28 February 2002

Jon Andrew
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Migratory Bird Management
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Suite 634
Arlington, VA 22203

 
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Double-crested Cormorant Management

Dear Dr. Andrew,

The Ornithological Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft management plan and environmental impact statement for the control of Double-crested Cormorants. The Ornithological Council consists of ten leading scientific ornithological societies ‑ the American Ornithologists' Union, Association of Field Ornithologists, CIPAMEX, Cooper Ornithological Society, Pacific Seabird Group, Raptor Research Foundation, Society of Canadian Ornithologists/La Société des Ornithologistes du Canada, Society for Caribbean Ornithology, Waterbird Society, and Wilson Ornithological Society ‑ that together have a membership of nearly 6,500 ornithologists. It is our mission to provide scientific information about birds to legislators, regulatory agencies, industry decision makers, conservation organizations and others, and to promote the use of that scientific information in the making of policies that affect birds. We also represent the concerns of ornithologists to the regulatory agencies and other organizations that authorize research activities involving wild birds.

These comments will not focus so much on the scientific issues raised by the plan as they will focus on the more pragmatic issue of implementation. With regard to the scientific merits of the plan, we refer you to the comments submitted by the American Ornithologists= Union, as well as those submitted by Linda Wires. Both comprise thoughtful, comprehensive analyses by recognized experts who are well-qualified and whose views should be accorded great weight by the USFWS.

With regard to the implementation of this plan, we are greatly concerned that USFWS and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS assistance and expertise will almost certainly be needed) lack the resources to implement it properly. As you know, we have great respect for the USFWS and the Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM). The staff  are dedicated, diligent, and of the highest caliber. However, the DMBM simply does not have the resources to implement this plan. There are far too few people to think that the extensive data collection and analysis required by this plan could ever be accomplished, much less in the timely manner necessary to intervene to prevent excessive take in a given state, region, or local area.

In fact, the DMBM has been unable to collect and analyze the data evidencing the extent of the take of Double-crested Cormorants just in the 13 states covered by the existing depredation order. Because that order failed to impose upon aquaculture farmers an affirmative obligation to report the level of take,  the USFWS must request permission from the Office of Management (OMB), which is time-consuming and causes delays in obtaining data. This is no small task, because the agency that wishes to collect information from the public must provide OMB with information about the nature of the request, the justification for the request, estimates of the number of respondents and the time needed to respond, among other things. The winter 2000 take data were only obtained by the USFWS in October 2001.

Once permission is obtained, the USFWS must identify the individuals who are taking birds under the depredation order. We saw from the one information collection undertaken by the USFWS that the effort to identify aquaculture farms was wholly inadequate. According to USFWS staff involved in making that request, the survey was directed to those aquaculture farmers who had held depredation permits prior to the time that the depredation order was made final. As we pointed out at the time, this list - which would have to date back to 1998 - cannot be a complete and accurate list of aquaculture farms today, much less over time. There are probably facilities that have come online since the depredation order was issued, and they wouldn't show up on a list of permit holders. There are probably facilities that didn't need a permit because they didn't have a significant cormorant problem, but now have a problem and are taking under the standing order. And it is entirely possible that there were facilities that were taking birds illegally. Over time, the list comprising permit holders in 1998 will become increasingly useless in identifying those who may be taking cormorants under the depredation order. The Catfish Farmers of America has 1800 members from 41 states and the District of Columbia, totaling almost 90% of the catfish production (source: PR Newswire Article dated 18 September 2001; citing Catfish Farmers of America). According to the USDA 1997 Census of Aquaculture, there were 4,028 aquaculture farms in the United State (http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/aquaculture/quickfacts/index.htm). We were unable to determine how many of these were in the states covered by the existing depredation order, but the top ten aquaculture states (in terms of sales) included Mississippi, Arkansas, Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana, which are all covered by the depredation order.

There is apparently no other source of information available to the USFWS that will enable the USFWS to collect data from individuals taking cormorants under the depredation order. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is barred by a federal court order from providing any information about individual cooperators. Therefore, the USDA cannot tell the USFWS the names and addresses of aquaculture farmers. Although we suggested to the USFWS that they try to enlist the assistance of the Catfish Farmers of America, the National Aquaculture Association, or other industry associations in identifying the aquaculture facilities in the states covered by the depredation order, we recognize that those organizations are under no obligation to provide this information to the USFWS.

Even with a complete list of aquaculture farms available, the USFWS resources are inadequate to obtain sufficient data to determine the level of take. The response rate to the USFWS survey was extremely low in some states. In fact, the response rate in Florida, Kentucky, and South Carolina was zero. In Arkansas and Mississippi, where there is extensive aquaculture and significant take of cormorants, the response rates were 35% and 63%, respectively. Furthermore, the submission to OMB for the information collection approval estimated that A2,200 individuals would complete the required mortality logs and approximately 250 individuals would complete the annual survey (for a total of 2,450).@ In fact, the total response rate shown on the chart provided to us in response to a FOIA request shows that 141 individuals responded. As we understand it, there was no follow-up with the non-responders. With the current resources available to DMBM, this is entirely understandable. Again, we wish to stress that our criticism is limited to the DMBM capacity, not capability. There are simply too few people to handle the existing workload, much less an additional task of the magnitude that will be required to properly oversee this proposed management plan. We understand and empathize with the fact that the DMBM staff is critically understaffed and facing an ever-increasing workload of mandated priorities, but the preparation of a management plan that is projected to result in the deaths of 204,500 birds requires careful oversight. Each year, the DMBM would have to obtain take data from every state where depredation efforts have occurred. Extensive follow-up would be needed to assure adequate data collection. In addition, it would be necessary to monitor both the overall Double-crested Cormorant population as well as local populations that have been subjected to depredation and other control measures, to be sure that the impacts of the activities are not causing the population to decline at a rate that might result in the need to protect the species as a nongame migratory bird species of management concern, or even as a threatened or endangered species. While this possibility may seem remote today, given the widespread abundance of the species, we would remind the USFWS that abundance and wide geographic distribution are no guarantee against extinction. The demise of the Passenger Pigeon taught us that lesson.

That the data collection effort has produced no useful information is evidenced by the fact that the USFWS estimated that 92,000 birds would be taken under the depredation order, and the management plan states that the estimated take for the estimated take for the year 2000 was 46,683 birds. However, the data we were provided by the USFWS in response to the FOIA request shows that 19,665 birds were taken in the states covered by the depredation order. Region 1 had not yet reported actual take for the year 2000; only 1045 takings were authorized. Region 5 had not yet reported actual take for the year 2000; only 256 takings were authorized. In Region 6, 793 takings were authorized; only 113 were reported. In addition, there was a report of the illegal killing of 500 cormorants in that year. It is clear that the USFWS really has no reliable data on the number of cormorants that are being taken under the depredation order, individual permits, and by illegal activity.

Monitoring will also be needed to assure that no other migratory bird species are affected. The preferred alternative specifically states, AControl activities must not adversely affect other migratory birds or species designated under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered.@ However, the plan/EIS offer no evidence that lethal control, whether by shotgun or egg-oiling, can be accomplished without such adverse impacts.  In fact, it offers no evidence that monitoring can be achieved without an effect on other species. The monitoring scheme established by this plan - surveys of breeding populations at five-year intervals - will not provide information about the impact of control activities on other bird species. In our view, this is a subject that requires not only direct observation contemporaneous with control activities to assess direct and immediate impacts, but also long-term study of population effects on those species that share breeding habitat with cormorants. This plan does not provide for either monitoring or study to assess to impacts of control activities on other bird species.

We realize that the plan calls for the state and tribal agencies to conduct baseline and annual population surveys of the areas affected by control activities, but we see no evidence that the USFWS has ascertained that these state agencies are not facing the same resource limitations that hinder the USFWS. It is hard to imagine - especially in the current economic climate, where the states are reportedly facing budget deficits and imposing cutbacks - that the state agencies will have the resources to conduct the surveys. In a recommended protocol for colonial waterbird inventories, Erwin and Hoover wrote, AMost agencies cannot afford a large‑scale inventory of all colonies on an annual basis.@ They also note that coordination among the states is necessary. There is nothing in the draft management plan that would ensure this coordination. (Erwin, Michael R. and Brett Hoover. Undated. Colonial Waterbird Inventory and Monitoring. U.S. Geological Survey website <http://www.mp1‑pwrc.usgs.gov/cwb/cwb.html >).

Further, there is no assurance that the state surveys will be conducted in an adequate manner, as the plan sets no standards for surveys. The state agencies are therefore free to conduct aerial surveys, ground counts (using a variety of methods), or other methods that may not be scientifically-determined to be reliable at producing an acceptably accurate estimation of the numbers of birds in the colony.

We are also concerned about the lack of resources on the part of the USFWS and the U.S. Geological Survey to monitor cormorant populations on a sustained basis. Nationwide and local monitoring would be needed to guard against depredation levels that cause declines in populations in excess of the reductions needed to mitigate the impacts of cormorants. Note that we do NOT concur that there has been a sufficient demonstration of impacts in all cases. However, this issue has been adequately addressed in the comments submitted by the AOU and by Linda Wires. We are simply trying to make the point that the monitoring needed can not be achieved with present resources. With the USGS and USFWS already struggling to meet the demands placed upon them for research and management of natural resources, it is hard to fathom how this extensive monitoring and data analysis can be achieved. In addition, we object to the allocation of scarce resources for an effort that is poorly justified. Those resources could and should be allocated to the far more pressing need to address the declines in the populations of hundreds of bird species in the United States.

Even assuming that the USFWS had adequate resources for all the data collection, monitoring, and analysis required by this plan, the plan cannot be successfully implemented, because there is no definition of success. The plan sets no target for population reduction and no determination of an Aacceptable@ population size. Therefore, the USFWS cannot know if the plan is succeeding, if it needs adjustment, or if it is failing. As detailed by the comments submitted by the AOU and Wires, the true goal of this plan seems to be the reduction of complaints by the public about the perceived impacts of cormorants. If that is the case, then success can only be measured by the reduction or complaints or the change in the perceptions of the public. Against this benchmark, it is conceivable that cormorant populations would have to be reduced to a level that triggers legal protection for the species. Is such a drastic reduction hard to imagine? We know that the USFWS needs no reminder that the cormorant population, which was once reduced to critically low levels from a much larger initial population size. This occurred within our lifetimes. Unlike the light geese management plan, which set numerical goals for population reduction, based on a scientific analysis of the carrying capacity of the habitat that was to be protected, the cormorant plan sets no goals or limits.

It should also be noted that even when specific population reduction goals are set, and the level of take needed to attain those goals are established with population modeling, monitoring at five-year intervals is inadequate. We remind the USFWS of the cormorant population effort undertaken in the St. Lawrence estuary in Canada.  As reported  by Wires in the status assessment commissioned by the USFWS, an extensive modeling effort determined that the population of 14,662 nesting pairs could be reduced to 10,000 over five years by oiling 50% of ground nests and shooting 2,000 adults per year.  However, as Wires reports, AEffectiveness of the control program was more dramatic than the model predicted, and led to the decision to stop shooting after four years, rather than the five that had been planned.@ If the USFWS monitors only every five years, and data analysis requires another year, then the cormorant population(s) subjected to control activity could decline dramatically before the USFWS steps in to limit the control activities.    

We believe that the barriers to implementation are so substantial that the plan should be withdrawn, or held in abeyance until such time as the U.S. Congress chooses to provide the Department of the Interior with adequate resources for proper implementation. However, should the USFWS choose to move forward with implementation, we have some suggestions for better implementation should the USFWS choose to move forward with this plan: 

$ Amend the existing depredation order to require affirmative reporting by all individuals who take cormorants under the authority of the order. Further, amend the existing depredation order to provide that individuals who fail to affirmatively report will no longer be authorized to take under the depredation order and instead will be required to obtain annual permits. These two provisions will not only result in improved data collection, but will also save the USFWS money and time.