[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 116 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32766-32776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15408]
[[Page 32765]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IX
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 21
Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 1999 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 32766]]
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
establishes, in cooperation with State wildlife agencies, 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 Canada geese that pose a threat to health
and human safety and damage personal and public property.
DATES: The rule becomes effective June 17, 1999.
ADDRESSES: You may request copies of the EA and comments received on
the proposed rule 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, D.C. 20240. You may
inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington
Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Andrew, 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 increasing populations
of locally-breeding geese are resulting in increasing numbers of
conflicts with human activities and property, and concerns related to
human health and safety are increasing (Ankney, 1996). To date, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (We) has attempted to address this
growing problem through existing annual hunting season frameworks and
the issuance of control permits on a case-by-case basis. While this
approach has provided relief in some areas, we realize that sport
harvest will not completely address the problem and that the current
permit-issuance system is a time-consuming and burdensome process for
both applicants and us. Therefore, we are changing the way we issue
permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 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.
Which Canada Geese Are Affected by This Rule?
The geographic scope of this rule is restricted to the conterminous
United States and to Canada geese (Branta canadensis) that nest and/or
reside predominately within the conterminous United States. Primarily,
these geese consist mainly of B. c. maxima and B.c. moffitti, the
``giant'' and ``western'' Canada goose, respectively. Nesting geese
within the conterminous United States are usually considered members of
these two subspecies or hybrids between the various subspecies
originating in captivity and 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. For the purposes of this rule, we will collectively
refer to all Canada geese nesting in the conterminous United States
and/or Canada geese residing within the conterminous United States in
the months of June, July, and August as ``resident'' Canada geese.
For the most part, the remaining subspecies of Canada geese
recognized in North America nest in arctic and sub-arctic regions of
Canada and Alaska (Lack 1974). These subspecies are usually encountered
in the conterminous United States only during the fall, winter and
spring of the year, or as a result of human placement.
How Does This New Program Avoid Conflicts With the Management of
Other Migratory Canada Goose Populations?
Generally, we have stressed the need to manage all 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 presented several
potential problems with this approach. Because resident goose
populations interact and overlap with other Canada goose populations
during the fall and winter, any management action or program targeted
at resident Canada geese during the fall and winter could potentially
affect these other goose populations. Therefore, to avoid potential
conflicts with existing management plans for other goose populations,
this new program is further restricted to March 11 through August 31 of
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). Any injury and damage complaints
occurring during September 1 to March 10, the period open to sport
hunting, will continue to be addressed through either migratory bird
hunting regulations or the existing migratory bird permit process.
What Authority Does the Service Have To Establish This New Program?
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.
How Are These Resident Canada Geese Different Than Other Canada
Geese Populations? Other Than Location, Do They Behave Differently
or Have Different Biological Characteristics?
Canada geese, like other geese, are long-lived birds with
relatively low reproduction rates and high survival rates. However, of
all the Canada goose subspecies, the subspecies comprising most
resident geese have higher reproductive and adult survival rates.
Resident geese live in more temperate climates with relatively stable
breeding habitat conditions and low numbers of predators. Arctic and
subarctic Canada goose survival and reproduction are greatly influenced
by weather conditions. Additionally, nesting resident geese are very
tolerant of human disturbance and willing to nest in close proximity to
other geese (Gosser and Conover, 1999; Zenner and LaGrange, 1998).
Urban and suburban landscaping in the conterminous United States also
offers resident geese a relative abundance of their preferred habitat
(park-like open areas with short grass adjacent to small bodies of
water). Also, resident geese fly relatively short distances to winter
compared with other Canada goose populations. All of these factors
result in consistently high annual reproduction and survival for the
resident Canada goose population.
What Is the Current Status of These Resident Populations?
In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest
predominantly within the conterminous United States have increased
tremendously. Recent
[[Page 32767]]
surveys in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways (Wood et al.,
1994; Kelley et al., 1998; Nelson and Oetting, 1998; Sheaffer and
Malecki, 1998) 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 1998 Waterfowl Status Report (Kelley et al.,
1998) shows that in the Atlantic Flyway, the resident population has
increased an average of 14 percent per year since 1989. Last spring,
the population estimate was 970,055 geese in the northeastern U.S., a
number which is, however, similar to 1997. 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. The 1998 spring
population estimate was 1,167,085 geese, an increase of 21 percent from
1997. 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. We remain concerned about the rapid growth rate exhibited by
these already large populations, especially in parts of the Atlantic
and Mississippi Flyways.
What Interests Are Being Injured by These Large Populations (i.e.,
What Are Some of the Problems and Conflicts)?
Urban and suburban resident Canada goose populations are
increasingly coming into conflict with human activities in many parts
of the country, especially at 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 and residential subdivisions,
and along or between highways. In parks and other open areas near
water, large goose flocks create a nuisance with their abundant
droppings and feather litter (Conover and Chasko, 1985). Surveys have
found that while most landowners like seeing some geese on their
property, eventually, increasing numbers of geese and the associated
accumulation of goose droppings on lawns cause many landowners to view
geese as a nuisance and thus reduce the aesthetic value and
recreational use of these areas (Conover and Chasko, 1985).
Additionally, goose droppings in heavy concentrations can overfertilize
lawns and degrade water quality resulting in eutrophication of lakes
with excessive algae growth (Manny et al., 1994). Overall, complaints
related to personal and public property damage, agricultural damage and
other public conflicts are increasing as resident Canada goose
populations increase.
How Has the Service Dealt With These Problems in the Past?
To date, we have tried 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.
Have Special Hunting Seasons Been Adequate To Solve the Problems?
Special Canada goose seasons are hunting seasons specifically
designed to target resident populations through either time or area
restrictions. We first initiated special seasons targeting resident
Canada geese in 1977 in the Mississippi Flyway with an experimental
late season in Michigan. Following this and other early experiments in
Michigan and several other Midwestern States, we gave notice of pending
criteria for special Canada goose seasons in the June 6, 1986, Federal
Register (51 FR 20681). We finalized criteria for special early seasons
in the August 9, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 29905) and later
expanded them to include special late seasons in the 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, we
considered all such seasons 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.
We presently offer special seasons for resident Canada geese in all
four Flyways, with 31 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 10 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.
Creation of these special harvest opportunities has helped to limit
the problems and conflicts between geese and people in some areas.
However, 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. Thus, while the creation of
these special hunting seasons is our first and preferred alternative
for dealing with most conflicts, we realize that harvest management
will never completely address this growing problem and permits to
conduct otherwise prohibited control activities will continue to be
necessary to balance human needs with expanding resident Canada goose
populations.
Have Control Measures Under the Existing Permit System Been
Adequate?
Complex Federal and State responsibilities are involved with all
migratory bird control activities, including the control of resident
Canada geese. All State and private control 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 us to issue a Federal permit. Additionally, we issue permits to
alleviate migratory bird depredations in coordination with the Wildlife
Services 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.
However, APHIS/WS has limited personnel and resources to respond to
requests for assistance. Likewise, as the number of complaints and
conflicts continue to increase, the public will place greater demand on
us and the States to assist in goose damage-management programs. This
increased need for assistance places greater demand on the current
permit-issuance system. Unfortunately, administrative
[[Page 32768]]
procedures involved in the issuance of permits many times cause a lag
time of several weeks between our receipt of a permit request, our
evaluation and decision on issuing the permit, and the ultimate
issuance of a site-specific permit authorizing a control action. In the
interim, even small numbers of geese can cause significant damage to
personal property and result in economic, recreational, and aesthetic
losses. Thus, with the increase in complaints, the current permit
issuance system has become time-consuming, cumbersome and inefficient
for us and the States.
How Have the Number of Complaints and Requests for Assistance and
Permits Increased?
A brief summary of the complaints/requests for control permits
placed with APHIS/WS indicates the increasing number of public
conflicts. In 1997, APHIS/WS received 3,295 complaints of injurious
Canada goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1997). In response to those
complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 354 permits. The vast
majority of these complaints concerned agricultural, human health and
safety, and property issues and came primarily from the Northeastern/
New England area (50%) and the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area (29%). In
1996 and 1995, APHIS/WS received 3,265 and 2,884 complaints,
respectively, of injurious goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1996; APHIS/WS,
1995 ). In response to those complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue
321 permits in 1996 and 250 permits in 1995.
Comparing these figures with previous years' data shows a steady
increase in complaints since 1991. For example, in 1993 and 1991 APHIS/
WS received 2,802 and 1,698 complaints, respectively, of injurious
Canada goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1993; APHIS/WS, 1991). In response to
those complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 192 and 92 permits,
respectively.
Has the Number of Permits Issued Increased Correspondingly?
Yes. Our permit issuance has also increased tremendously in recent
years. For example, Region 5 (the Northeastern/New England area) issued
26 site-specific permits to kill resident Canada geese and 54 permits
to addle eggs in 1994. Two years later 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. In addition, the Region
issued Statewide permits to relocate birds and addle eggs to agencies
in certain States. Over 3 years, these permits resulted in the
relocation of over 2,600 geese, the addling of eggs in over 2,300
nests, and the take of over 1,000 birds.
In Region 3, the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area, the number and
extent of permits issued to manage and control resident Canada geese
has also increased significantly in the past few years. In 1994, the
Region issued 149 permits authorizing resident Canada goose control
activities, including trapping and relocation, destruction of nests/
eggs, and take of adults. In 1998, Region 3 issued 225 permits
authorizing resident Canada goose control activities. In total, permit
holders, including APHIS/WS, airports, and state wildlife agencies,
reported taking in excess of 27,000 eggs and 6,800 geese, and trapped
and relocated over 70,000 resident Canada geese (complete reports
through 1997, partial reports for 1998). States in which control
activities were conducted included Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Since 1995, Region 3 has also issued permits to the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources authorizing the capture and processing of resident Canada
geese as food for local food-shelf programs. Minnesota's permit was a
part of the their Urban Goose Management Program for the Minneapolis-
St. Paul Metropolitan Area (initiated in 1982). In 1995, the first year
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. Since then,
Minnesota has been authorized to annually take up to 2,500 resident
Canada geese for its food-shelf program. In the three years under the
program since 1995, Minnesota has reported taking 5,399 birds.
Likewise, Michigan was also issued permits for 1996-1998 authorizing
the take up to 1,000 resident Canada geese for its food-shelf programs.
Michigan subsequently reported taking 490 birds in 1996 and 952 birds
in 1997. Michigan vacated their 1998 permit.
In Region 1, the Pacific Northwest/West Coast area, we have
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 authorized the
take of 2,000 eggs in the Puget Sound Area and another 500 eggs in the
City of Fremont, California.
What Exactly Are the New Permits Authorized By This Rule and How
Will They Work?
We, with our 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 special Canada goose permit authorized by this rule
provide the States that opportunity while maintaining protection of our
migratory bird resources. The new special Canada goose permits will
allow States and their designated agents to conduct management
activities as soon as it becomes apparent that resident Canada geese
are a problem. The new permits would also rely on a greater application
of community standards and preferences by allowing judgments
determining appropriate levels of control to be made at a more local
level.
The new permits are specifically for the management and control of
resident Canada geese (as defined in the rule). We will issue permits
to State conservation or wildlife management agencies on a State-
specific basis, so States and their designated agents can initiate
resident goose damage management and control injury problems within the
conditions/restrictions of the permit program. The permits will be
restricted to the period between March 11 and August 31. This new
special permit will increase the use and availability of control
measures, decrease the number of injurious resident Canada geese in
localized areas, have little impact on hunting or other recreation
dependent on the availability of resident Canada geese, and allow
injury/damage problems to be dealt with on the State/local level,
thereby resulting in more responsive and timely control activities. The
new special permits will further result in biologically sound and more
cost-effective and efficient resident Canada goose damage management.
Those States not wishing to obtain these new permits would continue to
operate under the current permitting process.
What Do States Need To Do To Apply for the New Permits?
Applications for the new special permit would require several items
from the State:
1. A detailed statement estimating the size of the resident Canada
goose breeding population in the State;
[[Page 32769]]
2. A request for the number of resident Canada geese, including
eggs and nests, to be taken;
3. A statement showing that such damage-control actions will either
provide for human health and safety or protect personal property, or
compelling justification that the permit is needed to allow resolution
of other conflicts between people and resident Canada geese; and
4. A statement indicating that the State will inform all designated
agents of the permit conditions applying to the implementation of
resident Canada goose damage management activities.
What Are the Conditions and Restrictions of the New Permit Program?
The special resident Canada goose damage-management permits are
subject to the following conditions and restrictions:
1. State wildlife agencies (States) may take injurious resident
Canada geese as a management tool. States should utilize non-lethal
management tools to the extent they consider appropriate in an effort
to minimize lethal take.
2. Control activities should not adversely affect other migratory
birds or any species designated under the Endangered Species Act as
threatened or endangered.
3. States may conduct control activities March 11 through August
31. States should make a concerted effort to limit the take of adult
birds to June, July, and August in order to minimize the potential
impact on other migrant populations. In areas where the threatened
Aleutian Canada goose (B. c. leucoperia) has been present during the
previous 10 years in California, Oregon and Washington, lethal control
activities are restricted to May 1 through August 31. If this
subspecies is delisted, we will review this provision.
4. States must conduct control activities clearly as such (e.g.,
they cannot be set up to provide a hunting opportunity).
5. States cannot use the permits to limit or initiate management
actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal Agency with
jurisdiction.
6. States must properly dispose of or utilize Canada geese killed
in control programs. States may donate Canada geese killed under these
permits to public museums or public scientific and educational
institutions for exhibition, scientific, or educational purposes, or
charities for human consumption. States may also bury or incinerate
geese. States may not allow for Canada geese taken under these permits,
nor their plumage, to be sold, offered for sale, bartered, or shipped
for purpose of sale or barter.
7. States may use their own discretion for methods of take but
utilized methods should be consistent with accepted wildlife-damage
management programs.
8. States may designate agents who must operate under the
conditions of the State's permit.
9. Any employee/designated agent authorized by the State to carry
out control measures under a special permit must have 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. States must keep records of all activities, including those of
designated agents, carried out under the special permits. We will
require an annual report detailing activities conducted under a permit.
11. We will annually review States' reports and will periodically
assess the overall impact of this program to ensure compatibility with
the long-term conservation of this resource.
12. States should not construe anything in the permits 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. Further, States are not authorized to conduct
control activities authorized by the permits without any required State
permit.
13. We reserve the authority to immediately suspend or revoke any
permit if we find that the State has not adhered to the terms and
conditions specified in 50 CFR 13.27 and 13.28 or if we determine that
the State's population of resident Canada geese no longer poses a
threat to human health or safety, to personal property, or of injury to
other interests.
How Will This New Permit Actually Affect ``On-the-Ground'' Resident
Canada Goose Control and Management Activities? Will We See a
Dramatic Increase In The Use of Control Activities?
Under the new permits, we expect that the use of resident Canada
goose control and management activities, particularly lethal control
methods such as egg and nest destruction, will increase. We also expect
an initial increase in the lethal control methods associated with
hazing techniques of adult birds. However, following this initial
increase in control activities, we expect the hazing methods to become
more effective and probably result in fewer overall lethal control
activities.
Won't This Large-Scale Increased Use of Control Activities Result
in Harm to the Population?
No. We expect these lethal and non-lethal activities to decrease
the number of injurious resident Canada geese in localized areas,
especially urban and suburban areas. Regionally, we expect little
overall impact on the resident Canada goose population because many
goose populations have demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest
rates in excess of 20 percent. We anticipate the magnitude of any
lethal control activities will be well below 20 percent of any State's
resident Canada goose breeding population.
Will These New Permits Impact Existing Sport Hunting Opportunities?
We expect little impact on sport hunting under the new special
permits. Resident Canada goose populations in areas targeted for
management/control activities are generally those that provide little
or no sport hunting opportunities due to restricted access within urban
and suburban areas. As such, hunting in these areas is either precluded
or severely restricted. We would expect areas and resident Canada goose
populations already open to sport hunting to remain open, as special
Canada goose season frameworks and guidelines would not change.
What Are Some of the Other Benefits of These New Permits?
By allowing States and local jurisdictions to deal with injurious
resident Canada goose problems, instead of having the Service do so at
a regional level, we expect control activities will be more responsive
and timely to the problem(s) than is currently the case. Consequently,
we expect that with reduced injurious populations and more effective
hazing programs, fewer complaints are likely to occur and less resident
Canada goose damage is likely.
With State fish and wildlife agencies responding to individual
resident Canada goose problems within their respective jurisdictions,
our administrative responsibilities for each individual control
activity that currently necessitate the determination or issuance of a
permit is expected to decrease significantly. Currently, in most
instances, we 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 and the associated administrative procedures.
Public Comment
On September 3, 1996, we issued in the Federal Register (61 FR
46431) a
[[Page 32770]]
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 we had
prepared a DEA. The notice also announced our intent to consider
regulatory changes to the process for issuance of permits to control
injurious resident Canada geese. We subsequently extended the public
comment period on November 12, 1996 (61 FR 58084).
As a result of this invitation for public comment, we received 101
comments including two from Federal agencies, 28 from State wildlife
agencies, 24 from private organizations and 47 from private citizens.
After consideration of the comments, we revised our DEA.
On March 31, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (63 FR
15698) a proposal to establish a Canada goose damage management program
(i.e., Special Canada Goose Permit). In response to our proposed rule,
we received 465 comments from Federal, State and local agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and individuals. In addition, we received
several petitions containing 1,674 signatures. We summarize the issues
and provide our responses below. We also believe it is important to
note that some of the comments we received on the proposed rule were
very similar to comments received on the DEA. While we previously
responded to these issues in our March 31, 1998 proposed rule, we
respond here again as a convenience to the reader.
Issue: Many private individuals and several private organizations
commented that our Environmental Assessment was insufficient to comply
with NEPA requirements, and that we should prepare a full Environmental
Impact Statement before taking any action on the program.
Service Response: We conducted an Environmental Assessment of
alternative regulatory strategies to control and manage resident Canada
geese that either pose a threat to health and human safety or cause
damage to personal and public property. We considered four alternatives
to the way permits for control and management of injurious resident
Canada geese are issued:
Alternative 1. Continue current permitting procedures as described
in 50 CFR part 21. This would be the No Action Alternative.
Alternative 2. Add a new permit option specifically for the
management of injurious resident Canada geese. The permits would be
available to State conservation or wildlife management agencies on a
State-specific basis. Under the permits, States and their designated
agents could initiate resident goose damage management and control
injury problems within the conditions/restrictions of the program. Such
permits would be restricted to the period between March 11 and August
31.
Alternative 3. Issue a depredation order allowing State
conservation agencies to control resident Canada goose damage. The
depredation order would allow States to control injury from resident
Canada geese within the conditions/restrictions of the depredation
order. Such a depredation order would be restricted to the period
between March 11 and August 31.
Alternative 4. More restrictive use of permits to control resident
Canada goose damage, limited to situations where geese pose a direct
threat to human life or safety.
We selected Alternative 2, the addition of a new permit option
specifically for resident Canada goose control and management available
to State conservation agencies on a State-specific basis. This
alternative would increase the use and availability of control
measures, decrease the number of injurious resident Canada geese in
localized areas, have little impact on hunting or other recreation
dependent on the availability of resident Canada geese, and allow
injury and damage problems to be dealt with on the State or local
level, thereby resulting in more responsive and timely control
activities. This alternative would further result in biologically sound
and more cost-effective and efficient resident Canada goose damage
management.
Based on review and evaluation of comments by the public and
information contained in the EA, we determined that the action to amend
50 CFR Part 21 to establish a special Canada goose permit program for
the control and management of resident Canada geese would not be 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 and determined that
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. This
determination was based on consideration of the following factors which
were addressed in the Finding of No Significant Impact and provided
below:
1. While the program is State-wide in application, resident Canada
goose damage management activities conducted under the program will
likely occur in localized areas only. The control activities resulting
from this program would likely occur under individual special permits
issued under the current permit regulations contained in 50 CFR part
21.
2. On balance, the impact of the new program will be beneficial in
that reducing the number and frequency of injury to human interests
will be beneficial to the human environment. However, because of the
limited numbers of geese likely to be taken under the program, the
benefits will not be significant. Likewise, due to the large and
expanding population of resident Canada geese, adverse impacts (taking
of individual geese) will not be significant in the context of the
human environment.
3. The activities conducted under the program will not
significantly affect public health and safety. While we believe that
any impacts to public health and safety will be beneficial, impacts
will not be significantly beneficial. The program will likely have a
beneficial impact on human health and safety through a reduction in the
likelihood of bird aircraft strikes, conflicts with people and
property, and potential concerns over the transmission of disease to
humans.
4. Although there is controversy over the program, it primarily has
to do with objections by some groups opposed to any take of Canada
geese rather than over the analysis or scientific basis for determining
the impacts of our action. While some of these groups are opposed to
all goose or other wildlife damage management activities and dispute
the actual context of damage, the methods and impacts are generally not
controversial among wildlife managers and wildlife damage management
experts, nor the general public. All relevant concerns have been
addressed in the Environmental Consequences chapter in the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The possible effects of the program on the quality of the human
environment are not highly uncertain and do not involve unique or
unknown risks. The effects and potential risks were determined in the
process of development of the Environmental Assessment.
6. The program does not establish a precedent for actions with
future significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a
future consideration. We have issued similar permits for goose control
activities on a case-by-case or State-wide basis and States are
currently conducting Canada goose damage management activities
[[Page 32771]]
under these permits. Likewise, we have issued similar regulations, in
the form of depredation orders, for other species, such as the double-
crested cormorant, blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and magpies.
Any future similar actions, either for Canada geese, or any other
migratory bird species, would be analyzed under NEPA, with public
involvement, on their own merits.
7. There are no significant cumulative effects identified by this
assessment. Under this program, we expect that the use of resident
Canada goose control and management activities, particularly lethal
control methods such as egg and 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 nonlethal activities would be expected to decrease the
number of injurious resident Canada geese in specific localized areas,
especially urban and suburban areas. Regionally and nationally, we
expect little overall population impact because many Canada goose
populations have demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest rates in
excess of 20 percent. We anticipate that the magnitude of any lethal
control activities will be well below 20 percent of any State's
resident Canada goose breeding population. As discussed in the
Environmental Assessment, we expect the program to slow the overall
population growth rate and address specific localized injurious
population, but not significantly impact the overall population.
8. The program will fully comply with the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. The Service determined that the program is not likely
to adversely affect the Aleutian Canada goose, a Federally listed
threatened species.
9. The program will not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or
local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the
environment.
The EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are available to the
public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
Issue: Some commenters expressed concern that we did not have the
authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and subsequent
regulations to allow non-Service entities (i.e., States) to issue
permits. Many saw this as an attempt to abrogate our goose-management
responsibility.
Service Response: As we indicated in the proposed rule, we will
utilize a process whereby permits are only issued to State conservation
or wildlife management agencies responsible for migratory bird
management. State conservation agency employees or their designated
agents could then carry out resident Canada goose damage management and
control injurious problems within the conditions/restrictions of the
permit program. This process is essentially no different than the
current permitting process contained in 50 CFR part 21.
Issue: A large number of comments challenged the notion that there
are in fact ``injurious'' Canada geese and that the entire concept and
definition of ``resident'' Canada geese is invalid. Some commenters saw
the new permit program as a mechanism to remove Canada geese from the
protection afforded them under the Migratory Bird Treaty (Treaty).
Service Response: We strongly disagree with these assertions and
have included data in the EA that demonstrate the impact of resident
Canada goose populations on personal property, agricultural
commodities, and health and human safety. In addition, data is
presented that clearly points out that Canada goose populations do nest
in parts of the conterminous United States during the spring and summer
and that these birds are increasingly causing injury to people and
property. Furthermore, we are not redefining what is or is not a
migratory bird under the Treaty. Canada geese are clearly protected by
the Treaty and will continue to be. We are using the term ``resident''
to identify those commonly injurious Canada geese that will be the
subject of permitted control activities within the scope of the Treaty.
Additionally, in response to comments, we have clarified the definition
of ``resident geese'' to read: Resident Canada geese means Canada geese
that nest within the conterminous United States and/or Canada geese
which reside within the conterminous United States during the months of
June, July, or August.
Issue: Several commenters believed the Treaty only authorizes the
killing of migratory birds if they are seriously injurious to
commercial interests, not personal property.
Service Response: Article VII of the Treaty states, ``Permits to
kill any of the above named birds, which under extraordinary conditions
may become seriously injurious to the agricultural or other interests
in any particular community (emphasis added), may be issued by the
proper authorities * * *''. We believe that resident Canada goose
populations have reached this level. The information available to us as
discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and in the Environmental
Assessment accompanying this action, demonstrates that the current
population levels are causing serious injury to increasing numbers of
people and property. The Treaty does not limit the ``interests'' to be
protected to those that are commercial. Rather, it provides the High
Contracting Parties broad authority to address any affected interests.
Therefore, we believe that establishment and implementation of this
permit program is in accordance with the terms of the Treaty.
Issue: Some commenters questioned the actual risks posed by Canada
geese on human health and safety.
Service Response: Although the human health and safety risks
associated with resident Canada geese are difficult to quantify, we
believe that the available data clearly indicate the potential negative
impacts on health and safety issues (APHIS/WS, 1999). While we agree
that the risk to human health from pathogens originating from geese is
currently believed to be low, we are only beginning to understand these
risks. Additional research is needed to assist in the quantification
and understanding of these processes. Further, it is clear from bird-
aircraft strike data that resident Canada geese can cause significant
aircraft safety concerns. We believe that increasingly large
populations of geese, especially in localized areas, only serve to
increase the uncertainty associated with these risks.
Issue: A large number of commenters questioned the validity of
resident Canada goose damage estimates supplied by APHIS/WS.
Service Response: According to APHIS/WS (1999), each damage report
received is questioned for both scope and magnitude in order to
determine reasonable and practical solutions to reduce damage.
Preference is given to non-lethal alternatives. However, if capture and
euthanasia are ultimately requested or recommended, APHIS/WS makes a
site visit to verify damage and ensure some non-lethal methods have
been tried and were ineffective to adequately reduce the damage. We
believe APHIS/WS's approach is appropriate.
Issue: Several commenters believed the permit process does not
allow adequate Federal oversight.
Service Response: We disagree. State applications for the special
permits require several detailed statements regarding the size of the
resident Canada goose breeding population in the State and the number
of resident Canada geese, including eggs and nests, to be
[[Page 32772]]
taken. In addition, the State must show that such damage-control
actions will either provide for human health and safety or protect
personal property, or compelling justification that the permit is
needed to allow resolution of other conflicts between people and
resident Canada geese. Any failure to follow these application
procedures results in a rejected application. Further, after issuance
of a permit, the State and its designated agents must follow the permit
restrictions and report all activities conducted under the permit. As
always, we retain the right to immediately revoke any permit violated.
This process is essentially no different than the current permit-
issuance system contained in 50 CFR part 21.
Issue: Some commenters stated that the time period associated with
damage management control is too restrictive.
Service Response: We acknowledge that complaints about injurious
geese are increasing outside the time frame covered by the special
permit. The permit program is designed to specifically address problems
caused by resident geese during the time period when hunting seasons
cannot be opened. We will continue to address injurious goose problems
not covered within the permit time frame on a case-by-case basis.
Issue: Several commenters recommended the issuance of permits for a
period of 5 years rather than 3 years.
Service Response: We concur that permits could reasonably be issued
for a period of 5 years given timely submission of annual reports
documenting the actions taken under authority of the permit. However,
failure to submit complete annual reports may result in suspension or
revocation of the permit.
Issue: Several commenters recommended elimination of the paperwork
and reporting requirements.
Service Response: Information specific to the applicant State's
population of resident Canada geese and the take requested is vital to
the application and ultimate decision on a permit. The reporting
requirement is essential for us to be able to monitor the action and
assess possible impacts to the population. Additionally, we will
utilize this information and other pertinent biological and population-
specific data as the basis for determining the permitted take.
Issue: Several commenters stated that the special permit was
unacceptable because it merely shifts costs and workload from the
Federal level to the State level without providing additional funds to
the States.
Service Response: We are not obligating States to apply for this
new permit. States may continue to handle injurious goose situations
with the current permitting system on a case-by-case basis.
Issue: Several commenters suggested that conditioning the permit
whereby taking Canada geese could occur ``. . . only after applicable
non-lethal alternatives means . . . have proven to be unsuccessful or
not feasible'' is too restrictive.
Service Response: We never intended that a State would need to
prove the need for lethal control at each site before implementation of
lethal control techniques. We believe this decision should be based on
the experience and judgement of professional wildlife managers on-site.
Thus, we have amended the wording of 21.26(c)(1)(I) to read as follows:
``Take of resident Canada geese as a management tool pursuant to this
section may not exceed the number authorized by the permit. States
should utilize non-lethal goose management tools to the extent they
deem appropriate in an effort to minimize lethal take.''
Issue: Several commenters requested clarification that research
activities are not included as a part of the proposed permit program.
Service Response: Because the permit program is for the purpose of
resolving injurious behavior of resident Canada geese, it is clear that
scientific research is not covered. All researchers who are not Federal
employees must have a scientific collecting permit to take any
migratory birds. We believe additional wording to clarify this point is
unnecessary.
Issue: Several commenters requested clarification of designated
agents and use of APHIS/WS as designated agents.
Service Response: ``Designated agents'' means individuals or
organizations and their employees who have written authority from the
State wildlife management agency (permit holder) to implement State-
approved resident Canada goose control measures. Thus, States could
utilize APHIS/WS as a designated agent.
Issue: Some commenters were concerned that the new permit process
does not allow more hunting opportunity.
Service Response: The purpose of the new special permit program is
to resolve injurious resident Canada goose problems, not create more
hunting opportunity. More specifically, the permit program is designed
to address problems caused by resident geese during the time period
when hunting seasons cannot be opened. For those States wishing to
primarily handle injurious resident populations through sport hunting,
sufficient hunting opportunities designed to target resident Canada
goose populations, while protecting migrant populations, exist in the
current hunting season frameworks.
Issue: Several commenters believed that the size of the resident
goose population in the State has little to do with the population
causing a problem in a localized area.
Service Response: We designed the new special permit program to
allow those States with widespread injurious goose problems the
latitude to deal with those problems on a broader management basis than
the current case-by-case basis. We believe the State wildlife agency is
the logical authority, within the context of the new special permit's
guidelines, to determine the proper goose management control activities
for the State's resident Canada goose population, including those
smaller, more localized populations. However, the new permit program
does not preclude a State from applying for a depredation permit under
the current permit regulations to deal with a specific localized
injurious goose problem. In fact, we realize that injurious situations
will continue to occur outside of the March 11 to August 31 time period
allowed under the new permit program. We will continue to deal with
these situations on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, as we stated
earlier, information on the State's goose population is an essential
part of the basis for our permit decisions and our long-term monitoring
of the population.
Issue: Several commenters were concerned that this action
establishes a precedent for future actions.
Service Response: We reiterate that this program does not establish
a precedent for actions with future significant effects or represent a
decision in principle about a future consideration. As we stated
earlier, in the past, we have issued similar permits for goose control
activities on a case-by-case or State-wide basis. States are currently
conducting Canada goose damage management activities under these
permits. Likewise, we have issued similar regulations, in the form of
either depredation orders or permits, for other species, such as the
double-crested cormorant, blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and
magpies. Any future similar actions, either for Canada geese, or any
other migratory bird species, would be analyzed under NEPA, with public
involvement, on their own merits.
Issue: A large number of commenters indicated that they are
philosophically
[[Page 32773]]
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: We are also opposed to the inhumane treatment of
any birds, but do 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, States
have rounded up thousands of problem resident Canada geese and
relocated them to unoccupied sites. However, few such unoccupied sites
remain. Therefore, we believe that humane lethal control of some geese
is an appropriate part of an integrated resident Canada goose damage
and control management program.
We also prefer non-lethal control activities, such as habitat
modification, as the first means of eliminating resident Canada goose
conflict and damage problems and have specified language to this effect
in the final 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 deal directly with the problem situation. We continue to
encourage state wildlife management agencies to work with not only the
local citizens impacted by the management actions but all citizens.
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.
Issue: Some commenters indicated that they were concerned about the
potential loss of aesthetic value if Canada geese were removed from
areas.
Service Response: While we attempted to consider the views of all
those concerned, we admit that this was difficult given the highly
variable values people place on geese and other wildlife. Some
commenters conveyed their pleasure and appreciation for being able to
see geese locally in their neighborhood. However, we must weigh these
benefits with the views of other commenters who wanted to see fewer
geese because of the damage, including loss in the aesthetic value,
being caused by excessive numbers of geese on personal and public
property .
Issue: Several commenters believed that the special permit fell far
short of providing the States with more authority and less burdensome
regulations. Further, it does not provide States with enough management
flexibility. They believed a depredation order approach would be a more
cost-effective/efficient means to manage injurious resident Canada
Geese.
Service Response: As we indicated in the proposed rule, we included
the depredation order alternative in the EA. However, while we agree
that depredation orders in other circumstances have proven to be
valuable tools in wildlife damage management, we believe that
management of resident Canada geese deserves special attention and
consideration which, at this time, is best provided by the special
Canada goose permit program. We believe that the special Canada goose
permit program will provide the management flexibility needed to
address this serious problem and at the same time simplify the
procedures needed to administer this program. The special Canada goose
permit program will satisfy the need for an efficient and cost-
effective program while allowing us to maintain management control.
However, in the long-term, we realize that more management
flexibility will likely be necessary. Because of the unique locations
where large numbers of these geese nest, feed, and reside, we believe
that new and innovative approaches to dealing with bird/human conflicts
will be needed. In order to best deal with this problem, we have begun
to develop a short-term and long-term strategy. In the short-term,
these regulations to create and issue a new special permit specifically
for resident Canada goose control and damage management will
significantly reduce Service administrative costs for this activity,
provide quicker response to injurious situation and more effectively
control resident Canada goose populations throughout the conterminous
United States. In the long-term, we have recently begun the initial
groundwork, with the full assistance and cooperation of the Flyway
Councils and APHIS/WS, to integrate our management of these birds into
a larger Flyway management plan system. We believe the end result of
this approach should provide States with more management flexibility
and authority to deal with resident Canada geese within their State
while increasing the commitment to establish population goals and
objectives, management planning, and population monitoring.
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.
________. 1998. 1997 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.
________. 1999. Environmental assessment for the management of
conflicts with non-migratory (resident) Canada geese, migratory
Canada geese, and urban/suburban ducks in the Commonwealth of
Virginia. APHIS/WS, Moseley, VA. 65 pp. + app.
Ankney, C. D. 1996. An embarrassment of riches: Too many geese. J.
Wildl. Manage. 60(2): 217-223.
Conover, M. R., and G. G. Chasko. 1985. Nuisance Canada goose
problems in the eastern United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13(3):228-
233.
Gosser, A. L., and M. R. Conover. 1999. Will the availability of
insular nesting sites limit reproduction in urban Canada goose
populations? J. Wildl. Manage. 63(1):369-373.
Kelley, J. R., D. F. Caithamer, and K. A. Wilkins. 1998. Waterfowl
population status, 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 31 pp. + appendices.
Lack, D. 1974. Evolution Illustrated by Waterfowl. Blackwell
Scientific Publications. Oxford, London. 96 pp.
Manny, B. A., W. C. Johnson, and R. G. Wetzel. 1994. Nutrient
additives by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs: predicting their
effects on productivity and water quality. Hydrobiologia 279:121-
132.
Nelson, H. K. and R. B. Oetting. 1998. Giant Canada goose flocks in
the United States. Pages 483-495 in D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D.
Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and management of Canada
geese. Proceedings of the International Canada Goose Symposium,
Milwaukee, WI.
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. 1998. Status of Atlantic Flyway
resident nesting Canada geese. Pages 29-34 in D. H. Rusch, M. D.
Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and
management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the
[[Page 32774]]
International Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.
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).
Zenner, G. G., and T. G. LaGrange. 1998. Densities and fates of
Canada goose nests on islands in north-central Iowa. Pages 53-60 in
D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds.
Biology and management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the
International Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.
Effective Date
Under the Administrative Procedures Act (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 so this rule will take effect immediately upon publication. It
is not in the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule.
In many parts of the country, especially the northeastern and mid-
western States, locally-breeding Canada geese have already nested and
produced broods. Molting will soon take place (typically mid-June to
mid-July) and any delay in the effective date of this rule could reduce
the effectiveness of potential damage management actions for this year.
It is in the best interest of the public to establish this new special
permit program to allow State wildlife agencies the ability to reduce
the number and frequency of injurious resident Canada geese. It is also
in the best interest of the public to provide alternative regulatory
options to address the problem of overabundant resident Canada geese
that may affect the public's health and safety.
NEPA Considerations
We prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), as defined under the
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in
connection with this regulation. Based on review and evaluation of the
information contained in the EA, we determined that the proposed action
to amend 50 CFR Part 21 to establish a special Canada goose permit for
the control and management of resident Canada geese would not be 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 and determined that
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. The
EA is available to the public at the location indicated under the
ADDRESSES caption.
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, we initiated Section 7
consultation under the ESA for this rulemaking. You may inspect
completed results of our consultation under Section 7 of the ESA at the
location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), we submitted the necessary paperwork to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for approval to collect the information
required by the applicant and permittee. Under the Act, OMB must
approve information collections. After review, OMB approved the
information collection requirements of the Special Canada Goose Permit
and assigned clearance number 1018-0099. We will use the information
collection requirement to administer this program and in the issuance
and monitoring of these special permits. Federal 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.
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. We
determined that this rulemaking would not have a significant effect on
a substantial number of small entities, which include small businesses,
organizations and small governmental jurisdiction. This 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 our guidelines. We anticipate that
less than 45 applicants will annually apply. Therefore, this rule will
have minimal effect on small entities.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
Executive Order 12866
We determined that this rule is not significant under the
definition in Executive Order 12866, and therefore, not subject to OMB
review.
Unfunded Mandates
We 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.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this rule, determined that these
regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, we hereby 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 definitions for
``Resident Canada geese'' and ``Service.''
Sec. 21.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the
conterminous United States and/or Canada geese which reside within the
conterminous United States during the months of June, July, or August.
Service or we means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior.
3. Add a new Sec. 21.26 to read as follows:
Sec. 21.26. Special Canada goose permit.
(a) What is the special Canada goose permit and what is its
purpose? The special Canada goose permit is a permit issued by us to a
State wildlife agency authorizing certain resident Canada goose
management and control activities
[[Page 32775]]
that are normally prohibited. We will only issue such a permit when it
will contribute to human health and safety, protect personal property,
or allow resolution or prevention of injury to people or property. The
management and control activities conducted under the permit are
intended to relieve or prevent injurious situations only. No person
should construe the permit as opening, reopening, or extending any
hunting season contrary to any regulations established under Section 3
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
(b) Who may receive a permit? Only State wildlife agencies (State)
are eligible to receive a permit to undertake the various goose
management and control activities. Additionally, only employees or
designated agents of a permitted State wildlife agency may undertake
activities for injurious resident Canada geese in accordance with the
conditions specified in the permit, conditions contained in 50 CFR part
13, and conditions specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) How does a State apply for a permit? Any State wildlife agency
wishing to obtain a permit must submit an application to the
appropriate Regional Director (see Sec. 13.11(b) of this subchapter)
containing the general information and certification required by
Sec. 13.12(a) of this subchapter plus the following information:
(1) A detailed statement showing that the goose management and
control activities will either provide for human health and safety,
protect personal property, or allow resolution of other injury to
people or property;
(2) An estimate of the size of the resident Canada goose breeding
population in the State;
(3) The requested annual take of resident Canada geese, including
eggs and nests;
(4) A statement indicating that the State will inform and brief all
employees and designated agents of the requirements of these
regulations and permit conditions.
(d) What are the conditions of the permit? The special Canada goose
permits are subject to the general conditions in 50 CFR part 13, the
conditions elsewhere in this section, and, unless otherwise
specifically authorized on the permit, the conditions outlined below:
(1) What are the limitations on management and control activities?
(i) Take of resident Canada geese as a management tool under this
section may not exceed the number authorized by the permit. States
should utilize non-lethal goose management tools to the extent they
deem appropriate in an effort to minimize lethal take.
(ii) Methods of take for the control of injurious resident Canada
geese are at the State's discretion. Methods include, but are not
limited to, firearms, alpha-chloralose, traps, egg and nest
manipulation and other damage control techniques consistent with
accepted wildlife damage-management programs.
(2) When may a State conduct management and control activities?
States and their employees and agents may conduct management and
control activities, including the take of resident Canada geese, under
this section between March 11 and August 31. 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 May 1 through August 31,
inclusive.
(3) How must the States dispose or utilize geese taken under this
permit? States and their employees and agents may possess, transport,
and otherwise dispose of Canada geese taken under this section. States
must utilize such birds by donation to public museums or public
institutions for scientific or educational purposes, by processing them
for human consumption and distributing them free of charge to
charitable organizations, or by burying or incinerating them. States,
their employees, and designated agents may not sell, offer for sale,
barter, or ship for the purpose of sale or barter any Canada geese
taken under this section, nor their plumage or eggs.
(4) How does the permit relate to existing State law? No person
conducting management and control activities under this section should
construe the permit 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 responsible
management agency. No person may exercise the privileges granted under
this section unless they possess any permits required for such
activities by any State or Federal land manager.
(5) When conducting management and control activities, are there
any special inspection requirements? Any State employee or designated
agent authorized to carry out management and control activities must
have a copy of the permit and designation in their possession when
carrying out any activities. The State must also require the property
owner or occupant on whose premises the State is conducting activities
to allow, at all reasonable times, including during actual operations,
free and unrestricted access to any Service special agent or refuge
officer, State wildlife or deputy wildlife agent, warden, protector, or
other wildlife law enforcement officer (wildlife officer) on the
premises where they are, or were, conducting activities. Furthermore,
any State employee or designated agent conducting such activities must
promptly furnish whatever information is required concerning such
activities to any such wildlife officer.
(6) What are the reporting requirements of the permit? Any State
employee or designated agent exercising the privileges granted by this
section must keep records of all activities carried out under the
authority of this permit, including the number of Canada geese killed
and their disposition. The State must submit an annual report detailing
activities, including the time, numbers and location of birds, eggs,
and nests taken and non-lethal techniques utilized, before December 31
of each year. The State should submit the annual report to the
appropriate Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and Wildlife (see
Sec. 10.22 of this subchapter).
(7) What are the limitations of the special permit? The following
limitations 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) States may not undertake any actions under any permit issued
under this section if the activities adversely affect other migratory
birds or species designated as endangered or threatened under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act.
(iii) We will only issue permits to State wildlife agencies in the
conterminous United States.
(iv) States may designate agents who must operate under the
conditions of the permit.
(v) How long is the special permit valid? A special Canada goose
permit issued or renewed under this section expires on the date
designated on the face of the permit unless it is amended or revoked or
such time that we determine that the State's population of resident
Canada geese no longer poses a threat to human health or safety,
personal property, or injury to other interests. In all cases, the term
of the permit may not exceed five (5) years from the date of issuance
or renewal.
(vi) Can we revoke the special permit? We reserve the right to
suspend or revoke any permit, as specified in Sec. 13.27 and Sec. 13.28
of this subchapter.
[[Page 32776]]
(e) What are the OMB information collection requirements of the
permit program? OMB has approved the information collection
requirements of the permit and assigned clearance number 1018-0099.
Federal 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 will use the information
collection requirements to administer this program and in the issuance
and monitoring of these special permits. We will require the
information from State wildlife agencies responsible for migratory bird
management in order to obtain a special Canada goose permit, and to
determine if the applicant meets all the permit issuance criteria, and
to protect migratory birds. We estimate the public reporting burden for
this collection of information to average 8 hours per response for 45
respondents (States), including the time for reviewing instructions,
gathering and maintaining data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Thus, we estimate the total annual reporting
and record-keeping for this collection to be 360 hours. States may send
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish
and Wildlife Service, ms 224-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, DC
20240, or the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction
Project 1018-0099, Washington, DC 20503.
Dated: June 9, 1999
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-15408 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
