Daniel J. Rohlf, OSB 990069

rohlf@lclark.edu

Telephone: (503) 768-6707

Thomas Buchele, OSB 081560

tbuchele@lclark.edu

Telephone (503) 768-6736

Earthrise Law Center

10015 S.W. Terwilliger Blvd.

Portland, OR 97219-7768

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND, WILDLIFE 

CENTER OF THE NORTH COAST, ANIMAL LEGAL 

DEFENSE FUND, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL 

DIVERSITY, FRIENDS OF ANIMALS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE, USDA WILDLIFE SERVICES,

Defendants.

Civil No. 15-665

DECLARATION OF 

LINDA R. WIRES

I, Linda R. Wires, declare as follows:

1. I, Linda R. Wires am a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

2. I am a Conservation Biologist and have specialized on issues affecting 

waterbirds for the last 18 years. The Double-crested Cormorant has been a focal species 

for me and I have studied and monitored these birds at their colonies in the U.S. Great 

Lakes and Minnesota since the late1990s. I have authored numerous peer-reviewed 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 27
2

publications and reports on cormorants, and I was the lead author of the continental status 

assessment for Double-crested Cormorants, prepared under contract with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service in 2001. I am recognized as an authority on this species and I have 

given presentations across North America and internationally to address various topics 

related to cormorants, especially management. In 2014 I authored a book that outlines the 

history, biology and politics of cormorants, titled The Double-crested Cormorant, Plight 

of a Feathered Pariah, published by Yale University Press. 

3. Attachment #1includes my Curriculum Vitae, which highlights my 

extensive professional and academic experience which demonstrates my position as a 

leading expert in the study of Double-crested Cormorants.

4. I currently work under contract for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

coordinating a large-scale waterbird habitat monitoring and management effort. The 

comments submitted here are not written on behalf of this agency and represent entirely 

my own personal viewpoints. However, they are based on years of experience monitoring 

and studying cormorants and other fish-eating birds, and a detailed understanding of 

pressures on federal and state agencies to manage fish-eating birds. In addition, I have 

commented on all of the management proposals that have developed for cormorants since 

2001, including the one for the colony on East Sand Island, Oregon, and I have a 

thorough understanding of cormorant management policy.

5. I am familiar with the issues surrounding DCCOs in western North 

America. To gain a broader understanding of issues specifically in the Columbia River 

estuary and help provide informed comments on the USACE DEIS, I also visited the East 

Sand Island (ESI) colony in July of 2014. During this visit I was able to spend time at the 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 2 of 27
3

colony and also interact with many of the biologists, managers, and resource 

professionals involved in this issue. After reviewing the available science surrounding the 

conflict at ESI, and spending some time at the site, I prepared detailed comments, 

attachment #2, strongly encouraging the USACE to pursue a less aggressive, nonlethal 

approach to resolving conflicts with cormorants. I indicated Alternative C (the Preferred 

Alternative) was inappropriate for several reasons. Below, I have provided a very 

abbreviated synopsis of my concerns and comments submitted to the USACE in lieu of 

their proposed action.

6. The population target for cormorants was based on a NOAA Fisheries’ 

“survival gap” analysis that was not peer-reviewed nor scientifically rigorous enough to 

inspire confidence and demonstrate that the chosen population target is appropriate. Of 

course, the sole reason to attempt to reduce cormorant predation on listed juvenile salmon 

and steelhead is to increase the number of adult salmon and steelhead that return to their 

native rivers and streams to spawn. However, reducing cormorant numbers will only 

result in increased survival rates of salmon if the impact of their predation is additive, 

rather than compensatory, i.e., if the juvenile fish eaten by cormorants would otherwise 

have survived and returned to spawn. Whether predation from cormorants is having a 

compensatory or additive effect is fundamental to the argument that control of 

cormorants is warranted, but one which this analysis has not seriously evaluated. Outmigrating smolts must go on to survive the ocean phase of their life cycle before 

returning to spawn...a phase in which they will encounter myriad predators and other 

mortality factors. Additionally, smolts that die due to cormorant predation may be less fit 

than fish that die due to dams (e.g., turbine passage). Therefore, it is entirely possible that 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 3 of 27
4

some portion of the mortality due to cormorants may be completely meaningless. The 

assumption that a reduction in cormorant numbers will result in an equal increase in

smolts surviving to adulthood is naïve. The idea advanced by the Corps that 

compensatory mortality is not an important consideration – that reducing the cormorant 

population to “base period” levels is the key goal of the Corps’ management plan – is 

scientifically indefensible. The Corps has simply not presented any compelling scientific 

data to bolster the hope that destroying thousands of cormorants and their nests will 

significantly improve salmon and steelhead runs. Failure to consider the role of 

compensatory vs additive mortality in a decision to destroy thousands of a federally 

protected bird species is scientific malpractice. 

7. The USFWS is tasked not only with managing migratory birds, but also 

protecting them. To this end, relative to issuing depredation permits, the agency clearly 

states that prior to issuing a depredation permit for killing cormorants and destroying 

eggs and nests, parties requesting the permit must first demonstrate that substantial nonlethal methods such as harassing/hazing, exclusions, habitat management, and cultural 

practices have been implemented and did not work. Not only has this not happened, 

there is also substantial evidence to suggest that nonlethal methods, if employed at the 

appropriate scale and intensity, are entirely feasible in reducing cormorant consumption 

of salmonid smolts in the Columbia River estuary.

8. Experience with lethal operations in Eastern North America indicates that 

much greater levels of destruction must be employed than just the difference between 

current and targeted colony size. Specifically, several examples from the Great Lakes 

basin have demonstrated that the number of birds killed that was necessary to reach and 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 27
5

maintain population targets greatly exceeded the difference between starting and target 

population sizes. Typically, initiation of this type of activity necessitates long-term and 

repeated culling programs to maintain objectives.

9. I have great concern about the impacts to the western population of 

Double-crested Cormorants that could result from the proposed actions. Reducing the 

cormorant population through lethal means by the magnitude proposed has implications 

for the entire western North American population of DCCOs. The ESI colony constitutes 

more than 40% of the western population (Roby et al. 2014). The EIS implies that this 

reduction will not negatively impact the population because the western population was 

sustainable at 1990 levels (p. 14). However, it is not clear that the population was 

sustainable at 1990 levels (particularly since the population has been in a recovery mode 

during most of the 20th and 21st centuries). In fact, a review that examined the status of 

DCCOs in western North America (Carter et al. 1995) documented various conservation 

problems that existed for DCCOs in the 1990s. This paper indicated that while 

cormorants were recovering in this region from losses experienced in the 19th century, 

local declines were still occurring due to habitat loss, pollution, human disturbance, and 

predators. Moreover, Carter et al. (1995) indicated that increases in numbers of nesting 

cormorants in the Columbia River Estuary coincided with declines in British Columbia, 

Washington, and locations in interior Oregon. Thus it is not clear that the 1990s 

population was sustainable, at least not without a large and productive colony on East 

Sand Island. Furthermore, since the 1990s, declines have occurred at both coastal and 

other inland regions have occurred (Adkins et al. 2014; W.D. Shuford, pers. comm.), and 

these are not considered in the DEIS. Elimination of the number of birds specified in the 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 27
6

Corps’ management plan runs a significant risk of having detrimental impacts on the 

entire western population. Further, I believe that the EIS has understated both how many 

birds will need to be taken and the risk to the western population from a cull of such 

magnitude.

10. I have great concern that management at this scale could lead to colony 

abandonment or reproduction failure. The Corp is proposing management of massive 

scale on the island and the cumulative effect of the human disturbance proposed to take 

place on the colony is of real concern. It is my view that this disturbance on the colony 

raises significant risk that the entire colony could be abandoned or that reproduction 

levels could drop to zero. Though the Corp plans to monitor the health and reproduction 

levels of the colony during their population control actions, and adjust its actions 

accordingly to ensure it reaches its stated population goals; any potential adjustment of 

this management could prove to be too late as the nature of colony abandonment could be 

immediate and thus unable to be mitigated.

11. I have great concern about potential impacts that management at this 

scale could have on other birds nesting or roosting on East Sand Island. As noted above, I 

have visited this colony and nesting Brandt’s cormorants are closely inter-mixed with 

nesting double-crested cormorants. I think it will be impossible to avoid accidentally 

shooting many Brandt’s cormorants while shooting up to 11,000 DCCOs.

12. I have great concern about the stability of the colony and potential for 

abandonment due to the culling and management operations. Experience in the eastern 

U.S. with cormorant culling operations indicates that even with experienced sharp 

shooters, such as Wildlife Services personnel, clean shots are not always made, and 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 6 of 27
7

shooting from shotguns at birds in flight frequently results in birds being wounded, but 

not killed. Typically efforts are made to retrieve wounded birds and immediately 

euthanize them. However, I am not sure how this would happen on ESI without causing 

major and repeated disturbances. Further, if shooting takes place at night from blinds and 

tunnels, I again don’t know how injured birds would be easily retrieved in the dark. 

Trying to retrieve wounded cormorants during daylight would certainly cause enormous 

disturbance to nesting birds, which could lead to colony abandonment, as could walking 

through the colony picking up dead bodies. Furthermore, the colony has a large gull 

presence. Gulls are highly opportunistic predators and will take every opportunity to feed 

on eggs and chicks when parent birds fly off the nest. Cormorants will be one of the first 

birds to fly off the nests when Wildlife Services personnel approach and enter the colony 

to oil eggs or retrieve birds. In my own personal experience on Great Lakes islands, I and 

colleagues have seen as much as 80-90% of a colony’s reproductive effort eliminated 

directly as a result of gull predation on nest contents facilitated by human entry to a 

colony (F.J. Cuthbert and L.R. Wires, unpublished data). This is especially the case with 

ground nesting birds. This is such a significant issue that we modified many of our 

monitoring activities at colonies shared with gulls. For instance, we did our cormorant 

banding at night when gulls weren’t typically foraging, though at some colonies the gulls 

even learned that they could forage at night and became a problem. We also did aerial 

photography at our ground nesting colonies as much as possible to avoid facilitating gull 

predation. Work on Lake Champlain by Duerr et al. (2007) documents that when gulls 

depredated cormorant eggs at high rates during egg oiling, dispersal from the colony 

increased significantly.

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 7 of 27
8

12. In closing, it is my professional opinion that the proposed plan will lead to 

cormorants and potentially many other birds simply becoming additional casualties, 

along with the array of salmonids, of the already highly mismanaged Columbia River 

ecosystem. One of the most important conclusions from my book (Wires 2014) is that 

most cormorant management either is not science-based, is based on poor-quality 

science, or is contrary to what scientific studies indicate. Based on my observations and 

concerns described above, the same conclusion emerges for the management alternative 

advocated by the USACE and cooperating agencies for the Columbia River Estuary. East 

of the Mississippi the establishment of depredation orders for double-crested cormorants 

has resulted in a 19th century approach to cormorant management. A model of killing as 

the approach to cormorant management has become entrenched, and a pattern of 

destroying cormorants in huge numbers once again prevails. This is just what we do with 

cormorants, especially relative to fisheries with a long history of poor 

management...despite the irrationality that underlies this approach. I hope the courts will 

intervene so that this irrational approach is not applied west of the continental divide to 

an already compromised population of double-crested cormorants.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the

foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Executed on April 27, 2015.

Linda R. Wires

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 8 of 27
9

Literature cited

Adkins, J. Y., D. D. Roby, D. E. Lyons, K. N. Courtot, K. Collis, H. R. Carter, W. D. Shuford, 

and P. J. Capitolo. 2014. Recent population size, trends, and limiting factors for the 

double-crested cormorant in western North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 

78:000-000; doi: 10.1002/jwmg.737

Carter, H. R., A. L. Sowls, M. S. Rodway, U. W. Wilson, R. W. Lowe, G. J. McChesney, F. 

Gress, and D. W. Anderson. 1995. Population size, trends, and conservation problems of 

the double-crested cormorant on the Pacific coast of North America. Colonial Waterbirds 

18:189–215.

Duerr, A. E., Donovan, T. M. And Capen, D. E. (2007), Management-Induced Reproductive 

Failure and Breeding Dispersal in Double-Crested Cormorants on Lake Champlain. The 

Journal of Wildlife Management, 71: 2565–2574. doi: 10.2193/2006-527

Lyons, D.E., D.D. Roby, A.F. Evans, N.J. Hostetter, K. Collis, and S.H. Sebring. 2014. Benefits 

to Columbia River anadromous salmonids from potential reductions in predation by 

double-crested cormorants nesting at the East Sand Island colony. Final Report to the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Portland, OR. 50 pp. (Available through internet: www.birdresearchnw.org)

Roby, D.D., K. Collis, D.E. Lyons, J.Y. Adkins, Y. Suzuki, P. Loschl, T. Lawes, K. Bixler, A. 

Peck-Richardson, A. Patterson, S. Collar, A. Piggott, H. Davis, J. Mannas, A. Laws, J. 

Mulligan, K. Young, P. Kostka, N. Banet, E. Schniedermeyer, A. Wilson, A. Mohoric, A. 

Evans, B. Cramer, M. Hawbecker, N. Hostetter, A. Turecek, J. Zamon, and D. 

Kuligowski. 2014. Research, monitoring, and evaluation of avian predation on salmonid 

smolts in the lower and mid-Columbia River. Draft 2013 Annual Report to the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 237 

pp. (Available through internet: www.birdresearchnw.org)

Wires, L. R. 2014. The Double-crested Cormorant, plight of a feathered pariah. Yale University 

Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 349 pp.

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 9 of 27
CURRICULUM VITAE

Wires, Linda Ruth

3352 34th Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN 55406

Cell: 612-590-4007; Ofc: 612-624-2297

E-mail: wires001@umn.edu

Education

M.S., University of Minnesota, Conservation Biology Program, December 1995

M.A., University of Chicago, Department of English Language and Literature, August 1989

 

B.A., University of Illinois at Chicago, Department of English, June 1987

Professional and Academic Experience

Project Coordinator, Integrated Waterbird Management and Monitoring. US fish and Wildlife 

Service, Bloomington, MN. Dec 2013-Present. Coordinate and manage all aspects of national 

monitoring and habitat management program (Integrated Waterbird Management and 

Monitoring) focused on nonbreeding waterbirds during migration and winter.

Research Fellow, Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, U of M, St. Paul, MN, 

09/1996 – June 30, 2013. All aspects of research, monitoring and conservation of waterbirds in 

the U.S. Great Lakes and Minnesota.

Biological Consultant. 2000-2013. Various agencies and non-governmental organizations in 

U.S. and Canada. Multiple waterbird and island ecosystem projects. 

Curatorial Assistant, Mammalogy Collection, Bell Museum of Natural History / U of M, St. 

Paul, MN. 1994-1995. Management of mammal collection specimens and database.

Teaching Assistant, U of M, General Biology and Ecology, Evolution and Behavior programs, 

1990 –1995. Lab sections of Biology, Ecology and Zoology. 

Books

Wires, L.R. 2014. The Double-crested Cormorant: Plight of a Feathered Pariah. Yale University 

Press, New Haven, CT.

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 10 of 27
Peer-reviewed Publications

Morris, R.D., D.V. Weseloh, L.R. Wires, C.Pekarik, F.J. Cuthbert, and D.J Moore. 2011. 

Population trends of Ring-billed Gulls breeding on the North American Great Lakes, 

1976-2009. Waterbirds. 34:202-212.

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2010. Characteristics of Double-crested Cormorant Colonies in 

the U.S. Great Lakes Island-Landscape. 2010. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 

36(2):232-241. 

Morris, R.D., D.V. Weseloh, F.J. Cuthbert, C.Pekarik, L.R. Wires and L.Harper. 2010 

Distribution and abundance of nesting common and Caspian terns on the North American 

Great Lakes, 1976 to 1999. J. Great Lakes Research 36: 44-56.

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2006. Historic populations of the Double-crested Cormorant 

(Phalacrocorax auritus): Implications for conservation and management in the 21st

century. Waterbirds 29:9-37.

Wires, L.R., K.V. Haws, F.J. Cuthbert, N. Drilling, and A.C. Smith. 2006. The Double-crested 

Cormorant and American White Pelican in Minnesota: First statewide breeding census. 

The Loon 78:63-73.

Wires, L. R., Carss, D. N., Cuthbert, F.J & Hatch, J. J. 2003. Transcontinental Connections in 

Relation to Cormorant-fisheries Conflicts: Perceptions and Realities of a "Bete Noire" 

(Black Beast) on Both Sides of the Atlantic. Vogelwelt 124 (Supplement “Cormorants: 

Ecology and Management, Procs. of the 5th Intl. Conference on Cormorants”): 389-400.

Cuthbert, F. J., L.R. Wires and J. McKearnan. 2002. Potential Impacts of Nesting DoubleCrested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax Auritus) on Colonial Waterbirds in the Great Lakes 

Region. Cormorant Research Special Edition, Journal of Great Lakes Research 28 (2), 

International Association of Great Lakes Research.

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert, D.V. Weseloh and D.R. Trexel. 2000 The Double-crested Cormorant 

in Eastern and Central North America: A Summary of Status and Research. Wetlands 

International Cormorant Research Group Bulletin 4:5-9.

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2000. Trends in Caspian Tern Numbers and Distribution in North 

America: A Review. Waterbirds 23: 388-404.

Cuthbert, F.J. and L.R. Wires. 1999. Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 403 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA.

Major Technical Reports or Symposium Publications

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert and T. Arnold. 2013. The American White Pelican in Minnesota after 

the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Assessing Distribution, Abundance and Population 

change. Final Report (June 2013) to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. 

Paul, MN. 

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert and T. Arnold. 2013. Advancing Great Lakes Colonial Waterbird 

Monitoring Priorities: Sampling and Collaboration. Final Report (June 2013) to US Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, MN.

Cuthbert, F.J. and L.R. Wires. 2013. The fourth decadal U.S. Great Lakes colonial waterbird 

survey (2007-2010): Results and recommendations to improve the scientific basis for 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 11 of 27
conservation and management. Final Report (February 2013) to US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Region 3, Ft. Snelling, MN.

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert, and M. Girsch. 2012. Surveys for Nesting Colonial Waterbirds at 

Lake Waconia and Pigeon Lake, MN, 2012. Final Report Submitted to Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources, Nongame Wildlife Program. St. Paul, MN.

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert, and D.C. Hamilton. 2011. The American White Pelican and Doublecrested Cormorant in Minnesota in 2010: Distribution, abundance and population change. 

Final Report to MN Dept. Nat. Res. State Wildlife Grants Program.

Cuthbert, F.J., J. McKearnan, L.R. Wires, and A. Joshi. 2010. The Third Decadal Great Lakes 

Colonial Waterbird Survey: Distribution and abundance of colonial waterbirds in the US 

Great Lakes 1997-1999. Final Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Ft. Snelling, MN. 

Wires, L.R., S. J. Lewis, G. J. Soulliere, S. W. Matteson, D. V. “Chip” Weseloh, R. P. Russell, 

and F. J. Cuthbert. 2010. Upper Mississippi Valley / Great Lakes Waterbird Conservation 

Plan. A plan associated with the Waterbird Conservation for the Americas Initiative. 

Final Report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. xx pp.

Vigmostad, K.E., F. Cuthbert, D. Ewert, D. Kraus, M. Seymour, and L. Wires. 2007. Great 

Lakes Islands: Biodiversity Elements and Threats. Final Report to the Great Lakes 

National Program Office of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Wires, L.R., K.V. Haws and F.J. Cuthbert. 2005. The Double-crested Cormorant and American 

White Pelican in Minnesota: a statewide status assessment. Final Report to Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources’ Statewide Wildlife Grants Program. Nov 2005. 

Bemidji, MN.

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. Minnesota Fish Producers Report on Losses to Birds. 2004. Fact 

Sheet summarized from Wires and Cuthbert 2003, Minnesota SeaGrant. 4 p.

Wires, L.R. 2004. Indicators for Area, Quality, and Protection of Great Lakes Islands. Developed 

for the Binational Collaborative for the Conservation of Great Lakes Islands. October 

2004. Northeast-Midwest Institute, Washington, DC. 

Wires, L.R. and Cuthbert, F.J. 2003. Fish-eating bird predation at aquaculture facilities in 

Minnesota: a first step towards bridging the information gap. Final Report to Minnesota 

Sea Grant. Duluth, MN. http://www.seagrant.umn.edu/downloads/a20.pdf

Cuthbert, F. J., L.R. Wires and K. Timmerman. 2003. Status of the Great Lakes Common Tern 

Population. USFWS. 

Cuthbert, F.J. and L.R. Wires. 2003. Common Terns in Michigan: Development of a Monitoring 

Program. Final Report to Natural Heritage Small Grants Program, Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources.

Cuthbert, F.J. and L.R. Wires. 2002. Common Tern Breeding Populations: A Review of 

Common Tern Band Recovery Data 1922-2000. 

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert, D. Trexel, and A.R. Joshi. 2001. Status assessment of the Doublecrested Cormorant in Central and Eastern North America. USFWS.

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert, D. Trexel, and A. Joshi. 2001. Status of the Double-Crested 

Cormorant in North America. USFWS Special Publication.

http://library.fws.gov/Bird_Publications/cormorant_status01.pdf

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2001. Prioritization of waterbird colony sites for conservation in 

the U.S. Great Lakes: Final Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Snelling, MN.

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 12 of 27
Internet Publications

http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/cormorant/cormorant.html (Status Assessment of the 

Double-crested Cormorant in North America)

www.waterbirdconservatio.org or 

http://pwatol.us/mibci/fileadmin/user_upload/ResearchMonitoring/UMVGLWaterbirdPlan5-26-

10.pdf (Upper Mississippi Valley / Great Lakes Waterbird Conservation Plan).

Other Publications

Wires, L.R. 2013. Book Review: The Double-crested Cormorant: Symbol of ecological conflict. 

Waterbirds 36: 108-109.

Research Support (Research funding in which I had a major role in writing proposals, 

supervising technicians, field work, data analysis and preparation of final report).

• Monitoring Double-crested Cormorants in Minnesota at individual colonies (2011-2013). 

MN Dept. of Natural Resources.($15,600). 

• The American White Pelican in Minnesota: after the Deep Water Horizon spill. (2011-

12) LCCMR (MN DNR) ($60,000). 

• Advancing Great Lakes Colonial Waterbird Monitoring Priorities, Sampling and 

Collaboration. (2011, 2012). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ($37,000).

• Estimation of American White Pelican and Double-crested Cormorant populations in 

Minnesota. (2010) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ($58,000).

• Monitoring of Colonial Waterbird Populations in the Great Lakes: Improving the 

Scientific Basis for Conservation and Management. (2007-2010). US Fish and Wildlife 

Service ($315,000).

• Long-Term Monitoring of Colonial Waterbird Populations in the Great Lakes (2005-

2010). US Fish and Wildlife Service ($54,234).

• Estimating Detectability Rates for Colonial Waterbirds in the U.S. Great Lakes (2005-

06). U.S. Geological Survey ($22,290).

• The Double-crested Cormorant and American White Pelican in Minnesota: A Statewide 

Status Assessment. (2004-05). MN DNR. ($60,000).

• Framework for Binational Conservation of Great Lakes Islands. (2003-04) U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (Great Lakes National Program Office), with The 

Nature Conservancy, Nature Conservancy Canada, Northeast-Midwest Institute).

($200,000).

• Conservation of Waterbirds in the Upper Mississippi Valley and Great Lakes Region. 

(2003-05) US Fish and Wildlife Service ($66,000).

• Conservation of Great Lakes Colonial Waterbirds (2002-03). US Fish and Wildlife 

Service ($10,000) 

• Fish-eating Bird Predation at Aquaculture Facilities in Minnesota: Bridging the 

Information Gap (2002). Minnesota Sea Grant ($9,500).

• Common Terns In Michigan: Development Of An Annual Monitoring Effort, 2002. US 

Fish and Wildlife Service ($7,200); MI DNR ($5,000).

• Double-crested Cormorant Status Assessment and Biodiversity Impacts (2000-02) US

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 13 of 27
Fish and Wildlife Service ($118,000). 

• Status Assessment of Double-crested Cormorants in North America (1998-2000), US

Fish and Wildlife Service $35,000.

Scientific Presentations (selected)

Wires, L.R. The Double-crested Cormorant: Plight of a Feathered Pariah. Minnesota 

Ornithological Union, Minneapolis, MN, Dec 2014; Tommy Thompson Park, 

International Migratory Bird Day / Spring Bird Festival, Toronto, ON, Canada, May 

2014.

Wires, L.R. 2014. Cormorant-fisheries conflicts: an evaluation of management policy. Waterbird 

Soceity, La Paz, Baja California, MX. Nov 2014. 

Tavernia, B., L.R. Wires, J. Stanton, J. Lyons, M.T. Jones, P. Heglund, J. Coppen, M. Knutson, 

B. Loges, E. Lonsdorf, S. Jacobi, W. Thogmartin, M. Runge, B. Thompson. Integrated 

Waterbird Management and Monitoring. (Presenter L. Wires). Waterbird Soceity, La Paz, 

Baja California, MX, Nov 2014.

Cuthbert, F.J., L. Wires, D.V. Weseloh and D. Moore. Lansing, MI. 2013 (Presenter: Cuthbert).

Great Lakes Cormorant Working Group Meeting, Estimating Double-crested Cormorant 

population size and trends using a sampling approach. 

Cuthbert, F.J., L. Wires, D.V. Weseloh and D. Moore. Sault Ste. Marie, MI. 2012. (Presenter: 

Cuthbert). Western Great Lakes Waterbird Meeting, Censusing priority waterbird colony 

sites: new approach to obtaining estimates and trends. 

Wires, L.R. and Cuthbert, F.J. Nov 2011. (Presenter: Wires). Monitoring colonial waterbirds in 

the U.S. Great Lakes: A new approach to an old survey. Waterbird Society. Annapolis, 

MD. November 2011. 

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert, D.C. Hamilton and T. Arnold. Mar 2011. (Presenter Wires). 

Evaluation of Aerial Photography to Estimate Colony Sizes of Double-crested 

Cormorants in the Upper Mississippi Valley / Great Lakes Region. 34th Annual Meeting 

of the Waterbird Society. Grand Island, NE.

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert, K.V. Haws, and D.C. Hamilton. 2010. (Presenter: Wires). The 

American White Pelican & Double-crested Cormorant in Minnesota: Assessing 

distribution, abundance and population change, 2004-2010. Minnesota Ornithological 

Union Annual Meeting. 

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2007. (Presenter: Wires). Characterizing Double-crested 

Cormorant colony sites in the US Great Lakes: from island to landscape. 31st Annual 

Meeting of the Waterbird Society. Barcelona, Spain. 

Wires, L.R. 2007. (Presenter: Wires). Evaluating the impacts of an exceptional avian predator on 

Great Lakes fishes: the Double-crested Cormorant. Cormorant Defenders International, 

Symposium on Double-crested Cormorants: Sorting facts from the "fishy" myths about 

their impact on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Toronto, ON (Invited).

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2006. (Presenter: Wires). Management policies for Double-crested 

Cormorants: a new threat to fish-eating birds. 4th North American Ornithological 

Conference, American Bird Conservancy / Partners in Flight Conservation Symposium.

Veracruz, Mexico (Invited).

Wires, L.R and F.J. Cuthbert. 2004. (Presenter: Wires). Natural wetland use by fish-eating birds 

and aquaculture in Minnesota: Context for controversy. Society for Conservation 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 14 of 27
Biology, Annual Meeting, New York, New York; American Ornithologists’ Union, 

Annual Meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, Can.

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 2002. (Presenter: Wires). Biology and politics of the DoubleCrested Cormorant in North America: Implications for conservation and management of 

fish-eating birds. American Bird Conservancy Policy Meeting. Washington, DC. 

(Invited).

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert and D.R. Trexel. 2001. (Presenter: Wires). Assessing impact of 

Double-Crested Cormorants on fish resources in North America: Review of population 

trends and diet studies; implications for management. International Symposium and 

Workshop on Interaction between fish and birds: implications for management. Hull, UK.

Wires, L.R., D.N. Carss and F.J. Cuthbert. 2000. (Presenter: Wires). Transcontinental 

connections: Cormorant-fisheries conflicts, perceptions and realities on both sides of the 

Atlantic. 5th International Conference on Cormorants and 2nd Meeting of Wetlands 

International Cormorant Research Group. Freising, Germany.

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert and D.R. Trexel. 2000. (Presenter: Wires). Distribution of the 

Double-crested Cormorant in North America: Perceptions of population recovery. 

Waterbird Society Annual Meeting, Plymouth, MA. 

Wires, L.R., F.J. Cuthbert and D.R. Trexel. 2000. (Presenter: Wires). Double-crested Cormorant 

historic trends in North America. American Ornithologists’ Union. St. Johns, NL. 

Wires, L.R. and F.J. Cuthbert. 1999. (Presenter: Wires). Status assessment of the Doublecrested Cormorant in North America. Waterbird Society Meeting, Grado, Italy (Invited).

Symposia/Workshop Convenor or Participant

Development of a Long-term Monitoring Strategy for a Binational Great Lakes Colonial 

Waterbird Survey: Workshop. Waterbird Society Meeting, LaCrosse, WI, November

2002 (Co-organizer and convenor with F. Cuthbert).

Double-crested Cormorant-Fishery Conflict Workshop, Plymouth, MA Nov. 2000 (Co-organizer

with F. Cuthbert).

Scientific Societies 

Waterbird Society, Member 1999-2013; Council 2007-2010; Student Awards Committee Chair, 

2004-2011; Associate Editor 2006-present.

Professional Journal Reviews 

Biological Conservation, Condor, Ecological Applications, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 

Human Wildlife Conflicts, Journal of Applied Ecology, Journal of Field Ornithology, Journal of 

Great Lakes Research, Journal of Wildlife Management, Wilson Bulletin, Northeastern 

Naturalist, Southeast Naturalist, Waterbirds.

Computer Skills 

MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint; Limited experience using MS Access, ArcMap GIS and Google 

Earth.

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 15 of 27
1

COMMENTS ON: 

Public Notice number CENWP-PM-E-14-08

USACE Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

To Reduce Double-crested Cormorant Predation of Juvenile Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary, 

June 19, 2014.

Submitted by:

Linda R. Wires, MS & MA

Conservation Biologist

Minneapolis, MN

These comments respond to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Portland District, Doublecrested Cormorant management plan to reduce predation of juvenile salmonids in the Columbia River 

Estuary. 

I have been monitoring the status and distribution of cormorants in eastern North America since 1998. I 

was the lead author of the 2001 North American Double-crested Cormorant Status Assessment 

completed under contract with the USFWS. I have also reviewed and commented on all of the 

Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements for DCCO management that have 

been developed since 2003. In 2014, I published a book on Double-crested Cormorants (hereafter 

DCCO) entitled, The Double-Crested Cormorant, Plight of a Feathered Pariah. This work included detailed 

reviews of the science underlying assessment of fisheries impacts from DCCOs, and management of this 

species under the two depredation orders in states east of the Mississippi River. Although most of my 

work with cormorants has been in the eastern U.S., I am familiar with the issues surrounding DCCOs in 

western North America. To gain a broader understanding of issues specifically in the Columbia River 

estuary and help provide informed comments on the USACE DEIS, I also visited the East Sand Island (ESI) 

colony in July of 2014. During this visit I was able to spend time at the colony and also interact with 

many of the biologists, managers, and resource professionals involved in this issue.

After reviewing the available science surrounding the conflict at ESI, and spending some time at the site, 

I am writing to strongly encourage the USACE to pursue a less aggressive, nonlethal approach to 

resolving conflicts with cormorants. I believe Alternative C (the Preferred Alternative) is inappropriate 

for several reasons, which are described below. 

1. “Survival gap” analysis and population objective for cormorants. The population objective of ~ 

5,600 pairs of DCCOs is based on a “survival gap” analysis completed by NOAA Fisheries that relies 

on 3 essential datasets: estimates of smolt consumption, estimates of cormorant population, and 

estimates of smolt population sizes. To have confidence in these estimates, each needs to be based 

on robust methods, but from what is presented in the DEIS (Appendix D), many of them clearly are 

not. Therefore, the population target for cormorants is based on an analysis that is not scientifically 

rigorous enough to inspire confidence and clearly demonstrate that the chosen population target is 

appropriate. Some issues:

Smolt abundance. The estimates of smolt abundance rely on “memos” that can’t be readily accessed for 

review. Additionally, the original purpose of the estimates recorded in the memos are for use by 

NOAA’s permit office on proposed actions that would occur in a given upcoming year. As such, the

estimates are predictions, and generally not verified afterwards using any empirical measurements. The 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 16 of 27
2

actual data collected are relatively sparse and many of the component estimates are little more than 

back of the envelope calculations...in some cases little more than educated guesses. So we have the 

following combination of problems: estimates based on a very data-sparse foundation; methodology 

that is not readily accessible, nor independently peer-reviewed (never published in a journal or even a 

peer-reviewed technical memo); no attempt to understand or quantify the uncertainty/error associated 

with the estimates; no empirical measurements to assess the accuracy of the estimates; and estimates 

generated for a very different purpose than their use in the DEIS. Considering the scale of lethal culling 

and population reduction that the DEIS proposes, using imprecise, uncertain estimates like this to 

quantify the management objective is unacceptable. 

Estimates of smolt consumption. The “survival gap” analysis was conducted at the species level for

steelhead and sockeye salmon, and for a particular age-class of Chinook salmon. However, estimates of 

predation rates are available at the level of the conservation units listed under the ESA, ostensibly the 

reason for considering management of DCCOs. I am referring here specifically to NOAA Fisheries' data 

on smolt PIT tag recoveries collected at the DCCO colony on East Sand Island. These data measure stockspecific predation impacts, and the estimates have greater precision and specificity to the conservation 

units of interest, estimate uncertainty, and take into account possible variation in predation rates due to 

rearing and migration history. It is not clear why these data, acknowledged repeatedly in the DEIS, were 

not used in developing the cormorant management objective. Furthermore, the DEIS states on p. 32, 

Chapter 4, “This EIS adopts NOAA Fisheries analysis (see Chapter 1, section 1.2) and associated survival 

gap estimates, but proposes to use PIT tag recoveries in the future to evaluate management actions. PIT 

tags provide ESU or DPS specific estimation of predation rate, consistent with NOAA Fisheries (2014) 

directive to obtain stock-specific data when possible. Predation rates on ESA-listed Columbia River Basin 

ESUs or DPSs, using PIT tag recoveries on the East Sand Island DCCO colony over the last ten years, are 

provided in Chapter 3, section 3.2.5 and Appendix C.” This acknowledges that the PIT tag data are 

available and are more appropriate for the analysis. Thus, in this regard, the best science available was 

not used in NOAA Fisheries’ survival gap analysis. 

Variability in cormorant diet. Research by Lyons et al. (2014) to evaluate potential benefits to salmon 

recovery from different DCCO management scenarios demonstrated that the annual consumption of 

juvenile salmonids by DCCOs varied widely from year-to-year. For instance, in 2005 DCCOs consumed 

about 2 million salmonid smolts, while in 2011 they consumed 20 million. These vastly different 

consumption rates occurred when cormorant numbers were quite similar, indicating that factors other 

than just cormorant numbers influence consumption rate. Therefore, reductions in cormorant numbers

may not lead to the presumed benefits expected when an average consumption rate of 11 million 

salmonids is presumed. Moreover, lower levels of predation that are acceptable to NOAA may occur 

without reductions in colony size. The analysis does not take into account either of these possibilities. 

Extrapolation to base period and estimated predation rate. The analysis also extrapolates data collected 

during 1998-2012 to the period from 1980 to 1997 to determine rates of salmonid consumption (and 

abundance). But the data presented in the DEIS (as noted above) demonstrate that very large interannual variation in cormorant consumption rates of salmonid smolts characterize cormorant diets. This

great variation makes it impossible to determine how close the extrapolation to the earlier period 

comes to reality. Since this extrapolation is very important in defining the management objective for 

DCCOs, it is critical to have greater confidence in this information. The increase in DCCO predation from 

the base period to the current period is used to define the necessary DCCO reduction to return to a 

lower predation rate, but there is no way to interpret the biological relevance represented by this level 

of reduction in DCCO predation. This is another weak aspect of the analysis. 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 17 of 27
3

Compensatory mortality and uncertainty. The analysis dismisses the importance of compensatory 

predation mortality by arguing that the extent to which it may occur doesn't influence the management 

objective to return to a prior level of predation. However, potential benefits arising from cormorant 

management do not necessarily equal potential benefits arising from management to reduce mortality 

due to other factors (e.g., at a dam), despite similar smolt mortality rates, due to likely differences in the 

proportion of mortality that is compensatory. The DEIS points out that smolt mortality caused by

cormorant predation is generally comparable to the mortality induced by one mainstem dam. While 

that may be true, smolt mortality due to cormorant predation is more often focused on less fit fish 

compared to mortality at dams (e.g., turbine passage), which likely affects all fish regardless of their 

condition. Due to these differences in the extent of compensatory mortality between predation and 

dam passage, the benefit of cormorant management is not appropriately assessed in the context of 

other recovery actions. Furthermore, the DEIS states on p. 33-34 (Chapter 4) that even once colony size 

is reduced to targeted levels, “smaller increases in juvenile salmonid survival than are presented in 

Tables 4-2 and 4-3 could occur, depending on the actual degree to which DCCOs greater than the target 

colony size can be completely excluded from the estuary and to the degree mortality is compensatory 

(see Chapter 4, section 4.6.5 for more discussion).” This clearly acknowledges the fact that reductions in 

cormorant colony size may not directly correlate with targeted increases in salmonid survival rates, due 

at least in part to unpredictable levels of compensation. In section 4.6.5 the DEIS discusses the issue of 

compensatory mortality and uncertainty, and states “the purpose and need of this EIS is to reduce 

depredation damage caused by DCCO predation of juvenile salmonids, which is a well-studied and 

documented source of mortality. Constraining management due to unknown and speculative amounts 

of compensatory mortality would allow a known source of significant mortality of juvenile salmonids 

within the Columbia River Estuary to continue unaltered.” While cormorant predation may be a well 

documented source of mortality, this statement does not diminish the importance of the fact that some 

portion of the mortality due to cormorants may be completely meaningless if it is replaced by some 

other mortality factor, and DCCO reduction does not ultimately lead to an increase in the number of 

adults that return to spawn. Therefore, I do not think this issue has been adequately addressed relative 

to salmon recovery and cormorant population size.

Relationship of cormorant predation on salmonid smolts to salmon recovery. The role of cormorant 

predation and the relationship of increasing survival of listed salmonid smolts in the estuary to numbers 

of adults returning to spawn is not addressed. However, returns of adult salmon and a self-sustaining 

population are the ultimate measure of salmon recovery. Some evidence that reducing cormorant 

predation on smolts is going to lead to significantly increased salmon recovery should be presented. At

the very least the relationship of smolt survival to returning adults should be explored in more detail, so 

that the role of cormorant predation can be understood in a broader context. If these fish experience 

high mortality in the marine phase of their lifecycle, to what degree is reducing cormorant predation in 

the estuary going to contribute to the number of adult salmon returning? For instance, on p. 3-41, the 

DEIS reports “that subyearling [Lower Columbia River] Chinook are particularly vulnerable to cormorant 

predation, with average annual consumption estimates of 7.8 million (range = 1.9-15.6) subyearling 

Chinook during 2004-2013.” On the same page the DEIS also states that “between 50 and 100 million 

[Chinook] subyearlings [have been] released annually into the Lower Columbia River Basin since the 

1990s (NOAA 2011a).” Yet, on p. 3-39, the DEIS states that in the Columbia River Basin, many 

populations of salmonids “have been declining since the late nineteenth century, with documented 

losses to harvest, habitat degradation, hydropower development, and other anthropogenic causes 

(Gresh et al. 2000; Lichatowich 2001; NOAA 2014a).... Before industrialized development occurred, 

numbers of adult salmon in the Columbia River Basin were estimated to be around 10 to 16 million adult 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 18 of 27
4

fish per year (Gresh et al. 2000). Currently, less than two million adult salmon return to the Columbia 

River Basin annually (FPC 2014).” If only two million adults salmon are returning to the basin annually, 

what else is happening to all the other tens of millions of fish that are apparently present (due to a 

combination of hatchery releases and natural reproduction) that so few make it back? Of the fish 

avoiding cormorant predation in the estuary, how many survive only to be consumed later by other 

predators in the ocean? To what extent does the mortality that occurs there diminish benefits of 

reducing cormorant consumption of smolts in the estuary? This is a big picture question fundamental to 

the whole effort, and nothing presented in this DEIS has demonstrated that killing cormorants in the 

estuary is going to ultimately result in substantial increases in the numbers of adult salmon returning to 

spawn. 

Conclusion for #1. While there may be a need to limit DCCO predation on ESA-listed salmonid species, 

NOAA Fisheries’ “survival gap” analysis does not demonstrate that the cormorant population needs to 

be limited to the extent the analysis proposes. Rather, the presumed level of improvement to salmonid 

survival rates from proposed reductions to cormorant numbers is highly questionable. Notably, the 

survival gap analysis has not been peer-reviewed, nor did it utilize scientific information provided by 

Lyons et al. (2014) on potential benefits to salmonid recovery expected from reducing the numbers of 

breeding DCCOs in the estuary. I believe that submitting this analysis to a more rigorous evaluation by a 

panel of objective experts would highlight the flaws described above, and would substantiate that the 

best available science was not used to arrive at the DCCO population objective. This is a serious 

oversight, as the decision to reduce the population size by two-thirds will affect tens of thousands of 

birds and has the potential to negatively impact the entire western DCCO population. A proposal to 

eliminate cormorants to this magnitude should warrant a much more formal and rigorous analysis than 

what appears to have been done in these Excel spreadsheet calculations, and one that is supported by 

the peer review process. Moreover, the extent to which reducing cormorant predation on smolts will 

contribute to salmon recovery as measured by adult salmon returns remains unaddressed, and 

ultimately may be minimal if salmon spared from cormorant predation ultimately experience higher

mortality rates once they leave the estuary. Finally, in a broader context, one of the important 

conclusions from my book (Wires 2014) is that most cormorant management either is not sciencebased, is based on poor-quality science, or is contrary to what scientific studies indicate. Based on my 

observations and concerns described above, the same conclusion is emerging for the management 

alternative advocated by the USACE in the DEIS.

2. Lethal activities to resolve conflicts. The USFWS is tasked not only with managing migratory birds,

but also protecting them. To this end, relative to issuing depredation permits, the agency clearly 

states on its website: “You DO need to demonstrate substantial non-lethal methods such as 

harassing/hazing, exclusions, habitat management, and cultural practices prior to applying for a 

permit (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/Permits/dprd.html).” In recognition of this 

requirement, the DEIS indicates that nonlethal approaches have been employed to try to resolve 

conflicts with cormorants over ESA-listed salmonids. The Corps argues these methods failed, and 

therefore a more aggressive lethal approach is advocated. However, after reviewing what has 

actually been done in this regard and engaging in discussions with USGS researchers studying 

nonlethal approaches, I believe this statement misrepresents how and why nonlethal approaches 

have been employed to resolve the conflict in the Columbia River estuary. Therefore, I do not think 

the requirement that substantial nonlethal methods first be employed has been met. Moreover, I 

think nonlethal methods, if employed at the appropriate scale and intensity, are entirely feasible in 

reducing cormorant consumption of salmonid smolts in the Columbia River estuary. Several major 

points support this conclusion.

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 19 of 27
5

Habitat enhancement and social attraction studies. Work by Suzuki (2012) reports successful and 

encouraging results on habitat enhancement and social attraction techniques for relocating nesting 

DCCOs to alternative colony sites in the Columbia River estuary. But to be effective, these techniques 

should be employed at sites where cormorants have some previous history of nesting or roosting. In the 

Great Lakes region, research indicated the presence of other nesting colonial waterbirds was also very 

important in site colonization by DCCOs (Wires and Cuthbert 2010). Additionally, these attraction 

techniques must be accompanied by concurrent efforts to discourage nesting at nearby active colonies

to provide incentive for cormorants to shift to the attraction site. These attraction sites may also need to 

be maintained to keep cormorants at a new site. In the cases that the DEIS mentioned where these 

techniques did not work, the requirements of previous use and incentive to leave nearby sites were 

either not met or the attraction methods were not maintained. Essentially, the design of the attraction 

and enhancement of cormorant colonies was done in an experimental context to test whether restoring 

colonies or attracting cormorants to different sites would be feasible, not in an actual management 

context with the goal to establish long-term colonies. Thus the portrayal of these methods as ineffective 

misrepresents the feasibility of the habitat enhancement and social attraction techniques, and creates 

the false impression that these methods had been employed to achieve management goals, when in 

fact these methods were only tried to investigate their potential.

Reducing available nesting habitat. The DEIS also indicates that cormorant nesting habitat was reduced

on ESI, but despite these reductions cormorant numbers increased. Again, this is very misleading and is 

used to discredit the potential of Alternative B and to satisfy the requirements for a depredation permit. 

In fact, work by USGS researchers during 2011-2013 demonstrated that the area used as nesting habitat 

could be reduced to limit the size of the colony (Roby et al. 2012, 2013, 2014), all through nonlethal 

actions. But again, efforts to reduce available nesting habitat were not undertaken at a scale that would 

cause large numbers of DCCOs to emigrate from East Sand Island and reduce colony size. Reducing the 

area of nesting habitat on the island sufficient to reduce numbers of nesting DCCOs would require 

significant management actions, and thus an EIS. Therefore, the DEIS needs to distinguish between the 

application of nonlethal methods in the experimental and management contexts. These methods have 

not been tried in a management context....doing so would require a much larger scale effort that 

addresses multiple components as described above. 

Dispersing birds to areas where other or potentially greater conflicts will occur. The DEIS expresses 

concern that if birds are dispersed from ESI they may cause problems elsewhere. First, birds may or may 

not move to areas where additional problems will occur. Second, if they do, research again indicates 

that they could easily be dissuaded from colonizing new sites where there is concern about potential 

impacts (Roby et al. 2012, 2013, 2014). In this regard, I point to management conducted in Denmark, 

where similar conflicts with fisheries occur due to Great Cormorants. Denmark has a long-term policy to 

manage cormorants through nonlethal means and to disperse them when they try to colonize new sites. 

This approach is also being used in several other European countries. To obtain more information on the 

Danish experience, I contacted a Danish colleague, Dr. Thomas Bregnballe, who has studied cormorants 

and been involved in managing them in Demark for decades. Dr. Bregnballe wrote that in Denmark, 

“The major philosophy is that the cormorants, as central place foragers, will tend to forage near to their 

colony, and therefore cormorant predation pressure on fish will decline with increasing distance from 

the colony. Therefore, hindering cormorants from founding new colonies near hitherto unexploited food 

resources will limit the birds in their access to food resources...We believe that this strategy has worked 

as intended in Denmark. The cost of this approach is, of course, that you need some manpower to be 

ready to disturb the birds as soon as they try to found a new colony (thus it is far easier to keep 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 20 of 27
6

cormorants off a hitherto un-colonized site if the birds are hazed in the earliest phases of breeding and 

before the birds have experienced that it is possible to breed with success at the site). Although 

Denmark has many small islets where cormorants could breed, they are generally rather slow in trying

to colonize new sites into use as breeding colonies. So the task has not been that demanding in 

Denmark.” 

Dr. Bregnballe also commented on the application of this approach to the situation in the Columbia 

River estuary: “Concerning the specific situation in Oregon, I would guess that heavy disturbance early in 

the breeding season would ‘provoke’ many of the birds scared from the existing sites to start looking for 

suitable alternatives nearby, as well as more distant sites where they could found new colonies. There 

would also be birds that continue to try to return and breed at the site where they successfully bred in 

earlier years, so the scaring would have to be carried out during most of the season and in subsequent 

seasons. But my guess would also be that you could lower the number of cormorants foraging in the 

estuary if you ran a scaring programme in the existing colonies as well as at the nearby sites where birds 

try to form new colonies. Again the success of the scaring is likely to be highest if carried out in the very 

earliest phases of breeding – before egg-laying and if some manage to lay eggs then avoid that the birds 

are allowed to incubate for weeks. From an ethical point of view these actions are not very nice, but if 

the alternative is to shoot (and wound) large numbers of cormorants annually, then this would be a 

more ‘humane’ approach.” 

Some of this work is published in Danish, and there is one extended abstract in English. I have attached 

numerous citations at the end of this document to identify this work for your consideration (Bregnballe 

and Eskildsen 2002, 2009; Bregnballe et al. 2013). Contrary to the concern expressed in the DEIS, the 

success of the Danish experience suggests managing for the selection of DCCO nesting locations (and by 

extension, foraging locations) once DCCOs disperse from ESI is quite feasible. For a smaller-scale and 

more local example, I also point to the management program that was developed for Oneida Lake in

New York State. This program successfully limited cormorant nesting and foraging by migrant birds 

mostly through an intensive hazing program and other nonlethal methods (see Coleman 2009 and 

DeBruyne et al. 2013 for management history). Again, such work demonstrates that a hazing program 

and a nonlethal approach can be very effective management strategies for cormorants. 

Conclusion for #2. The USFWS is a cooperating partner on this DEIS and is faced with an enormous 

challenge relative to issuing a depredation permit that would allow the removal of such a large number 

of birds and such a significant percentage of the western population. East of the Mississippi the 

establishment of the depredation orders has resulted in a 19th century approach to cormorant 

management: A pattern of destroying cormorants in huge numbers once again prevails. Since the 

depredation orders were established, more than half a million cormorants have been killed and 

hundreds of thousands of nests destroyed. In the Great Lakes, where most of the breeding birds 

targeted have been destroyed, cormorants have a diet that consists largely of round goby, an invasive 

species, and there is very little scientific evidence that this management is necessary or benefits

valuable fisheries (Wires 2014). But the model of killing as the approach to cormorant management has 

become entrenched, and a pattern is now established....this is just what we do with cormorants, 

especially relative to fisheries with a long history of poor management...despite the irrationality and 

ethical concerns that underlie this approach. We now destroy birds at NWRs, Federal Wilderness Areas 

and the moment they fly off of privately owned islands bought by NGOs for their protection (Wires 

2014). The USFWS should consider that by issuing a depredation permit in support of Alternative C, it is 

opening the door for establishing a similar pattern of destruction west of the Mississippi. In so doing it is 

not upholding its responsibilities to protect these birds, which so greatly need protection given the level 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 21 of 27
7

of hatred and misunderstanding that surrounds them. The fact that the nonlethal methods that have 

been employed to reduce cormorant predation on salmonid smolts can be easily challenged as 

legitimate efforts to resolve this problem should make the USFWS pause and consider more carefully 

the application of nonlethal techniques in a management context before killing large numbers of birds. 

There is a team of experts right at the agency’s fingertips...the USGS research team led by Dan Roby at 

OSU... that could help with the design and implementation of these techniques. The agency must 

contemplate just what it will be getting into and the precedent it will set if it migrates the pattern of 

cormorant killing from East to West. Essentially, the agency is at a crossroads: It can perpetuate the 

negative image that cormorants have, the belief that they need to be killed, and lock in this approach as 

not just an eastern policy but a national one, or it can show some leadership and establish a new pattern 

for resolving conflicts with fish-eating birds, conflicts that have resulted from the mismanagement and 

degradation of fisheries due to human actions.

3. Numbers of birds that would be removed. Alternative C indicates that killing ~ 16,000 birds would 

reach the cormorant population target by 2018. Based on several factors, however, I think this 

number has not been realistically considered or accurately calculated.

ESI DCCO population assumed to be at carrying capacity. The population model presented for 

cormorants (Appendix E-2) assumes the ESI colony is at carrying capacity, but the fact that a large 

increase occurred in 2013 discredits this assumption. If the colony is not at carrying capacity, losses due 

to killing birds may to some extent be offset by recruitment and immigration. This means more birds 

(possibly many thousands more) will have to killed above the 16,000 proposed. 

Experience with lethal operations in the East indicates much greater levels of destruction must be 

employed than just the difference between current and targeted colony size. There are several clear

examples from the Great Lakes basin indicating that the number of birds killed that was necessary to 

reach and maintain population targets greatly exceeded the difference between starting and target 

population sizes. Some examples: In Michigan, control was initiated in 2004 when the state population 

size was ~ 30,000 pairs. To reduce numbers, combined strategies of culling and egg oiling were 

employed. During 2004 - 2010, ~ 42,000 birds were killed and somewhere between 35,000 – 75,000 

individual nests were oiled. These actions resulted in a reduction of only about 10,000 pairs in the state 

as of 2011 (USFWS 2014; Cuthbert and Wires, unpubl. data, Great Lakes biennial cormorant monitoring). 

Current population size is not yet available, but in 2011 and 2012 another 19,000 birds were killed under 

the Public Resource Depredation Order, bringing the total birds killed in Michigan under this order 

during 2004 – 2012 to 61,091 (USFWS 2014). Thousands of nests were also oiled. More birds were killed 

in 2013 and 2014 (and more nests destroyed), but these numbers are not yet available. In Minnesota, 

lethal control was initiated at Leech Lake in 2005 to reduce this colony by 80% from ~ 2,500 pairs to 500 

pairs (USDA 2005). To reach and maintain this target size, close to 20,000 birds were killed during 2005-

2012 (USFWS 2014). In Ohio, lethal control was initiated in 2006 at West Sister Island to reduce this 

colony from 3,800 pairs to 1,500-2,000 pairs (USDA 2006). During 2006-2012, more than 10,000 

cormorants were killed at this one location (D. Sherman, pers. comm.); again, more cormorants were 

killed in 2013-2014, but the data are not yet available. See also examples from Canada, summarized in 

Wires (2014); these examples include High Bluff Island, ON; Middle Island, ON; and Lac La Biche, AB). 

These examples provide ample evidence that (1) reaching and maintaining target population sizes 

involves killing and managing much larger numbers of cormorants than is implied by subtracting the 

population objective from current population size and (2) initiation of this type of activity results in longterm and repeated culling programs to maintain objectives. 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 22 of 27
8

Risk to western North American population. Reducing the cormorant population through lethal means 

by the magnitude proposed has implications for the entire western North American population of 

DCCOs. The ESI colony constitutes more than 40% of the western population (Roby et al. 2014). The DEIS 

implies that this reduction will not negatively impact the population because the western population 

was sustainable at 1990 levels (p. 14). However, it is not clear that the population was sustainable at 

1990 levels (particularly since the population has been in a recovery mode during most of the 20th and 

21st centuries). In fact, a review that examined the status of DCCOs in western North America (Carter et 

al. 1995) documented various conservation problems that existed for DCCOs in the 1990s. This paper 

indicated that while cormorants were recovering in this region from losses experienced in the 19th

century, local declines were still occurring due to habitat loss, pollution, human disturbance, and 

predators. Moreover, Carter et al. (1995) indicated that increases in numbers of nesting cormorants in 

the Columbia River Estuary coincided with declines in British Columbia, Washington, and locations in 

interior Oregon. Thus it is not clear that the 1990s population was sustainable, at least not without a 

large and productive colony on East Sand Island. Furthermore, since the 1990s, declines have occurred 

at both coastal and other inland regions have occurred (Adkins et al. 2014; W.D. Shuford, pers. comm.),

and these are not considered in the DEIS. Therefore, it is not at all apparent that the elimination of 

16,000 birds from the most productive colony in western North America (Adkins et al. 2014) will not be 

detrimental to the western population. 

Conclusion for # 3. More birds will likely be killed than predicted, which should be taken into account 

when considering the magnitude of impact to the cormorant population. Furthermore, the western 

population is not at all comparable in terms of abundance to the eastern population; therefore, 

comparable levels of take as occur in the East (proposed on p. 12 of the DEIS) should not be considered 

sustainable. The DEIS has understated both how many birds will need to be taken and the risk to the 

western population from a cull of such magnitude. 

4) Impacts to other birds, humane issues and ethical considerations.

Impacts to other birds. The DEIS acknowledges that under Alternative C there is a “...high potential for a 

substantial reduction in the size of the Brandt’s Cormorant colony on East Sand Island...low to moderate 

potential for a substantial reduction in colony size of other species...” and that the breeding population 

of Pelagic Cormorants in the Columbia River Estuary could be reduced by as much as 20 percent as 

incidental take (p. 19). As noted above, I have visited this colony and nesting Brandt’s cormorants are 

closely inter-mixed with nesting DCCOs. I think it will be impossible to avoid accidentally shooting many 

Brandt’s cormorants while shooting up to 16,000 DCCOs. The DEIS does not address the potential 

biological impacts to these other bird species through potential reductions in their numbers through 

incidental take. Instead, Alternative C simply includes these species, along with DCCOs, as casualties of 

the mismanaged Columbia River ecosystem. I strongly urge the agencies to consider that incidental take 

could be avoided through nonlethal techniques. Avoiding impacts to other species should be a priority, 

especially given that that Brandt’s and Pelagic cormorants are not implicated in salmonid declines and 

are not abundant.

Conversely, the concern about potential impacts to Streaked Horned Larks from dispersing cormorants 

(expressed repeatedly in the DEIS and used to justify the need for lethal control of cormorants at East 

Sand Island) appears unwarranted. Streaked Horned Larks use different habitat than cormorants, 

selecting sparsely vegetated areas rather than areas with trees, rocks, or artificial structures that are 

preferred by cormorants.

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 23 of 27
9

Humane issues. On pages 21-24 the logistics of culling are described, and there is absolutely no mention 

of the potential for humane issues to arise or contingencies to deal with wounded birds. Experience in 

the eastern U.S. with cormorant culling operations indicates that humane issues arise even under the 

best of circumstances (see summary in Wires 2014). Even with experienced sharp shooters, such as 

personnel with Wildlife Services, clean shots are not always made, and shooting from shotguns at birds 

in flight frequently results in birds being wounded, but not killed. Typically efforts are made to retrieve 

wounded birds and immediately euthanize them. This is not described as part of a contingency plan and 

I am not sure how this would happen on ESI without causing major and repeated disturbances. Further, 

if shooting takes place at night from blinds and tunnels, how will injured birds be handled? Again this is 

not described in the DEIS. Having visited the colony, I can’t imagine injured birds could be easily 

retrieved in the dark. Trying to retrieve wounded cormorants during daylight would certainly cause 

enormous disturbance to nesting birds, which could lead to colony abandonment, as could walking

through the colony picking up all the dead bodies. The fact that humane issues are not even mentioned 

in the document gives the impression that they either do not exist or, worse yet, that they are of no 

concern. The DEIS needs to acknowledge that shooting 16,000 birds is going to be a brutal activity with 

many birds experiencing some degree of suffering and trauma before death. The public needs to 

understand what shooting 16,000 wild birds really entails and have the option of commenting on 

whether or not these associated humane issues are acceptable. 

Ethical consideration. In the development of cormorant policy for the Columbia River Basin, science is 

only part of the equation. The other key element is ethics, a less quantifiable but clearly recognizable 

consideration that should guide the decision-making process. Like science, ethics is a form of practical 

reasoning, and efforts to establish guidelines to govern behavior and decision-making have been 

recognized as formal disciplines. For example, the disciplines of bioethics and environmental ethics

provide recognized forums for ethical issues and practical guidance for ethical decisions. As typical of 

cormorant management in the U.S., the USACE’s DEIS is entirely devoid of any discussion of the ethical 

dimension of the decisions to be made for the Columbia River estuary. However, killing 16,000 DCCOs,

and possibly many other birds, is inherently an ethical decision. In an important paper addressing the 

ethics of legal control for wildlife, Warburton and Norton (2009) suggest that all lethal control 

operations targeting nuisance wildlife should be first reviewed by an animal ethics committee. 

Researchers conducting trials that involve manipulations of animals at far smaller numbers are regularly 

subject to this evaluation. Thus, a management project at the scale of the one proposed for the 

Columbia River estuary certainly should be subject to rigorous ethical evaluation by a panel trained in 

this area, and one that represents diverse stakeholder views. To this end, I would like to note that there 

is precedent for the USFWS to bring in a trained ethicist to consider the ethical dimensions of culling 

wildlife, the ethics process and the need for moral review (see 

http://www.opb.org/radio/programs/thinkoutloud/segment/ethical-killing-barred-owls/). I encourage 

you to listen to the radio piece cited above and seriously consider that ethical reasoning is as integral to 

building strong environmental policy as is science.

Final comments / recommendations. For the numerous reasons stated above, I strongly urge the 

USACE and its cooperators to reconsider its Preferred Alternative, and go with a modified version of 

Alternative B. I say “modified” because I am not convinced that the population objective proposed for 

DCCOs in the Columbia River estuary is the correct one. I am also not sure what benefits, if any, reducing 

cormorant numbers will bring to salmon recovery efforts. Therefore, if measures must be taken to 

reduce cormorant consumption on salmonid smolts, I recommend this be done through nonlethal 

methods, which are entirely feasible. Concurrently, I suggest that a more rigorous analysis be 

undertaken to determine a more defensible population objective for cormorants. Finally, I recommend 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 24 of 27
10

consultation with a diverse group of stakeholders and the inclusion of a team of experts that can provide 

ethical guidance in the decision-making. Without these actions, DCCOs and potentially many other birds 

will just become additional casualties, along with the array of salmonids, of the mismanaged Columbia 

River ecosystem. 

References

Adkins, J. Y., D. D. Roby, D. E. Lyons, K. N. Courtot, K. Collis, H. R. Carter, W. D. Shuford, and P. J. 

Capitolo. 2014. Recent population size, trends, and limiting factors for the double-crested 

cormorant in western North America. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:000-000; doi: 

10.1002/jwmg.737

Bregnballe, T. & Eskildsen, J. 2009. Scale and effects of intervention measures in Danish cormorant 

colonies in Denmark 1994–2008. (Bregnballe, T. & Eskildsen, J. 2009. Forvaltende indgreb i 

danske skarvkolonier i Danmark 1994-2008. – Omfang og effekter af oliering af æg, 

bortskræmning og beskydning. Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser, Aarhus Universitet. 46 s. –

Arbejdsrapport fra DMU nr. 249. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/AR249.pdf

Bregnballe, T., Hyldgaard, A.M. & Therkildsen, O.R. 2013. Danmarks ynglebestand af skarver i 2013. 

Aarhus Universitet, DCE – Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi, 30 s. - Teknisk rapport fra DCE -

Nationalt Center for Miljø og Energi nr. 26 http://dce2.au.dk/pub/TR26.pdf

Bregnballe, T. & Eskildsen, J. 2002: Menneskelige indgreb i danske skarvkolonier 1994-2001. 

Naturovervågning. - Danmarks Miljøundersøgelser. 65 s. -Arbejdsrapport fra DMU, nr. 162.

Carter, H. R., A. L. Sowls, M. S. Rodway, U. W. Wilson, R. W. Lowe, G. J. McChesney, F. Gress, and D. W.

Anderson. 1995. Population size, trends, and conservation problems of the double-crested 

cormorant on the Pacific coast of North America. Colonial Waterbirds 18:189–215.

Coleman, J. T. H. 2009. Diving behavior, predator-prey dynamics, and management efficacy of doublecrested cormorants in New York State. PhD diss., Cornell University.

DeBruyne, R. L., J. T. H. Coleman, J.R. Jackson, L. G. Rudstam and A. J. VanDeValk. 2013. Analysis of prey 

selection by double-crested cormorants: A 15-year diet study in Oneida Lake, New York. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142: 430–446.

FPC (Fish Passage Center). 2014. Fish Passage Center Adult Passage Date. Available on-line at 

www.fpc.org.

Gresh, T., J. A. Lichatowich, and P. Schoonmaker. 2000. An estimation of historic and current levels of 

salmon production in the Northeast Pacific ecosystem: Evidence of a nutrient deficit in the 

freshwater systems of the Pacific Northwest. Fisheries 25:15-21.

Lichatowich, J. 2001. Salmon without rivers: A history of the Pacific salmon crisis. Island Press, 

Washington, D.C. 317 pp.

Lyons, D.E., D.D. Roby, A.F. Evans, N.J. Hostetter, K. Collis, and S.H. Sebring. 2014. Benefits to Columbia 

River anadromous salmonids from potential reductions in predation by double-crested 

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 25 of 27
11

cormorants nesting at the East Sand Island colony. Final Report to the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers – Portland District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR. 50 pp. (Available 

through internet: www.birdresearchnw.org)

NOAA (NOAA Fisheries). 2011a. 5-Year Salmon and Steelhead ESA Status Reviews. National Marine 

Fisheries Service, Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. Available at: 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/status_reviews/salmon_steelhead/salm

on_steelhead_esa_status_reviews.html.

NOAA (NOAA Fisheries). 2014. Supplemental Consultation on Remand for Operation of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System, 11 Bureau of Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin and ESA 

Section 10(a)(I)(A) Permit for Juvenile Fish Transportation Program. National Marine Fisheries 

Service, Northwest Region 246 pp.

NOAA (NOAA Fisheries). 2014(a). Office of Protected Resources. Overview of Endangered Species Act 

Listed Marine and Anadromous Fish. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/.

Roby, D.D., K. Collis, D.E. Lyons, J.Y. Adkins, Y. Suzuki, P. Loschl, T. Lawes, K. Bixler, A. Peck-Richardson, E. 

Dykstra, J. Harm, W. Mashburn, J. Tennyson, N. Ventolini, A. Evans, B. Cramer, M. Hawbecker, N. 

Hostetter, R.D. Ledgerwood, and S. Sebring. 2012. Research, monitoring, and evaluation of avian 

predation on salmonid smolts in the lower and mid-Columbia River. Final 2011 Annual Report to 

the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR. 171 

pp. (Available through internet: www.birdresearchnw.org)

Roby, D.D., K. Collis, D.E. Lyons, J.Y. Adkins, Y. Suzuki, P. Loschl, T. Lawes, K. Bixler, A. Peck-Richardson, A. 

Patterson, S. Collar, N. Banet, K. Dickson, G. Gasper, L. Kreiensieck, K. Atkins, L. Drizd, J. 

Tennyson, A. Mohoric, A. Evans, B. Cramer, M. Hawbecker, N. Hostetter, J. Zamon, and D. 

Kuligowski. 2013. Research, monitoring, and evaluation of avian predation on salmonid smolts in 

the lower and mid-Columbia River. Final 2012 Annual Report to the Bonneville Power 

Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR. 239 pp. (Available through 

internet: www.birdresearchnw.org)

Roby, D.D., K. Collis, D.E. Lyons, J.Y. Adkins, Y. Suzuki, P. Loschl, T. Lawes, K. Bixler, A. Peck-Richardson, A. 

Patterson, S. Collar, A. Piggott, H. Davis, J. Mannas, A. Laws, J. Mulligan, K. Young, P. Kostka, N. 

Banet, E. Schniedermeyer, A. Wilson, A. Mohoric, A. Evans, B. Cramer, M. Hawbecker, N. 

Hostetter, A. Turecek, J. Zamon, and D. Kuligowski. 2014. Research, monitoring, and evaluation 

of avian predation on salmonid smolts in the lower and mid-Columbia River. Draft 2013 Annual 

Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, 

OR. 237 pp. (Available through internet: www.birdresearchnw.org)

Suzuki, Y. 2012. Piscivorous colonial waterbirds in the Columbia River estuary: Demography, dietary 

contaminants, and management. Ph.D. dissertation in Wildlife Science, Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR. 183 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services. 2005. Final Environmental Assessment: Reducing 

Double-crested Cormorant damage in Minnesota. USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service-Wildlife Services, St. Paul, MN. 145 pages.

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/ws/ws_environmental_ minnesota.shtml.

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 26 of 27
12

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services. 2006. Final Environmental Assessment: Reducing 

Double-crested Cormorant damage in Ohio. USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceWildlife Services, Reynoldsburg, OH. 161 pages. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/regulations/ws/ws_environmental_ohio.shtml.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Draft Environmental Assessment: Management of Double-Crested 

Cormorants Under 50 Cfr 21.47 And 21.48. Division of Migratory Bird Management in 

cooperation with USDA / APHIS / WS. March 2014.

Warburton, B., & B. G. Norton. 2009. Towards a knowledge-based ethic for lethal control of nuisance 

wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 158-164.

Wires, L.R. and Cuthbert, F.J. 2010. Characteristics of double-crested cormorant colonies in the U.S. 

Great Lakes island landscape. Journal of Great Lakes Research 36: 232–241.

Wires, L. R. 2014. The Double-crested Cormorant, plight of a feathered pariah. Yale University Press, 

New Haven, Connecticut. 349 pp.

Case 3:15-cv-00665-SI Document 24 Filed 04/30/15 Page 27 of 27