[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60278-60287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29954]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 20 and 21
RIN 1018-AF05
Migratory Bird Permits; Establishment of a Conservation Order for
the Reduction of Mid-Continent Light Goose Populations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Mid-continent lesser snow goose and Ross' goose population
has nearly quadrupled in the last 30 years. The Western Central Flyway
lesser snow and Ross' goose population also has quadrupled in the last
23 years. Collectively, these central and eastern arctic and subarctic-
nesting light goose populations are referred to as Mid-continent light
geese (MCLG)
Due to high population growth rates, a decline in adult mortality,
and an increase in winter survival, MCLG are now seriously injurious to
their habitat and habitat important to other migratory birds which
poses a serious threat to the short and long-term health and status of
migratory bird populations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service
or ``we'') believes that MCLG populations exceed long-term sustainable
levels for their arctic and subarctic breeding habitats and the
populations must be reduced. This proposed rule proposes the addition
of a new subpart to 50 CFR
[[Page 60279]]
part 21 for the management of overabundant MCLG populations. We, in
cooperation with State wildlife agencies, are further proposing to
implement a population control program by establishing a conservation
order for MCLG under the authority of the proposed subpart. This
proposed rule will increase the use and availability of additional
hunting methods and will authorize take of MCLG outside of the normal
open light-goose hunting season. We designed the program to increase
MCLG harvest and to provide a biologically sound and cost effective and
efficient method for the reduction and management of overabundant MCLG
populations.
DATES: The comment period for this proposed rule closes January 8,
1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Chief, Office of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, ms
634--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. The public may
inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634--Arlington
Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Comments
and suggestions on the requirements should be sent directly to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and
Budget; Attention: Interior Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503; and a
copy of the comments should be sent to the Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224--ARLSQ, 1849
C Street NW, Washington DC 20204.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Blohm, Acting Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-
1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Lesser snow and Ross' geese that primarily migrate through North
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri, and winter
in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and eastern, central, and southern
Texas and other Gulf Coast States are referred to as the Mid-continent
population of light geese (MCP). Lesser snow and Ross' geese that
primarily migrate through Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado and winter in
New Mexico, northwestern Texas, and Chihuahua, Mexico are referred to
as the Western Central Flyway population of light geese (WCFP). Ross'
geese are often mistaken for lesser snow geese due to their similar
appearance. Ross' geese occur in both the MCP and the WCFP and mix
extensively with lesser snow geese on both the breeding and wintering
grounds. MCP and WCFP lesser snow and Ross' geese are collectively
referred to as Mid-continent light geese (MCLG) because they breed,
migrate, and winter in the ``Mid-continent'' or central portions of
North America primarily in the Central and Mississippi Flyways. They
are referred to as ``light'' geese due to their light coloration as
opposed to ``dark'' geese such as the white-fronted or Canada goose.
MCLG breed in the central and eastern arctic and subarctic regions
of Northern Canada. MCLG populations are experiencing high population
growth rates and have substantially increased in numbers within the
last 30 years. MCP light geese have more than tripled within 30 years
from an estimated 800,000 birds in 1969 to approximately three million
birds in 1998 and have grown an average of 5% per year for the last ten
years (Abraham et al. 1996, USFWS 1998b). WCFP light geese have
quadrupled in 23 years from 52,000 in 1974 to 216,000 in 1997 (USFWS
1997b), and have increased an average of 9% per year for the last ten
years (USFWS 1998b). The above population estimates are not true
population counts and likely underestimate the true population sizes.
They were derived from an index which is used to detect population
growth trends by sampling a portion of a population. Breeding colony
estimates, actual population counts estimated from spring and summer
surveys, suggest that the actual population sizes of MCLG may be in
excess of five million breeding birds (D. Caswell pers. comm. 1998). In
an area northwest of Hudson Bay alone, the Queen Maud Gulf, estimates
for breeding and non-breeding (failed to successfully nest) adult Ross'
and lesser snow geese for 1998 are 1.29 million and 1.82 million birds,
respectively (Alisauskas et al. 1998). These geese are in addition to
the millions of geese estimated to be nesting along west Hudson and
James Bays where the geese have precipitated severe habitat degradation
and on Southampton and Baffin Islands where signs of habitat
degradation are becoming evident. MCLG populations have exceeded the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) population objective
levels in both the United States and Canada. NAWMP population objective
levels are used to demonstrate that MCLG populations have increased
substantially over what is considered to be a healthy population level,
not to suggest that MCLG be reduced to NAWMP population objective
levels. Population management thresholds, however, are management
thresholds that specify both an upper and lower population level
objective.
Ross' goose estimates (WCFP and MCP) currently exceed 200,000 birds
(December index) and breeding colony estimates (actual counts of
nesting birds) approached 400,000 birds in 1996 (Batt 1997), and
exceeded 1 million birds 1998; both estimates well exceed the
recommended minimum population objective level for Ross' geese of
100,000 birds (USDOI et al. 1998d). MCP lesser snow geese estimates
currently exceed 2.9 million birds (December index); the lower and
upper population management thresholds are 800,000 and 1.2 million
birds, respectively (Central and Mississippi Flyway Councils 1982) with
a recommended minimum population objective level of 1 million birds
(USDOI et al. 1998d). WCFP lesser snow goose estimates currently exceed
200,000 birds (December index) which exceeds the recommended minimum
population objective level of 110,000 birds (USDOI et al. 1998d).
Although our intention is to significantly reduce these populations to
relieve pressures on the breeding habitats, we feel that these efforts
will not threaten the long-term status of these populations as we are
confident reduction efforts will not result in the populations falling
below the population goal and management objective levels indicated
above. Evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place to estimate
population sizes and will be used to prevent the over-harvest of these
populations.
The rapid rise of MCLG populations has been influenced heavily by
human activities (Sparrowe, 1998, Batt 1997). The greatest attributable
factors are:
(1) The expansion of agricultural areas in the United States and
prairie Canada that provide abundant food resources during migration
and winter;
(2) The establishment of sanctuaries along the Flyways specifically
to increase bird populations;
(3) A decline in harvest rate; and
(4) An increase in adult survival rates.
Although all of these factors contributed to the rapid rise in MCLG
populations, the expansion of agriculture in prairie Canada and the
United States is considered to be the primary attributable factor
(Sparrowe 1998, Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Today, MCLG continue to
exploit soybean, rice, and other crops during the winter primarily in
the Gulf Coast States and are observed less frequently in the natural
coastal marshes they historically utilized. Similarly, MCLG migrating
through the Mid-latitude and northern United States and prairie
[[Page 60280]]
Canada during spring migration exploit cereal grain crops consisting of
corn, wheat, barley, oats and rye (Alisauskas et al. 1988). For
example, an estimated 1 to 2 million MCLG stage in the Rainwater Basin
in Nebraska from mid-February to mid-March and primarily feed on corn
left over from harvesting (USFWS 1998a). These crops provide MCLG with
additional nutrients during spring migration assuring that MCLG arrive
on the breeding grounds in prime condition to breed. Increased food
subsidies during spring migration over the last 30 years has resulted
in higher reproductive potential and breeding success (Ankney and
McInnes 1978, Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Consequently, more geese
survived the winter and migration and were healthier as they returned
to their breeding grounds in Canada.
This is not intended to criticize the conservation efforts
accomplished by the implementation of conservation-oriented
agricultural practices. Such efforts have benefitted numerous wildlife
species. It is merely to point out that MCLG have exploited these
artificial resources which has resulted in an increase in survival.
Foraging Behavior of MCLG
The feeding behavior of MCLG is characterized by three foraging
methods. Where spring thawing has occurred and above-ground plant
growth has not begun, lesser snow geese dig into and break open the
turf (grub) consuming the highly nutritious below-ground biomass, or
roots, of plants. Grubbing continues into late spring. Lesser snow
geese also engage in shoot-pulling where the geese pull the shoots of
large sedges, consume the highly nutritious basal portion, and discard
the rest, leaving behind large unproductive, and potentially
unrecoverable areas (Abraham and Jefferies 1997). A third feeding
strategy utilized by many species is grazing which in some cases,
stimulates plant growth. Both lesser snow geese and Ross' geese graze.
Due to their shorter bill size, Ross' geese are able to graze shorter
stands of grass.
Grubbing, grazing, and shoot-pulling are natural feeding behaviors
and at lower population levels have had positive effects on the
ecosystem. For example, at lower numbers, geese fed on the tundra
grasses and actually stimulated growth of plant communities resulting
in a positive feedback loop between the geese and the vegetation.
However, the rapidly expanding numbers of geese, coupled with the short
tundra growing season, disrupted the balance and has resulted in severe
habitat degradation in sensitive ecosystems. The Hudson Bay Lowlands
salt-marsh ecosystem, for example, consists of a 1,200 mile strip of
coastline along west Hudson and James Bays, Canada. It contains
approximately 135,000 acres of coastal salt-marsh habitat. Vast
hypersaline areas devoid of vegetation degraded by rapidly increasing
populations of MCLG have been observed and documented extensively
throughout the Hudson Bay Lowlands (Abraham and Jefferies 1997).
Rockwell et al. (1997a) observed the decline of more than 30 avian
populations in the La Perouse Bay area due to severe habitat
degradation. These declines and other ecological changes represent a
decline in biological diversity and indicate the beginning of collapse
of the current Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-marsh ecosystem. Experts fear
that some badly degraded habitat will not recover (Abraham and
Jefferies 1997). For example, in a badly degraded area, less than 20%
of the vegetation within an exclosure (fenced in area where geese
cannot feed) has recovered after 15 years of protection from MCLG
(Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Recovery rates of degraded areas are
further slowed by the short tundra growing season and the high salinity
levels in the exposed and unprotected soil.
Long-term research efforts have indicated signs of ``trophic
cascade'' in La Perouse Bay, Cape Henrietta Maria, and Akimiski Island
(R. Rockwell pers. comm. 1998). Trophic cascade is essentially the
collapse of an existing food chain indicating that the ecosystem is
unable to support its inhabitants. Impacts associated with trophic
cascade are indicative that MCLG populations have exceeded the carrying
capacity of much of their breeding habitat. Impacts such as a decline
in biological diversity and physiological stress, malnutrition, and
disease in goslings have been documented and observations of such
impacts are increasing. Additional observations in areas north of
Hudson Bay on Southampton and Baffin Islands, northwest in the Queen
Maud Gulf region, and south off the west coast of James Bay on Akimiski
Island also suggest similar habitat degradation patterns from expanding
colonies of MCLG. Batt (1997) reported the rapid expansion of existing
colonies and the establishment of new colonies in the central and
eastern arctic. In 1973, for example, Canadian Wildlife Service data
indicated that approximately 400,000 light geese nested on West Baffin
Island. In 1997, approximately 1.8 million breeding adults were
counted. Similar colony expansions have been reported for the Queen
Maud Gulf region and Southampton Island. Rapid colony expansion must be
halted and the populations must be reduced to prevent further habitat
degradation and to protect the remaining habitat upon which numerous
wildlife species depend.
Breeding Habitat Status
MCLG breeding colonies occur over a large area encompassing eastern
and central portions of Northern Canada. Habitat degradation by MCLG
has been most extensively studied in specific areas where colonies have
expanded exponentially and exhibit severe habitat degradation. The
Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-marsh ecosystem, for example, lies within a
135,000 acre narrow strip of coastline along west Hudson and James Bays
and provides important stopover sites for numerous migratory bird
species. Of the 135,000 acres of habitat in the Hudson Bay Lowlands,
35% is considered to be destroyed, 30% is damaged, and 35% is
overgrazed (Batt 1997). Habitats currently categorized as ``damaged''
or ``overgrazed'' are moving and will continue to move into the
``destroyed'' category if goose populations continue to expand.
Accelerated habitat degradation has been observed on Southampton and
Baffin Islands and appear to be following the same pattern as
documented in the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Current research efforts are
underway to confirm observations of habitat degradation by MCLG in
other areas.
Migration and Wintering Habitat Conditions and Degradation
There is no evidence to support that wintering habitat for MCLG is
threatened or that it may limit population growth. Presently, there are
approximately 2.25 million acres of rice fields in Texas, Louisiana,
and Arkansas, in addition to the millions of acres of cereal grain
crops in the Midwest. Consequently, food availability and suitable
wintering habitat are not limiting MCLG during the migration and
wintering portions of the annual cycle.
Summary of Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action
At each site they occupy, MCLG will continue to degrade the plant
communities until food and other resources are exhausted, forcing yet
more expansion. The pattern has been, and will continue to be, that as
existing nesting colonies expand, they exploit successively poorer
quality habitats, which are less able to accommodate them and which
become degraded more
[[Page 60281]]
quickly. Eventually, the coastal salt-marsh communities surrounding
Hudson Bay and James Bay will become remnant with little chance of
recovery as long as MCLG populations remain high and for some time
after it declines from natural causes, if they do. The functioning of
the whole coastal ecosystem, from consolidation of sediments by
colonizing plants to provision of suitable habitats for invertebrate
and vertebrate fauna, will be detrimentally and possibly irrevocably
altered. Similar conditions will likely come to prevail at selected
non-coastal areas where MCLG have occupied most of the suitable nesting
habitats. As many as 30 other avian species, including American wigeon,
Northern shoveler, stilt sandpiper, Hudsonian godwit, and others, that
utilize those habitats have declined locally, presumably due to habitat
degradation by MCLG. Other species, such as Southern James Bay Canada
geese, a species of management concern, that breed on nearby Akimiski
Island and numerous other waterfowl species that migrate and stage with
MCLG, have been and will continue to be negatively impacted. Arctic
mammalian herbivores will also be impacted as the vegetative
communities upon which they depend become depleted. Due to the rapidly
expanding populations and the associated ecological impacts identified,
we have concluded that MCLG populations have become seriously injurious
to themselves and other migratory birds, their habitat and habitat of
other migratory birds.
We expect that MCLG populations will continue to grow at least 5%
annually, resulting in more severe and widespread ecological impacts.
Although several factors influence population dynamics, the greatest
single factor in the populations' increase is high and increasing adult
survival rates (Rockwell et al. 1997b). Therefore, removing adults from
the populations is the most effective and efficient approach in
reducing the populations. Experts feel that breaking eggs and other
non-lethal techniques have been determined to be ineffective in
significantly reducing the populations within a reasonable time to
preserve and protect habitat (Batt 1997).
We have attempted to curb the growth of MCLG populations by
increasing bag and possession limits and extending the open hunting
season length for light geese to 107 days, the maximum allowed by the
Treaty. However, due to the rapid rise in MCLG numbers, low hunter
success, and low hunter interest, harvest rate (the percentage of the
population that is harvested), has declined despite evidence that the
number of geese harvested has increased (USFWS 1997b). The decline in
harvest rate indicates that the current management strategies are not
sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth rates.
We realize that current MCLG management policies need to be re-
examined and believe that alternative regulatory strategies designed to
increase MCLG harvest, implemented concurrently with habitat management
and other non-lethal control measures, have the potential to be
effective in reducing MCLG populations to levels that the remaining
breeding habitat can sustain. We prefer to implement alternative
regulatory strategies designed to increase MCLG harvest afforded by the
Migratory Bird Treaty and avoid the use of more drastic population
control measures. More direct population control measures such as
trapping and culling programs may be necessary if the current proposed
action is not successful. Should the proposed action be unsuccessful in
five years, we will consider more direct population control measures to
reduce MCLG.
We restrict the scope of this proposed rule to Mid-continent
populations of light geese (MCLG): Mid-continent and Western Central
Flyway lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens) and Ross'
geese (C. rossi) and the United States portions of the Central and
Mississippi Flyways (primarily Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and
Wyoming) where they migrate, stage, or winter. Evidence exists to
support the conclusion that MCLG migrate, stage, and winter in these
areas and breed in the arctic and subarctic areas that are experiencing
severe habitat degradation.
We are concurrently proposing an additional but separate population
reduction strategy. In addition to this proposed rule to amend 50 CFR
part 21, we are also proposing to amend 50 CFR part 20 to authorize the
use of new hunting methods to harvest MCLG. That proposed rule would
authorize States to allow the use of new hunting methods to harvest
MCLG during a light-goose only season when all other migratory bird
hunting seasons are closed. The proposal is also in the nature of a
proposed rule and the notice and request for comments is published in
this issue of the Federal Register.
We do not expect the second proposed action (amendment to 50 CFR
part 20) implemented alone to achieve our overall management objective
which is to reduce MCLG populations such that the December index falls
within 800,000 and 1.2 million birds. The success of that strategy will
hinge upon State participation, hunter participation, and hunter
effectiveness. If a State does not participate, then its hunters will
not be able to participate, decreasing the program's potential. We do
not expect some States to participate in that proposed action due to
the infeasibility of implementing the action when all other migratory
bird hunting seasons are closed. MCLG migrate through northern and Mid-
latitude States in the fall, however, the geese typically do not reach
some of those States prior to 10 March during spring migration. For
those States to be able to utilize the second proposed action, they
would have to close all other migratory bird hunting seasons in the
fall, which is highly unlikely. Conversely, many migratory bird hunting
seasons in the southern States close prior to 10 March. Therefore, it
is much more feasible for southern States to implement that proposed
action by establishing a light-goose only season when all other
migratory bird seasons are closed. We are proposing this proposed
action (conservation order) in order to maximize the overall program's
potential and obtain our management objective within a reasonable time-
frame to avoid the use of more direct population control programs. This
proposed action, conservation order, will allow northern States to
participate in this effort and enable them to harvest MCLG during
spring migration, particularly after 10 March. Harvest projections for
the second proposed action (amendment 50 CFR part 20) are rolled into
the harvest projections for this proposed action (conservation order).
Harvest projections for the second proposed action would not be in
addition to the harvest projections for this proposed action.
Proposed Conservation Order for MCLG
We propose to establish a new subpart in 50 CFR part 21 for the
management of overabundant MCLG populations. Under this new subpart, we
propose to establish a conservation order specifically for the control
and management of MCLG. Conditions under the conservation order require
that participating States inform all participants acting under the
authority of the conservation order of the conditions that apply to the
proposed amendment.
Under the authority of this proposed rule, States could initiate
aggressive
[[Page 60282]]
harvest management strategies with the intent to increase MCLG harvest
without having to obtain an individual permit, which will significantly
reduce administrative burden to the State and Federal governments. A
permit process would slow efforts to reduce the populations and prolong
habitat degradation on the breeding grounds. This proposed rule will
enable States to use hunters to harvest MCLG, by shooting in a hunting
manner, inside or outside of the regular open migratory bird hunting
season frameworks. States could maximize the opportunity to increase
harvest of MCLG by implementing this proposed action beyond 10 March,
where historically States have been limited by hunting season framework
closing dates to take migratory birds. In order to minimize or avoid
take of non-target species, States may implement this proposed action
only when all migratory bird hunting seasons are closed. It is expected
that this proposed action will facilitate other protection and recovery
efforts. This proposed rule would further result in biologically sound
and more cost-effective and efficient overabundant MCLG management and
could preclude the use of more drastic, direct population control
measures such as trapping and culling programs. Although the desired
goal is to significantly reduce overabundant MCLG populations, we
believe that this proposed rule will not threaten the long-term status
of MCLG populations or threaten the status of other species that could
be impacted through the implementation of this proposed rule.
Evaluation and monitoring strategies are in place to assess the overall
impacts of this proposed action on MCLG harvest and impacts to non-
target species that may be affected by the implementation of this
proposed action.
Summary of Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action
MCLG Populations and Associated Habitats
We project that we will harvest two million MCLG within three years
without the use of this proposed action based on current MCLG harvest
trends. Under certain assumptions, our most liberal estimate projects
that we can expect to harvest an additional three million MCLG within
three years of implementation of this proposed action bringing the
total harvest to five million MCLG within three years of implementation
of this proposed action. Once the December index falls within
recommended management guidelines (800,000 to 1.2 million birds), then
the proposed amendment to 50 CFR part 21 will be revoked.
The impact is expected to be regional within the Central and
western Mississippi Flyway States that choose to utilize the proposed
action. Since the proposed action may take place between 11 March and
31 August, we expect MCLG take to increase among Mid-latitude and
northern States according to migration chronology. Increased harvest
will be further facilitated by the use of additional hunting methods
(electronic callers and unplugged shotguns) authorized by a State under
the authority of this proposed rule. Although we can expect the
additional hunting methods to be effective in increasing harvest per
hunter, there is no precedent to guide us in determining to what degree
they will be effective. It is equally difficult to ascertain to what
degree the public will participate in the implementation of this
proposed action, which will influence its effectiveness. However, with
certain assumptions, we may project an increase in harvest using
existing harvest data.
Several assumptions must be established before projecting the
effect of the proposed action on harvest. We are assuming that all
affected States will act under the authority of this proposed action
and will allow all new hunting methods authorized in this proposed rule
(electronic callers and unplugged shotguns), including the utilization
of the maximum number of days available after the regular light-goose
season. We are also assuming that current MCLG hunter numbers will not
decrease and that the new methods authorized in this proposed rule, if
used, will increase hunter effectiveness and overall harvest. We do not
assume that all MCLG hunters will participate in the implementation of
this proposed action and of those that do, we do not assume that all
will increase their effectiveness by using new hunting methods. We are
assuming that 25% of the MCLG hunters will use the new methods and will
increase his/her effectiveness in harvesting MCLG.
States that have MCLG after 10 March may choose not to harvest MCLG
after 10 March. Of those that do, the number of days each State may
harvest outside of their regular open light-goose season likely will
vary. For purposes of this exercise, we are assuming MCLG harvest is
consistent throughout the entire light-goose season and that all
affected States will use the proposed action. It is important to note
that the issue of just how additional days influences harvest of
migratory birds continues to be extensively analyzed. In that respect,
our projections regarding MCLG harvest are our best estimates based on
the data that we have and represent a liberal estimate.
We determined, based on a linear regression analysis of historical
harvest data, that harvest number of MCLG has increased approximately
31,600 MCLG per year for the last ten years. A simple linear regression
of the harvest data represents our most conservative estimate because
the analysis does not take into account other factors that may have
influenced harvest such as the recent regulation changes for light
geese. A more complex analysis will demonstrate that harvest number has
actually increased at a faster rate since the bag and possession limits
for light geese have been increased (USFWS 1998c). Today, more MCLG are
harvested with fewer hunters and hunter participation in light goose
hunting is increasing. Therefore, conservatively, we projected that
harvest will increase 31,600 per year for the next 5 years.
In 1997-98, 602,800 MCLG were harvested in the affected States (AR,
CO, IL, IA, KS, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NM, ND, OK, SD, TX, and WY).
Combined with our projection that harvest will increase by 31,600 per
year without any changes to hunting regulations, we can expect to
harvest 634,400 MCLG in the 1998-1999 regular light goose season in
those affected States. Under the assumptions stated above, we expect to
harvest an additional 576,300 MCLG through the implementation of this
proposed action (authorize electronic callers, unplugged shotguns, and
additional days to harvest) bringing the total projected harvest to 1.2
million MCLG in the first year of implementation of this proposed
action. These figures are based on increasing harvest number.
Therefore, we expect this projected harvest to increase annually. We
expect to harvest 1.8 million MCLG in the second year of implementation
and 2.4 million in the third year of implementation.
Central and Mississippi Flyway Council management guidelines
suggest that MCLG populations should rest between 800,000 and 1.2
million birds based on the December index (USFWS 1998b, Central and
Mississippi Flyway Councils 1982). Batt (1997) estimate that the
populations should be reduced by 50% by 2005. Based on the December
index, that would suggest a reduction from approximately 3 million
birds to approximately 1.5 million birds in the December index; a
figure which coincides with the management guidelines determined by the
Central and Mississippi Flyway Council. Therefore, our efforts will
focus on a
[[Page 60283]]
goal similar to those documented. It is important to understand that
the December index is not a population count. It is simply used to
detect population growth trends by sampling a portion of a population.
The reduction of MCLG will be carefully analyzed and assessed on an
annual basis using the December index and other surveys to ensure that
the populations are not over-harvested.
We expect an increase in MCLG harvest to facilitate other efforts,
such as habitat management on the wintering grounds and increased
harvest by Canadian aboriginals, to decrease MCLG numbers and relieve
pressures on the breeding grounds. There is no evidence to suggest that
the implementation of this proposed action will result in an over-
harvest of MCLG. Once the December index reflects a number within the
management guidelines mentioned above (800,000--1.2 million), the
proposed action will be revoked and the methods authorized will no
longer be used. It is improbable that the implementation of this
proposed action will threaten the long-term status of MCLG populations
because we will monitor the MCLG populations and act accordingly to
avoid it by modifying or revoking the proposed action.
Other Species
An increase in harvest, and subsequently a decrease in MCLG
numbers, is expected to relieve pressures on other migratory bird
populations that utilize MCLG breeding and wintering grounds and other
areas along the migration routes. It is expected to reduce the
possibility that other species will be forced to seek habitat elsewhere
or abandon unsuitable degraded habitat altogether, which could
potentially result in decreased reproductive success of affected
populations. We expect a significant decrease in MCLG populations to
contribute to increased reproductive success of adversely impacted
populations. Further, we expect that by decreasing the numbers of MCLG
on wintering and migration stopover areas, the risk of transmitting
avian cholera to other species will be reduced which will reduce the
threat of a widespread avian cholera outbreak.
Socio-economic
Any action taken has economic consequences. Continued inaction is
likely to result in ecosystem failure of the Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-
marsh ecosystem and potentially other ecosystems as MCLG populations
expand and exploit new habitats. Without more effective population
control measures to curb the populations, the populations of MCLG are
expected to continue increasing and become more and more unstable as
suitable breeding habitat diminishes. As population densities increase,
the incidence of avian cholera among MCLG and other species is likely
to increase throughout the Flyways, particularly at migration stopover
sites. Losses of other species such as pintails, white-fronted geese,
sandhill cranes, and whooping cranes, from avian cholera may be great.
This may result in reduced hunting, birdwatching, and other
opportunities. It may also result in the season closures of adversely
impacted migratory game birds such as white-fronted geese, sandhill
cranes, and pintails. Goose damage to winter wheat and other
agricultural crops will continue and worsen. Habitat damage in the
Arctic will eventually trigger density-dependent regulation of the
population which likely will result in increased gosling mortality and
may cause the population to decline precipitously.
However, it is not clear when such population regulation will occur
and what habitat, if any, will remain to support the survivors. Such a
decline may result in a population too low to permit any hunting,
effectively closing MCLG hunting seasons. The length of the closures
will largely depend on the recovery rate of the breeding habitat which
likely will take decades. Although the overall impact of closures of
light-goose seasons in the Central and Mississippi Flyways that could
result from continued degradation of the breeding habitat is small on a
national scale, it would be concentrated where large flocks of geese
stage and winter. As hunter services tend to be performed by people
with low incomes, the impact of a closure would fall disproportionately
on low income groups near goose concentrations. We expect the proposed
action to reduce the risk of light-goose season closures in the Central
and Mississippi Flyways and avoid a $70 million loss in output and
reduce the possibility of increased agricultural loss. We expect
special MCLG population control efforts to create additional take
opportunities which is expected to add $18 million in output to local
economies.
Public Comments Received
On April 6, 1998, we issued in the Federal Register (63 FR 16819) a
notice of intent announcing that we would develop a draft Environmental
Assessment to examine alternative regulatory strategies to reduce MCLG
populations. This notice invited public comment on possible regulatory
alternatives. The notice also advised the public that the draft
Environmental Assessment along with a proposed rule would be published
in the Federal Register later this year for public review and comment.
As a result of this invitation for public comment, 247 comments
consisting of 1 from a Federal agency, 8 from State wildlife agencies,
7 from private organizations, 1 from a Flyway Council, 115 from private
citizens, and 115 from people who signed a petition were received.
Comments were generally dichotomized by two key points of concern.
To summarize, 186 comments were supportive of our intent to examine
alternative regulatory strategies to reduce the MCLG population. These
commenters agreed that there was a problem and that the resolution
should entail reduction by lethal means and supported the use of
additional methods to increase take of MCLG. Comments in support of
such action were received from 1 Federal agency, 8 State wildlife
agencies, 1 Flyway Council, 5 private conservation agencies, 94 private
citizens, and 77 from people who signed a petition. Conversely, 59
comments received were in opposition to the Service's intent to reduce
MCLG populations by use of lethal means either because they believe it
is not scientifically justified to reduce the populations or attempts
to do so would be inhumane. Instead, these commenters offered two non-
lethal recommendations to reduce the populations: (1) Hazing adults off
nests and (2) egging (destroying nests) on the breeding grounds.
Comments in support of no action or non-lethal action were received
from 2 private animal welfare agencies, 19 private citizens, and 38
from people who signed a petition. Additionally, 2 comments were
received in support of reducing the population by use of lethal means,
however, recommended use of Federal wildlife agency programs such as
trapping and culling.
Service Response: We are also opposed to the inhumane treatment of
any birds and we do not believe that increasing take of MCLG by
providing additional opportunities or methods for take of MCLG is
inhumane. We also prefer non-lethal control activities, such as habitat
modification, as the first means of resolving this issue. However,
habitat modification and other harassment tactics do not always work
satisfactorily and lethal methods are sometimes necessary to increase
the effectiveness of non-lethal management methods. Further, MCLG breed
in remote locations in the arctic and
[[Page 60284]]
subarctic regions of Northern Canada. Implementing control activities
in those areas is cost-prohibitive and dangerous. Instead, we feel that
providing States with additional opportunity and means to increase take
of MCLG while implementing non-lethal control measures concurrently is
the most efficient and feasible short-term solution. We will continue
to work jointly with the Canadian Wildlife Service to reduce MCLG in
both the United States and in Canada.
References Cited
Abraham, K.F., R.L. Jefferies, R.F. Rockwell, and C.D. MacInnes.
1996. Why are there so many white geese in North America? 7th
International Waterfowl Symposium, Memphis, TN.
____________________, and R.L. Jefferies. 1997. High goose
populations: causes, impacts and implications. Pages 7-72 in B.D.J.
Batt, ed. Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report of the Arctic Goose
Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special
Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and
Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120 pp.
Alisauskas, R., C.D. Ankney, and E.E. Klaas. 1988. Winter diets and
nutrition of mid-continental lesser snow geese. J. Wildl. Manage.
52:403-414.
____________________, S.M. Slattery, D.K. Kellett, D.S. Stern, and
K.D. Warner. 1998. Spatial and temporal dynamics of Ross's and snow
goose colonies in Queen Maud Gulf Bird Sanctuary, 1966-1998.
Canadian Wildlife Service, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 21 pp.
Ankney, C.D. and C.D. MacInnes. 1978. Nutrient reserves and
reproductive performance of female lesser snow geese. Auk 95:459-
471.
Batt, B.D.J., editor. 1997. Arctic ecosystems in peril: report of
the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture
Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
D.C. and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.
Central and Mississippi Flyway Councils. 1982. Wildfowl Management
Guidelines.
Rockwell, R.F., E. Cooch, and S. Brault. 1997a. Dynamics of the Mid-
continent population of lesser snow geese: projected impacts of
reductions in survival and fertility on population growth rates.
Pages 73-100 in B.D.J. Batt, ed. Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report
of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint
Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120
pp.
____________________, D. Pollack, K.F. Abraham, P.M. Kotanen, and
R.L. Jefferies. 1997b. Are there declines in bird species using La
Perouse Bay? The Hudson Bay Project status report for Ducks
Unlimited, Inc. Ryder, J.P. 1969. Nesting colonies of Ross' goose.
Auk:86-282-292.
____________________. 1998. Personal Communication. American Museum
of Natural History. New York, NY.
Sparrowe, R. 1998. Report of the Stakeholder's Committee on Arctic
Nesting Geese. Rollin Sparrowe, Chair. Wildlife Management
Institute, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Environment Canada, and Secretaria
De Desarrollo Social. 1998. 1998 update to the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan--fulfilling the legacy: expanding the
vision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.
USFWS. 1997a. Waterfowl population status, 1997. Office of Migratory
Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 32 pp.
____________________. 1997b. Harvest and population survey data
book, Central Flyway, compiled by D.E. Sharp. Office of Migratory
Bird Management, Denver, CO. 123 pp.
____________________. 1998a. Mid-continent Lesser Snow Goose
Workshops: Central and Mississippi Flyways, Fall 1997. Office of
Migratory Bird Management and Division of Refuges, Arlington, VA.
____________________. 1998b. Waterfowl populations status, 1998.
Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,
VA. 31 pp.
____________________. 1998c. Waterfowl Population Status, 1998.
Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,
VA.
Yancey, R., M. Smith, H. Miller, and L. Jahn. 1958. Waterfowl
distribution and migration report (Mississippi Flyway States).
Proceedings 11th Annual Southeastern Association of Game and Fish
Commissioners: 105-115.
NEPA Considerations
We have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA), as defined
under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
in connection with this proposed regulation. The EA is available for
public review at the above address.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884) provides that ``Each Federal agency
shall, in consultation with the Secretary, insure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out . . . is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) habitat
. . .'' Consequently, we initiated Section 7 consultation under the ESA
for this proposed rulemaking. Completed results of our consultation
under Section 7 of the ESA may be inspected by the public in, and will
be available to the public from, the Office of Migratory Bird
Management at the above address.
Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, and Executive
Order 12630
The economic impacts of this proposed rulemaking will fall
disproportionately on small businesses because of the structure of the
waterfowl hunting related industries. The proposed regulation benefits
small businesses by avoiding ecosystem failure to an ecosystem that
produces migratory bird resources important to American citizens. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the
preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. Data are
not available to estimate the number of small entities affected, but it
is unlikely to be a substantial number on a national scale. We expect
the proposed action to reduce the risk of light-goose season closures
in the Central and Mississippi Flyways subsequently avoiding a $70
million loss in output and reducing the possibility of increased
agricultural loss. We expect special MCLG population control efforts to
create additional take opportunities which is expected to add $18
million in output to local economies. We have determined that a
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis is not required. Migratory bird
regulations are recognized as exempt from takings implication
assessment under E.O. 12630. This rule was not subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection
The collection of information described below will be submitted to
OMB for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). We will not conduct or sponsor any information
collection until approved by OMB and a final regulation is published,
and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. The proposed
information collection will be used to administer this program and,
particularly in the assessment of impacts alternative regulatory
strategies may have on MCLG and other migratory bird populations. The
information collected will be required to authorize State wildlife
management agencies
[[Page 60285]]
responsible for migratory bird management to take MCLG within the
guidelines provided by the Service. The annual number of State
participants is expected to be 17. The reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 30 hours per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and
maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information, yielding an annual burden of 510 hours.
Burden Estimates for Reporting Requirements for the Conservation Order To Reduce Mid-continent Populations of
Light Geese
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Avg. time
Number of required per
Type of report reports report Burden hours
annually (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Take or Removal*........................................ 17 1,800 510
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* General take or removal includes authorized human-related mortality.
We expect a maximum of 17 annual reports per year from all
participating States. We estimate that each annual report will require
about 6 hours to complete, therefore, the burden assumed by the
participants is 102 hours or less.
Comments are invited from you on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden, including
the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of
appropriate, automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of information collection
technology. Comments and suggestions on the requirements should be sent
directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of
Management and Budget; Attention: Interior Desk Officer, Washington, DC
20503; and a copy of the comments should be sent to the Information
Collection Clearance Officer, US Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224--
ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington DC 20204. A copy should also be
sent directly to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20204 or electronically to [email protected]
Unfunded Mandates
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements
of the Unfunded Mandates Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq) that this proposed
rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given
year on local or State government or private entities. This rule will
not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small governments. No
governments below the State level will be affected by this rule. A
Small Government Agency Plan is not required. This rule will not
produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, i.e.,
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in
Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. This rule has been
reviewed by the Office of the Solicitor. Specifically, this rule has
been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity, has been written to
minimize litigation, provides a clear legal standard for affected
conduct, and specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal
law or regulation. It is not anticipated that this rule will require
any additional involvement of the justice system beyond enforcement of
provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 that have already
been implemented through previous rulemakings.
Public Comment Invited
The policy of the Department of the Interior is, whenever
practical, to afford you the opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written
comments, suggestions, or objections regarding this proposal to the
location identified in the address section above. Specifically, we
invite comment from affected States regarding the feasibility in
implementing the proposed rule within the conditions provided. Comments
must be received on or before January 8, 1998. Following review and
consideration of the comments, we will issue a final rule.
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this rule easier to understand including answers to questions such as
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid in or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided
into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type
and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' (50 CFR 21.60) (5) Is the
description of the rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of
the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else could we do
to make the rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
rule easier to understand to `` Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address:
Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby propose to amend
parts 20 and 21, of the subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 20--[AMENDED]
The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712; and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.
Sec. 20.22 [Amended]
2. In Section 20.22, the phrase ``except as provided in part 21''
is added following the word ``season''.
[[Page 60286]]
PART 21--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)).
2. Subpart E, consisting of Section 21.60, is added to read as
follows:
Subpart E--Control of Overabundant Migratory Bird Populations
Sec. 21.60 Conservation Order for Mid-continent light geese.
Any State agency responsible for the management of wildlife and
migratory birds may, without permit, kill or cause to be killed under
its general supervision, lesser snow and Ross' geese (Mid-continent
light geese) in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming:
Provided that:
(a) Persons who take Mid-continent light geese under this section
may not sell or offer for sale those birds nor their plumage, but may
possess, transport, and otherwise properly use them.
(b) Persons acting under the authority of this section must permit
at all reasonable times including during actual operations, any Federal
or State game or deputy game agent, warden, protector, or other game
law enforcement officer free and unrestricted access over the premises
on which such operations have been or are being conducted; and must
promptly furnish whatever information an officer requires concerning
the operation.
(c) Nothing in this section authorizes the take of Mid-continent
light geese contrary to any State laws or regulations; and none of the
privileges granted under this section may be exercised unless persons
acting under the authority of the conservation order possesses whatever
permit or other authorization(s) as may be required for such activities
by the State concerned.
(d) Activities conducted under this section may not affect
endangered or threatened species as designated under the Endangered
Species Act.
(e) Control activities must be conducted clearly as such and are
intended to relieve pressures on migratory birds and habitat essential
to migratory bird populations only and are not to be construed as
opening, re-opening, or extending any open hunting season contrary to
any regulations promulgated under section 3 of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
(f) Control activities may be conducted only when all migratory
bird hunting seasons are closed.
(g) Control measures employed through this section may be
implemented only between the hours of \1/2\ hour before sunrise to \1/
2\ hour after sunset.
(h) Nothing in this section may limit or initiate management
actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal Agency with
jurisdiction.
(i) States must designate participants who must operate under the
conditions of this section.
(j) States must inform all participants of the requirements/
conditions of this section that apply.
(k) States must keep records of activities carried out under the
authority of this section, including the number of Mid-continent light
geese taken under this section, the methods by which they were taken,
and the dates they were taken. The State must submit an annual report
summarizing activities conducted under this section on or before August
1 of each year, to the appropriate Assistant Regional Director--Refuges
and Wildlife (see Sec. 10.22).
(l) Persons acting under the authority of this section may take
Mid-continent light geese by any method except those prohibited in this
section. No persons may take Mid-continent light geese:
(1) With a trap, snare, net, rifle, pistol, swivel gun, shotgun
larger than 10 gauge, punt gun, battery gun, machine gun, fish hook,
poison, drug, explosive, or stupefying substance;
(2) From or by means, aid, or use of a sinkbox or any other type of
low floating device, having a depression affording the person a means
of concealment beneath the surface of the water;
(3) From or by means, aid, or use of any motor vehicle, motor-
driven land conveyance, or aircraft of any kind, except that
paraplegics and persons missing one or both legs may take from any
stationary motor vehicle or stationary motor-driven land conveyance;
(4) From or by means of any motorboat or other craft having a motor
attached, or any sailboat, unless the motor has been completely shut
off and the sails furled, and its progress therefrom has ceased:
Provided, That a craft under power may be used to retrieve dead or
crippled birds; however, crippled birds may not be shot from such craft
under power;
(5) By the use or aid of live birds as decoys; although not limited
to, it shall be a violation of this paragraph for any person to take
migratory waterfowl on an area where tame or captive live ducks or
geese are present unless such birds are and have been for a period of
10 consecutive days before the taking, confined within an enclosure
that substantially reduces the audibility of their calls and totally
conceals the birds from the sight of wild migratory waterfowl;
(6) By means or aid of any motordriven land, water, or air
conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in the
concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of any migratory bird;
(7) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area. As used
in this paragraph, ``baiting'' means the placing, exposing, depositing,
distributing, or scattering of shelled, shucked, or unshucked corn,
wheat or other grain, salt, or other feed so as to constitute for such
birds a lure, attraction or enticement to, on, or over any areas where
hunters are attempting to take them; and ``baited area'' means any area
where shelled, shucked, or unshucked corn, wheat or other grain, salt,
or other feed capable of luring, attracting, or enticing such birds is
directly or indirectly placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or
scattered; and such area shall remain a baited area for 10 days
following complete removal of all such corn, wheat or other grain,
salt, or other feed. However, nothing in this paragraph prohibits the
taking of Mid-continent light geese on or over standing crops, flooded
standing crops (including aquatics), flooded harvested croplands, grain
crops properly shocked on the field where grown, or grains found
scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or
harvesting; or
(8) While possessing shot (either in shotshells or as loose shot
for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin (97 parts
bismuth: 3 parts tin with 1 percent residual lead) shot, or such shot
approved as nontoxic by the Director and identified in 50 CFR 20.21(j).
(m) The Service will annually assess the overall impact and
effectiveness of the conservation order to ensure compatibility with
long-term conservation of this resource. If at any time evidence is
presented that clearly demonstrates that there no longer exists a
serious threat of injury to the area or areas involved, we will publish
immediately a notice of intent to revoke the conservation order in the
Federal Register.
[[Page 60287]]
Dated: October 30, 1998.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 98-29954 Filed 11-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
