[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15698-15705]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-8151]
[[Page 15697]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 21
Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 61 / Tuesday, March 31, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 15698]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
RIN 1018-AE46
Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
proposes, in cooperation with State wildlife agencies (States), to
establish a Canada goose damage management program. This program is
designed to provide a biologically sound and more cost-effective and
efficient method for the control of locally-breeding (resident) Canada
geese that pose a threat to health and human safety and are responsible
for damage to personal and public property.
DATES: The comment period for this proposed rule closes June 1, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to 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. The public
may inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634--
Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-
1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Numbers of Canada geese that nest and reside predominantly within
the conterminous United States have increased exponentially in recent
years (Rusch et al., 1995; Ankney, 1996). These geese are sometimes
collectively referred to as ``resident'' Canada geese. These increasing
populations of locally-breeding geese are resulting in increasing
numbers of conflicts with human activities, and concerns related to
human health and safety are increasing (Ankney, 1996). To date, the
Service has attempted to address this growing problem through existing
annual hunting season frameworks and issuance of control permits on a
case-by-case basis. While this approach has provided relief in some
areas, the Service realizes that sport harvest will not completely
address the problem and that the current permit-issuance system has
become a time-consuming and burdensome process for both applicants and
the Service. Therefore, the Service is proposing changes to the way
permits for control and management of resident Canada geese that either
pose a threat to health and human safety or cause damage to personal
and public property are issued under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by
the Service. Presently, the regulations governing the issuance of
permits to take, capture, kill, possess, and transport migratory birds
are authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and are promulgated in
50 CFR parts 13 and 21.
The geographic scope of this proposed rule is restricted to the
conterminous United States and to the two subspecies of Canada geese
(Branta canadensis) that nest and reside predominately within the
conterminous United States (B. c. maxima and B.c. moffitti), the
``giant'' and ``western'' Canada geese, respectively. Nesting geese
within the conterminous United States are considered members of these
two subspecies or hybrids between the various subspecies originating in
captivity and artificially introduced into numerous areas throughout
the conterminous United States. No evidence presently exists
documenting breeding between Canada geese nesting within the
conterminous United States and those subspecies nesting in northern
Canada and Alaska. The geese nesting and residing within the
conterminous United States in the months of June, July, and August will
be collectively referred to in this proposed rule as ``resident''
Canada geese.
The remaining 9 subspecies of Canada geese recognized in North
America nest, for the most part, in arctic and sub-arctic regions of
Canada and Alaska (Lack 1974). These subspecies are encountered in the
conterminous United States only during the fall, winter and spring of
the year, or as a result of human placement.
Generally, the Service has stressed the need to manage geese on a
population basis, guided by cooperatively-developed management plans.
However, resident Canada goose populations and the development of a
resident Canada goose damage management program present several
potential problems with this approach. Because resident goose
populations interact and overlap with other Canada goose populations
during the fall and winter, these other goose populations could
potentially be affected by any management action or program targeted at
resident Canada geese during the fall and winter. Therefore, to avoid
potential conflicts with existing management plans for other goose
populations, the temporal scope of this proposed rule is restricted to
the period March 11 through August 31 each year. These dates encompass
the period when sport hunting is prohibited throughout the conterminous
United States by the Migratory Bird Treaty (1916) and resulting
regulations promulgated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918).
Injury/damage complaints occurring during the period September 1 to
March 10, the period open to sport hunting, are outside the scope of
this proposed rule and will continue to be addressed through either
migratory bird hunting regulations or the existing migratory bird
permit process.
Population Status/Public Conflicts
In the early 1960's Hanson (1965) rediscovered the giant Canada
goose, then believed to be extinct (Delacour 1954). Hanson (1965)
estimated there were about 50,000 of this subspecies left in both
Canada and the United States at the time of his survey. In recent
years, however, the numbers of these Canada geese that nest
predominantly within the conterminous United States have increased
tremendously. Recent surveys in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central
Flyways (Nelson and Oetting, 1991; Sheaffer and Malecki, 1991; Wood et
al., 1994; Caithamer and Dubovsky, 1997) suggest that the resident
breeding population now exceeds 1 million individuals in both the
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways and is increasing exponentially.
Information from the 1997 Waterfowl Status Report (Caithamer and
Dubovsky, 1997) shows that in the Atlantic Flyway, the resident
population has increased an average of 17 percent per year since 1989
and currently exceeds 1 million geese. 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 and also currently exceeds 1
million birds. In the Central and Pacific Flyways, populations of
resident Canada geese have similarly increased over the last few years.
In some areas, numbers of resident Canada geese have increased to
record high levels. The Service is concerned about the rapid growth
rate and large sizes of resident goose populations, especially in parts
of the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways.
Further, in some regions, the management of these large populations
of resident canada geese is confounded by the presence of migratory
Canada goose populations that are considered to be below management
objectives. A case in point is the migratory Atlantic Population (AP)
of Canada geese which
[[Page 15699]]
nests in northern Quebec and winters in the Atlantic Flyway. The number
of breeding pairs of migratory AP geese declined from 118,000 in 1988
to only 29,000 in 1995. While numbers of this migratory population have
since increased to 63,000 in 1997, as stated above, Atlantic Flyway
resident Canada geese are estimated to have a population now exceeding
1 million. Traditional methods of dealing with the growing resident
Canada goose population in the Atlantic Flyway, such as hunting, are
not available in areas with migrating and wintering AP geese. The
difficulty and challenge faced by the Service and State wildlife
management agencies is one of striving to increase the migratory
population while simultaneously addressing the problems caused by the
growing resident population.
In many areas of the country, these burgeoning populations of
resident Canada geese are increasingly coming into conflict with human
activities. The urban/suburban populations have a relative abundance of
preferred habitat provided by current landscaping techniques (i.e.,
open areas with short grass adjacent to small bodies of water), and
this habitat availability combined with the lack of natural predators,
the absence of waterfowl hunting in many of these areas, and free
handouts of food by some people has served to increase resident Canada
goose populations exponentially. Problem habitat examples 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. As
a consequence, injury complaints related to agricultural damage and
other public conflicts are increasing as resident Canada goose
populations increase.
To date, the Service has attempted to address injurious resident
Canada goose problems through existing hunting seasons, the creation of
new special Canada goose seasons designed to target resident
populations, and issuance of permits allowing specific control
activities.
The overall guidance for all existing and special hunting seasons
is provided in a 1975 Environmental Impact Statement and a 1988
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of
Interior 1975, 1988). In general, the Service's approach has been to
support special seasons, and as experience and information are gained,
to allow expansion and simplification consistent with established
criteria.
Special seasons targeting resident Canada geese were first
initiated in 1977 in the Mississippi Flyway with an experimental late
season in Michigan. Following these early experiments in Michigan and
several other Midwestern States, the Service gave notice of pending
criteria for special Canada goose seasons in the June 6, 1986, Federal
Register (51 FR 20681). Criteria for special early seasons were
finalized in the August 9, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 29905) and
later were expanded to include special late seasons in September 26,
1991, Federal Register (56 FR 49111). The original intent of these
special seasons was to provide additional harvest opportunities on
resident Canada geese while minimizing impacts to migrant geese. The
criteria were necessary to control harvests of non-target populations
and required States to conduct annual evaluations. Initially, all
seasons were considered experimental, pending a thorough review of the
data gathered by the participating State. Early seasons are generally
held during early September, with late seasons occurring only after the
regular season, but no later than February 15.
Special seasons for resident Canada geese are presently offered in
all four Flyways, with 29 States participating. They are most popular
among States when regular Canada goose seasons are restricted to
protect migrant populations of Canada geese. Currently restrictive
harvest regimes are in place for the Atlantic, Southern James Bay,
Dusky, Cackling and Aleutian Canada goose populations.
Harvest of Canada geese during these special seasons has increased
substantially over the last 8 years. In the Atlantic Flyway, 16 of 17
States hold special Canada goose seasons, with harvest rising from
about 2,300 in 1988 to almost 124,000 in 1995 (MBMO, 1997). In the
Mississippi Flyway, 10 of 14 States hold special Canada goose seasons,
and harvest has increased from less than 10,000 birds in 1986 to almost
150,000 in 1995. Michigan currently harvests in excess of 50,000
locally-breeding Canada geese per year. While the opportunities are not
as significant in the Central and Pacific Flyways, as areas and seasons
have expanded, harvest has increased from approximately 1,300 in 1989
to over 20,000 in 1995.
While creation of special harvest opportunities has helped to limit
the problem in some areas, many resident Canada geese remain in urban
and suburban areas throughout the fall and winter where these areas
afford them almost complete protection from sport harvest. The Service
realizes that harvest management will never completely address this
problem and permits to conduct otherwise prohibited control activities
will continue to be necessary to balance human needs with expanding
resident Canada goose populations.
Complex Federal and State responsibilities are involved with Canada
goose control activities. All State and private activities, except
techniques intended to either scare geese out of or preclude them from
a specific area, such as harassment, habitat management, or repellents,
require a Federal permit, issued by the Service. Additionally, permits
to alleviate migratory bird depredations are issued by the Service in
coordination with the Wildlife Services (formerly Animal Damage
Control) program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS/WS). APHIS/WS is the Federal Agency with lead responsibility for
dealing with wildlife damage complaints. In most instances, State
permits are required as well.
A brief summary of the complaints/requests for control permits
placed with APHIS/WS indicates the increasing number of public
conflicts. In 1996, the APHIS/WS received 3,265 complaints of injurious
goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1996). In response to those complaints,
APHIS/WS dispersed 513,585 Canada geese. In addition, those 3,265
complaints resulted in APHIS/WS recommending the Service issue 321
permits. Those recommendations included 93 for take, 5 for capture/
relocation, and 238 for egg/nest destruction.
In 1995, APHIS/WS received 2,884 complaints of injurious goose
activity which resulted in the dispersal of 525,000 Canada geese
(APHIS/WS, 1995). In addition, during that same period, the APHIS/WS
program reviewed 2,224 permit requests dealing with the control of
injurious Canada geese (APHIS/WS, 1995). Of those 2,224 requests,
APHIS/WS recommended the Service issue 250 permits. Those
recommendations included 68 for take, 5 for capture/relocation, and 195
for egg/nest destruction.
Comparing these figures with previous years' data shows a steady
increase in complaints since 1991. For example, in 1991 APHIS/WS
received 1,698 complaints of injurious goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1991).
In 1993, there were 2,802 complaints (APHIS/WS, 1993). In response to
those complaints, APHIS/WS dispersed 730,692 and 862,809 geese,
respectively, and recommended the Service issue 92 and 192 permits,
respectively.
[[Page 15700]]
Permit issuance by the Service has also increased in recent years
as resident Canada goose populations have grown to high levels in some
areas. In Region 5 (the Northeastern/New England area), the Service
issued 26 site-specific permits to kill resident Canada geese and 54
permits to addle eggs in 1994. In 1995, Region 5 issued 56 site-
specific permits to kill resident Canada geese, 2 permits to relocate
geese, and 109 permits to addle eggs. These permits resulted in the
reported take of 291 geese, the relocation of 0 geese, and the addling
of eggs in 833 nests. In 1996, Region 5 issued 70 site-specific permits
to kill resident Canada geese, 1 permit to relocate geese, and 151
permits to addle eggs. These permits resulted in the reported take of
807 geese, the relocation of 0 geese, and the addling of eggs in 1,235
nests.
In addition to the site-specific permits, from 1994-96, Region 5
issued 10 statewide permits for the relocation of resident Canada geese
to three government agencies: APHIS/WS, Delaware Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife, and the Virginia Department of Agriculture (VDA). APHIS/
WS and VDA were also authorized to addle eggs under these permits. From
all statewide permits combined, in 1994, 2,573 resident Canada geese
were relocated and eggs were addled in 24 nests. In 1995, 1,900 geese
were relocated and eggs were addled in 45 nests. In 1996, 1,764
resident Canada geese were relocated and eggs were addled in 165 nests.
In the Service's Region 3, the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area, the
number and extent of permits issued to manage and control resident
Canada geese has increased significantly in the past few years. In
1994, the Service issued 53 permits to trap and relocate, 84 permits to
destroy nests/eggs and 12 permits allowing take of adults. These
permits resulted in the relocation of 6,821 resident Canada geese, 176
nests and 1,300 eggs destroyed, and 31 adult geese killed. In 1995,
Region 3 authorized 111 permits to either trap and relocate birds,
destroy nests/eggs, or allow take of adults in Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. These 111 permits
resulted in the relocation of 1,015 resident Canada geese, the
destruction of 1,797 nests sites, and the take of 616 adult geese. In
addition to the above site-specific permits, Region 3 issued Statewide
permits in 1995 to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Ohio Department of
Natural Resources allowing Statewide trapping and relocation
activities. Michigan reported relocating over 4,000 resident Canada
geese, Minnesota moved between 5,000 and 7,000 birds, and Ohio
conducted goose roundups at approximately 1,000 sites across the state.
In 1996, Region 3 issued 226 permits authorizing resident Canada goose
control activities. Permit holders, including APHIS/WS, airports, and
state wildlife agencies, reported taking 6,922 eggs and 827 geese, and
trapped and relocated over 15,300 resident Canada geese. States in
which control activities were conducted included Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Since 1995, the Service's Region 3 has also issued permits to the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (MDNR) authorizing the capture and processing of
resident Canada geese as food for local food-shelf programs.
Minnesota's permit was a part of the MDNR's Urban Goose Management
Program for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area (initiated in
1982). In 1995, under these permits, Michigan and Minnesota were
authorized to take up to 2,000 and 325 geese, respectively. Michigan
reported taking 24 birds with Minnesota taking its full allotment of
325 birds. In 1996, Michigan and Minnesota were again authorized to
take up to 1,000 and 2,500 resident Canada geese, respectively, for the
food-shelf programs. Michigan reported taking 490 birds and Minnesota
1,847. In 1997, the Service again issued Michigan and Minnesota permits
authorizing the take up to 1,000 and 2,500 resident Canada geese,
respectively, for the food-shelf programs.
In Region 1, the Pacific Northwest/West Coast area, the Service has
primarily limited permits for the control of resident Canada geese to
the addling of eggs. In 1995, the Region issued permits authorizing the
take of 900 eggs in the Puget Sound Area of Washington. In 1996, this
number was increased to 2,000 eggs and 200 adult birds. APHIS/WS
subsequently reported taking 911 and 1,570 eggs in 1995 and 1996,
respectively, and 6 geese in 1996. For 1997, the Region has again
authorized the take of 2,000 eggs in the Puget Sound Area and another
500 eggs in the City of Fremont, California.
The Service realizes that APHIS/WS has limited personnel and
resources to respond to requests for assistance. Likewise, as the
number of complaints continue to increase, greater demand will be
placed on the Service and the States to assist in damage-management
programs. With the increase in complaints, the current system is
becoming time-consuming, cumbersome and inefficient. The Service, with
its State and other Federal partners, believe development of an
alternative method of issuing permits to control problem resident
Canada geese, beyond those presently employed, is needed so that
agencies can provide responsible, cost-effective, and efficient
assistance. The proposed special Canada goose permit provides the
States that opportunity while maintaining protection of our migratory
bird resources.
Proposed Special Canada Goose Permit
The Service proposes to add a new permit option available to State
conservation agencies specifically for resident Canada goose control
and damage management. The special permit would only be available to a
State conservation or wildlife management agency responsible for
migratory bird management. Under this permit, States and their
designated agents could initiate resident goose damage management and
control injury problems within the conditions/restrictions of the
program. Those States not wishing to obtain this new permit would
continue to operate under the current permitting process.
Applications for the special permit would require a detailed
statement from the State estimating the size of the resident Canada
goose population in the State, requesting the number of resident Canada
geese, including eggs and nests, to be taken, and showing that such
damage-control action will either provide for human health and safety,
protect personal property, or provide compelling justification that the
permit is needed to allow resolution of other conflicts between people
and resident Canada geese. The permit holder (i.e., State Agency) would
also be required to inform all designated agents of the permit
conditions that apply to the implementation of resident Canada goose
damage management.
The special resident Canada goose damage-management permit would be
subject to the following conditions/restrictions:
1. Take of injurious resident Canada geese as a management tool
could be utilized only after applicable non-lethal alternative means of
eliminating the damage problem have been proven to be unsuccessful or
not feasible.
2. No other migratory birds or any species designated under the
Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered may be affected by
the action.
3. Actions under the State permit are limited to the period between
March 11
[[Page 15701]]
and August 31. Permits will be issued annually. In California, Oregon
and Washington, in areas where the threatened Aleutian Canada goose (B.
c. leucoperia) has been present during the previous 10 years, lethal
control activities are restricted to the period May 1 through August
31, inclusive. Delisting of this subspecies would result in a review of
this provision.
4. Control activities must be conducted clearly as such and cannot
be set up so as to be in fact a ``hunt.''
5. The permit cannot be used to limit or initiate management
actions on Federal land within a State without concurrence of the
Federal Agency with jurisdiction.
6. Canada geese killed in control programs must be properly
disposed of or utilized. Canada geese killed under this permit may be
donated to public museums or public scientific and educational
institutions for exhibition, scientific, or educational purposes or
given to charities for human consumption, or buried or incinerated.
This permit does not, however, allow for Canada geese taken pursuant to
this section, nor their plumage, to be sold, offered for sale,
bartered, or shipped for purpose of sale or barter.
7. Methods of take are at the discretion of the permittee
responsible for the control action. Methods may include, but are not
limited to, firearms, alpha-chloralose, traps, egg and nest
manipulation and other control techniques that are consistent with
accepted wildlife-damage management programs.
8. States may designate agents who must operate under the
conditions of the permit.
9. Any employee/designated agent authorized by the State to carry
out control measures under the special permit must retain in their
possession a copy of the State's permit, and designation, in the case
of an agent, while carrying out any control activity.
10. Any State agency, when exercising the privileges of this
permit, must keep records of all activities, including those of
designated agents, carried out under the authority of the special
permit. An annual report detailing activities conducted under the
permit will be required by the Service prior to any permit renewal.
11. The Service will annually review reports submitted by permit
holders and will periodically assess the overall impact of this permit
program to ensure compatibility with long-term conservation of this
resource.
12. Nothing in the permit should be construed to authorize the
killing of Canada geese contrary to any State law or regulation or on
any Federal land without written authorization by the appropriate
management authority, and none of the privileges granted under the
permit shall be exercised without any State permit that may be required
for such activities.
13. The Service reserves the authority to immediately suspend or
revoke any permit if it finds that the terms and conditions set forth
have not been adhered to as specified in 50 CFR 13.27 and 13.28.
Currently, nearly all permits for resident Canada goose control
activities are handled, evaluated, and issued on a case-by-case
specific basis. However, with the increasing numbers of requests for
permits, the permit-issuance process has become time-consuming and
lengthy in some instances. Thus, the Service believes that it is likely
that some injury to people and property from resident Canada geese are
tolerated rather than go through the lengthy permit-issuance process.
With the proposed special resident-goose damage-management permit, the
Service expects that the use of resident Canada goose control and
management activities, particularly lethal control methods such as egg/
nest destruction, would increase. Lethal control methods associated
with hazing techniques of adult birds would also be expected to
initially increase. However, following this initial increase, continual
use of hazing methods should become more effective and may result in
fewer overall lethal control activities. Such lethal and non-lethal
activities would be expected to decrease the number of injurious
resident Canada geese in localized areas, especially urban/suburban
areas. Regionally, little overall impact on the resident Canada goose
population would be expected because many goose populations have
demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest rates in excess of 20
percent. The Service anticipates the magnitude of any lethal control
activities will be well below 20 percent of any State's resident Canada
goose breeding population.
Little impact on sport hunting would be expected under the proposed
special permit. Resident Canada goose populations in areas that are
targeted for management/control activities are generally those that
provide little or no sport hunting opportunities due to restricted
access within urban/suburban areas where hunting is either precluded or
severely restricted. Areas and resident Canada goose populations
already open to sport hunting would be expected to remain open, as
special Canada goose season frameworks and guidelines would not change.
However, due to the increased availability of control measures, there
could be the removal of some open hunting areas due to public use/
safety considerations. Further, some potential hunting areas under
consideration as open hunting areas might lose some justification and
basis for opening hunting.
The Service also expects that this approach would result in more
aggressive resident Canada goose-control activities. By allowing
injurious resident Canada goose problems to be dealt with on the State/
local level, instead of the Service's Regional level, it is expected
that control activities would be more responsive and timely to the
problem(s) than is currently the case. Consequently, it is expected
that with reduced injurious populations and more effective hazing
programs, fewer complaints would be likely to occur and less resident
Canada goose damage would be likely.
With State fish and wildlife agencies responding to individual
resident Canada goose problems within their respective jurisdictions,
Service administrative responsibilities for each individual control
activity that currently necessitate the determination and/or issuance
of a permit would be expected to decrease significantly. Currently, the
Service, in most instances, must decide on a case-by-case basis whether
a permit should be issued. This new permit would greatly lessen the
number of these permits.
Summary of Comments
On September 3, 1996, the Service issued in the Federal Register
(61 FR 46431) a notice of availability of a Draft Environmental
Assessment (DEA) on Permits for Control of Injurious Canada Geese and
Request for Comments on Potential Regulations. The notice advised the
public that a DEA had been prepared and was available for public
comment. The notice also announced the Service's intent to consider
regulatory changes to the process for issuance of permits to control
injurious resident Canada geese. The Service subsequently extended the
public comment period on November 12, 1996 (61 FR 58084).
As a result of this invitation for public comment, the Service
received 101 comments including two from Federal agencies, 28 from
State wildlife agencies, 24 from private organizations and 47 from
private citizens. Comments included a wide range of topics; however,
several patterns emerged that indicated key points of concern.
To summarize, the August 1996 DEA offered the following three
permit alternatives: first, to continue the
[[Page 15702]]
existing permit procedure; second, to provide a special Canada goose
permit to APHIS/WS and State wildlife agencies with the added authority
of allowing subpermits to be issued by APHIS/WS and the States to
others; and thirdly, to develop a more restrictive permit procedure.
The DEA identified the second option as the preferred alternative,
describing a procedure for issuing special resident Canada goose
permits and providing the additional option of subpermitting resident
Canada goose damage management activities to designated agents. After
consideration of the comments received, the Service has revised the
preferred alternative as described below in the discussion of comments.
This change will provide the Service with more direct control but does
not alter the conclusions or analyses displayed in the EA.
Many commenters expressed support for ``cleaning up'' the process
and making it more responsive to the needs of the public. However, some
comments challenged the need for any type of resident Canada goose
damage-management activities. For purposes of this proposed rule, the
following review combines comments into general categories. The issues
and the Service response to each are summarized below:
Issue 1: Several commenters expressed concern that the Service did
not have the authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act) and
subsequent regulations to allow non-Service entities (APHIS/WS, States)
to issue permits. This theme was repeated throughout and many saw this
as an attempt by the Service to abrogate their goose-management
responsibility.
Service Response: With regard to the issues raised by these
comments, the Service has decided to utilize a process whereby permits
would only be issued to State conservation or wildlife management
agencies. The Service proposes a system whereby State employees or
designated agents may carry out resident Canada goose damage management
and control injurious problems within the conditions/restrictions of
the permit program.
Issue 2: Several comments suggested that the special permit be
replaced by a depredation order, arguing that this approach would be a
more cost-effective/efficient means to manage resident Canada Geese.
Service Response: The Service has included this alternative in the
revised EA. However, while the Service agrees that depredation orders
in other circumstances have proven to be valuable tools in wildlife
damage management, the Service believes that management of resident
Canada geese deserves special attention and consideration which can
best be provided by the proposed special Canada goose permit. The
Service believes that a special Canada goose permit will provide the
management flexibility needed to address this serious problem and at
the same time simplify the procedures needed to administer this
program. A special Canada goose permit will satisfy the need for an
efficient/cost-effective program while allowing the Service to maintain
management control.
Issue 3: Several comments challenged the notion that there are in
fact ``injurious'' Canada geese and that the entire concept of
``resident'' Canada geese is invalid.
Service Response: The Service strongly disagrees with both these
assertions and has included data in the revised EA that demonstrate the
impact of resident Canada goose populations on personal property,
agricultural commodities, and health and human safety. In addition,
data are available that clearly point out that Canada goose populations
do, in fact, nest in parts of the conterminous United States during the
spring and summer and that these birds are causing injury to people and
property. These data are presented in the revised EA. Furthermore, the
Service is not redefining what is or is not a migratory bird under the
Treaty. We are using the term ``resident'' to identify those commonly
injurious Canada geese that will be the subject of control activities
within the scope of the Treaty.
Issue 4: A number of comments included in the August 1996 DEA
addressed the procedures that dealt with the implementation of a
resident Canada goose damage-management program. These comments
expressed concern that the methods of take were too restrictive, that
no mention was made of egg and nest management, that the time period
associated with damage control was too restrictive, that the 25 percent
population figure was unrealistic and virtually impossible to
ascertain, and the directions for disposition of geese were incomplete.
Service Response: The Service carefully considered all these
comments and has made modifications in the proposed regulation to
address the concerns expressed. Information specific to the applicant
State's population of resident geese and the numbers expected to be
taken annually will now be required in the application. The Service
will utilize this information and other pertinent biological and
population-specific data as the basis for determining the premitted
take. The Service made major changes to expand the methods of take to
include the use of alpha-chloralose when warranted and to allow the on-
site biologist more flexibility. The Service also made provisions to
include egg-addling and nest destruction as viable damage-management
tools. The Service agrees that the 25 percent population figure on
which to determine allowable take is nebulous and does not provide a
legitimate guideline for identifying a population level.
Issue 5: A large number of commenters indicated that they were
philosophically opposed to the killing of Canada geese and any other
``inhumane'' treatments of these birds. They expressed preferences for
non-lethal solutions to all resident Canada goose/human conflicts and
pointed out that people need to be more tolerant of wildlife. Some
commenters also opposed the removal of geese on the grounds that these
management actions were only short-term solutions.
Service Response: The Service is also opposed to the inhumane
treatment of any birds, but does not believe the capture and
relocation, or processing for human consumption, of resident Canada
geese from human conflict areas is by definition ``inhumane.'' Over the
past few years, thousands of problem resident Canada geese have been
rounded up by wildlife managers and relocated to unoccupied sites.
However, few such sites remain. Therefore, the Service believes that
humane lethal control of some geese is an appropriate part of an
integrated resident Canada goose damage/control management program.
The Service also prefers non-lethal control activities, such as
habitat modification, as the first means of eliminating resident Canada
goose conflict/damage problems and has specified language to this
effect in the proposed regulations. However, habitat modification and
other harassment tactics do not always work satisfactorily and lethal
methods are sometimes necessary to increase the effectiveness of non-
lethal management methods.
There are many situations where resident Canada geese have created
injurious situations and damage problems that few people would accept
if they had to directly deal with the problem situation. The Service
continues to encourage state wildlife management agencies to work with
not only the local citizens impacted by the management actions but all
citizens.
[[Page 15703]]
While it is unlikely that all resident Canada goose/human conflicts
can be eliminated in all urban settings, implementation of broad-scale
resident Canada goose management activities may result in an overall
reduced need for other management actions, such as large-scale goose
round-ups and lethal control.
References
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services (formerly
Animal Damage Control). 1992. 1991 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS,
Washington, D.C.
--------------------. 1994. 1993 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS,
Washington, D.C.
--------------------. 1996. 1995 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS,
Washington, D.C.
--------------------. 1997. 1996 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS,
Washington, D.C.
Ankney, C. D. 1996. An embarrassment of riches: Too many geese. J.
Wildl. Manage. 60(2): 217-223.
Caithamer, D. F., and J. A. Dubovsky. 1997. Waterfowl population
status, 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. 32 pp. + appendices.
Delacour, J. T. 1954. The waterfowl of the world. Vol. 1. Country
Life, Ltd., London,. 251 pp.
Hanson, H. C. 1965. The giant Canada goose. Southern Illinois
University Press. Carbondale. 226 pp.
Lack, D. 1974. Evolution Illustrated by Waterfowl. Blackwell
Scientific Publications. Oxford, London. 96 pp.
Nelson, H. K. and R. B. Oetting. In press. Recent urbanization of
Canada geese. in D. H. Rusch, editor. Proceedings International
Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.
Rusch, D. H., R. E. Malecki, and R. E. Trost. 1995. Canada geese in
North America. Pages 26-28 in LaRoe, E. T., G. S. Farris, C. E.
Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac. Editors. OUR LIVING RESOURCES:
A report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of
U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Biological Service. Washington, D.C. 530 pp.
Sheaffer, S. E. and R. A. Malecki. In press. Status of Atlantic
Flyway resident nesting Canada geese. in D. H. Rusch, ed.
Proceedings International Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1975. Final Environmental Impact
Statement: Issuance of annual regulations permitting the sport
hunting of migratory birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. 710 pp + appendices.
--------------------. 1988. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement: Issuance of annual regulations permitting the sport
hunting of migratory birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. 339 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).
NEPA Considerations
The Service has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), as
defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, in connection with this proposed regulation. The EA is available
for review at the above address.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that, ``The Secretary shall
review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in
furtherance of the purposes of this Act'' (and) shall ``ensure that any
action authorized, funded or carried out ... is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of (critical) habitat ...'' Consequently, the Service initiated Section
7 consultation under the ESA for this proposed rulemaking. Completed
results of the Service's consultation under Section 7 of the ESA may be
inspected by the public in, and will be available to the public from,
the Office of Migratory Bird Management at the above address.
Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), the Service is submitting the necessary paperwork to OMB for
approval to collect this information. The Service will not collect any
information until approved by OMB and a final regulation is published.
Additionally, no person may be required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number. The
proposed information collection requirement will be used to administer
this program and, particularly in the issuance and monitoring of these
special Canada goose permits. The information requested will be
required to obtain a special Canada goose permit, and to determine if
the applicant meets all the permit issuance criteria, and to protect
migratory birds.
The applicants will be State wildlife agencies responsible for
migratory bird management that wish to initiate a resident Canada goose
control and damage management program within the guidelines provided by
the Service. The annual number of applicants is estimated to be less
than 45. The public reporting burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 8 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information, yielding an
annual burden of 360 hours.
Comments are invited from the public on: (1) Whether the collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function
of the Service, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) The accuracy of the Service's burden of the collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (3) The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) How to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including the use of
electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
Comments and suggestions on the requirement should be sent directly to
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management
and Budget; Attention: Interior Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503; and
a copy of the comments should be sent to the Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224--ARLSQ, 1849
C Street NW., Washington, DC 20204.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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.
The Service has determined that this proposed rulemaking would not have
a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which
include small businesses, organizations and small governmental
jurisdiction. This proposed rule will only effect State wildlife
agencies responsible for migratory bird management that wish to
initiate a resident Canada goose control and damage management program
within the guidelines provided by the Service. The Service anticipates
that the annual number of applicants will be less than
[[Page 15704]]
45. Therefore, this proposed rule will have minimal effect on small
entities.
Executive Order 12866
The Service has determined that this proposed rule is not
significant under the definition in Executive Order 12866. Therefore,
this proposed rule was not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Unfunded Mandates
The Service has determined and certifies in compliance with the
requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that
this proposed rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more
in any given year on local or State government or private entities.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in
Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Public Comment Invited
The policy of the Department of the Interior is, whenever
practical, to afford the public the opportunity to participate in the
rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written
comments, suggestions, or objections regarding this proposal to the
location identified in the address section above. Comments must be
received on or before June 1, 1998. Following review and consideration
of the comments, the Service will issue a final rule on these proposed
amendments.
The Service is also requesting comments on the proposed information
collection requirements. Comments should be submitted to the Service's
Information Collection Clearance Officer at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ms 224--ARLSQ, Washington, D.C. 20240; or
by calling 703/358-1943.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 21 of
subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 21--[AMENDED]
1. The authority for part 21 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)).
2. Amend Sec. 21.3 by adding alphabetically a definition for
``Resident Canada geese.''
Sec. 21.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest and reside
within the conterminous United States in the months of June, July, and
August.
3. Add a new Sec. 21.26 to read as follows:
* * * * *
Sec. 21.26. Special Canada goose permit.
The Service may issue to State wildlife agencies a special permit
authorizing resident Canada goose damage management actions, when
issuance of such a permit will contribute to human health and safety,
or will protect personal property, or when presented with compelling
justification in the permit application that issuance of the permit
will allow resolution or prevention of injury to people or property.
The privileges granted under this section are intended to relieve or
prevent injurious situations only, and shall not be construed by the
permittee as opening, reopening, or extending any hunting season
contrary to regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 3 of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
(a) Permit requirement. The Director may, upon receipt of an
application from a State wildlife agency, and in accordance with the
criteria of this section, issue a permit to any such agency to
undertake various methods of control, including lethal control, of
injurious resident Canada geese in accordance with the above
requirements. Only employees or designated agents of a permitted State
wildlife agency may take injurious resident Canada geese in accordance
with conditions specified in the permit, conditions set forth in 50 CFR
part 13, and as specified in (c) below.
(b) Application procedures. A State wildlife agency must submit an
application to the appropriate Regional Director (see section 13.11(b)
of this subchapter). Each such application must contain the general
information and certification required by section 13.12(a) of this
subchapter plus the following information:
(1) A detailed statement which makes a sufficient showing that the
control action will provide for human health and safety, or will
protect personal property, or provides other compelling justification
that the permit is needed to allow resolution of other injury to people
or property.
(2) An estimate of the size of the resident Canada goose population
in the State and the annual number of resident Canada geese, including
eggs and nests, for which authorization to take is requested.
(3) A statement that indicates that the permit holder (State
Agency) will inform and brief all employees/designated agents of the
requirements of these regulations and permit conditions that apply to
the implementation of resident Canada goose control measures.
(c) Additional permit conditions. In addition to the general
conditions set forth in part 13 of this subchapter B and elsewhere in
this section and unless otherwise specifically authorized on the
permit, the special resident Canada goose permits shall be subject to
the following conditions:
(1) Limitations and methods of take.
(i) Take of resident Canada geese as a management tool pursuant to
this section may be utilized only after applicable non-lethal
alternative means of eliminating the damage problem have been proven to
be unsuccessful or are not feasible and may not exceed the number
authorized by the permit.
(ii) Method of take for the control of resident Canada geese is at
the discretion of the permittee responsible for the action. Methods may
include, but are not limited to, firearms, alpha-chloralose, traps, egg
and nest manipulation and other damage control techniques that are
consistent with accepted wildlife damage-management programs.
(2) Time frame. Permittees and their employees and agents may take
only injurious resident Canada geese pursuant to this section between
March 11 and August 31 in any year. In California, Oregon and
Washington, in areas where the threatened Aleutian Canada goose (B. c.
leucoperia) has been present during the previous 10 years, lethal
control activities are restricted to the period May 1 through August
31, inclusive.
(3) Disposal and utilization. The permittee and its employees and
agents may possess, transport, and otherwise dispose of by donation to
public museums or public institutions for scientific or educational
purposes, injurious resident Canada geese killed pursuant to this
section. Additionally, geese taken under authority of a permit issued
under this section may be processed for human consumption and
distributed free of charge to charitable organizations or buried or
incinerated. A permit issued under this section shall not allow for
resident Canada geese
[[Page 15705]]
taken pursuant to this section, nor their plumage or eggs, to be sold,
offered for sale, bartered, or shipped for the purpose of sale or
barter.
(4) State law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to
authorize the killing of injurious resident Canada geese contrary to
any State law or regulation, nor on any Federal land without specific
authorization by the agency responsible for the management of these
lands. None of the privileges granted under this section shall be
exercised unless the person possesses any permits as may be required
for such activities by any State or by any Federal land manager.
(5) Inspection. Any State employee/designated agent authorized to
carry out control measures under a permit granted under this section
shall retain in their possession a copy of the permit and designation
while carrying out any activity under the permit. The permit holder
shall require the property owner or occupant on whose premises
activities are carried out to allow, at all reasonable times, including
during actual operations, any Service special agent, refuge officer or
State wildlife or deputy wildlife agent, warden, protector, or other
wildlife law enforcement officer free and unrestricted access over the
premises on which such operations have been or are being conducted, and
shall furnish promptly to such officer whatever information may be
required concerning said operations.
(6) Reporting. Any State employee or designated agents exercising
the privileges granted by this section shall keep records of all
activities carried out under the authority of this special-purpose
permit, including the number of Canada geese killed pursuant to this
section and their disposition. The State must submit an annual report
detailing activities conducted under this section, including the time,
numbers and location of birds, eggs, and nests taken and non-lethal
techniques utilized on or before December 31 of each year. The annual
report shall be provided to the appropriate Assistant Regional Director
- Refuges and Wildlife (see section 10.22 of this chapter).
(7) Limitations. The following limitations shall apply:
(i) Nothing in this section applies to any Federal land within a
State's boundaries without written permission of the Federal Agency
with jurisdiction.
(ii) No action under any special permit issued under this section
may be undertaken if other migratory birds or species designated as
endangered or threatened under the authority of the Endangered Species
Act are or will be affected by the control activity.
(iii) Permits will only be issued to State wildlife agencies in the
conterminous United States.
(iv) States may designate agents who must operate under the
conditions of the permit.
(v) Term of permit--a special Canada goose permit issued or renewed
under this section expires on the date designated on the face of the
permit unless amended or revoked, but the term of the permit shall not
exceed three (3) years form the date of issuance or renewal.
(vi) Permit revocation--the Service reserves the right to suspend
or revoke any permit, as specified in 50 CFR 13.27 and 13.28.
* * * * *
Dated: March 4, 1998.
Donald Barry,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 98-8151 Filed 3-30-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-F
