populations are at 
an all-time high in the modern era, and commercial aquaculturists 
(especially catfish farmers) in many parts of the country are 
experiencing economic losses due to cormorant depredation. Three 
avenues currently are available to aquaculturists for dealing with 
cormorant depredation problems: (1) birds can be harassed (with shotgun 
blasts, fire crackers, propane cannons, or other scare devices) without 
a Federal permit; (2) ponds can be fitted with physical barriers (or 
exclusionary devices) such as wire or mesh netting that prevent birds 
from landing; and (3) private aquaculturists and State-operated fish 
hatcheries can apply to the Service for a permit to kill cormorants.
    The Service is the Federal agency with the primary responsibility 
for managing migratory birds. The Service's authority is based on the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-711), which implements 
conventions with Great Britain (for Canada), the United Mexican States 
(Mexico), Japan, and the Soviet Union (Russia). The double-crested 
cormorant is afforded Federal protection by the 1972 amendment to the 
Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Animals, 
February 7, 1936, United States--Mexico, as amended, 50 Stat. 1311, 
T.S. No. 912, as well as the Convention Between the United States of 
America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [Russia] Concerning 
the Conservation of Migratory Birds and Their Environment, November 26, 
1976, 92 Stat. 3110, T.I.A.S. 9073 (16 U.S.C. 703, 712). The take of 
double-crested cormorants is strictly prohibited except as may be 
permitted under regulations implementing the MBTA. In addition to 
Federal statutes, the double-crested cormorant may also be protected by 
State regulations.
    Regulations governing the issuance of permits for migratory birds 
are authorized by the MBTA and subsequent regulations (50 CFR 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 permits. Sections 21.43 through 21.46 deal with special 
depredation orders for specific species of migratory birds to address 
particular problems in specific geographical areas, establishing a 
precedent for species and geographic treatments in the permitting 
process. Service policies for issuing depredation permits for 
aquaculture were described by Trapp et al. (1995).
    Federal responsibility for the management of depredating wildlife, 
including migratory birds, lies with the Wildlife Services (WS) 
formerly Animal Damage Control program of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. The primary 
authority for WS activities is the Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, 
as amended, (7 U.S.C. 426-426c). Animal damage control activities are 
conducted at the request of, and in cooperation with, other Federal, 
State, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. 
Management responsibilities of WS in the cormorant-aquaculture conflict 
were reviewed by Acord (1995).

Commercial Aquaculture Industry

    Aquaculture, the cultivation of finfish and invertebrates in 
captivity, has grown exponentially in the past several decades (Price 
and Nickum 1995). The five principal aquaculture fish species in the 
United States are catfish, trout, salmon, tilapia, and hybrid striped 
bass. There are also two categories of non-food fish: baitfish and 
ornamental fish (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1995). While each of 
these industries has its own unique set of bird depredation problems, 
they all share a basic concern for developing and implementing the best 
methods for protecting fish stocks from predation.
    The market for channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) is the largest 
segment of the aquaculture industry, and the one which is perhaps most 
susceptible to predation by cormorants. The catfish accounts for about 
one-half of the value of aquaculture in the United States.
    The number of catfish farms in the United States increased 44 
percent between 1982 and 1990 (from 1,494 to 2,155). Most of this 
increase occurred between 1982 and 1987. Growth was fairly steady 
throughout the 1980s, with production leveling off in the past few 
years. Production was estimated at 224,875 metric tons (247,933 short 
tons, or 496 million pounds, or 225 million kilograms) worth $353 
million in 1993 and is expected to expand 5-7 percent annually due to 
increasing sales prices.
    Mississippi is the center of catfish production, producing 75-80 
percent of the United States output. Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana 
are also major producers. California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia 
also produce catfish and all have, or will have, problems with fish-
eating birds. In the four principal catfish-producing States, the 
number of farms increased 67 percent between 1982 and 1992 (from 794 to 
1,193); increases in individual States were 24 percent in Alabama (327-
405), 40 percent in Mississippi (316-442), 67 percent in Arkansas (115-
191), and 330 percent in Louisiana (36-155).
    The more than 64,300 hectares (158,840 acres) of catfish ponds in 
the United States in 1995 represented a 2.3-fold increase from about 
28,300 hectares (69,900 acres) in production in the 1970s. The four 
principal catfish-producing States accounted for 93 percent of the 
total area, with Mississippi alone accounting for about 60 percent. 
Catfish ponds range in size from 4-14 hectares (10-35 acres) each, with 
a mean size of 5 hectares (12 acres). Farms with 100 hectares (247 
acres) in production are not uncommon, and many are more than 400 
hectares (990 acres). In the Delta region of Mississippi, catfish farms 
average about 100 hectares (247 acres) of ponds, with

[[Page 10551]]

a typical rectangular pond size of 8 hectares (20 acres); ponds are 
shallow, ranging from 1-2 meters (3.3-6.6 feet) deep. The large size of 
the ponds makes them highly visible to fish-eating birds from the air, 
and the high stocking levels (from 5,000 to more than 150,000 fish/
hectare [or 2,000 to more than 60,700 fish/acre], Glahn and Stickley 
1995) make them especially attractive to cormorants. The catfish 
industry's practice of using large ponds developed in the early 1970s 
when cormorant numbers were low.
    The physical dimensions of the ponds are the secret to the catfish 
farmers' success (as well as the source of today's predation problem). 
The most efficient production ponds are circular, but they can not be 
harvested as easily. So, the ponds are generally rectangular and can be 
as wide as 80-95 meters (262-312 feet). At harvest time, crews drag 100 
meter (325 foot) wide seine nets strung between tractors on both sides 
of the rectangular ponds along the length of each pond. Undersize fish 
slip through the mesh and are harvested the next year. Because catfish 
farmers stock more than one year class of fish in a pond, it is not 
possible to drain the ponds and to reconfigure them to a size and shape 
that can be covered easily with bird-excluding nets. Also, the levees 
between the ponds are not wide enough to install extensive net 
structures and yet leave room for tractors to maneuver. Thus, several 
economic factors (e.g., low profit margin, the cost to modify the 
ponds, and a heavy investment in current harvest technologies) combine 
to preclude major changes in pond shape and size at the present time.

Population Status of the Double-crested Cormorant

    The size of the North American breeding population of the double-
crested cormorant was recently estimated at about 360,000 pairs (Hatch 
1995). Using values derived from the published literature of 1-4 
nonbreeding birds for each breeding pair yields an estimated total 
population of about 1-2 million birds (Hatch 1995).
    The double-crested cormorant breeds widely throughout much of 
coastal and interior North America. As of 1992, it had been found 
breeding in 40 of the 50 United States, all 10 Canadian provinces, and 
in Mexico, Cuba, and the Bahamas (Hatch 1995). However, it is not 
uniformly distributed across this broad area. Sixty-one percent of the 
breeding birds belong to the Interior population, while another 26 
percent belong to the Atlantic population. Two major areas of 
concentration are apparent in the vast range of the Interior 
population: (1) the prairie lakes of Alberta, Manitoba, and 
Saskatchewan (which account for 69 percent of the Interior population); 
and (2) the U.S. and Canadian Great Lakes (accounting for another 12 
percent).
    Seven political units account for 70 percent of the North American 
breeding birds, with Manitoba alone accounting for 36 percent. Thirty 
(52 percent) of the 58 political units listed by Hatch (1995) each 
harbor fewer than 100 breeding pairs. In the catfish-producing States 
identified by Price and Nickum (1995), only Florida and California have 
sizeable breeding populations.
    In the south-central United States (Arkansas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and west Tennessee), the double-crested cormorant has been 
known since pre-colonial times and has been recorded as an occasional 
breeder throughout the swampy forests of the region since at least the 
early 1800s (Jackson and Jackson 1995). Jackson and Jackson predicted 
that (in the absence of major limiting factors) the cormorant will once 
again become a regular member of the mid-South breeding avifauna, with 
birds dispersed more widely because of reservoir construction and with 
concentrations expected in the vicinity of aquaculture facilities.
    The double-crested cormorant has always been widely distributed as 
a breeding species. The only suspected instance of range expansion in 
the 20th century is in the United States and Canadian Great Lakes, 
which apparently were colonized by birds expanding eastward from the 
Canadian prairies beginning with Lake Superior about 1913 and ending 
with lakes Erie and Ontario in the late 1930s (Weseloh et al. 1995). It 
is possible, however, that these events represented recolonization of 
former (but previously undocumented) breeding localities from which the 
species was extirpated before 1912. For example, although Barrows 
(1912: 67) knew of no breeding records for Michigan, he noted that it 
was ``generally distributed over the State during the migrations'' 
(with specimens from almost every county) and speculated that 
``probably there are few sheets of water any size within our limits 
which are not visited by this bird at least occasionally.''
    The core of the wintering range (i.e., the regions of greatest 
density) did not change appreciably between 1959-1972 and 1959-1988 
(Root 1988: 11, Sauer et al. 1996b). Cormorant wintering populations 
are concentrated in coastal States and Provinces, from North Carolina 
to Texas in the east and from California to British Columbia in the 
west. In the midsouth, there also are appreciable concentrations inland 
from the coast (e.g., east Texas, eastern Oklahoma, southeastern 
Arkansas, west-central Mississippi, and northeastern Alabama). Of the 9 
catfish-producing States for which Christmas Bird Count data are 
available, 6 have indices of relative abundance that exceed the 
national mean; the median abundance in these 6 States (including the 
major catfish-producers of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi) was 2.0 
times the national mean (range: 1.4-9.6).
    The scattered occurrence of early winter stragglers throughout much 
of the interior of the continent as far north as Minnesota and southern 
Saskatchewan (Sauer et al. 1996b) is probably a natural phenomenon of 
longstanding (i.e., it probably does not represent a northward 
expansion of the wintering range). As evidence of this, we find that 11 
percent of 227 winter recoveries (December-February 1923-1988) of birds 
banded in Saskatchewan, Lake Huron, and eastern Lake Ontario were from 
latitudes north of the major catfish-producing States of Alabama, 
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi (Dolbeer 1991). Forty percent of 
these 227 winter recoveries are from 1 deg. blocks of latitude and 
longitude that intersect the Gulf Coast and another 22 percent are from 
degree blocks that intersect the main stem of the Mississippi River. 
Analysis of 5,589 band recovery records for the period 1923-1988 
(Dolbeer 1991) revealed that southward movement from areas north of 
latitude 42 deg. N occurs primarily in October and November. Cormorants 
of all ages are at their greatest median distance from northern nesting 
areas--about 1,900 kilometers (1,200 miles)--from December through 
March.
    Cormorants nesting in Canada and the northern United States from 
Alberta to the Gulf of St. Lawrence migrate in winter primarily to the 
southern United States between Texas and Florida. There is considerable 
mixing and overlap in winter of nesting populations from widely 
divergent areas. From 38 to 70 percent of the birds from Saskatchewan 
through the Great Lakes region winter in the lower Mississippi Valley 
(States of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) as do 10 percent of 
the birds from such disparate areas as Alberta and the New England 
coast (Dolbeer 1991). In other words, the major catfish-producing 
States of the lower Mississippi may be envisioned as lying at the apex 
of an inverted triangle, with cormorants from a 3,000 kilometer (1,860 
mile) expanse of breeding range being funneled into the region in the 
winter by topographic features and the flow of the major rivers. In 
commenting on this funneling effect,

[[Page 10552]]

Jackson and Jackson (1995) noted that ``It is a most unfortunate 
coincidence that the very heart of the catfish-farming industry is 
located in the Mississippi Delta at the confluence of the Arkansas and 
Mississippi rivers.''
    Our knowledge of double-crested cormorant population trends before 
1959 is based on fragmented and largely anecdotal accounts from 
scattered portions of the range. Syntheses of much of this information 
(Hatch 1995, Weseloh et al. 1995, and Jackson and Jackson 1995) reveal 
the following general patterns: (1) by 1900, cormorant numbers had been 
reduced, and their range possibly restricted, by human persecution and 
the extensive drainage and degradation of natural wetlands; (2) the 
widespread construction of reservoirs and impoundments (beginning in 
the 1920s), in concert with sport fish stocking programs and the 
creation of refuges and other conservation lands (beginning in the 
1930s), had beneficial effects on cormorant numbers; (3) the widespread 
use of DDT and other pesticides (beginning in the 1940s) had 
devastating effects on cormorant reproductive success, with the result 
that populations reached their lowest point in the mid-1970s; (4) the 
ban on DDT in 1972 and the general decrease in levels of environmental 
contamination, in concert with development of the catfish industry in 
the mid-1970s, created a favorable environment for the growth of 
cormorant populations.
    Quantitative information on double-crested cormorant population 
trends is available from three sources: (1) Breeding Bird Survey data 
(1966-1994), (2) Christmas Bird Count data (1959-1988), and (3) 
published accounts of censuses of breeding colonies. Trend information 
from these sources is discussed in the following paragraphs:
    (1) Between 1966 and 1994, the continental breeding population 
increased at an estimated rate of 6.1 percent/year (Sauer et al. 
1996a). The very high rate of growth in the early years (13.0 percent/
year), and to a lesser extent for the entire period, is partly an 
artifact of the extremely small population in the early years of the 
survey period (late 1960s and early 1970s). Compared to the earlier 
(1966-1979) time period, the growth of the continental and Canadian 
populations appears to have slowed appreciably in the later (1980-1994) 
period; however, the U.S. population has continued to show a 
significant rate of increase in the 1980s and 1990s, apparently due 
primarily to the continued rapid growth of populations in the mountains 
and plains States. The only significant declines noted were in the West 
Coast region (1966-1994) and in North Dakota (1980-1994), although the 
West Coast trend appears to be contradicted by rather dramatic site-
specific increases in British Columbia, Washington, and California 
(Carter et al. 1995). Most of the recent increase in numbers has 
occurred within the known historical breeding range (Hatch 1995).
    (2) Between 1959 and 1988, the continental wintering population 
increased at an average rate of 7.3 percent/year (Sauer et al. 1996b); 
significant increases were registered for 17 of the 20 States or 
Provinces for which data were available. Trends are available for 9 of 
the primary catfish-producing States; 6 of these States (Alabama, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia) have trends 
(median 16 percent, range 12-19 percent) that are well above the 
continental average. Most of the localities in the mid-South for which 
information is available show dramatic population increases between the 
mid-1970s and the early 1990s, with the trends paralleling a similar 
magnitude of growth in the area of catfish ponds in the region during 
the same period (Jackson and Jackson 1995).
    (3) Rather dramatic increases in breeding pairs are documented at 
colonies in the Great Lakes (Weseloh et al. 1995), the St. Lawrence 
River and associated waters (Chapdelaine and B deg.dard 1995), New 
England (Krohn et al. 1995), the West Coast (Carter et al. 1995), and 
elsewhere (Weseloh et al. 1995). The trends documented by these studies 
generally parallel those from the Breeding Bird Survey and the 
Christmas Bird Count.

Foraging Behavior of the Double-crested Cormorant at Aquaculture 
Facilities

Daily Movements and Activity Budgets

    In the Mississippi Delta, cormorants fly an average of 16 
kilometers (25 miles) from their night roosts to feeding sites. Each 
bird spends about 18 percent of daylight hours feeding; 88 percent of 
their foraging is done at catfish ponds and 12 percent near roost 
sites. The average cormorant forages for 60 minutes each day, but 
spends just 20 minutes underwater in actual pursuit of fish (King et 
al. 1995).

Feeding Rates

    Feeding rates may be dependent on the size and abundance of the 
available fish and the metabolic demands of the birds, and can be quite 
variable. Actively feeding cormorants in commercial catfish ponds 
capture an average of about 5 fish/cormorant/hour (Stickley 1991, 
Stickley et al. 1992), but can vary from 0-28 (Schramm et al. (1984). 
Partly because of this variability, the rate of 5 fish/cormorant/hour 
reported by Stickley et al. (1992) is highly skewed; the median was 
only 2 fish/cormorant/hour, and the mean was equaled or exceeded at 
only 3 (21 percent) of the 14 ponds studied. Stickley et al. (1992) did 
not find a significant relationship between the mean number of 
cormorants present and the number of catfish consumed, but ponds with 
40 or more cormorants generally had a feeding rate of 1 or fewer fish/
cormorant/hour. Similarly, cormorant feeding rates were not related to 
the density of fingerling catfish, density of all catfish (all size 
classes combined), or mean length of fish.

Diet Composition

    Cormorants eat a wide variety of prey items, and there is thus a 
great deal of variation in prey composition, both geographically and 
seasonally. Nearly all of the published information on diet composition 
at aquaculture facilities has been gathered in the vicinity of catfish 
farms in the southeastern United States (Bivings 1989, Conniff 1991, 
Glahn and Stickley 1992, Glahn et al. 1995, and Glahn and Brugger 
1995). These studies show that, among birds actively feeding on catfish 
ponds, the average proportion of catfish in the winter diet (by number) 
is most commonly in the range of 50-55 percent. The proportion varies 
seasonally from less than 30 percent in October and November to more 
than 80 percent in February, March, and April.

Prey Size

    Although cormorants are capable of taking catfish up to 42 
centimeters (16 inches) in length (Campo et al. 1993), studies 
repeatedly have shown that the vast majority of catfish caught by 
cormorants at commercial facilities are in the range of 7-20 
centimeters (3-8 inches), with most averaging about 10-15 centimeters 
(4-6 inches) (Schramm et al. 1984, Stickley 1991, Stickley et al. 
1992). This range of prey sizes is remarkably close to that of prey 
taken by cormorants in natural freshwater habitats. In five such 
studies (Durham 1955, Hirsch 1986, Haws 1987, Hobson et al. 1989, Campo 
et al. 1993), prey size ranged from 6-21 centimeters (2-8 inches), with 
a median value of about 12 centimeters (5 inches).

Prey Preferences

    Lacking a precise knowledge of the species composition and size 
distribution of the prey population, it is impossible to make 
definitive

[[Page 10553]]

statements about prey preferences. However a few tendencies are 
apparent. For example, the 10-15 centimeter (4-6 inch) fingerling 
catfish preferred by cormorants in one study represented about 64 
percent of the catfish (by number) in the ponds (from Stickley et al. 
1992), suggesting that the birds were merely preying on the most 
readily available fish. In this same study, 1 of the 14 ponds contained 
gizzard shad in addition to catfish. Nineteen shad were consumed for 
every catfish eaten, even though the pond contained about 5,100 
fingerling catfish/hectare (2,100/acre). The apparent preference for 
gizzard shad in this instance may be related to their being more easily 
caught, handled, and swallowed by cormorants (the mean handling time 
for catfish was 6-7 times greater than that of gizzard shad).

Daily Food Consumption Rates

    Estimates of daily food consumption rates of cormorants at or in 
the vicinity of aquaculture facilities in the southeastern United 
States vary widely, from 208-504 grams (7-17 ounces, or 0.4-1.1 pounds) 
(Schramm et al. 1984, Schramm et al. 1987, Bivings et al. 1989, Conniff 
1991, Brugger 1993, Glahn and Brugger 1995). The most widely accepted 
figure is about 320 grams (11 ounces, or 0.7 pounds) of fish/day, of 
which about one-half (or 160 grams [5.5 ounces, or 0.35 pounds]) would 
be catfish (Brugger 1993).

Impacts of Double-Crested Cormorants on Aquaculture

    With the exception of catfish, quantitative accounts of the impacts 
of cormorants on freshwater aquaculture stocks generally are lacking. 
The fairly large body of literature that has developed in the past 12 
years represents an attempt to assess the impacts of cormorants on the 
commercial catfish industry. Synopses of the pertinent literature are 
given in the following paragraphs.
    In the past, cormorants have been reported only infrequently at 
fish hatcheries. For example, questionnaire surveys conducted in 1977 
(Scanlon et al. 1979) and 1984 (Parkhurst et al. 1987) indicate that 
cormorants were considered to be problems at only 4-5 percent of these 
facilities nationwide. Of the more than 90 other (including non-avian) 
species mentioned as predators, 45-50 percent were listed more 
frequently than cormorants. Purported instances of cormorant damage to 
hatchery fish in Texas (Dukes 1987) include the loss of 90 percent of 
the smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) 2-year-old brood stock at 
the Jasper facility.
    The frequency of occurrence of cormorants at a given catfish pond 
is a function of many interacting factors, including: (1) size of the 
regional cormorant population; (2) the number, size, and distribution 
of catfish ponds; (3) the size distribution, density, health, and 
species composition of fish populations in the catfish ponds; (4) the 
number, size, and distribution of ``natural'' wetlands in the immediate 
environs; and (5) the size distribution, density, health, and species 
composition of ``natural'' fish populations in the surrounding 
landscape. Cormorants are adept at seeking out the most favorable 
foraging sites. As a result, cormorants rarely are distributed evenly 
over a given region, but rather tend to be highly clumped or localized. 
For example, in 27 weekly surveys at 50 catfish ponds in Humphreys 
County, Mississippi, 1987-1988, cormorants were observed at only 9 of 
the 50 ponds and only on 14 occasions (Hodges 1989). Thus, it is not 
uncommon for many fish farmers in a region to suffer little or no 
economic damage from cormorants, while a few farmers experience 
exceptionally high losses.
    Cormorants clearly respond in a positive way to the presence of 
shallow-water ponds stocked with high densities of easy-to-capture prey 
fish. For example, within two weeks of stocking 2 ponds in Hendry 
County, Florida, with 5-20 centimeter (2-8 inch) fingerling catfish, 12 
cormorants were feeding in the ponds and roosting on nearby poles. A 
nearby 2.5 hectare (6 acre), 2.5-meter (8-foot) deep pond, stocked with 
75,000 3-8 centimeter (1-3 inch) fish in August 1980, had attracted 13 
cormorants by September. These birds continued to feed at the pond 
throughout the fall and winter, and in spring 1981 they nested in a 
nearby cypress dome. By November 1981, about 50 cormorants were feeding 
in the pond (Schramm et al. 1984). The positive response of cormorants 
to the presence of shallow-water ponds stocked with high densities of 
easy-to-capture prey fish (as illustrated above) is clearly a major 
factor responsible for their impacts in a variety of aquaculture 
situations (e.g., baitfish ponds in Minnesota, koi ponds in Missouri 
and elsewhere, ornamental fish ponds in Florida, and catfish ponds in 
the southeastern United States and elsewhere).
    Assuming averages of 5 fingerling catfish consumed/cormorant/hour 
and 30 cormorants/pond (a constant number of feeding birds present 
throughout an 8-hour day), the catfish population of a typical pond in 
the Mississippi Delta (51,000 fish/hectare in a 8-hectare pond, which 
is equivalent to 20,650 fish/acre in a 20-acre pond) would be halved in 
167 days (Stickley et al. 1992). However, if actual values were nearer 
the median values of 2 fish/cormorant/hour and 15 birds/pond (from 
Stickley et al. 1992), the number of days required for the cormorants 
to reduce the population by half would be increased to 850 days (a 5-
fold increase).
    Of 281 catfish farmers queried on the Mississippi Delta in 1988 
(Stickley and Andrews 1989), 87 percent felt that they had a bird 
problem. Moderate to heavy cormorant activity (defined as at least 25 
birds/day) was reported by 57 percent of Delta farmers. Losses to birds 
(harassment costs plus value of fish lost) were estimated at $5.4 
million (3 percent of total sales).
    Overall, there appears to be little conflict between cormorants and 
the food- or game-fish industry in Florida (Brugger 1992), but losses 
of food fish, primarily catfish, can be locally severe (Brugger 1995); 
for example, cormorants were responsible for the loss of up to 50 
percent of the fingerling catfish in open 0.125 hectare (0.31 acre) 
ponds during 1991 at the University of Florida.
    Although fish of commercial value made up only a small percentage 
of the diet of cormorants collected in the vicinity of aquaculture 
facilities in central and southeast Arkansas from mid-October to early 
December, the finding of a few fish of very high value (e.g., grass 
carp with wholesale value of about $4 and koi worth $5-10 each) 
suggests that cormorant depredations can be locally or seasonally 
severe.
    On the Mississippi Delta, cormorants consumed an estimated 18-20 
million catfish during the winters of 1989-1990 and 1990-1991, which 
was equivalent to 842-939 metric tons (928-1,035 short tons, or 1.86-
2.07 million pounds, or 844-939 thousand kilograms). Based on the cost 
of replacing these fish, annual losses to the catfish industry were 
estimated at $1.8-2.0 million, which corresponds to about 4 percent of 
the estimated catfish standing crop each year. Although losses were 
documented over a six-month period, the majority (about 64-67 percent) 
occurred in February and March (Glahn and Brugger 1995).
    At catfish farms in Oklahoma (with about 324 hectares [800 acres] 
of surface water in production) in 1993, cormorants consumed an 
estimated 7,196 kilograms (15,900 pounds, or 7.9 short tons) of catfish 
valued at $14,000-36,000 (depending on size of the fish consumed), or 
about 3-7 percent of Oklahoma catfish sales (Simmonds et al. 1995).

[[Page 10554]]

Cormorant Depredation Permits

    Depredation permits to take double-crested cormorants at commercial 
aquaculture facilities have been issued by the Fish and Wildlife 
Service since 1986. Composite data for a recent two-year period (1993-
1994) show that about 8,200 cormorants were taken each year by 2,261 
permit holders. Cormorants represented the majority (about 57 percent) 
of the total number of birds killed nationwide; two-thirds of the 
cormorants were taken in the southeastern region of the United States, 
with substantial numbers also taken in the southwest and the upper 
Midwest.
    Between 1989 and 1996, the number of permits issued to take double-
crested cormorants in the southeastern United States more than 
quadrupled, from 50 to 215 (Coon et al. 1996). The reported take of 
4,000-8,000 birds annually has had no noticeable effect on the size of 
the regional wintering population.
    Mastrangelo et al. (1995) noted that the reported take never 
exceeded 68 percent of the authorized take and attributed this to the 
frightening effect that lethal control has on bird behavior. Hess 
(1994) described a recent study in which catfish farmers at three 
complexes in Mississippi were authorized (under Fish and Wildlife 
Service permits) to remove as many as 2,500 cormorants in a 19-week 
period. Participants were supplied with ammunition and encouraged to 
kill as many birds as allowed by the permit. The fact that only 290 
birds had been killed by the end of the project was attributed to a 
learned behavior by the birds to avoid areas where they might be shot 
(Hess 1994).

Environmental Consequences of This Rule

Cormorant Population

    The depredation order is expected to result in a moderate increase 
in the number of double-crested cormorants taken at aquaculture 
facilities. The impact is expected to be localized (e.g., possible 
reductions in the size of wintering populations in the immediate 
vicinity of catfish farms). To calculate the potential maximum harvest, 
we can assume that 42 cormorants (the average number reported taken by 
holders of depredation permits in the southeastern United States, 1989-
1995; from Coon et al. 1996) will be shot at each of the about 2,200 
catfish farms in the United States. The resultant annual take of 92,400 
birds will represent about 5-10 percent of the continental population. 
This level of take will be more than offset by the recruitment of young 
birds into the population; a reproductive success of 1.7-3.2 young/nest 
(Duffy 1995) will equate to a minimum recruitment, at current 
population levels, of 612,000 young into the population each year. In 
reality, the action is expected to result in only a modest increase in 
the number of double-crested cormorants taken at aquaculture 
facilities.

Socio-Economic

    The rule is expected to reduce the direct economic losses caused by 
cormorants at commercial aquaculture facilities. It also will enhance 
the effectiveness of current nonlethal control programs, thus reducing 
overall damage control costs to producers. The depredation order will 
reduce paperwork and costs associated with administering the current 
permit system and will promote quicker and more efficient depredation 
control operations by shifting responsibility to the individual 
aquaculturists. The depredation order will demonstrate cooperation 
between the Federal agency responsible for protecting and enhancing 
wildlife (Service), the Federal agency responsible for dealing with 
wildlife damage issues (WS), and the individual producers in dealing 
with a problem that has the potential to expand far beyond the wildlife 
management arena.

Other Fish-Eating Birds

    Although the action does not authorize the taking of other fish-
eating birds, it is possible that a few birds could be taken 
accidentally on occasion. The two species that are most likely to be 
confused with the double-crested cormorant are the neotropic cormorant 
(Phalacrocorax brasilianus) and the anhinga (Anhinga anhinga). These 
species have foraging habits very much like those of the double-crested 
cormorant and may occur on or in the vicinity of catfish ponds in the 
Gulf Coast States. The likelihood of other fish-eating birds being 
mistaken for double-crested cormorants and shot accidentally is not 
expected to increase above that which presently occurs . However, 
because of a projected increase in the number of producers conducting 
lethal control operations for cormorants, it is possible that there 
will be a slight to moderate increase in the actual number of other 
fish-eating birds (especially neotropic cormorants and anhingas) taken 
accidentally. Any negative effects on these species would be extremely 
localized, and long-term impacts on populations would be unlikely.

Endangered and Threatened Species

    Negligible impacts to endangered or threatened species are expected 
under the action. Few endangered or threatened species have ever been 
taken by aquaculturists with depredation permits. The likelihood of 
endangered or threatened species being taken by accident is not 
expected to increase.

Summary of Public Comments

    On June 23, 1997, the Service published a proposed rule (62 FR 
33960) to establish a depredation order for the double-crested 
cormorant. Three hundred and thirty letters or postcards were received 
from 347 individuals, businesses, organizations, agencies, and elected 
officials during the 60-day public comment period. Some parties 
submitted multiple letters, other letters were signed by more than one 
entity, and letters from two organizations were supplemented by form 
letters or postcards submitted by individual members.
    For consistency and standardization in analyzing the comments, each 
of the following examples was regarded as one distinct set of comments: 
(a) 1 letter from an aquaculture facility signed by 2 individuals, (b) 
5 identical letters from 5 different employees of an aquaculture 
facility, (c) 2 different letters (signed by the same individual) from 
1 aquaculture facility, (d) 3 different letters from a private citizen, 
(e) 2 identical letters from an aquaculture-related business signed by 
2 different individuals, (f) 1 letter from the Louisiana Catfish 
Farmers Association supplemented by 42 identical letters signed by 
individual members of LCFA, (g) 1 letter from the Catfish Farmers of 
Mississippi supplemented by 112 postcards supporting the position of 
CFM and signed by individual members, (h) 7 identical letters from an 
aquaculture facility signed by 7 different individuals, (i) 2 different 
letters from an elected State official, (j) 1 letter from the National 
Audubon Society co-signed by representatives of 6 other environmental 
organizations (i.e., American Bird Conservancy, Center for Marine 
Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, Izaak 
Walton League of America, and World Wildlife Fund), and (k) 1 letter 
signed by 13 different Congressmen.
    Thus, the 330 letters are considered to represent 161 distinct sets 
of comments distributed among segments of the public as follows: 
private individuals (52), aquaculture-related businesses (50), 
aquaculture organizations (21), environmental organizations (18), State 
agencies (13, representing 10 States),

[[Page 10555]]

Federal agencies (5), Federal elected officials (1), State elected 
officials (1).
    The proposed action was supported by 13 members of the U.S. House 
of Representatives (Representatives from the states of Alabama, 
Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi), who emphasized the economic 
importance of the aquaculture industry in their States and the 
potentially devastating impacts of cormorants on that industry.
    The action was supported (or at least not opposed) by State 
agencies in 9 of the 10 States from which comments were received: 
Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, 
Oklahoma, Texas, and Vermont. The Missouri Department of Conservation 
questioned why the current permit procedure was inadequate, and noted 
that if the depredation order were implemented ``it will be important 
to monitor control records to evaluate changes in numbers, locations, 
and dates that cormorants are taken.''
    The WS--a program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Service and the only Federal agency that 
submitted comments--supported the action, with the recommended addition 
of several items (e.g., include roost sites, western States, control on 
breeding grounds, sport fisheries, mariculture facilities, and 
unintentional or ``incidental'' take of similar species) and 
recommended deletion of the certification requirement.
    The proposed rule received overwhelming support from aquaculture-
related businesses and organizations. Many of the comments received 
from this group expressed concern that the scope of the depredation 
order was not broad enough (e.g., expand geographically, include 
additional species, add roost control, implement widespread population 
control).
    Among the scientific and environmental organizations commenting on 
the proposed action, it was supported by the Wildlife Management 
Institute and the Arkansas Wildlife Federation. The action was opposed 
(or at least not supported) by 12 national organizations and 7 State or 
local organizations. A sample of the concerns raised by these opponents 
includes the following: lack of good scientific data on magnitude of 
economic impacts; non-lethal techniques have not been adequately 
implemented; will remove incentives for using non-lethal control; will 
result in unintentional take of non-target birds; adequate methods 
(e.g., non-lethal and permits) are already available; effects on 
cormorants and other species should be monitored; geographic scope is 
unnecessarily broad; minimize effects on non-target species 
(educational materials); does not address spatially-localized nature of 
problem; does not address seasonal nature of problem; and sets a 
dangerous precedent for other bird species.
    Written comments received during the comment period are discussed 
in the following summary. Comments of a similar nature are grouped into 
general issues. These issues and the Service's response to each are 
discussed below.
    Issue 1: Numerous individuals and a few organizations, including 
the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (BASS), commented that the 
depredation order should be expanded to include situations in which 
double-crested cormorants commit depredations on sport fish populations 
in public waters.
    Service Response: Based on a review of the best available science, 
the Service concludes that cormorants generally have only minor direct 
impacts on sport fish populations (Trapp et al. 1997). Cormorants are 
just one of myriad biotic and abiotic factors, including water quality, 
aquatic habitat, natural predation, and angler take, that can affect 
sport fish populations. However, the Service also recognizes that there 
may be highly localized situations in which cormorants can potentially 
impact sport fish populations. These are generally situations in which 
sport fish are concentrated in extremely high densities, often by human 
activities (e.g., massive releases of hatchery-reared fingerlings, 
intensively managed put-and-take fisheries, and temporary congregations 
of fish at nearshore spawning sites). The Service currently does not 
issue cormorant depredation permits to benefit sport fish populations 
in public waters, but is exploring potential options that could be used 
to deal on a case-by-case basis with localized cormorant predation when 
it has been proven to be a significant problem. Two possible options 
include: (1) Modification of release practices for hatchery-reared fish 
to reduce their vulnerability to cormorant predation, and (2) 
harassment of depredating birds.
    Issue 2: Wildlife Services, as well as a majority of 
aquaculturists, requested that the depredation order be expanded to 
allow lethal take in conjunction with roost dispersal activities.
    Service Response: Studies conducted in the Mississippi Delta by WS 
over the past 6-7 years indicate that coordinated roost harassment/
dispersal (without lethal take) is a promising technique for diverting 
roosting cormorants away from the immediate vicinity of aquaculture 
facilities. Typically, the effort has involved coordinated teams of 
fish farmers harassing birds as they return to night roosts by shooting 
cracker shells, screamers (whistlers), and other nonlethal noise-making 
devices. The major objective of coordinated roost harassment is to move 
birds from the interior Delta (i.e., the location of major catfish 
aquaculture facilities) to sites along the Mississippi River.
    During the winter of 1996-1997, WS monitored the movements of 50 
cormorants outfitted with radio transmitters and examined the effects 
of a Delta-wide roost harassment effort (Tobin and King 1997). 
Harassment substantially reduced the fidelity of cormorants to roost 
sites (e.g., 11 percent of birds returned to the roost within 48 hours 
versus 81 percent at control roosts). Compared to birds from control 
roosts, birds from roosts that were harassed tended to move long 
distances between successive night roosts (i.e., 0 and 26 km, 
respectively) and travelled further to feed (i.e., 22 and 31 km, 
respectively). Ninety-six percent of the birds that roosted in the 
interior Delta foraged there the next day compared to only 7 percent of 
birds that roosted along the Mississippi River, and catfish comprised 
80 percent of the diet of birds from Delta roosts versus 20 percent of 
the diet of birds from river roosts. The evidence clearly shows that 
the roost harassment efforts conducted by WS in conjunction with 
commercial fish farmers has been successful in dispersing roosting 
cormorants away from the immediate vicinity of aquaculture facilities 
on the interior Delta, and is an effective nonlethal means for reducing 
cormorant damage at catfish farms.
    Wildlife Services contends that the ability to shoot double-crested 
cormorants at their night roosts in conjunction with harassment would 
make it much easier to disperse them from such areas, and would 
probably increase the effectiveness of the technique (e.g., increased 
dispersal distance, longer period of roost abandonment). However, the 
Service is not aware of any documented evidence that the addition of 
lethal take would significantly increase the efficacy of roost 
harassment.
    Roost dispersal/harassment efforts such as those conducted on the 
Mississippi Delta can continue unabated under auspices of WS. The 
Service will consider applications for depredation permits for lethal 
take of double-crested cormorants at roosts on a case-by-case basis. 
The Service will also consider a request for a depredation permit to 
take cormorants at roost sites in conjunction

[[Page 10556]]

with a research study designed to determine if lethal take 
significantly increases the effectiveness of roost harassment.
    Issue 3: Conflicting comments were received on the geographical 
focus of the depredation order. Aquaculturists requested that the 
geographical extent of the order be expanded, citing actual or 
potential problems in States (e.g., western U.S.) not covered by the 
proposed rule. Environmentalists noted a lack of documented evidence of 
problems in some of the geographical areas (e.g., northcentral and 
northeastern U.S.) included in the proposed rule.
    Service Response: In the proposed rule, the Service proposed that 
the action be applicable to 32 States in the eastern U.S. Based on the 
public comments received, the Service re-evaluated the need for a 
depredation order based on documented evidence of the magnitude of the 
problems that double-crested cormorants posed to commercial aquaculture 
in individual States.
    The Service concludes that double-crested cormorants pose 
significant problems to the commercial aquaculture industry in the 
following 12 States in the southcentral and southeastern U.S.: Alabama, 
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 
Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. This finding 
is based on the following lines of evidence: (1) Existing commercial 
catfish industry is sizeable, with predicted continued growth; (2) 
sizeable populations of migrant or wintering double-crested cormorants, 
with predicted continued growth; (3) documented evidence of economic 
losses due to cormorant predation on catfish (Stickley and Andrews 
1989, Brugger 1995, Glahn and Brugger 1995, Simmonds et al. 1995); (4) 
history of issuing aquaculture depredation permits to take substantial 
numbers of double-crested cormorants (Coon et al. 1996); (5) predicted 
increase in conflicts between catfish industry and cormorants due to 
projected expansion of industry and growth of cormorant population; and 
(6) potential conflicts between cormorants and other aquaculture 
industries, including baitfish, ornamental fish, and tilapia (Bivings 
et al. 1989).
    The Service also finds that double-crested cormorants pose 
significant problems to the commercial aquaculture industry in the 
State of Minnesota. Within the northcentral region of the U.S. 
(encompassing eight States), Minnesota accounts for 67 percent of all 
aquaculture depredation permits issued, 93 percent of all cormorants 
reported taken, and 82 percent of all economic losses claimed. A total 
of $388,750 in losses due to double-crested cormorant predation was 
claimed by Minnesota aquaculturists in 1997. Most of the aquaculture 
conflicts with cormorants in Minnesota involve the baitfish industry, 
although a variety of other stocks are also involved (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, unpubl. data).
    Individual aquaculture depredation permits will still be available 
on a case-by-case basis for dealing with damages caused by cormorants 
at commercial aquaculture facilities in States not covered by the 
depredation order. The Service will also consider adding additional 
States to the depredation order upon receipt of evidence that double-
crested cormorants are responsible for significant economic losses at 
aquaculture facilities.
    Issue 4: Wildlife Services thought that it was excessive and 
burdensome to require aquaculturists to contact one of its State 
offices to obtain certification of non-lethal harassment activities 
prior to implementing lethal control activities under the depredation 
order.
    Service Response: Prior to implementing the lethal control 
activities authorized by this rule, an aquaculturist must obtain a 
statement from WS certifying that his or her facility has a cormorant 
depredation problem and that lethal take of cormorants is necessary to 
supplement existing non-lethal harassment efforts. This requirement 
does not differ substantially from the certification statement that the 
Service requires before issuing a depredation permit. The Service 
considers this a reasonable and prudent measure that will help to 
ensure that (1) the privileges and purposes of the depredation order 
are not abused; and (2) non-lethal harassment remains an essential part 
of integrated cormorant management activities at aquaculture 
facilities.
    Issue 5: Both aquaculturists and environmentalists stressed the 
need for an accurate system for documenting the number of cormorants 
taken under the depredation order, and several environmental 
organizations recommended that the reporting requirements be 
strengthened.
    Service Response: The rule requires that any person exercising the 
privileges of the depredation order must keep and maintain a monthly 
log recording the date and number of all birds killed each month under 
this authorization, that the log must be maintained for a period of 
three years (and that three previous years of takings must be 
maintained at all times thereafter), and that the log be made available 
to Federal and State wildlife enforcement officers upon request. Any 
mandated reporting requirement would be difficult to enforce, and the 
submitted information difficult to interpret due to non-reporting bias. 
The Service intends to supplement the monthly log of cormorants shot 
with phone or mail surveys of a stratified random sample of 
aquaculturists. This survey is anticipated to provide more reliable and 
useful information on levels of take than reports submitted by 
individual aquaculturists. These surveys are also subject to OMB 
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    Issue 6: Aquaculturists indicated a desire for a provision to allow 
the unintentional (or ``incidental'') take of similar species, while 
environmentalists pointed out that any such take would be a potential 
problem.
    Service Response: Control actions taken under this order can be 
effectively implemented without killing other species of birds. 
Therefore, authorization to take is limited to double-crested 
cormorants. To the extent a person takes a bird or birds other than 
double-crested cormorants, it is a violation of the MBTA. In that 
event, the Service will exercise its discretion in determining what 
enforcement action, if any, is appropriate.
    The Service will attempt to minimize the unintentional take of non-
target species by (1) restricting shooting to daylight hours; and (2) 
working with WS and nongovernmental organizations to develop 
educational identification materials.
    Issue 7: Aquaculturists interpreted the proposed rule as applying 
only to the owners of aquaculture facilities, which would make on-site 
implementation of the depredation order much more restrictive than that 
of existing depredation permits.
    Service Response: The rule was intended to be applicable to 
landowners, operators, and tenants actually engaged in the production 
of commercial freshwater aquaculture stocks (plus their employees or 
agents). The wording of the depredation order has been changed to more 
accurately reflect this fact.
    Issue 8: Many aquaculturists suggested that the depredation order 
be expanded to include other species of fish-eating birds, such as 
egrets and herons, that cause damage at aquaculture facilities.
    Service Response: Of the approximately 46 species of fish-eating 
waterbirds that occur in freshwater habitats of the contiguous U.S., 
the

[[Page 10557]]

double-crested cormorant is by far the greatest economic threat to 
commercial aquaculture because of its abundant and increasing 
population, its attraction to certain types of aquaculture facilities, 
its habit of foraging in large flocks, and its ability to consume large 
quantities of fish daily (i.e., about 320 grams, or 0.7 pounds). This 
is reflected in the distribution of aquaculture depredation permits 
over the past decade. Nationwide, double-crested cormorants have 
accounted for about 57 percent of the individual birds of all species 
reported taken under aquaculture depredation permits annually; this 
species is an even greater problem in the southcentral and southeastern 
U.S., where it has represented about 65 percent of all individuals 
taken at aquaculture facilities.
    Other species frequently cited as causing damage at aquaculture 
facilities include the great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret 
(Casmerodias albus), and black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax 
nycticorax). Based on a review of the available information, the 
Service does not believe that inclusion of these or any other species 
of fish-eating birds in the depredation order is warranted at this 
time. Individual depredation permits will still be available on a case-
by-case basis for dealing with damages caused by other species of fish-
eating birds.
    Thus, while aquaculturists may take unlimited numbers of double-
crested cormorants under the depredation order without need of a 
permit, they will still be required to obtain a depredation permit to 
take any other species that may be causing economic damages.
    Issue 9: Aquaculturists noted that a prohibition against removing 
dead cormorants from the aquaculture facility at which they were killed 
would present logistical and potential health problems.
    Service Response: The Service reviewed this issue and found no 
valid reason for prohibiting off-site disposal of carcasses. The 
depredation order has been reworded to allow both on-site and off-site 
burial or incineration of dead cormorants.
    Issue 10: Many respondents in the aquaculture community felt that 
State agencies should have more authority in the management of 
aquaculture-cormorant depredation conflicts.
    Service Response: There is a long tradition of Federal-State 
cooperation in the management of migratory bird populations. Typically, 
the Service issues broad regulatory guidelines (such as this rule) 
while individual States retain the authority to implement regulations 
that are more, but not less, strict than the Federal regulations. In 
this regard, it is important to note that the depredation order does 
not authorize the killing of cormorants contrary to the laws or 
regulations of any State, and that the privileges of the depredation 
order may not be exercised unless the person possesses any appropriate 
State permits that may be required. The Service is committed to working 
closely with State (as well as other Federal) agencies in developing 
and implementing long-term solutions to the aquaculture-cormorant 
problem.
    Issue 11: Widespread population management of the double-crested 
cormorant, including actions on the breeding grounds, was advocated by 
aquaculturists and WS to reduce the size of the North American 
population.
    Service Response: A widespread, coordinated effort to reduce the 
cormorant population would be extremely labor-intensive and expensive, 
with little likelihood of long-term success. Furthermore, there is no 
guarantee that regional reductions in cormorant populations would 
reduce impacts at individual aquaculture facilities. The purpose of the 
depredation order is to provide individual aquaculturists an 
opportunity to deal with site-specific cormorant depredation problems 
in a timely and effective fashion, not to achieve a broadscale 
reduction in the continental double-crested cormorant population.
    Issue 12: Aquaculturists noted that methods of lethal take other 
than shooting (such as netting and traps) may be effective in killing 
cormorants, and that such methods should be authorized in the 
depredation order.
    Service Response: To the Service's knowledge, shooting with 
firearms has been the only method employed for the lethal take of 
cormorants in aquaculture settings. In the event that other effective 
and safe methods of taking cormorants are developed, the Service will 
consider adding these to the depredation order.
    Issue 13: Aquaculturists requested authorization to use decoys, 
vocalizations, and other lures to bring cormorants into closer gun 
range.
    Service Response: Anything that makes it easier to kill depredating 
double-crested cormorants by bringing them into closer range is 
considered beneficial to the purposes of the depredation order. 
Consequently, language has been inserted allowing the use of such 
devices.
    The intent of this provision is not to lure cormorants onto 
aquaculture facilities from the surrounding landscape (which would 
clearly be counter-productive), but to make it easier to shoot birds 
that are already present and committing or about to commit depredations 
on fish stocks.
    Issue 14: Some aquaculturists suggested that the depredation order 
be expanded to include mariculture facilities located in brackish and 
saltwater situations.
    Service Response: In the past decade, the Service has issued a very 
limited number of cormorant depredation permits to mariculture 
operations. The problems caused by cormorants to mariculture facilities 
are not well documented, and are not deemed to be of sufficient 
magnitude to warrant their inclusion in the depredation order at this 
time. Mariculture operators experiencing significant problems due to 
cormorant predation can still apply for individual depredation permits.
    Issue 15: Efforts should be made to monitor the numbers of 
cormorants taken under the depredation order, as well as trends in 
cormorant populations.
    Service Response: In addition to gathering information on the 
numbers of cormorants shot (see response to Issue 5), the Service 
intends to monitor potential impacts of the depredation order on 
regional and continental cormorant populations by means of: (a) 
Breeding Bird Survey and Christmas Bird Count trend data; (b) breeding 
colony survey data; (c) counts of cormorants on waterfowl breeding 
pairs surveys; and (d) analysis of band recovery data.
    Issue 16: The National Audubon Society et al. and other 
environmental groups argued that non-lethal control techniques were 
effective in alleviating conflicts between cormorants and commercial 
aquaculture and should remain a high priority, while also expressing 
concern that the depredation order would effectively discourage 
aquaculturists from investing in non-lethal, long-term solutions to 
depredation.
    Service Response: The Service has long recognized non-lethal 
control as the preferred alternative for dealing with cormorant damage 
complaints (Trapp et al. 1995), as has WS (Accord 1995). Of the many 
non-lethal (exclusionary and frightening) devices tested over the last 
decade, none has proven totally effective in deterring cormorants from 
aquaculture facilities. Typically, birds learn to avoid or ignore these 
devices in a relatively short period of time through habituation. Some 
form of behavioral reinforcement (such as limited lethal take) helps to 
reinforce and prolong the effectiveness of non-lethal deterrents. In 
reality, then, the take of limited numbers of birds will always have to 
be considered as a viable option in an effective, integrated

[[Page 10558]]

strategy for minimizing the deleterious effects of cormorants on 
aquaculture.
    The depredation order does not absolve aquaculturists from the 
responsibility of employing non-lethal techniques (see response to 
Issue 4); rather, it simply provides them with another tool for 
application in an integrated management approach designed to reduce 
problems caused by cormorants at their facilities.
    The Service believes that the aquaculture industry shares 
responsibility for alleviating bird depredation problems and that the 
industry should aggressively promote: (1) The design of new facilities 
(and the retrofitting of old ones where economically feasible) that 
exclude or repel cormorants; and (2) the use of nonlethal deterrents.
    The Service also encourages WS to continue an aggressive research 
effort to develop effective nonlethal means of alleviating bird 
depredation problems in aquaculture.
    Issue 17: The Ornithological Council and other scientific and 
environmental groups stated their opinion that there is very little 
good scientific data and no consensus on the extent and magnitude of 
the cormorant predation problem at commercial fish ponds.
    Service Response: The Service believes that an objective review of 
the available scientific information (as presented in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section) provides an accurate indication of the actual and 
potential problems caused by cormorants at commercial aquaculture 
facilities, as well as reliable figures on the magnitude of economic 
losses. In reviewing Foraging Behavior of the Double-crested Cormorant 
at Aquaculture Facilities, the Service synthesized data from 17 peer-
reviewed scientific papers to summarize what is currently known about 
daily movements and activity budgets, feeding rates, diet composition, 
prey size, prey preferences, and daily food consumption rates. This 
information provides the basic background for understanding the nature 
of potential interactions between cormorants and aquaculture.
    In assessing Impacts of Double-crested Cormorants on Aquaculture, 
the Service provided synopses of 12 peer-reviewed scientific papers 
that furnished information of a quantitative nature on actual or 
potential impacts. For the catfish industry, economic losses in the 
Mississippi Delta have been calculated by different methods as about 3 
percent of total sales (Stickley and Andrews 1989) or about 4 percent 
of the estimated standing crop (Glahn and Brugger 1995), and in 
Oklahoma as about 3-7 percent of sales (Simmonds et al. 1995). It is 
important to recognize that these are average values. Cormorants rarely 
are distributed evenly over a given region, but rather tend to be 
highly clumped or localized. Thus, economic losses also tend to be 
clumped or localized, with a minority of growers suffering a majority 
of losses in a given year. Since the distribution and severity of 
economic losses is unpredictable from year to year, it is prudent to 
provide all aquaculture producers in the affected States an opportunity 
to avail themselves of the privileges of the depredation order.
    The Service finds no reason to question the validity or conclusions 
of the scientific studies that it has reviewed, but acknowledges that 
others might interpret the same data differently. Although it agrees 
that better scientific information is always desirable, the Service 
must make management decisions using the best information available 
while relying on accepted ecological and wildlife management 
principles. The Service will continue to review new scientific studies 
documenting the impacts of double-crested cormorants on commercial 
aquaculture stocks as they become available.
    Issue 18: The proposed action appeared to be an application for 
recreational hunting to Animal People, who viewed it as a pretext to 
kill double-crested cormorants for sport and revenge, not because they 
are genuinely a threat or problem.
    Service Response: The Service is not establishing a recreational 
hunting program. Depredation orders are an established method for 
dealing with situations in which migratory birds are causing 
significant damage to human interests. Damages to freshwater commercial 
aquaculture stocks due to cormorant predation have been well documented 
in the scientific literature (see response to Issue 17).
    A decision to propose establishment of a depredation order was made 
only after: (1) determining that there was documented scientific 
evidence that cormorants were indeed a source of severe economic losses 
at aquaculture facilities; and (2) evaluating 12 different potential 
management options for reducing the problem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1997). The depredation order was determined to be the best 
alternative. The depredation order authorizes the take of double-
crested cormorants, under limited conditions, for the express purpose 
of reducing economic impacts to aquaculture facilities. This rule will 
allow aquaculturists to shoot cormorants not for fun, but because they 
are causing damage to commercial fish stocks.
    Issue 19: Many environmental groups believed that aquaculturists 
should modify their ponds to incorporate the use of physical barriers 
and other exclusionary devices to reduce the impacts of double-crested 
cormorants on fish stocks.
    Service Response: This would be an ideal situation if economically 
feasible. But the reality is that requiring aquaculturists to retrofit 
existing ponds to accommodate physical barriers and other exclusionary 
devices would create an economic hardship for small businesses and 
local economies. Nevertheless, the Service encourages the aquaculture 
industry to aggressively promote the design of new facilities (and the 
retrofitting of old ones where economically cost-effective) that 
exclude or repel cormorants.
    Issue 20: Concern was expressed by one environmental group that the 
depredation order would allow an aquaculturist to implement lethal 
control of cormorants regardless of whether or not they are a 
persistent threat and without having to demonstrate economic impacts 
due to cormorant predation.
    Service Response: The proposed rule and the Environmental 
Assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997) established that 
double-crested cormorants can cause severe damage at aquaculture 
facilities under certain circumstances, and that lethal take (in 
conjunction with a suite of non-lethal harassment techniques) was an 
appropriate depredation control action. The depredation order merely 
provides individual aquaculturists the opportunity to deal with site-
specific cormorant depredation problems in a timely and effective 
manner.
    Issue 21: The National Audubon Society et al. and others stated 
that the proposed action does not acknowledge the seasonal nature of 
cormorant depredation problems, and suggested that authority to take 
cormorants should be limited to those months when depredation is most 
common.
    Service Response: The intent of the depredation order is to give 
aquaculturists the flexibility to take double-crested cormorants 
whenever they are present at their facilities and committing or about 
to commit depredations on fish stocks. The Service anticipates that the 
take of depredating cormorants at aquaculture facilities will be self-
limiting and directly related to the numbers of birds present (e.g., 
catfish producers in the southcentral and southeastern U.S. will take 
birds

[[Page 10559]]

primarily in the winter months, and baitfish producers in Minnesota 
will take birds primarily in the summer months). Thus, while the 
Service acknowledges the seasonal nature of cormorant depredation 
problems, it does not believe that seasonal restrictions are necessary.
    Issue 22: The creation of a depredation order for the double-
crested cormorant establishes a dangerous precedent for other bird 
species and is contrary to the purposes of the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act.
    Service Response: The MBTA provides strong measures for the 
protection and conservation of migratory birds, while at the same time 
providing opportunities for people to use the migratory bird resource 
for sport, recreation, and scientific endeavors. The MBTA also provides 
considerable flexibility for dealing with situations where birds may 
come into conflict with human interests, such as the aquaculture-
cormorant situation (Trapp et al. 1995).
    Depredation orders have been in place for various species of 
migratory birds since at least 1974. Brief descriptions of each of the 
existing depredation orders authorizing take of designated species 
without need of a Federal permit follow:
    Blackbirds (Agelaius spp., Euphagus spp., Xanthocephalus 
xanthocephalus), cowbirds (Molothrus spp.), grackles (Quiscalus spp.), 
crows (Corvus brachyrhynchus, C. caurinus, C. ossifragus), and magpies 
(Pica spp.) ``when found committing or about to commit depredations 
upon ornamental or shade trees, agricultural crops, livestock, or 
wildlife, or when concentrated in such numbers and manner as to 
constitute a health hazard or other nuisance'' (50 CFR 21.43).
    Horned larks (Eremophila alpestris); golden-crowned, white-crowned, 
and other crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia spp); and house finches 
(Carpodacus mexicanus) ``when seriously injurious to agriculture or 
other interests'' in California (50 CFR 21.44).
    Purple gallinules (Porphyrula martinica) ``when found committing or 
about to commit serious depredations to growing rice crops'' in 
Louisiana (50 CFR 21.45).
    Scrub jays (western scrub-jays, Aphelocoma californica) and 
Steller's jays (Cyanocitta stelleri) ``when found committing or about 
to commit serious depredations to nut crops'' in Washington and Oregon 
(50 CFR 21.46).
    Issue 23: Several organizations and individuals questioned why the 
current procedure of issuing individual depredation permits to 
aquaculturists experiencing problems with cormorants was not adequate.
    Service Response: Because of the administrative procedures involved 
in the issuance of permits, there may be lag time of several weeks 
between an aquaculturist's request for a permit and his or her receipt 
of a permit authorizing lethal take; in the interim, cormorant 
depredations can result in significant economic losses. The depredation 
order will allow aquaculturists to employ lethal take as soon as it 
becomes apparent that cormorant depredation is a problem.
    Issue 24: The Ornithological Council expressed concern that the 
estimated take of 92,000 double-crested cormorants annually was ``way 
too high,'' as it could represent a tremendous proportion of the North 
American population.
    Service Response: The figure of 92,400 cormorants published in the 
proposed rule was a calculation of the potential maximum harvest, and 
was presented as a worst-case scenario. The Service estimates that 
adult and juvenile cormorants will be taken in proportion to their 
occurrence in the population, and that the annual take will never 
exceed 10 percent of the total population. Enactment of the depredation 
order is expected to result in only a modest increase in the number of 
depredating cormorants killed at aquaculture facilities under 
depredation permits (e.g., about 10,900 birds currently reported killed 
annually in the 13 affected States), and is not likely to have a 
detrimental impact on the population.
    Cormorants are difficult to kill in large numbers, as indicated by 
one study (Hess 1994) in which investigators were able to kill only 
11.6 percent of the number authorized (2,500) over a 19-week period. 
From 1989-1995, aquaculturists in the southeastern U.S. reported taking 
only about 65 percent of the cormorants that they had been authorized 
to take (Coon et al. 1996). Impacts of the depredation order on double-
crested cormorants will be monitored by reviewing several independent 
sets of data (see responses to Issues 5 and 15).
    Issue 25: The Wisconsin Society for Ornithology and others pointed 
out the value of bird band recovery information.
    Service Response: Substantial numbers of double-crested cormorants 
have been banded on their breeding grounds. Recoveries of banded birds 
at aquaculture facilities provides valuable scientific information on 
the origin of birds causing depredation problems, and are potentially 
useful for documenting effects of the depredation order on cormorants. 
Aquaculturists will be encouraged to submit band recovery information 
to the Bird Banding Laboratory via its toll-free telephone number.
    Issue 26: The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and several other 
respondents recommended that non-toxic shot be required for use in all 
control efforts using shotguns.
    Service Response: The Service agrees, and language requiring the 
use of nontoxic shot has been included in the depredation order.
    The detrimental impacts of lead shot on waterfowl and non-target 
species such as bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), as well as 
secondary impacts on the environment, are well-documented (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 1986). Based on this evidence, the Service 
adopted regulations (50 CFR 20.108) in 1991 requiring the use of 
nontoxic shot for hunting waterfowl, coots, and certain other species 
throughout the U.S. Recent studies (e.g., Locke et al. 1991, DeStefano 
et al. 1992, Elliott et al. 1992, Blus 1994, Daury et al. 1994, and 
Franson and Hereford 1994) further document lead poisoning in a variety 
of migratory bird species due to the ingestion of spent lead shot.
    Holders of aquaculture depredation permits in Minnesota have been 
required to use steel shot since 1989, while permittees in the 
southeastern U.S. have not heretofore been required to use nontoxic 
shot. Beginning in 1998, all aquaculture depredation permits issued by 
the Service will require the use of nontoxic shot. As producers of 
commodity products marketed for human consumption, aquaculturists have 
a vested interest in maintaining high environmental quality standards 
on their facilities.
    The 30-day delay between publication of this final rule and its 
effective date is provided by the Administrative Procedures Act (5 
U.S.C. 553(d)). March is a critical time for the fish farmers as the 
cormorants congregate heavily in the areas in question feeding in 
preparation for the Spring migration north. Since this a peak 
depredation time on catfish, the Service is providing relief to the 
farmers by allowing a streamlined process of dealing with cormorant 
depredation. Further, the Service has been directed to move on this 
issue by report language from the House and Senate dated October 22, 
1997, mandating that the Service effectively respond to this issue by 
January 1, 1998. Therefore, the Service believes good cause exists to 
waive the 30-day effective date.

[[Page 10560]]

National Environmental Policy Act

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
the Service prepared an Environmental Assessment, and issued a Finding 
of No Significant Impact. Copies of these documents are available from 
the Chief, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, ms 634-ARLSQ, Arlington, VA 22203.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    A consultation was conducted to ensure that actions conducted in 
accordance with the depredation order will not likely jeopardize the 
continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in 
the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. 
Findings from this consultation are included in a biological opinion, 
which is available for public inspection at the address indicated under 
the caption ADDRESSES.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and Paperwork 
Reduction Act

    Based on the economic impacts discussed in ``Impact of Double-
crested Cormorants on Aquaculture,'' the Service determined under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this 
rule would not have a significant effect on a substantial number of 
small entities, which include businesses, organizations and 
governmental jurisdictions. This rule was reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.
    The Service examined the rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 and found that it does contain information collection 
requirements. OMB has issued the following emergency information 
collection number 1018-0087, which expires August 31, 1998. Information 
collection is required to better enable the Service to assess the 
benefits of the depredation order on aquaculturists and to assess 
impacts to the double-crested cormorant population. Burden hours to 
aquaculturists are calculated as follows: An average of 41 birds may be 
taken by each of some 2,200 aquculturists per season. An estimated 
total of 800 hours will be required to keep and maintain the monthly 
logs, and produce the logs for inspection, yielding an average of 22 
minutes per aquaculturists per year.

Unfunded Mandates

    The Service has determined and certifies, in compliance with the 
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that 
this rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given 
year on local or State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that 
these regulations meet the applicable standards found in Sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from John L. Trapp, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, ms 634-ARLSQ, 
Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Author

    The primary author of this rule is John L. Trapp, Office of 
Migratory Bird Management.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, the Service hereby amends part 21, Subpart D, 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 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Pub. L. 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)).

    2. Section 21.47 is added to Subpart D to read as follows:

SUBPART D--CONTROL OF DEPREDATING BIRDS

* * * * *


Sec. 21.47  Depredation order for double-crested cormorants at 
aquaculture facilities.

    The Service examined the rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 and found that it does contain information collection 
requirements. OMB has issued the following emergency information 
collection number, 1018-0097, which expires on August 31, 1998. 
Information collection is required to better enable the Service to 
assess the benefits of the depredation order on aquaculturists and to 
assess impacts to the double-crested cormorant population. Burden hours 
to aquaculturists are calculated as follows: an average of 41 birds may 
be taken by each of some 2,200 aquculturists per season. An estimated 
total of 800 hours will be required to keep and maintain the monthly 
logs, and produce the logs for inspection, yielding an average of 22 
minutes per aquaculturists per year. Landowners, operators, and tenants 
actually engaged in the production of commercial freshwater aquaculture 
stocks (or their employees or agents) in the States of Alabama, 
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and 
Texas may, without a Federal permit, take double-crested cormorants 
(Phalacrocorax auritus) when found committing or about to commit 
depredations to aquaculture stocks on the premises used for the 
production of such stocks: Provided that:
    (a) Double-crested cormorants may be taken by shooting during 
daylight hours only, and only when necessary to protect freshwater 
commercial aquaculture and State-operated hatchery stocks from 
depredation; none of the birds so taken may be sold; and all dead birds 
must be buried or incinerated, except that any specimens needed for 
scientific purposes as determined by the Director must not be 
destroyed, and information on birds carrying metal leg bands may be 
submitted to the Bird Banding Laboratory by means of a toll-free 
telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND (or 2263).
    (b) Double-crested cormorants may be shot at freshwater commercial 
aquaculture facilities or State-operated hatcheries only in conjunction 
with an established non-lethal harassment program as certified by 
officials of the Wildlife Services' program of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    (c) Double-crested cormorants may be taken with firearms only 
within the boundaries of freshwater commercial aquaculture facilities 
or State-operated hatcheries, and persons using shotguns are required 
to use nontoxic shot.
    (d) Persons operating under the provisions of this section may use 
decoys, taped calls, or other devices to lure birds committing or about 
to commit depredations within gun range.
    (e) Any person exercising the privileges of this section must keep 
and maintain a log recording the date and number of all birds killed 
each month under this authorization, that the log must be maintained 
for a period of three years (and that three previous years of takings 
must be maintained at all times thereafter), that the log and any 
related records be made available to Federal or State wildlife 
enforcement officers upon request during normal business hours.
    (f) Nothing in this section authorizes the killing of double-
crested cormorants

[[Page 10561]]

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 permits, when required; nor the killing of any 
migratory bird species other than double-crested cormorants when 
committing or about to commit depredations to aquaculture stocks.
    (g) The authority granted in this section will automatically expire 
on April 30, 2005, unless revoked or specifically extended prior to 
that date.

    Dated: January 30, 1998.
Donald J. Barry,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 98-5485 Filed 3-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P