89–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–994 

CORMORANT RELIEF ACT 

OCTOBER 23, 2018.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 6302] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 6302) to enact as law certain regulations relating to the 

taking of double-crested cormorants, having considered the same, 

report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 

the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Cormorant Relief Act’’. 

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE TAKING OF DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS. 

(a) FORCE AND EFFECT.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), sections 21.47 and 21.48 of title 

50, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on January 1, 2016), shall have 

the force and effect of law. 

(2) PUBLIC NOTICE.—The Secretary of the Interior (referred to in this section 

as the ‘‘Secretary’’), acting through the Director of the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Director’’), shall notify the 

public of the authority provided by paragraph (1) in a manner determined to 

be appropriate by the Secretary. 

(b) SUNSET.—The authority provided by subsection (a)(1) shall terminate on the 

effective date of a regulation promulgated by the Director after the date of enactment of this Act to control depredation of double-crested cormorant populations. 

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section limits the authority of the 

Director to promulgate regulations relating to the taking of double-crested cormorants under any other law. 

2 

1Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2591, H.R. 4429, H.R. 4609, H.R.4647, H.R. 4851, Before the H. 

Comm. on Natural Resources, Subcomm. on Federal Lands, 115th Cong., 115–37, (2018) (statement of Randall Claramunt, Michigan Dep’t of Natural Resources), available at https:// 

naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/testimony_claramunt.pdf, at 2. 2Sullivan et. al., Cornell University: The Double-Crested Cormorant, Issues and Management, 

Cornell University Cooperative Extension 8–14, (2006), available at http://wildlifecontrol.info/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/Cormorant-Issues.pdf. 3 U.S. Dep’t of Ag., U.S. Dep’t of the Interior: Final Environmental Assessment: DoubleCrested Cormorant Damage Management in Michigan, (2011), available at https://www.fws.gov/ 

midwest/MidwestBird/documents/FINAL%20Michigan%20DCCO%20EA%206-14-11.pdf. 4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Environmental Assessment for Issuing Depredation Permits for 

Double-Crested Cormorant Management, (2017), available at https://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/pdf/management/double-crested-cormorants/CormorantEA.pdf. 5Michigan Sea Grant, Fisheries, http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/explore/fisheries/, (last visited June 5, 2018). 6Migratory Bird Permits; Revision of Expiration Dates for Double-Crested Cormorant Depredation Orders, Fish and Wildlife Service, 74 Fed. Reg. 64, 15394–15398 (proposed Apr. 6, 2009) 

available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-04-06/pdf/E9-7650.pdf. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 6302 is to enact as law certain regulations 

relating to the taking of double-crested cormorants. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Double-crested cormorants are large, matte-black migratory fishing birds that are abundant across the entire United States and 

North America. There are five geographically distinct breeding populations located across the country. The largest population resides 

in the Mississippi flyway, which includes the Great Lakes region.1

During breeding season, cormorants inhabit lakes, ponds, slowmoving rivers, lagoons, estuaries, and open coastline. Outside of 

breeding season, their habitat includes a variety of areas such as 

marine islands or coastal bays.2 Cormorants are excellent divers 

and are naturally adapted to foraging for fish under water, which 

has historically placed the bird in direct conflict with aquaculture, 

subsistence and recreational fishing, and endangered species in certain parts of the country. 

Like many other migratory birds, the double-crested cormorant is 

protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA, 16 

U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which prohibits any take (the killing, capture, 

selling, trading, or transport, etc.) of any protected species without 

prior authorization by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 

Impact of the Cormorant 

In Michigan, the cormorant population grew to nearly 90,000 

birds in 2007 from 5000 breeding pairs in 1989,3 and the overall 

population in central and eastern United States and Canada is estimated to be between 731,880 and 752,516.4 This enormous population growth causes many detrimental effects for States that host 

these large populations of cormorants. Fisheries, aquaculture, wildlife habitat, and endangered species in these areas often see the 

greatest negative impact. 

Fisheries: In Michigan, recreational and commercial fishing is an economically significant industry valued between $4 billion and $7 

billion annually.5 According to FWS, ‘‘Double-crested cormorant 

populations can decrease fish populations in open waters and in 

aquaculture facilities.’’ 6 Studies show that cormorant predation can 

significantly impact local economies relying on recreational fishing 

and related tourism. Over a 20-year period, millions of dollars and 

hundreds of jobs have been lost in these areas due to a decline in 

3 

7Travis L. DeVault, Katy N. Kirkpatrick, Stephanie Shwiff, et. al., Modeling the Economic 

Impacts of Double-Crested Cormorant Damage to a Recreational Fishery, The Berryman Institute Human-Wildlife Interactions 36–47 (2015), available at http://www.berrymaninstitute.org/ 

files/ShwiffEtAlSpring2015HWI.pdf. 8 Brian Dorr, Shauna L. Hanish, Peter H. Butchko, et al., Management of Double-Crested Cormorants to Improve Sport Fisheries in Michigan: Three Case Studies, The Berryman Institute 

Human-Wildlife Interactions 155–168 (2012), available at https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/ 

viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=hwi; see also Iyob Tsehaye, Michael L. Jones, Brian J. 

Irwin, et. al., A Predictive Model To Inform Adaptive Management of Double-Crested Cormorants 

and Fisheries in Michigan, 28 Natural Resource Modeling 348–376 (Aug. 2015), available at 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/nrm.12071. 9Dorr, supra, note 11; see also: David F. Fielder, Response of Yellow Perch in Les Cheneaux 

Islands, Lake Huron to Declining Numbers of Double-Crested Cormorants Stemming from Control Activities, 36 Journal of Great Lakes Research 207–214 (June, 2010), available at http:// 

www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1016/j.jglr.2009.12.015?journalCode=jglr. 10 B.F. Lantry, T.H. Eckert, & C.P. Schneider, The Relationship Between the Abundance of 

Smallmouth Bass and Double-Crested Cormorants in the Eastern Basin of Lake Ontario, NY 

Dep’t of Environmental Conservation (Feb. 1, 1999), available at http://cescos.fau.edu/gawliklab/ 

papers/LantryBFetal2002.pdf. 11 NY Dep’t of Environmental Conservation, 2015 Annual Report: Bureau of Fisheries Lake 

Ontario Unit and St. Lawrence River Unit to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission’s Lake Ontario Committee, (Mar., 2016), available at https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/fish_marine_pdf/ 

lorpt15.pdf, at 126. 12Sullivan,), supra note 2. 13David Bennett, As cormorants begin to descend, Southern aquaculture in a bind, Delta Farm 

Press, Dec. 13, 2016, available at http://www.deltafarmpress.com/aquaculture/cormorants-begindescend-southern-aquaculture-bind. 14 Id. 15 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Reports and Publications: Double-Crested Cormorants, https:// 

www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/double-crested-cormorants.php, (last visited 

June 5, 2018). 

the fisheries population.7 Studies conducted in Michigan show that 

cormorants have the potential to influence sport fishing populations, causing significant declines in fisheries.8 Declines in these 

sport fisheries in turn raise serious concerns for the local economies dependent on recreational fisheries for economic stability. 

Studies, including those conducted by the Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources, have illustrated the link between cormorant 

management efforts and the recovery of fishery populations in 

Michigan.9 For instance, one study analyzed over 20 years of fishery data in Lake Ontario and found cormorant predation was associated with a decrease of smallmouth bass populations, which contributed to a major decline in the bass fishery in both quality and 

abundance.10 In another example, the New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation found declines in populations of 

smallmouth bass, yellow perch, and other warm-water fisheries in 

the eastern basin of Lake Ontario in the 1990s, which correlated 

with a boom in the cormorant population.11

Aquaculture: Like fisheries, the aquaculture industry can be significantly impacted by cormorant predation. Economic losses have 

ranged from $5 million to $25 million in the Mississippi catfish 

aquaculture industry alone.12 Fish farmers are particularly vulnerable because of the cormorant’s predatory tactics, which allows 

them to ‘‘work as a group to herd fish into an easily catchable 

mass.’’ 13 For these farmers, non-lethal methods, such as air-cannons and boots-on-the-ground harassment, have not proven effective in deterring cormorants.14 In the Southeast region, aquaculture farms have struggled to combat cormorant predation, allowing the population to increase drastically. Because of ineffective 

non-lethal methods and a ballooning population in the region, FWS 

allows aquaculture farmers to obtain permission to protect their 

farms from the cormorant through lethal take.15

4 

16Sullivan, supra note 2 at 15–16. 17 Id. 18 Bryan Watts, Chesapeake Bay Cormorants Continue Steep Ascent, The Center for Conservation Biology (Dec. 3, 2013), http://www.ccbbirds.org/2013/12/03/chesapeake-bay-cormorants-continue-steep-ascent/, (last visited June 5, 2018). 19 Id. 20Piotr Klimaszyk & Piotr Rzymski, The complexity of ecological impacts induced by great cor- morants, 771 Hydrobiologia 13–30 (May 2016), available at https://link.springer.com/article/ 

10.1007/s10750-015-2618-1. 21 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service supra note 7 at 41. 22 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Benefits to Columbia River Anadromous Salmonids from Potential Reductions in Avian Predation on the Columbia River, Donald Lyons et all, September 

7, 2011. 23 Northwest Fishletter #351, November 2, 2015. 24Final EIS: Double-chested Cormorant Management Plan to Reduce Predation of Juvenile 

Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, February 6, 2015. 25Final EIS: Double-chested Cormorant Management Plan to Reduce Predation of Juvenile 

Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, February 6, 2015. 26 Northwest Fishletter #344, April 3, 2015. 27 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Double-Crested Cormorants https://www.fws.gov/southeast/faq/ 

double-crested-cormorants/, (last visited June 5, 2018). 28Sullivan, supra note 2, at 20. 

Habitat Degradation and Other Bird Species: Double-crested cormorants have a significant impact on the areas in which they breed 

and roost. Large numbers of cormorants degrade vegetation, resulting in destruction of habitat for other native bird species.16 Their 

acidic guano alters soil chemistry, irreversibly damaging trees and 

ground vegetation.17 18 This change in habitat affects other colonial 

water birds, as well as a variety of other species that compete with 

the cormorant for nesting habitat.19 Furthermore, destruction of 

tree populations and altered soil chemistry also have the potential 

to lead to increased pest invasion and have long-lasting negative 

impacts on the biodiversity and stability of local ecosystems.20 In 

its 2011 environmental assessment evaluating cormorant management practices, FWS found that reducing cormorant populations 

would be beneficial to other species and vegetation currently negatively impacted by the cormorant.21

Endangered Species: Federal protections for predatory birds 

under the MBTA have also been found to inhibit recovery of Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) protected fish 

species. Cormorants prey upon millions of ESA-listed salmon 

smolts in the Columbia River watershed. According to the Army 

Corps of Engineers, predation on juvenile salmonids as they make 

their migration to the Pacific Ocean by these birds is a limiting factor in the species’ recovery under the ESA.22 The National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration estimates that cormorants eat an 

average of 12 million juvenile salmonids annually, many of which 

are ESA-listed.23 The Corps attempts to control this predation 

through population reduction efforts through special federal permits issued by FWS.24 In 2015, the Corps applied for a permit to 

lethally take well over half of the breeding pairs of cormorants that 

reside on East Sand Island.25 Third party litigants have threatened 

to stop these efforts as well.26

Cormorant Management Efforts 

While cormorants are protected as migratory birds under the 

MBTA, FWS allows for individuals, private organizations, and 

other federal and State agencies to control and manage cormorants 

through a depredation permit or depredation order.27 Management 

of cormorants can include non-lethal methods, such as harassment 

techniques, habitat modification, or fisheries management.28 Lethal 

5 

29Sullivan, supra note 2, at 23. 30 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, supra note 29. 31 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Double-Crested Cormorant Management: Current Status, 

https://www.fws.gov/midwest/news/documents/Cormorants.pdf, (last visited June 5, 2018). 32 H. Comm. on Natural Resources, Subcomm. on Federal Lands, supra note 1, at 5. 33Fish and Wildlife Service supra, note 3; See also: Migratory Bird Permits; Revision of Expiration Dates for Double-Crested Cormorant Depredation Orders, 79 Fed. Reg. 102, (30474) (May 

28, 2014), available at https://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2014/2014-12318.pdf. 34Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, et al. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

No. 14–1807 (D.D.C. 2016). 35 Id. 36 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING 

OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DEPREDATION PERMITS FOR 

DOUBLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS, 82 Fed. Reg. 219, 52936) (Nov. 15, 2017), available at 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/15/2017-24702/environmental-assessmentand-finding-of-no-significant-impact-for-the-issuance-of-depredation. 37 Id. 

methods usually involve egg or nest destruction and shooting.29

Depredation permits are provided on a case-by-case basis for the lethal control of problem birds, while depredation orders establish 

conditions under which specific entities or individuals can take a 

covered species without obtaining an individual depredation permit.30 Both processes require compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), including 

public comment, and are subject to judicial review. 

In response to the increased concern from the aquaculture industry, natural resources professionals, recreational fishermen, and 

others, FWS issued an Aquatic Depredation Order in 1998 that allowed for State management of cormorants to protect the aquaculture industry in 13 southern States.31 In 2003, FWS expanded 

this order and established a Public Resource Depredation Order 

(PRDO) for State-level management to benefit free-swimming 

fishes in 24 northern States.32 Both depredation orders were subsequently extended in 2009 and 2014.33

In May 2016, pursuant to a lawsuit brought by Public Employees 

for Environmental Responsibility against FWS, the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia remanded FWS’ 2014 NEPA environmental review and vacated the two depredation orders for 

double-crested cormorants.34 The court concluded that FWS did not 

take a ‘‘hard look’’ at the effects of the depredation orders on cormorant populations and other affected resources and failed to consider a reasonable range of alternatives required under NEPA.35

In November 2017, FWS released a supplementary environmental assessment (EA) with a finding of no significant impact, allowing for the issuance of individual permits for annual take, including lethal removal, of up to 51,571 cormorants in 37 central 

and eastern States and the District of Columbia.36 The scope of the 

EA allows for permits to be issued to protect aquaculture facilities, 

human and health and safety, threatened and endangered species, 

and alleviate damage to property.37 Despite the reissuance of permits, cormorant populations remain abundant and the reissued EA 

does not allow for permits to protect free swimming or recreational 

fish against cormorants, leaving individuals and State management 

agencies in the Great Lakes region with few options to effectively 

manage the species. 

6 

38 Ridgeway, M. S., and D. G. Fielder. 2013, Double-Crested Cormorants in the Laurentian 

Great Lakes: Issues and Ecosystems. Pages 733–764 In Great Lakes Fisheries Policy and Management, second edition, W. W. Taylor, A. J. Lynch and N. J. Leonard. editors. Michigan State 

University Press, East Lansing. 39Legislative Hearing on ‘‘Examining the Effects of Mismanagement of the Cormorant in the 

Great Lakes Region’’, Before the H. Comm. on Natural Resources, 115th Cong., 2, (2018) (Statement of Mr. Randall Claramunt, at 6), available at https://naturalresources.house.gov/ 

uploadedfiles/6.11_testimony_claramunt.pdf. 40Legislative Hearing on ‘‘Examining the Effects of Mismanagement of the Cormorant in the 

Great Lakes Region’’, Before the H. Comm. on Natural Resources, 115th Cong., 2, (2018) (Statement of Mr. Tom Cooper, at 2), available at https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ 

6.11_testimony_cooper.pdf. 41Legislative Hearing on ‘‘Examining the Effects of Mismanagement of the Cormorant in the 

Great Lakes Region’’, Before the H. Comm. on Natural Resources, 115th Cong., 2, (2018) (Statement of Mr. Randall Claramunt, at 8), available at https://naturalresources.house.gov/ 

uploadedfiles/6.11_testimony_claramunt.pdf. 42Legislative Hearing on H.R.2591, H.R.4429, H.R. 4609, H.R.4647, H.R. 4851, Before the H. 

Comm. on Natural Resources, Subcomm. on Federal Lands, 115th Cong., 115–37, (2018) (Legislative Hearing Memo on H.R. 4429), available at https://naturalresources.house.gov/ 

uploadedfiles/memo_h.r._4429_02.15.18.pdf. 43 ACRE Act, S. 2663, Sec. 9, 115th Cong., (2018), available at https://www.congress.gov/115/ 

bills/s2663/BILLS-115s2663is.pdf. 

Solutions for Effective Cormorant Management in the Great Lakes 

Region 

In June 2018, in response to cormorants’ negative impacts on 

species and habitat and bureaucratic hurdles to proper cormorant 

management, the Natural Resources Committee held a field hearing in Alpena, Michigan, to examine the impacts that cormorants 

have on wild fish populations and commercial and recreational fishing. Witnesses representing the State of Michigan, local business 

and a local conservationist testified on the FWS’s failure to incorporate a large body of non-federal data into its environmental reviews and the general challenges that uncontrolled cormorant populations create for the local ecosystem and communities. Mr. Randall Claramunt, testifying on behalf of the Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources, cited the success of cormorant management in 

the Les Cheneaux Islands in rebuilding the yellow perch fishery. 

Studies show that the collapse of the yellow perch fishery related 

to cormorant predation cost two local communities $5.3 million annually.38 Mr. Claramunt stated that, in the Les Cheneaux region, 

‘‘[w]ithin nine years, cormorant abundance was reduced and sustained at agreed upon target levels in balance with the ecosystem 

. . . Game fish populations began to rebound and the local economy began to recover less than ten years after the PRDO.’’ 39 At 

this hearing, Mr. Tom Cooper from FWS reiterated the Department 

of the Interior’s support for ‘‘reinstating methods to lethally control 

problem birds’’ and emphasis on collaboration with local stakeholders.40 Although Mr. Claramunt expressed optimism over recent 

commitments by FWS, he stated ‘‘[i]t is unclear as to the intent to 

not include the vast amount of information from non-federal governments as to the impacts of uncontrolled cormorant populations 

on fish populations and the communities that they support.’’ 41

As a result of this hearing, Congressman Bergman introduced 

H.R. 6302. The bill temporarily reinstates depredation orders vacated by the 2016 District Court ruling, providing for continued 

management of cormorants by State fish and game agencies, as 

well as private aquaculture organizations.42 H.R. 6302 reflects language in S. 2663, sponsored by Senator John Barrasso (R–WY).43

This legislation would temporarily reimplement the original PRDO 

7 

until FWS reissues regulations to control depredation of doublecrested cormorant populations. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 6302 was introduced on July 3, 2018, by Congressman Jack 

Bergman (R–MI). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources. On February 15, 2018, the Subcommittee on Water, 

Power and Oceans held a hearing on a similar legislation (H.R. 

4429). On July 11, 2018, the Natural Resources Committee met to 

consider the bill. Congressman Bergman offered an amendment 

designated #1; it was adopted by voice vote. No further amendments were offered, and the bill, as amended, was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by a roll call vote of 

19 yeas and 13 nays as follows: 

8 


Insert offset folio 8 here HR994.001

Committee on Natural Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

!15th Congress 

Date: 07.11.18 Recorded Vote #:I 

Meeting on I Amendment on: Favorably Report HR 6302 (Rep. Jack Bergman) 

MEMBERS Yes No Pres MEMBERS 

Mr. Bishop, UT, Chairman X Mr.Cook,CA 

Mr.Griialva, AZ, Rankin!{ Member X Mr. McEachin, VA 

Mr. Young, AK, Chairman Emeritus Mr. Westerman, AR 

Mrs. Napolitano, CA Mr. Brown, MD 

Mr. Gohmert, TX, Vice Chairman X Mr. Graves, LA 

Ms. Bordallo, Guam X Mr. Clay, MD 

Mr. Lamborn, CO X Mr.Hice,GA 

Mr. Costa, CA Mr. Gomez, CA 

Mr. Wittman, VA X Mrs. Radewagen, AS 

Mr. Sablan, CNMI Ms. Velazquez, NY 

Mr. McClintock, CA X Mr. Webster, FL 

Ms. Tsongas, MA X Mr. Bergman, MI 

Mr. Pearce, NM Ms. Cheney, WY 

Mr. Huffman, CA X Mr. Johnson, LA 

Mr. Thompson, PA X Ms. Gonzalez-Colon, PR 

Mr. Lowenthal, CA X Mr. Gianforte, MT 

Mr. Gosar, AZ X Mr. Curtis, UT 

Mr. Beyer, VA X 

Mr. Labrador, ID 

Mr. Galle!{o, AZ X 

Mr. Tipton, CO X 

Ms. Hanabusa, HI 

Mr. LaMalfa, CA X 

Ms. Barragan, CA X 

Mr. Denham, CA X 

Mr. Soto, FL X TOTAL: 

Yes No Pres 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

19 13 
9 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

ACT

1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and sections 308(a) and 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 

received the following estimate for the bill from the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 25, 2018. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6302, the Cormorant Relief Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jeff LaFave. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 6302—Cormorant Relief Act 

H.R. 6302 would temporarily reinstate two depredation orders 

that allow people to take double-crested cormorants without a permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (Take has 

many meanings, including to kill, capture, sell, or transport cormorants.) Those orders would terminate once the agency issued 

regulations to control cormorant populations. At that time, cormorant hunters would again need to obtain permits. 

Under current law, a permit to take cormorants, which costs 

$100, generally allows one person to take between 20 and 150 cormorants. CBO estimates that the nationwide limit, which is set by 

USFWS, will be about 50,000 birds annually and that those fees 

total about $300,000 each year. Those fees are recorded as reductions in direct spending and USFWS has authority to spend those 

amounts without further appropriation action. Under the bill, those 

fees would not be collected while the two depredation orders were 

in effect. 

Because enacting H.R. 6302 would reduce offsetting receipts and 

the associated direct spending from fees for permits that allow for 

the taking of cormorants, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. However, 

CBO estimates that the net effect on direct spending would be negligible. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

10 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6302 would not significantly 

increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 

consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2029. 

H.R. 6302 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jeff LaFave. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to enact as law certain regulations relating to the taking of double-crested cormorants. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any directed 

rule makings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law. 

(11) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 6302 would enact as law a 2014 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) rule that extended the expiration date for two depredation orders—the Aquaculture Depredation Order and the Public 

Resource Depredation Order—which allowed an unlimited number 

of double-crested cormorants to be killed without a permit. These 

depredation orders, which were first promulgated in 1998, remove 

the legal protections cormorants receive under the Migratory Bird 

Treaty Act in an attempt to protect sport fisheries and aquaculture. 

The FWS has extended the orders every five years but without 

monitoring the status of the species or considering updated scientific information. In 2016, a federal court ruled that the FWS 

failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts of the orders 

and instructed the agency to suspend them until a proper analysis 

is complete. 

The FWS completed an environmental assessment (EA) for the 

Aquaculture Depredation Order in 2017 and reissued individualized cormorant depredation permits to aquaculture facilities where 

there is a significant impact to their operations, native vegetation, 

threatened or endangered species, or a significant risk to human 

safety. Aquaculture facility managers and property owners in 37 

states and the District of Columbia can now apply for these individual permits for the lethal take of cormorants. This order represents a measured approach and aligns with protections other bird 

species receive under the Migratory Bird Species Act. 

The scope of the aquaculture EA did not include potential damage by cormorants to recreational and commercial fishing. However, FWS is in the initial phase of conducting an EA and gathering scientific data to determine if a new Depredation Order 

should be issued. FWS will engage states, tribes, and other stakeholders to assess the biological, social, and economic impacts of cormorants on wild fish. The FWS has indicated that this process is 

expected to take approximately one year. 

H.R. 6302 circumvents the FWS’ ongoing process, ignores the 

best available science, and sets a dangerous precedent for wildlife 

management. Over broad geographic regions, no studies to date 

have demonstrated that cormorants have a consistently negative 

effect on wild fish populations. Before prematurely reinstating the 

depredation order, it is imperative that the FWS finalize the EA 

to better understand the full range of environmental impacts and 

to prevent unnecessary depredation of the species. 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, 

Ranking Member, Committee 

on Natural Resources. 

Æ