[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73570-73573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-33961]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Migratory Bird Permits; Environmental Impact Statement on
Resident Canada Goose Management; Notice
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is issuing
this notice to invite public participation in the scoping process for
preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for resident Canada
goose management under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The EIS will consider a range of management alternatives for addressing
expanding populations of locally-breeding Canada geese that are
[[Page 73571]]
increasingly posing threats to health and human safety and damaging
personal and public property. This notice describes possible
alternatives, invites further public participation in the scoping
process, identifies the location, date, and time of public scoping
meetings, and identifies to whom you may direct questions and comments.
DATES: You must submit written comments regarding EIS scoping by March
30, 2000, to the address below. Dates for nine public scoping meetings
are identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
ADDRESSES: You should send written comments to the Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, ms 634--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, D.C.
20240. Alternately, you may submit comments electronically to the
following address: canada__goose__eis@fws.gov. All comments received,
including names and addresses, will become part of the public record.
You may inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634--
Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Andrew, Chief, or Ron W.
Kokel, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, (703) 358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 19, 1999, we published a Notice of
Intent to prepare an EIS on resident Canada goose management (64 FR
45269). This action is in response to the growing numbers of Canada
geese that nest and reside predominantly within the conterminous United
States and our desire to examine alternative strategies to control and
manage resident Canada geese that either pose a threat to health and
human safety or cause damage to personal and public property.
Resident Canada Goose Populations
Numbers of Canada geese that nest and reside predominantly in the
conterminous United States have increased tremendously in recent years.
These geese are usually referred to as ``resident'' Canada geese.
Recent surveys in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways (Wood
et al., 1994; Kelley et al., 1998; Nelson and Oetting, 1998; Sheaffer
and Malecki, 1998; Wilkins and Cooch, 1999) suggest that the resident
breeding population now exceeds 1 million individuals in both the
Atlantic (17 States) and Mississippi (14 States) Flyways. Available
information shows that in the Atlantic Flyway, the resident population
has increased an average of 14 percent per year since 1989. In the
Mississippi Flyway, the resident population of Canada geese has
increased at a rate of about 6 percent per year during the last 10
years. In the Central and Pacific Flyways, populations of resident
Canada geese have similarly increased over the last few years. We are
concerned about the rapid growth rate exhibited by these already large
populations.
Because resident Canada geese live in temperate climates with
relatively stable breeding habitat conditions and low numbers of
predators, tolerate human and other disturbances, have a relative
abundance of preferred habitat provided by current urban/suburban
landscaping techniques, and fly relatively short distances to winter
compared with other Canada goose populations, they exhibit a
consistently high annual production and survival. Given these
characteristics, the absence of waterfowl hunting in many of these
areas, and free food handouts by some people, these urban/suburban
resident Canada goose populations are increasingly coming into conflict
with human activities in many parts of the country.
Conflicts between geese and people affect or damage several types
of resources, including property, human health and safety, agriculture,
and natural resources. Common problem areas include public parks,
airports, public beaches and swimming facilities, water-treatment
reservoirs, corporate business areas, golf courses, schools, college
campuses, private lawns, amusement parks, cemeteries, hospitals,
residential subdivisions, and along or between highways.
While short-term management strategies have helped alleviate some
localized problems and conflicts, because of the unique locations where
large numbers of these geese nest, feed, and reside, for long-term
management of these birds we believe that new and innovative approaches
and strategies for dealing with bird/human conflicts will be needed. In
order to properly examine alternative strategies to control and manage
resident Canada geese that either pose a threat to health and human
safety or cause damage to personal and public property, the preparation
of an EIS is necessary.
Alternatives
We are considering the following alternatives. After the scoping
process, we will develop the alternatives to be included in the EIS and
base them on the mission of the Service and comments received during
scoping. We are soliciting your comments on issues, alternatives, and
impacts to be addressed in the EIS.
A. No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no additional regulatory methods
or strategies would be authorized. We would continue the use of special
hunting seasons, the issuance of depredation permits, and the issuance
of special Canada goose permits. These permits would continue to be
issued under existing regulations.
For each of the next 5 alternatives, as a baseline for comparison,
we would continue the use of special hunting seasons, the issuance of
depredation permits, and the issuance of special Canada goose permits.
All of these permits would continue to be issued under existing
regulations.
B. Increased Promotion of Non-lethal Control and Management
Under this alternative, we would actively promote the increased use
of non-lethal management tools, such as habitat manipulation and
management, harassment techniques, and trapping and relocation. While
permits would continue to be issued under existing regulations, no
additional regulatory methods or strategies would be introduced.
C. Nest and Egg Depredation Order
This alternative would provide a direct population control strategy
for resident Canada goose breeding areas in the U.S. This alternative
would establish a depredation order authorizing States to implement a
program allowing the take of nests and eggs to stabilize resident
Canada goose populations without threatening their long-term health.
Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place, or would be required,
to estimate population sizes and prevent populations from falling below
either the lower management thresholds established by Flyway Councils,
or individual State population objectives. Since the goal of this
alternative would be to stabilize breeding populations, not direct
reduction, no appreciable reduction in the numbers of adult Canada
geese would likely occur.
D. Depredation Order for Health and Human Safety
This alternative would establish a depredation order authorizing
States to establish and implement a program allowing the take of
resident Canada goose adults, goslings, nests and eggs from populations
posing threats to health and human safety. The intent of this
alternative is to significantly reduce
[[Page 73572]]
or stabilize resident Canada goose populations at areas such as
airports, water supply reservoirs, and other such areas, where there is
a demonstrated threat to health and human safety, without threatening
the population's long-term health. Monitoring and evaluation programs
are in place, or would be required, to estimate population sizes and
prevent populations from falling below either the lower management
thresholds established by Flyway Councils, or individual State
population objectives. Under this alternative, some appreciable
localized reductions in the numbers of adult geese could occur.
E. Conservation Order
This alternative would authorize direct population control
strategies such as nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping
and culling programs, or other general population reduction strategies
on resident Canada goose populations in the U.S. This alternative would
establish a conservation order authorizing States to develop and
implement a program allowing the take of geese posing threats to health
and human safety and damaging personal and public property. The intent
of this alternative is to significantly reduce or stabilize resident
Canada goose populations at areas where conflicts are occurring without
threatening the long-term health of the overall population. Monitoring
and evaluation programs are in place, or would be required, to estimate
population sizes and prevent populations from falling below either the
lower management thresholds established by Flyway Councils, or
individual State population objectives. State breeding populations
would be monitored annually each spring to determine the maximum
allowable take under the conservation order. Under this alternative,
some appreciable localized reductions in the numbers of adult geese
would likely occur and lesser overall population reductions could
occur.
F. General Depredation Order
This alternative would authorize direct population control
strategies such as nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping
and culling programs, or other general population reduction strategies
on resident Canada goose populations in the U.S. This alternative would
establish a depredation order allowing any authorized person to take
geese posing threats to health and human safety and damaging personal
and public property. The intent of this alternative is to significantly
reduce resident Canada goose populations at areas where conflicts are
occurring. Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place, or would be
required, to estimate population sizes and prevent populations from
falling below either the lower management thresholds established by
Flyway Councils, or individual State population objectives. Under this
alternative, some appreciable localized reductions in the numbers of
adult geese would likely occur and lesser overall population reductions
could occur.
Issue Resolution and Environmental Review
The primary issue to be addressed during the scoping and planning
process for the EIS is to determine which management alternatives for
the control of resident Canada goose populations will be analyzed. We
will prepare a discussion of the potential effect, by alternative,
which will include the following areas:
(1) Resident Canada goose populations and their habitats.
(2) Human health and safety.
(3) Public and private property damage and conflicts.
(4) Sport hunting opportunities.
(5) Socioeconomic effects.
We will conduct the environmental review of the management action
in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act, as appropriate. We are furnishing this Notice in accordance
with 40 CFR 1501.7, to obtain suggestions and information from other
agencies, tribes, and the public on the scope of issues to be addressed
in the EIS. A draft EIS should be available to the public in the spring
of 2000.
Public Scoping Meetings
Nine public scoping meetings will be held on the following dates at
the indicated locations and times:
1. February 8, 2000; Nashville, Tennessee, at the Ellington
Agricultural Center, Ed Jones Auditorium, 440 Hogan Road, 7 p.m.
2. February 9, 2000; Parsippany, New Jersey, at the Holiday Inn,
707 Route 46 East, 7 p.m.
3. February 10, 2000; Danbury, Connecticut, at the Holiday Inn, 80
Newtown Road, 7 p.m.
4. February 15, 2000; Palatine, Illinois, at the Holiday Inn
Express, 1550 E. Dundee Road, 7 p.m.
5. February 17, 2000; Bellevue, Washington, at the DoubleTree
Hotel, 300--112th Avenue S.E., 7 p.m.
6. February 22, 2000; Bloomington, Minnesota, at the Minnesota
Valley National Wildlife Refuge Visitors Center, 3815 East 80th Street,
7 p.m.
7. February 23, 2000; Brookings, South Dakota, at South Dakota
State University, Northern Plains Biostress Laboratory, Room 103,
Junction of North Campus Drive and Rotunda Lane, 7 p.m.
8. February 28, 2000; Richmond, Virginia, at the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Headquarters, Board Room, 4000
West Broad Street, 7 p.m.
9. March 1, 2000; Denver, Colorado, at the Colorado Department of
Wildlife, Northeast Region Service Center, Hunter Education Building,
6060 Broadway, 7 p.m.
At the scoping meetings, you may choose to submit oral and/or
written comments. To facilitate planning, we request that those
desiring to submit oral comments at meetings send us their name and the
meeting location they plan on attending. You should send this
information to the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
However, you are not required to submit your name prior to any
particular meeting in order to present oral comments.
You may also submit written comments by either sending them to the
location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption or sending them
electronically to the following address: canada__gooseeis@fws.gov. All
electronic comments should include a complete mailing address in order
to receive a copy of the draft EIS. All comments must be submitted by
March 30, 2000.
References Cited
Kelly, J. R., D. F. Caithamer, and K. A. Wilkins. 1998. Waterfowl
population status, 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 33 pp. + app.
Nelson, H. K. and R. B. Oetting. 1998. Giant Canada goose flocks in
the United States. Pages 483-495 in D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D.
Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and management of Canada
geese. Proceedings of the International Canada Goose Symposium,
Milwaukee, WI.
Sheaffer, S. E. and R. A. Malecki. 1998. Status of Atlantic Flyway
resident nesting Canada geese. Pages 29-34 in D. H. Rusch, M. D.
Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and
management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the International Canada
Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.
Wilkins, K. A., and E. G. Cooch. 1999. Waterfowl population status,
1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C. 33 pp. + appendices.
Wood, J. C., D. H. Rusch, and M. Samuel. 1994. Results of the 1994
spring survey of giant Canada goose survey in the Mississippi
Flyway. U.W. Co-op Unit. 9 pp. (mimeo).
[[Page 73573]]
Dated: December 23, 1999.
Thomas O. Melius,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-33961 Filed 12-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
