[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7517-7529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3649]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Mid-continent light goose populations (lesser snow and Ross'
goose combined) has nearly quadrupled within the last 30 years, and
have become seriously injurious to their habitat and habitat important
to other migratory birds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service
or ``we'') believes that these populations exceed the long-term
carrying capacity of their breeding habitats and must be reduced. This
rule adds a new subpart to 50 CFR part 21 for the management of
overabundant Mid-continent light goose populations, and establishes a
conservation order to increase take of such populations under the
authority of this subpart.
DATES: This rule takes effect immediately upon publication on February
16, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the EA are available by writing 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, DC 20240. The public may inspect comments during normal
business hours in room 634--Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
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 the light coloration of the
white-phase plumage morph, as opposed to true ``dark'' geese such as
the white-fronted or Canada goose. We include both plumage morphs of
lesser snow geese (white, or ``snow'' and dark, or ``blue'') under the
designation light geese.
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. We use operational surveys conducted annually on
wintering grounds to derive a December index to light goose
populations. December indices of light goose populations represent a
certain proportion of the total wintering population, and thus are
smaller than the true population size. By assuming that the same
proportion of the population is counted each December, we can monitor
trends in the true population size.
The December index of MCP light geese has more than tripled within
30 years from an estimated 800,000 birds in 1969 to approximately three
million birds in 1998 and has increased an average of 5% per year for
the last ten years (Abraham et al. 1996, USFWS 1998b). The December
index of WCFP light geese has quadrupled in 23 years from 52,000 in
1974 to 216,000 in 1997 (USFWS 1997b), and has increased an average of
9% per year for the last ten years (USFWS 1998b). The lesser snow goose
portion of the 1998 MCP December index mentioned above is estimated to
be 2.8 million birds. In 1991, the Central and Mississippi Flyway
Councils jointly agreed to set lower and upper management thresholds
for the MCP of snow geese at 1.0 million and 1.5 million, respectively,
based on the December index. Therefore, the current December index of
MCP lesser snow geese far exceeds the upper management threshold
established by the Flyway Councils.
MCLG populations have also exceeded North American Waterfowl
Management Plan (NAWMP) population objectives, which are also based on
December indices. The MCP lesser snow goose December index of 2.8
million birds far exceeds the NAWMP population objective of 1 million
birds (USDOI et al. 1998d). The lesser snow goose portion of the WCFP
light goose December index is estimated to be 200,000 birds, which
exceeds the NAWMP population objective of 110,000 birds (USDOI et al.
1998d). The estimate of the Ross' goose component of the MCLG
population December index (WCFP and MCP combined) currently exceeds
200,000 birds. This far exceeds the NAWMP Ross' goose population
objective of 100,000 birds
[[Page 7518]]
(USDOI et al. 1998d). We compare current population levels to NAWMP
population objectives to demonstrate that MCLG populations have
increased substantially over what is considered to be a healthy
population level. We are not suggesting that MCLG be reduced for the
sole purpose of meeting NAWMP population objective levels.
By multiply the current MCLG December index of 3.2 million birds by
an adjustment factor of 1.6 (Boyd et. al 1982), we derive an estimate
of 5.12 million breeding birds in spring. This is corroborated by
population surveys conducted on light goose breeding colonies during
spring and summer, which suggest that the breeding population size of
MCLG is in excess of five million birds (D. Caswell pers. comm. 1998).
Included in these population estimates are 1998 estimates for breeding
and non-breeding adult Ross' and lesser snow geese in the Queen Maud
Gulf area northwest of Hudson Bay of 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. The estimate of 5.12 million
birds does not include non-breeding geese or geese found in un-surveyed
areas. Therefore, the total MCLG population currently far exceeds 5.12
million birds. Assuming a 10% growth rate in the breeding population
over the next three years, the population will grow from 5.12 million
to approximately 6.8 million in the absence of any new management
actions. Again, this represents a minimum estimate because non-breeding
geese and geese in un-surveyed areas are not included.
Although our intention is to significantly reduce MCLG populations
in order to relieve pressures on the breeding habitats, we feel that
these efforts will not threaten the long-term status of these
populations. We are confident that reduction efforts will not result in
populations falling below either the lower management thresholds
established by Flyway Councils, or the NAWMP population objectives
discussed previously. Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place
to estimate population sizes and will be used to prevent over-harvest
of these populations. An overview of these monitoring programs is
presented in a subsequent section of this document.
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 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, thus 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. We merely point out that MCLG have exploited these artificial
resources, resulting 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 (grubbing) 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
[[Page 7519]]
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. For
example, the Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-marsh ecosystem 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 being further impacted and will be classified as
``destroyed'' if goose populations continue to expand. Accelerated
habitat degradation has been observed by Canadian biologists 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 of colonies. 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 quickly. Eventually, the coastal salt-marsh
communities surrounding Hudson Bay and James Bay will become remnant.
There will be little chance of recovery of such habitat as long as MCLG
populations remain high. Even if goose populations decline at some
point due to natural causes, which may not occur to the degree
necessary, it will take the habitat a prolonged time period to recover.
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 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-
10% 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
actual 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.
New Management Actions
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. Batt (1997) estimated that the MCLG
population should be reduced by 50% by the year 2005. Based on the
current MCLG December index of approximately 3.2 million birds, this
would entail a reduction of the December index to 1.6 million birds.
Using the adjustment factor of 1.6, this would translate to a minimum
breeding population size of 2.56 million birds. The estimate of 2.56
million birds does not include non-breeding geese or geese found in un-
surveyed areas. Therefore, the total MCLG spring population would be
much higher.
We prefer to implement alternative regulatory strategies designed
to
[[Page 7520]]
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 regulatory action, in concert with habitat
management, is not successful. Should the conservation order be deemed
unsuccessful 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 (Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) where they
migrate, stage, or winter. Evidence exists to support the conclusion
that MCLG which migrate, stage, and winter in these areas subsequently
return to breed in the arctic and subarctic areas that are experiencing
severe habitat degradation.
We are concurrently implementing a separate population reduction
strategy. In addition to this proposed rule to amend 50 CFR part 21, we
are also amending 50 CFR part 20 to authorize the use of new hunting
methods to harvest MCLG. The second rule would authorize States to
allow the use of new hunting methods to harvest MCLG during a light-
goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons,
except falconry, are closed. The second rule is published in this issue
of the Federal Register.
We do not expect the second rule (amendment to 50 CFR part 20)
implemented alone to achieve our overall management objective of
reducing the MCLG December index to approximately 1.6 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 in that
state, decreasing the program's potential. We anticipate that some
northern and mid-latitude States will elect not to implement the second
rule (authorization of electronic calls and un-plugged shotguns) due to
the infeasibility of closing all other waterfowl and crane seasons
during the fall. It is more likely that those states will participate
in a conservation order during the spring, when it is more feasible to
close all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding
falconry. Conversely, many waterfowl and crane hunting seasons in
southern States close prior to 10 March. Therefore, it is much more
feasible for southern States to implement the second rule by
establishing a light-goose only season when all other waterfowl and
crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.
We are implementing the conservation order in order to maximize the
overall program's potential and to try to achieve our management
objective within a reasonable time-frame. This action will be
complemented by attempts to alter habitat management practices that
tend to increase MCLG. These actions will reduce the likelihood of the
need to use more direct population control programs. The 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 rule (amendment 50 CFR
part 20) are rolled into the harvest projections for the conservation
order. Harvest projections for the second rule are not in addition to
the harvest projections for the conservation order.
Conservation Order for MCLG
We are establishing a new subpart in 50 CFR part 21 for the
management of overabundant MCLG populations. Under this new subpart, we
are establishing a conservation order specifically for the control and
management of MCLG. Conditions under the conservation order require
that participating States inform participants acting under the
authority of the conservation order of the conditions that apply to the
amendment.
Under the authority of this rule, States could initiate aggressive
harvest management strategies with the intent to increase MCLG harvest
without having to obtain an individual permit, which will significantly
reduce administrative burden on State and Federal governments. A permit
process would slow efforts to reduce the populations and prolong
habitat degradation on the breeding grounds. This rule will enable
States, as a management tool, 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 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
action only when all waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding
falconry, are closed. We expect that this action will facilitate other
protection and recovery efforts. This 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 reduce overabundant MCLG populations,
we believe that this 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 rule. We have evaluation
and monitoring strategies to assess the overall impact of this action
on MCLG harvest and impacts to non-target species that may be affected
by the implementation of this action.
Summary of Environmental Consequences of Action
MCLG Populations and Associated Habitats
We project that we will harvest a cumulative total of two million
MCLG over the next three years without the use of this action, based on
current MCLG harvest trends. Under certain assumptions, our most
liberal estimate is that we can expect to cumulatively harvest an
additional 3.8 million MCLG over the next three years of implementation
of this action. This would bring the total cumulative harvest to 5.8
million MCLG after three years of implementation of this action. The
amendment to 50 CFR Part 21 will be revoked if the December index of
MCLG is reduced to the recommended level of approximately 1.6 million
birds. Using the adjustment factor of 1.6, developed by Boyd et. al
(1982) to convert winter indices to spring breeding population indices,
this would result in a minimum estimate of 2.56 million breeding MCLG
in spring. The total spring population would be higher because non-
breeding geese and geese in un-surveyed areas are not included in this
estimate.
The impact is expected to be regional within the Central and
Mississippi Flyway States that choose to participate in the
conservation order. Since the 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
[[Page 7521]]
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 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 action, which will influence its effectiveness.
However, with certain assumptions, we may project an increase in
harvest using existing harvest data.
Before projecting the effect of the action on harvest we must
establish several assumptions. We are assuming that all eligible States
will act under the authority of this rule and will allow all new
hunting methods authorized in the 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 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 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 action. It is important to note that the
relationship between the number of hunting days and harvest of
migratory birds continues to be extensively analyzed. In that respect,
our projections regarding MCLG harvest represent our best estimates
based on existing data, and are considered to be a liberal estimate.
We determined, based on a linear regression analysis of historical
harvest data, that regular-season harvest 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, but hunter
participation in light goose hunting is now increasing. Therefore, we
conservatively project that regular-season harvest will increase 31,600
per year for the next several years.
During 1997-98, hunters harvested 604,900 MCLG in the affected
States (AR, CO, IL, IN, IA, KY, KS, LA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NM, ND, OH,
OK, SD, TN, TX, WI, and WY). Combined with our projection that regular-
season harvest will increase by 31,600 per year without any changes to
hunting regulations, we can expect to harvest 636,500 MCLG in the 1998-
1999 regular light goose season in those affected States. Under the
assumptions stated above, we expect to harvest an additional 618,400
MCLG through the implementation of this proposed action (authorize
electronic callers, unplugged shotguns, and additional days to
harvest). Therefore, we project a total harvest of 1.25 million MCLG in
the first year of implementation of this action. Because we expect
regular-season harvest to increase annually, the total projected
harvest will also increase annually. We expect to harvest a total of
1.9 million MCLG in the second year of implementation and 2.6 million
in the third year of implementation. These estimates include regular-
season harvest of MCLG.
Batt (1997) estimated that the MCLG population should be reduced by
50% by 2005. That would suggest a reduction in the MCLG December index
from approximately 3.2 million birds to approximately 1.6 million
birds. Central and Mississippi Flyway Council management thresholds for
MCP lesser snow geese (not including WCFP lesser snow or Ross' geese)
rests between 1.0 and 1.5 million birds, based on the December index.
Therefore, our MCLG population reduction goal closely parallels those
established by Flyway Councils and the scientific community. As
mentioned previously, a December index of 1.6 million would translate
to a minimum estimate of 2.56 million breeding MCLG in spring. We will
carefully analyze and assess the MCLG reduction 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. Decreased MCLG numbers will also
relieve pressures on the breeding grounds. There is no evidence to
suggest that the implementation of this action will result in an over-
harvest of MCLG. Once the December index is reduced to approximately
1.6 million birds we will revoke this action and the methods we
authorized. It is improbable that the implementation of this action
will threaten the long-term status of MCLG populations, because we will
monitor the MCLG populations and act accordingly if it is threatened by
modifying or revoking the action.
Other Species
We expect an increase in harvest, and subsequently a decrease in
MCLG numbers, to relieve pressures on other migratory bird populations
that utilize MCLG breeding and wintering grounds and other areas along
the migration routes. This decrease should 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 migratory bird hunting or conservation order action 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.
[[Page 7522]]
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. Because people that
provide services to hunters tend to be those with low incomes, the
impact of a closure would fall disproportionately on low income groups
near goose concentrations. We expect this 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
The November 9, 1998, proposed rule published in the Federal
Register (63 FR 60278) invited public comments from interested parties.
The closing date for receipt of all comments was January 8, 1999, which
was subsequently extended to January 15, 1999 (64 FR 822). During the
comment period, we received 615 comments consisting of 468 from private
citizens, 21 from State wildlife agencies, 2 from Flyway Councils, 27
from private organizations, 10 from Native organizations, 65 from
individuals that signed a petition, and 22 from private organizations
that signed a petition. Comments generally were dichotomized by two
points of view.
To summarize, 361 comments were supportive of our intent to
implement a conservation order to reduce the MCLG population. Comments
in support of such action were received from 268 private citizens, 21
State wildlife agencies, 2 Flyway Councils, 12 private organizations, 1
Native organization, and 57 from people who signed a petition. 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. Several State wildlife
agencies and both Flyway Councils suggested that the requirement to
have all other migratory bird hunting seasons closed in order to
implement changes in regulations to address light goose population
control is overly restrictive. They suggested that only other waterfowl
seasons be closed in order to implement changes in light goose
regulations. Furthermore, several of these commenters suggested that
the Service should implement existing dove baiting regulations for the
proposed conservation order rather than the more restrictive waterfowl
baiting regulations. A private citizen voiced opposition to the closure
of falconry seasons during implementation of new light goose regulation
changes.
A State wildlife agency requested clarification on whether the
requirement to close all other migratory bird seasons pertained to
zones within a State, or the entire State, and also whether the
regulation changes could be implemented prior to March 11. Several
State wildlife agencies questioned why other Mississippi Flyway States
(i.e. MI, OH, WI, IN, KY, and TN) were not included in the list of
those eligible to implement alternative regulatory strategies aimed at
MCLG. Some State wildlife agencies urged that the Service not wait a
full five years before the proposed population reduction strategies are
evaluated and other management options are considered. A State wildlife
agency commented that the requirement to close Bosque del Apache NWR
during the period of implementation of light goose regulations was
inappropriate and that existing hunt management plans will avert
potential impacts to whooping cranes.
Several private organizations and a Native organization expressed
support of the findings of the international panel of scientists and
waterfowl managers that documented (Batt 1997) habitat degradations
caused by overabundant light goose and recommended actions to reduce
populations. However, the organizations urged monitoring and evaluation
of management actions and that such actions should be used only until
populations are sufficiently reduced. A private organization that fully
supported the proposed actions expressed concern about differing views
in the academic and management community about the magnitude of harvest
that is necessary to effect the desired population reduction.
Conversely, 254 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 legally or scientifically
justified to reduce the populations, or attempts to do so would be
inhumane. Comments in opposition to such action were received from 200
private citizens, 15 private organizations, 9 Native organizations, 8
individuals that signed a petition, and 22 private organizations that
signed a petition.
Many commenters stated that grazing by geese may be changing the
vegetation communities on their breeding grounds but they ``cannot
devastate an ecosystem of which they are a part''. Furthermore, they
felt that if there are too many geese for their habitats to support,
the geese will either nest in other areas or fail to successfully raise
young. A private individual commented that the habitat destruction
occurring in the arctic may be due to pollution and increased salinity
resulting from oil drilling.
Several private organizations commented that the draft
Environmental Assessment and the Proposed Rule fail to provide detailed
estimates of the extent of grazing damage caused by MCLG. They further
stated that we have not adequately addressed the relationship between
isostatic uplift (raising of land due to the removal of pressure once
exerted by glaciers) and vegetative succession, or the agricultural
practices that have contributed to expansion of MCLG populations. In
addition they criticized the lack of reliable current breeding
population estimates of MCLG and our inability to demonstrate that
current populations are higher than those ever experienced in the past.
Furthermore, they questioned how killing millions of snow geese in the
mid-western U.S. could remedy alleged damage to habitats at specific
sites in the Canadian arctic. Finally, they protested that Native
groups in Canada that would be directly impacted by the proposals were
not consulted in the development of management actions. Comments
provided by several Native organizations indicated that they were not
consulted and they oppose the management action.
A private organization recommended nest destruction, egging, and
hazing of geese from areas that have sustained habitat changes as
alternatives to the proposed actions. Furthermore, they stated that the
use of lethal control, if it
[[Page 7523]]
is justified at all, must be conducted at specific sites where damage
is occurring to be effective. Finally, they advocated that the Service
implement ecosystem management to address the MCLG issue. Their view of
ecosystem management assumes that the component species of an ecosystem
determine their own distribution and abundance, consistent with the age
and condition of their habits, thus requiring a more ``hands-off rather
than a direct, interventionist, approach by managers.''
Many private individuals and several private organizations
commented that an Environmental Assessment was insufficient to comply
with NEPA requirements, and that a full Environmental Impact Statement
should be prepared before action is taken to address this problem. A
private organization commented that the Service will be violating the
1916 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain for the
Protection of Migratory Birds if take of MCLG beyond March 10 is
allowed. They believed that a conservation order to be implemented
beyond March 10 will constitute an illegal hunting season on a
protected species.
Service response: We have conducted an Environmental Assessment of
alternative regulatory strategies to reduce MCLG populations. Based on
review and evaluation of the information contained in the assessment,
we have determined that the proposed action to amend 50 CFR Part 21 to
establish a conservation order for the reduction of MCLG populations is
not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality
of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, we made a
Finding of No Significant Impact on this action. Therefore, preparation
of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The EA and
Finding of No Significant Impact are available to the public at the
location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
With regard to violation of the 1916 Convention, regulations
allowing the take of migratory birds are authorized by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. Secs. 703-712), which implements the
four bilateral migratory bird treaties the United States entered into
with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. Section 3 of the Act authorizes
and directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow hunting, taking,
etc. of migratory birds subject to the provisions of, and in order to
carry out the purposes of, the four migratory bird treaties. The
Convention with Great Britain establishes a ``closed'' season on
hunting migratory game birds between March 10 and September 1. However,
Section VII of the U.S.-Canada Migratory Bird Treaty authorizes
permitting the take, kill, etc. of migratory birds that, under
extraordinary conditions, become seriously injurious to agricultural or
other interests. We are exercising this authority to carry out a
necessary management action. Although ``hunters'' will be utilized in
this effort, this is not intended as an open season or extension of a
season. This is a management effort that is being carried out in
partnership with State/Tribal wildlife agencies under strict monitoring
and control requirements contained in the order. The information
available to us as discussed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and in the
Environmental Assessment accompanying this action, demonstrates that
the extraordinary population levels are causing serious injury to the
breeding habitat of light geese and other migratory birds, and the
habitat of other wildlife species. Therefore, we believe that
implementation of this conservation order is in accordance with and
compatible with the terms of the Convention.
We are unaware of any evidence indicating that the severe habitat
damage occurring in MCLG breeding areas is the result of oil drilling
activities. The feeding behavior of MCLG causes the removal of
vegetation from sites and sets in motion a series of events that causes
soil salinity to increase. With regard to the ability of MCLG to
devastate an ecosystem of which they are a part, we point to studies
summarized by Abraham and Jefferies (1997) indicating that goose
feeding activities reduce the thickness of the vegetation mat that
insulates the underlying marine sediments from the air. Evaporation
rates from the surface sediments increase and inorganic salts from the
marine clay produce high salt concentrations that reduce growth of
preferred forage plants. This together with continued intensive grazing
by geese maintains open areas and high salt concentration and results
in a positive feedback producing increased destruction of salt-marsh
areas and desertification of the landscape. This is illustrated by
fenced exclosure plots on impacted areas that prevent geese from
grazing in plots. Both the exclosures and the areas in their immediate
vicinity are experiencing isostatic uplift (raising of land as a result
of glacial retreat) and yet the rate of plant species turnover in the
two areas is markedly different, driven by excessive goose foraging.
Several commenters stated that recolonization of mud flats by plants
will occur naturally. However, they do not elaborate on the amount of
time this process will require. Exclosure experiments indicate that it
may take at least 15 years for vegetation stands to begin to develop,
which would require total absence of goose foraging. This length of
time is beyond the life expectancy of a single age cohort of lesser
snow geese. Hence, the effects on the habitat outlive the geese.
With regard to the assertion that if there are too many geese for
their habitats to support, the geese will nest in other areas or fail
to raise young, we generally concur. We note that geese have the
ability to escape the effects of high population densities by their
ability to disperse from breeding colonies. However, there are signs
that habitat in the areas geese are dispersing to are also being
degraded, forcing the birds to disperse even further. Thus, birds
invade previously undisturbed habitats and consume plant biomass to the
point where it is no longer advantageous to remain in those areas, and
then they disperse. The ability to disperse to and subsequently degrade
new habitats is of much concern to wildlife managers and is the reason
we feel that MCLG populations need to be controlled. With regard to
documentation of the total acreage of damage caused by MCLG, we note
that quantification of habitat degradation by geese in the entire
arctic and sub-arctic region is made difficult by logistical
constraints. However, we point to the numerous habitat studies that
document habitat damage, which are summarized in the report by Batt
(1997). This information has been collected during the past 25+ years
by numerous scientists of varying disciplines. Most claims of little or
no damage to habitats have been based solely on a report by Thomas and
MacKay (1998), which was the result of a field trip to a limited number
of sites on the west coast of Hudson Bay that lasted less than 72
hours. We do not believe this cursory examination of habitats in this
region is a valid method of documenting habitat degradation due to MCLG
activity.
Concerning the relationship between isostatic uplift and plant
succession, we acknowledge the impact that this geologic process has on
plant communities. However, the time frame in which the process occurs
is much slower than the time frame in which geese can impact habitats.
Therefore, we do not believe that isostatic uplift will create new
habitat quickly enough to counteract damage created by geese.
[[Page 7524]]
With regard to the relationship between agricultural practices and
MCLG populations, we have previously stated that habitat management
approaches to population control should be pursued in conjunction with
alternative regulatory strategies (63 FR 60281). Inclusion of habitat
management strategies is beyond the scope of our rulemaking authority.
This may create the false impression to some observers that we are
considering only lethal means to control MCLG populations. In fact, we
are working with our partners to develop various non-regulatory action
plans that will include land use recommendations for the Northern
Prairie, Midwest, and Gulf Coast regions of the U.S. to address habitat
management approaches to controlling overabundant MCLG populations
(Bisbee 1998). We are also pursuing changing habitat management
practices on our own lands. We believe that a comprehensive, long-term
strategy that involves both lethal methods and habitat management is a
sound approach to addressing the MCLG issue.
Concerning the question of how killing MCLG in the U.S. will remedy
damage to habitats in specific breeding colonies in the Canadian
arctic, we point out that MCLG migrate and winter in large
concentrations almost exclusively in the Central and Mississippi
Flyways. Therefore, these regulatory strategies aimed at taking MCLG in
this portion of the U.S. will reduce the number of birds returning to
breeding areas that are experiencing habitat degradation. It will also
reduce the number of birds that are able to disperse to and degrade
other breeding habitats. We believe this is a cost-effective and
efficient alternative to selective culling of birds at breeding
colonies, which would entail massive disposal efforts and waste of
birds at enormous cost. Similarly, we believe that alternative
regulatory strategies will be more cost-effective and efficient control
methods than proposals to destroy nest, harvest eggs, and haze geese
from breeding colonies.
With regard to our ability to estimate the current size of the
breeding population of MCLG, we point out that the lack of definitive
continental breeding population estimates is due to the enormous
logistical barriers to designing a comprehensive survey of the entire
arctic and sub-arctic region. Consequently, we have relied on surveys
conducted on wintering areas in December to provide an index to the
breeding population. It is clear that many people are confused about
the relationship between the December index and the breeding population
size. The December survey results in a count of MCLG on portions of its
wintering range and does not represent a total population count, nor is
it intended to be such. However, we believe that the December index
tracks the true population size and allows managers to determine when
the MCLG population is increasing, decreasing, or is stable. In fact,
we have used the December index in the development of annual snow goose
hunting regulations since its inception in 1969. Therefore, we have
chosen to use the December index to determine the status of the MCLG
population. In the proposed rule (63 FR 60278) we made an incorrect
contextual reference to the Central and Mississippi Flyway Council
(1982) management guideline of 800,000 to 1.2 million birds because
this guideline was based on snow goose population estimates for the
breeding grounds, rather than on wintering ground indices. We will
continue to base our objectives on winter indices. In order to achieve
a 50% reduction in the MCLG population, this would entail achieving a
reduction in the December index from approximately 3.2 million to 1.6
million birds. In 1991, the Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils
passed resolutions to adopt management goals for MCLG of 1 to 1.5
million birds, based on the December index. Therefore, our objective is
in close agreement with management goals previously stated by the
Flyway Councils. Beginning in January 1999, the Central and Mississippi
Flyway Councils designated a January survey of wintering MCLG to be the
official index to the population, which we will use to monitor the
population. This change should have negligible effect on the winter
index and subsequent management objectives.
With regard to debate about the magnitude of harvest that is
necessary to bring about the desired population reduction, we point out
that the debate is centered around the annual harvest that is required
to achieve the reduction by the year 2005. Rockwell et al. (1997)
recommend a 2-3 fold increase in annual harvest to achieve the desired
population reduction. The authors stated that, ``different assumptions
will lead to somewhat different values under this type of strategy * *
* (Rockwell et al. 1997:99). Subsequently, Cooke et al. (unpublished
report) estimated that annual harvest would need to be increased by a
factor of anywhere from 3.5 to 6.7 to reduce the MCLG population. We
note the near overlap in the ranges of recommended increases in annual
harvest contained in the two reports. At the present, we believe that
pursuing a three-fold increase in annual harvest represents a
responsible approach to MCLG population reduction. Implementation of
new regulatory strategies will allow managers to measure the actual
effects of such strategies on the MCLG population. If this harvest
level is subsequently deemed inadequate to achieve the population-
reduction goal, this strategy will be re-evaluated.
With regard to the relationship between current MCLG population
levels and those experienced in the past, we point out the problems
with comparisons of anecdotal accounts of MCLG population levels with
population indices derived from modern aerial surveys. We suggest that
debates about anecdotal accounts of former MCLG abundance will not be
fruitful. What is known, is that current MCLG population indices
derived from standardized aerial surveys are higher than ever
previously recorded. Therefore, we believe that alternative regulatory
strategies to address overabundant MCLG and their impacts on habitat
are appropriate and urgently needed.
Concerning consultation with Native groups that may be affected by
alternative regulatory strategies implemented in the U.S., we point out
that the U.S. has met the legal obligation to consult with the
government of Canada. In turn, various territorial, provincial and
federal governments in Canada have consulted with aboriginal groups
through various forums, and through the distribution of reports and
proposals for Canadian hunting seasons. These consultations are and
will continue to be ongoing. Because the locations of many of the
largest light goose breeding colonies are north of 60 degrees north
latitude, much of the direct consultation to date has been with people
in those areas. We have also been informed that a number of Inuit
groups such as the Arviat Hunters and Trappers Organization, and the
Aiviq Hunters and Trappers Association in Cape Dorset have already
participated in pilot programs to increase their harvest of light
geese. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has had the light goose
overabundance issue as a standing item for some time. Other northern
wildlife management boards, including the Inuvialuit which participated
in a stakeholder's committee, have been informed of the light goose
issue. In light of this information, we feel claims that Native groups
have not been consulted are unfounded.
We disagree with the view that an ecosystem approach to managing
[[Page 7525]]
overabundant MCLG requires a ``hands off'' rather than a direct
interventionist approach by managers. In fact, we believe that
implementation of alternative regulatory strategies to address this
problem is the epitome of ecosystem management. The Service's goal of
its ecosystem approach is the effective conservation of natural
biological diversity through perpetuation of dynamic, healthy
ecosystems (USFWS 1995). Others have defined ecosystem management as
``the integration of ecologic, economic, and social principles to
manage biological and physical systems in a manner that safeguards the
ecological sustainability, natural diversity, and productivity of the
landscape'' (Wood 1994). We believe that if MCLG populations are not
immediately controlled by direct methods, that biological diversity on
breeding areas will decline, productivity of the landscape will be
severely reduced, and the health of the ecosystem will be compromised
to the extent that it will take many decades to recover, if ever.
With regard to the comment that requiring closure of all other
migratory bird seasons is overly restrictive, we agree. Our intent is
to minimize the impacts of regulatory strategies on non-target species,
and we believe that limiting the required closure to all waterfowl and
crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, will not increase the
potential impacts on non-target species. These closures can be
undertaken on a zone basis within a state. Such strategies could be
implemented prior to March 11 in a given year, as long as the above
requirement is met. With regards to the eligibility of the States of
MI, OH, WI, IN, KY, and TN to implement alternative regulatory
strategies, we agree that these States harvest light geese during
normal hunting seasons, and thus would have the potential to harvest
MCLG using alternative regulatory strategies. For example, 20,000 to
60,000 snow geese annually winter in western Kentucky. Therefore, we
are including all Mississippi Flyway and Central Flyway States as being
eligible for implementation of such strategies.
With regards to baiting regulations, we prefer to utilize current
regulations that pertain to waterfowl. Implementation of dove baiting
regulations in a waterfowl management strategy may create confusion
among hunters. The larger question of the use of baiting to increase
harvest of MCLG may need to be re-visited, once we have experience with
the alternative regulations options currently being implemented. We
note that baiting regulations for all migratory birds are currently
under review and a decision with regards to the use of baiting to
control MCLG should be postponed until the review is completed.
Concerning the requirement to close several crane wintering and
migration areas to implementation of MCLG regulatory strategies, we
feel that this requirement will help ensure protection of whooping
cranes. We believe a conservative approach to implementing new MCLG
strategies is warranted, at least initially. Once we gain experience in
dealing with these new strategies, and if a determination is made that
such closures are unnecessary, they can be discontinued at that time.
With regard to monitoring programs that are needed to evaluate MCLG
control measures and the status of their population, we note that the
Arctic Goose Joint Venture has developed a draft science needs document
that outlines various population and habitat monitoring programs.
Included in this document are banded sample sizes that are needed to
detect average annual changes in survival rates of MCLG. The document
outlines banding goals for various breeding colonies. Breeding
population surveys that will be utilized include photo inventories and
helicopter surveys of selected breeding colonies. Annual indices to
MCLG population size will continue to be derived from winter surveys
conducted in the U.S. Harvest estimates for normal light goose hunting
seasons will continue to be derived through existing federal harvest
surveys. Estimates of harvest during the conservation order will be
obtained from individual State wildlife agencies. We will accomplish
habitat monitoring through satellite imagery and continuation of on the
ground sampling associated with current research projects.
We agree that we should not to wait until five years have elapsed
before an evaluation of the MCLG conservation order is completed and
other alternatives are considered. Annual monitoring will indicate if
the conservation order is effective in reducing the MCLG population. We
will consider additional population-reduction strategies if the
conservation order is deemed ineffective. We note that non-lethal
management strategies to control MCLG populations recently have been
completed or are under development (e.g. Bisbee 1998). We look forward
to working with all stakeholders in the development of long-term
strategies to deal effectively with overabundant MCLG.
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.
Abraham, K. F., 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.
Alisauskas, R., 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. 21pp.
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.
Bisbee, R. 1998. Gulf states action plan for mid-continent snow
geese: A specific action plan focused on public land management for
the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
Boyd, H., G. E. J. Smith and F. G. Cooch. 1982. The lesser snow
goose of the eastern Canadian Arctic: their status during 1964-1979
and their management from 1982-1990. Canadian Wildlife Service
Occasional Paper No. 46. 21 pp.
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.
Rockwell, R. F., 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.
Rockwell, R. F. 1998. Personal Communication. American Museum of
Natural History. New York, NY.
[[Page 7526]]
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. 1995. An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife
conservation. Concept Document. Washington, D.C. 21 pp.
USFWS. 1997a. Waterfowl population status, 1997. Office of Migratory
Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 32 pp.
USFWS. 1997b. Harvest and population survey data book, Central
Flyway, compiled by D.E. Sharp. Office of Migratory Bird Management,
Denver, CO. 123 pp.
USFWS. 1998a. Mid-continent Lesser Snow Goose Workshops: Central and
Mississippi Flyways, Fall 1997. Office of Migratory Bird Management
and Division of Refuges, Arlington, VA.
USFWS. 1998b. Waterfowl populations status, 1998. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 31 pp.
USFWS. 1998c. Waterfowl Population Status, 1998. Department of the
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.
Effective Date
Under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) we waive the 30-day period before
the rule becomes effective and find that ``good cause'' exists, within
the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA, and this rule will,
therefore, take effect immediately upon publication. This rule relieves
a restriction and, in addition, it is not in the public interest to
delay the effective date of this rule. During the public comment period
we received 615 comments consisting of 468 from private citizens, 21
from State wildlife agencies, 2 from Flyway Councils, 27 from private
organizations, 10 from Native organizations, 65 from individuals that
signed a petition, and 22 from private organizations that signed a
petition. It is in the best interest of migratory birds and their
habitats to implement a conservation order to reduce the number of
MCLG. It is in the best interest of the hunting public to provide
alternative regulatory options to address the problem of overabundant
MCLG that may affect other migratory bird populations and hunting
seasons.
NEPA Considerations
In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the
Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing NEPA (40
CFR 1500-1508), we prepared an Environmental Assessment in January
1999. This EA is available to the public at the location indicated
under the ADDRESSES caption. Based on review and evaluation of the
information in the EA, we determined that amending 50 CFR Part 21 to
establish a conservation order for the reduction of MCLG populations
would not be a major Federal action that would significantly affect the
quality of the human environment. This Environmental Assessment
considers short-term options for addressing the ever-increasing MCLG
population. In 2000, we will initiate the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement to consider the effects on the human
environment of a range of long-term resolutions for the MCLG
population. Completion of the EIS by summer 2002 will afford the
Service the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the current
preferred alternative. It will also allow for a more detailed
evaluation of options to correspond with the results of the assessment
and ongoing MCLG issues.
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
* * * '' We have completed a Section 7 consultation under the ESA for
this rule and determined that establishment of a conservation order for
the reduction of MCLG populations is not likely to affect any
threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species. The result of
our consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is available to the public
at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The economic impacts of this rulemaking will fall
disproportionately on small businesses because of the structure of the
waterfowl hunting related industries. The 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 this 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.
Executive Order 12866
This rule was not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget under E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand. The Service invites 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 or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand
if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the
description of the rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of
the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else could the
Service do to make the rule easier to understand?
Congressional Review
This is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808).
Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection
We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Under the Act, information collections must be
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Agencies may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. We estimate that State/Tribal governments that
participate in the program will expend an average of 30 hours annually
to fulfill the information
[[Page 7527]]
collection requirements. Any suggestions on how to reduce this burden
should be sent to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 222-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,
DC 20204. We will use the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR Part 21, Subpart E to
administer this program, particularly in the assessment of impacts
alternative regulatory strategies may have on MCLG and other migratory
bird populations. We will require the information collected to
authorize State and Tribal governments responsible for migratory bird
management to take MCLG within our guidelines. Specifically, OMB has
approved the information collection requirements of this action and
assigned clearance number 1018-0103 (expires 01/31/2002).
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
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 Unfunded Mandates.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this 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. We do not anticipate 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.
Takings Implication Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule, authorized by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings
implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected
property rights. The rule will not result in the physical occupancy of
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking
of any property. In fact, the rule allows hunters to exercise
privileges that would be otherwise unavailable; and, therefore, reduce
restrictions on the use of private and public property.
Federalism Effects
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the
Federal government has been given responsibility over these species by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. These rules do not have a substantial
direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities
of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or
administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612,
these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible
effects on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that
there are no effects.
Authorship
The primary author of this final rule is James R. Kelley, Jr.,
Office of Migratory Bird Management.
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 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 Sec. 20.22, the phrase ``except as provided in part 21'' is
added following the word ``season''.
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 Sec. 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.
(a) Which waterfowl species are covered by this order? This
conservation order addresses management of lesser snow (Anser c.
caerulescens) and Ross' (Anser rossii) geese that breed, migrate, and
winter in the mid-continent portion of North America, primarily in the
Central and Mississippi Flyways (Mid-continent light geese).
(b) In what areas can the conservation order be implemented? (1)
The following States, or portions of States, that are contained within
the boundaries of the Central and Mississippi Flyways: Alabama,
Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
(2) Tribal lands within the geographic boundaries in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(3) The following areas within the boundaries in paragraph (b)(1)
of this section above are closed to the conservation order after 10
March: Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge (CO); Bosque del Apache
National Wildlife Refuge (NM); the area within 5 miles of the Platte
River from Lexington, Nebraska to Grand Island, Nebraska; the following
area in and around Aransas National Wildlife Refuge; those portions of
Refugio, Calhoun, and Aransas counties that lie inside a line extending
from 5 nautical miles offshore to and including Pelican Island, thence
to Port O'Conner, thence northwest along State Highway 185 and
southwest along State Highway 35 to Aransas Pass, thence southeast
along State Highway 361 to Port Aransas, thence east along the Corpus
Christi Channel, thence southeast along the Aransas Channel, extending
to 5 nautical miles offshore; except that it is lawful to take Mid-
continent light geese after 10 March
[[Page 7528]]
within the Guadalupe WMA. If at any time evidence is presented that
clearly demonstrates that there no longer exists a need to close the
above areas, we will publish a proposal to remove the closures in the
Federal Register.
(c) What is required in order for State/Tribal governments to
participate in the conservation order? Any State or Tribal government
responsible for the management of wildlife and migratory birds may,
without permit, kill or cause to be killed under its general
supervision, mid-continent light geese under the following conditions:
(1) Activities conducted under this section may not affect
endangered or threatened species as designated under the Endangered
Species Act.
(2) 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.
(3) Control activities may be conducted only when all waterfowl and
crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.
(4) Control measures employed through this section may be
implemented only between the hours of one-half hour before sunrise to
one-half hour after sunset.
(5) Nothing in this section may limit or initiate management
actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal Agency with
jurisdiction.
(6) States and Tribes must designate participants who must operate
under the conditions of this section.
(7) States and Tribes must inform participants of the requirements/
conditions of this section that apply.
(8) States and Tribes 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 States and Tribes
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. 2.2 of this
chapter).
(d) What is required in order for individuals to participate in the
conservation order? Individual participants in State or tribal programs
covered by this section are required to comply with the following
requirements:
(1) Nothing in this section authorizes the take of mid-continent
light geese contrary to any State or Tribal 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 or Tribal government concerned.
(2) Participants 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.
(3) Participants 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.
(4) Participants acting under the authority of this section may
take mid-continent light geese by any method except those prohibited as
follows:
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) 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;
(iv) 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. A
craft under power may be used only to retrieve dead or crippled birds;
however, the craft may not be used under power to shoot any crippled
birds;
(v) 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
Mid-continent light geese on an area where tame or captive live 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 Mid-continent light geese;
(vi) By means or aid of any motor-driven land, water, or air
conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in the
concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of Mid-continent light
geese;
(vii) 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 shucked on the field where grown, or grains found
scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or
harvesting; or
(viii) Participants may not possess shot (either in shotshells or
as loose shot for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin,
or other shots that are authorized in 50 CFR 20.21(j). Season
limitations in that rule do not apply to participants acting under this
order.
(e) Under what conditions would the conservation order be revoked?
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 initiate action to
revoke the conservation order.
(f) Will information concerning the conservation order be
collected? The information collection requirements of the conservation
order have been approved by OMB and assigned clearance number 1018-
0103. Agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The recordkeeping and
[[Page 7529]]
reporting requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR
Part 21, Subpart E will be utilized to administer this program,
particularly in the assessment of impacts alternative regulatory
strategies may have on Mid-continent light geese and other migratory
bird populations. The information collected will be required to
authorize State and Tribal governments responsible for migratory bird
management to take Mid-continent light geese within the guidelines
provided by the Service.
Dated: February 10, 1999.
Donald Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-3649 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
