[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 3, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42058-42068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-19900]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF42
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal To Remove
the Aleutian Canada Goose From the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (we) proposes to remove the
Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia), currently listed
as threatened, from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife.
Current data indicate that the population of Aleutian Canada goose in
North America has recovered. This recovery has primarily been the
result of four activities: the removal of introduced Arctic foxes
(Alopex lagopus) from some of its nesting islands; the release of
captive-reared and wild, translocated family groups of geese to fox-
free islands to establish new breeding colonies; protection of the
Aleutian Canada goose throughout its range from mortality due to
hunting; and protection and management of migration and wintering
habitat. Removal from the list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
would result in elimination of regulatory protection offered by the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) but would not affect
protection provided to the subspecies by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Section 4(g) of the Act requires us to implement a system in
cooperation with the States to monitor a recovered species for at least
5 years following delisting. This proposal includes a draft monitoring
plan that may be implemented if the Aleutian Canada goose is delisted
as proposed.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by
November 1, 1999. Requests for a public hearing must be received by
September 17, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments and information concerning this proposal should be
sent to Ann Rappoport, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 605 West 4th
Avenue, Room G-62, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. Comments and information
received will be available for inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Rappoport, at the above address
(907) 271-2787, or Greg Balogh, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 605
West 4th Avenue, Room G-62, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, (907) 271-2778.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Aleutian Canada goose is a small, island-nesting subspecies of
Canada goose. Morphologically (in form), it resembles other small
Canada goose subspecies, but nearly all Aleutian Canada geese surviving
past their first winter have a distinct white neck ring at the base of
a black neck. Other distinguishing characteristics include an abrupt
forehead, separation of the white cheek patches by black feathering
along the throat, and a narrow border of dark feathering at the base of
the white neck ring. The Aleutian Canada goose is the only subspecies
of Canada goose whose range once included both North America and Asia
(Amaral 1985). It formerly nested in the northern Kuril and Commander
Islands, in the Aleutian Archipelago and on islands south of the Alaska
Peninsula east to near Kodiak Island. The species formerly wintered in
Japan, and in the coastal western United States south to Mexico.
Delacour (1954) considered coastal British Columbia within the former
wintering range of this subspecies; however, there are no bona fide
records of Aleutian Canada geese from this area (P. Springer, pers.
comm.).
The decline of the Aleutian Canada goose was primarily the result
of the introduction of Arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus) and, to a lesser
extent, red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) to its breeding islands for the
purpose of developing a fur industry. Between 1750 and 1936, Arctic and
red foxes were introduced to more than 190 islands within the breeding
range of the Aleutian Canada goose in Alaska (Bailey 1993). Several
life cycle stages of the goose, including eggs, goslings and
flightless, molting geese are vulnerable to predation by foxes. The
decrease of Aleutian Canada geese on Agattu Island between 1906, when
they were termed the most abundant bird (Clark 1910), and 1937,
[[Page 42059]]
when only a few pairs were observed (Murie 1959), attests to the
precipitous nature of their decline. At the time of its listing as
endangered in 1967, its known breeding range was limited to Buldir
Island, a small, isolated island in the western Aleutian Islands. There
is a record that Arctic foxes were introduced to Buldir Island in 1924,
but this is either incorrect or the introduction failed to establish a
population (Bailey 1993).
Hunting throughout its range in the Pacific Flyway, especially on
the migration and wintering range in California, and loss and
alteration of habitat on its migration and wintering range also
contributed to the subspecies' decline. Hunting was likely a limiting
factor when populations were low.
In response to reduced population levels, we classified the
Aleutian Canada goose as endangered on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001).
Congress afforded additional protection with passage of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973. We approved a recovery plan for the Aleutian
Canada goose in 1979 and revised it in 1982 and 1991 (Byrd et al.
1991). We began recovery activities in 1974. Important features of the
recovery program in Alaska and the western U.S. included: banding of
birds on the breeding grounds to identify important wintering and
migration areas; closure of principal wintering and migration areas to
hunting of all Canada geese; acquisition, protection and management of
important wintering and migration habitat; removal of foxes from
potential nesting islands; propagation and release of captive Aleutian
Canada geese on fox-free nesting islands in the Aleutians; and
translocation of molting family groups of wild geese from Buldir Island
to other fox-free islands in the Aleutians.
At the time of its listing, we based population estimates of
Aleutian Canada geese on limited data. Boecker (in Kenyon 1963)
speculated during a 1963 expedition that only 200-300 birds were on
Buldir Island. We believed breeding birds to be confined to that one
island, and the migration routes and wintering range were unknown. A
spring count at a principal migration stopover near Crescent City,
California in 1975 revealed only 790 individuals (Springer et al.
1978).
We subsequently found small breeding groups of Aleutian Canada
geese on Kiliktagik Island in the Semidi Islands south of the Alaska
Peninsula in 1979 (Hatch and Hatch 1983), and on Chagulak Island in the
central Aleutians in 1982 (Bailey and Trapp 1984). Geese from Chagulak
Island are morphologically (in form) identical to those from the
western Aleutians. Semidi Islands geese are morphologically similar to
geese from the Aleutian Islands but tend to have darker breasts, more
variable neck rings and a less distinct subtending line below the neck
ring (D. Pitkin, Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.). Genetic
studies indicate that geese from both Chagulak Island and the Semidi
Islands are more closely related to Aleutian Canada geese than other
Canada goose subspecies (Shields and Wilson 1987; Pierson et al. 1998).
We consider the Chagulak Island and Semidi Islands geese remnant
populations of the previously more continuously distributed Aleutian
Canada goose.
Marking of Aleutian Canada geese on Buldir Island beginning in
1974, and later on Chagulak Island and Kiliktagik Island, helped reveal
their wintering range and migration routes. These marking studies
indicate that there are two, relatively discrete breeding segments of
Aleutian Canada geese--the Aleutian Islands segment, including birds
from Chagulak Island and the western Aleutian Islands, and the Semidi
Islands segment. A recent genetic study found that geese from the
Semidi Islands are genetically distinct from geese from the Aleutian
Islands, indicating limited contemporary gene flow and/or major shifts
in gene frequency through genetic drift (the random change in gene
frequencies in small populations due to chance) (Pierson et al. 1998).
Most Aleutian Canada geese that nest in the Aleutian Islands winter
in California, primarily on agricultural lands where they feed on
grass, waste beans, and grain, including corn and sprouting winter
wheat (Woolington et al. 1979, Dahl 1995). They arrive on the wintering
grounds in mid-October. Some geese stop in the Crescent City area in
coastal northwest California, but most continue on to the vicinities of
Colusa in the Sacramento Valley and Modesto in the northern San Joaquin
Valley. The lands used by Aleutian Canada geese near Colusa, California
are primarily privately owned farms and Reclamation District (local
government) land. The 733-acre Butte Sink National Wildlife Refuge in
the Colusa area is actively managed to attract geese and other
waterfowl.
By mid-December nearly all Aleutian Canada geese are near Modesto
where they winter primarily on two privately owned ranches and on the
adjacent San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge. In previous years,
a large proportion of geese from the Modesto area would periodically
shift southward to the nearby Grassland Ecological Area near Los Banos
and Gustine. The lands in the Grassland Ecological Area are owned by
the Fish and Wildlife Service, State of California and private duck
hunting clubs. Recently, up to several thousand geese have been using
night roosts on private duck hunting clubs in this area.
Small numbers of Aleutian Canada geese from the Aleutian Islands
stop near El Sobrante on lands owned by a public utility in north San
Francisco Bay in late fall and early winter before continuing on to
Modesto. The number of birds observed at El Sobrante has steadily
declined in recent years from a high of 140 geese in 1985 to a low of 8
birds in 1997. Twenty-one Aleutian Canada geese were observed there in
early 1998 (Dunne 1998). Small numbers of wintering Aleutian Canada
geese have been occasionally observed in northwestern California near
Crescent City, on the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and on the
Eel River bottoms (P. Springer, pers. comm.). Six hundred Aleutian
Canada geese wintered in the Crescent City area in 1998 (Fisher 1998).
Small numbers of Aleutian Canada geese also occasionally appear in
other areas, especially during migration. The most frequent of these
areas include Willapa Bay in south coastal Washington, the Willamette
Valley in Oregon, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in San Francisco
Bay, California. See Springer and Lowe (1998) for a more thorough
discussion of the distribution of Aleutian Canada geese and factors
affecting their distribution.
On the northward migration in spring, most Aleutian Canada geese
stage near Crescent City, where the birds roost nightly on Castle Rock,
an offshore island protected as a national wildlife refuge. Some geese
also roost on nearby Prince Island, which is owned by the Tolowa
Indians, and on Goat Rock, a unit of the Oregon Islands National
Wildlife Refuge, just north of the California/Oregon border. During the
day birds graze on privately owned farms in the Smith River bottoms and
on lands owned and managed by the State of California. In recent years,
Aleutian Canada geese have been departing the Crescent City area
increasingly early in spring and spending several weeks feeding in
privately owned pastures and in pastures managed by the Bureau of Land
Management in the New River area in south coastal Oregon near the town
of Langlois. These birds roost at night on offshore islands that are
part of the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge. In the spring of
1998, about 10,000 Aleutian Canada geese were
[[Page 42060]]
observed in the Langlois area (Fisher 1998).
The small numbers of geese that breed in the Semidi Islands winter
exclusively in coastal Oregon near Pacific City. These birds forage
during the day on pastures at two privately owned dairies and roost at
night on Haystack Rock in the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge
or on the ocean. Since fall, 1996, small numbers of geese that nest in
the Aleutian Islands have wintered with the Semidi Islands geese in
Oregon. In winter 1997/1998, about 20 geese from the Aleutians wintered
with the Semidi Islands geese (D. Pitkin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, pers. comm.).
An important component of the Recovery Plan, establishment of
closed areas for hunting Canada geese, has contributed to the recovery
of the Aleutian Canada goose. Six closed areas for Aleutian Canada
geese currently exist, including: islands in Alaska west of Unimak
Island, beginning in 1973; northwestern California, the Modesto area
and the Colusa area, beginning in 1975; and the Pacific City area and
central and south coastal Oregon beginning in 1982. Occasionally,
hunters kill a few Aleutian Canada geese using habitats outside of the
closed hunting areas.
Initial population increases of Aleutian Canada geese were likely
in response to hunting closures in California and Oregon to protect the
geese during migration and during winter. However, a substantial
increase in numbers was dependent on re-establishing geese on former
nesting islands. Release of captive-reared birds on fox-free islands in
the Aleutians was largely unsuccessful due to low survival rates. Once
the number of geese on Buldir Island was large enough, we initiated
translocation of wild geese from Buldir Island to other fox-free
islands. This approach was much more successful and the release of
captive-reared birds was phased out.
As new breeding colonies became established in the Aleutian
Islands, the number of Aleutian Canada geese increased rapidly. Annual
rates of increase between 1975 and 1989 ranged from 6 to 35 percent,
and by winter 1989/1990, the peak winter count reached 6,300 geese. We
reclassified the Aleutian Canada goose from endangered to threatened in
1990 (55 FR 51106, December 12, 1990).
Summary of Previous Listing Actions
We first designated the Aleutian Canada goose as an endangered
species in the United States on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) under the
Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-669, 80 Stat.
926). The Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-135,
83 Stat. 275), which replaced the 1967 law, authorized the listing of
foreign species; the Aleutian Canada goose was included on the foreign
species list (proposed April 14, 1979 (36 FR 6969); final June 2, 1970
(35 FR 8495)). We proposed the reclassification of the species from
endangered to threatened status on September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40142) and
finalized the reclassification on December 12, 1990 (55 FR 51106). On
April 9, 1998 (63 FR 17350), we published a Notice of Status Review on
the Aleutian Canada goose and notified the public of our intent to
propose the removal of the species from the threatened species list.
Summary of Current Status
Since the subspecies was downlisted to threatened in 1990, the
overall population of Aleutian Canada geese has sustained a strong
increase in numbers. Table 1 summarizes peak counts and indirect
population estimates of Aleutian Canada geese on the wintering grounds
since the subspecies was downlisted in 1990. Peak counts are counts of
the geese on the wintering grounds near Modesto, California, during
early spring as they arrive at and leave their primary roosts at Castle
Rock and Prince Island in northwestern California. Indirect counts are
based on a ratio of marked to unmarked birds. (See Other Factors in
Support of Delisting for a more detailed discussion of survey
techniques). The most recent and highest population estimate of
Aleutian Canada geese from the Aleutian Islands is of birds from their
staging area near Crescent City in spring 1999. This preliminary
estimate suggests that the Aleutian Canada goose population is now
about 32,000 individuals (Table 1). Since 1990, the annual rate of
growth of the population, based on peak counts of birds in California,
has averaged about 20 percent. The overall annual growth rate of the
population since recovery activities began in the 1970s has been about
14 percent (M. Fisher, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.).
Table 1.--Peak Count and Indirect Estimates of Aleutian Canada Geese in California (Aleutian Island Nesting
Geese) and Near Pacific City, Oregon (Semidi Islands Nesting Geese).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California
-------------------------------- Pacific City,
Year Indirect OR
Peak count count
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989/1990....................................................... 6,300 .............. 115
1990/1991....................................................... 7,000 .............. 128
1991/1992....................................................... 7,800 .............. 126
1992/1993....................................................... 11,680 .............. 132
1993/1994....................................................... 15,700 .............. 122
1994/1995....................................................... 19,150 21,769 111
1995/1996....................................................... 21,421 24,643 107
1996/1997....................................................... 22,815 23,977 114
1997/1998....................................................... 27,700 28,984 120
1998/1999....................................................... 32,281 28,628 * 120
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Preliminary estimate (D. Pitkin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.).
The peak count of Semidi Island birds on their wintering grounds
near Pacific City, Oregon, during both 1998 and 1999 was 115-120 (D.
Pitkin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.). Despite
protection on both the breeding and wintering grounds, the Semidi
Islands geese have sustained no growth since 1993 (Table 1). The
reasons for this are not clear although counts from the wintering range
in Oregon indicate poor recruitment in recent years.
Predictably, marked increases of geese on the wintering grounds are
mirrored by similar increases on most breeding islands, although
nesting geese are far more difficult to enumerate than those on
wintering and migration habitat. At
[[Page 42061]]
the time of their listing, we believed Aleutian Canada geese to be
nesting only on Buldir Island, but based on later discoveries, they
also probably nested on Chagulak Island and in the Semidi Islands. Our
earliest estimate of the number of geese on Buldir Island was 200-300
birds in 1963 (see Kenyon 1963). By 1995, the last year we surveyed the
breeding islands, we estimated the number of breeding geese on Buldir
Island was 7,000. Assuming 40% of the population are breeders (Byrd
1995), then by 1995 the number of birds on Buldir Island was about
17,500. We released geese on Agattu Island periodically from 1974 to
1984 (Byrd et al. 1991). By 1990, 100 birds were nesting there and in
1995, we estimated 700 birds were nesting there (1,750 total geese;
Byrd 1995). We found similar increases at Alaid-Nizki. We first
released geese on Alaid-Nizki in 1981 and, by 1987, they were nesting
there. We estimated the number of breeding geese on Alaid-Nizki in 1995
at 248 (or 620 total geese). Byrd (1995) states that the number of
geese breeding at Agattu could approach 2,000 in the future and double
at Alaid-Nizki. It is unknown how numerous geese on Buldir Island will
become. Elsewhere in the Aleutian Islands, we estimate that about 10
birds nested in the Rat Islands in 1995 and about 40 birds nested at
Chagulak Island in 1995 (Byrd 1995).
We have also documented recent breeding of Aleutian Canada geese at
Amchitka, Amukta, and Little Kiska islands. Although the current status
of Aleutian Canada geese on these islands is unknown, we believe
reestablishment of breeding populations via translocations to Amchitka
and Little Kiska Islands and natural recolonization of Amukta Island to
have a low probability of success. We believe the presence of bald
eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a major predator of geese, on
islands east of Buldir Island to be a factor that has limited the
success of translocations to Amchitka, Little Kiska and Kiska Islands.
We believe the small group of geese nesting on Chagulak Island to
be stable in number, but the terrain is steep and nesting habitat is
limited. We have removed foxes from most of the islands near Chagulak,
and to bolster the population of geese in this portion of the
Aleutians, translocated geese from Buldir Island to Yunaska Island in
1994 and 1995. We also translocated geese from Buldir Island to Skagul
Island in the Rat Island group in 1994 and 1995. We have not conducted
subsequent surveys on these islands to determine if the translocations
have resulted in establishment of breeding populations on these
islands. However, in winter 1997/1998, we observed 15 marked, female
geese translocated to Yunaska Island and 13 marked, female geese
translocated to Skagul Island in California. These sightings indicate
that there are translocated female geese now of reproductive age that
still survive and that potentially may already be breeding on these
islands.
In the Semidi Islands, investigators studying Aleutian Canada geese
found 14 nests on Kiliktagik Island and 3 nests on Anowik Island in
1995, which is 11 nests (39 percent) fewer than were found on the same
islands in 1992 (Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995). Hatching success and
overall nesting success of geese in the Semidi Islands in 1995 were
lower than their counterparts in the western Aleutian Islands. In
addition, recruitment rates for Semidi Islands geese were low compared
with rates we observed among Aleutian Island birds based on censuses of
hatching-year birds on the wintering grounds each fall in coastal
Oregon (D. Pitkin and R. Lowe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers.
comm.). The reason for lower productivity of Aleutian Canada geese in
the Semidi Islands is unknown.
Review of Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Plan
In accordance with the Act, we appointed a team of experts to write
a plan for recovery of the Aleutian Canada goose. The original recovery
plan was approved on August 7, 1979, and later revised on September 8,
1982, and September 30, 1991 (Byrd et al. 1991). The most recent
version of the recovery plan was written after the Aleutian Canada
goose was downlisted to threatened in 1990, and established objectives
for measuring recovery and indicating when delisting was appropriate.
Recovery plans and objectives are intended to guide and measure
recovery, but are supposed to be flexible enough to adjust to new
information.
The Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Plan (Byrd et al. 1991)
identified the following recovery objectives: (1) The overall
population of Aleutian Canada geese includes at least 7,500 geese, and
the long-term trend appears upwards; (2) at least 50 pairs of geese are
nesting in each of three geographic parts of the historic range--
western Aleutians (other than Buldir Island), central Aleutians, and
Semidi Islands, for three or more consecutive years; and (3) a total of
25,000-35,000 acres (ac) of specific land parcels identified by the
recovery team as feeding and roosting habitat needed for migration and
wintering are secured and are being managed for Aleutian Canada geese.
The recovery plan states that failure to achieve a specific acreage
target of migration and wintering habitat would not preclude delisting
of the Aleutian Canada goose if otherwise warranted. A discussion of
the status of the Aleutian Canada goose relative to the recovery
objectives follows.
(1) The most recent estimate of the overall population of Aleutian
Canada geese is approximately 32,000 birds, which is over four-fold
greater than the population objective for delisting. The population
trend of Aleutian Canada geese continues upward, and has averaged about
20 percent annual growth since the subspecies was downlisted in 1990.
We believe that the subspecies is no longer threatened or endangered
and its population may continue to grow in size in the future.
(2) The objective of 50 or more pairs of Aleutian Canada geese
nesting in each of 3 geographic parts of the historic range--western
Aleutians (other than Buldir Island), central Aleutians, and Semidi
Islands, has not been met. The population of Aleutian Canada geese
nesting in the western Aleutians far exceeds the delisting objective,
with self-sustaining breeding populations established on three
islands--Buldir, Agattu, and Alaid/Nizki. Primarily on the strength of
recovery in the western Aleutian Islands, the Recovery Team recommended
delisting the subspecies (Byrd 1995).
We have not surveyed geese nesting in the central Aleutians since
1993, but existing data suggest the size of the breeding group at
Chagulak Island has been stable at about 20-25 pairs since the time of
their discovery in 1982. Chagulak Island is very steep and has limited
nesting habitat. A substantial increase in the number of birds in the
central Aleutian Islands likely will require colonization of new
islands. Although we discovered nesting by Aleutian Canada geese on
nearby Amukta Island, we do not know if they are currently nesting
there or if breeding occurs on Yunaska Island as a result of the
translocation of geese there in 1994 and 1995. We have also removed
foxes from several other nearby islands, including Carlisle, Herbert,
Kagamil, Uliaga and Seguam, and these islands could be colonized by
Aleutian Canada geese in the future. We believe that increasing numbers
of Aleutian Canada geese in the central Aleutians is desirable.
However, we do not view the lack of evidence that there are at least 50
pairs of geese breeding in the central Aleutians as a barrier to
delisting because they appear to be from the same breeding segment as
the western
[[Page 42062]]
Aleutian geese. We surmise this based on their similar physical
characteristics, some preliminary data on mitochondrial DNA (Shields
and Wilson 1987), and their use of the same wintering area.
The Semidi Islands breeding segment more than doubled in size
following closure of the wintering area to hunting in 1982. Since 1990,
it has fluctuated moderately in size on its wintering area, averaging
about 120 geese. However, the lack of an increase in these birds since
1993, given protection of the birds on the breeding and wintering
grounds, and the availability of unexploited breeding and wintering
habitat, cannot be fully explained with existing information. Local
farmers in Oregon maintain that these geese have used the same local
farms for at least 65 years and have never been numerous (R. Lowe, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.). Despite lack of a persistent
and positive population response of Semidi Islands geese, we believe
this should not be a barrier to delisting the Aleutian Canada goose
subspecies because of the health and vigor of the subspecies as a
whole. Furthermore, we can continue to protect this breeding segment
from various forms of take under provisions of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species below). We
will continue to closely monitor the status of the Semidi Islands
breeding segment of Aleutian Canada geese on its wintering grounds.
Although the criteria of 50 or more pairs nesting in each of 3
geographic parts of their historic range has not been fully met, the
Recovery Team in 1995 considered the following factors overriding: the
population is approximately three times higher (now almost four times
higher) than the minimum suggested for delisting; the population is
continuing to increase at a high rate; there are now self-sustaining
breeding populations in the western Aleutians on Buldir, Agattu, and
Alaid/Nizki islands; and we have removed foxes from islands in the
central Aleutians and translocations of birds there has bolstered goose
numbers.
(3) We have not fully met the recovery objective of conserving and
managing 25,000-35,000 ac of migration and wintering habitat; however,
the recovery team allowed that not attaining this acreage target would
not preclude delisting if this action was otherwise warranted. The
original target of greater than 25,000 ac was derived by summing the
acreage of most parcels of land that have been used by Aleutian Canada
geese on their wintering grounds and on principal migration stopovers
outside of Alaska since their recovery began. The acreage target
reflects inclusion of parcels that are no longer used by Aleutian
Canada geese. We believe that sufficient progress is being made toward
this objective to warrant delisting the Aleutian Canada goose. The
population has responded very favorably to management actions taken on
its behalf by the Service, States, and private landowners in migration
and wintering areas. More than 8,000 ac of currently-used winter and
migration habitat are secure (Table 2), and we have an active
acquisition program for both fee title and perpetual conservation
easements in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. This total secure
acreage does not include 33,108 ac of national wildlife refuge land and
67,000 ac of private land protected under perpetual conservation
easements within the Grassland Ecological Area located approximately 40
miles south of the main use area for Aleutian Canada geese. We have
documented recent use by Aleutian Canada geese in this area. (D.
Woolington, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.).
Table 2.--Secure Lands in Migration or Wintering Areas Under Federal, State or Private Ownership and Currently
Being Managed for Aleutian Canada Geese
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Owner/Manager Acreage Goose use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALIFORNIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northwestern CA
Castle Rock.................. FWS.............................. 13 Roosting.
Prince Island................ Tribal........................... 6 Roosting.
Lake Earl Wildlife Area...... State of CA...................... 470 Feeding.
Lake Earl Project............ State of CA...................... 230 Feeding.
Colusa Area
833 Reclamation District..... Local Gov't...................... 2,000 Feeding/roosting.
Butte Sink NWR............... FWS.............................. 733 Feeding/roosting.
El Sobrante Area
East Bay Municipal Utility Local Gov't...................... ........... Feeding/roosting.
District.
Modesto Area
San Joaquin River NWR........ FWS.............................. \1\ 1,607 Feeding/roosting.
Faith Ranch.................. Gallo Family..................... 1,964 Feeding/roosting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OREGON
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Islands NWR........... FWS.............................. 45 Roosting.
Nestucca Bay NWR............. FWS.............................. 120 Feeding.
BLM grazing land............. BLM.............................. 537 Feeding.
Floras Lake Park............. Curry County..................... 300 Roosting.
-------------
Total.................... ................................. 8,025 .................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 6,108 acres are currently in the refuge but only 1,607 acres are suitable for Aleutian Canada geese.
As the population of Aleutian Canada geese continues to grow, we
plan to secure additional parcels of migration and wintering habitat.
Acquisition of additional goose habitat remains a top priority for the
San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge for geese that nest in the
Aleutian Islands, and for the Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge
[[Page 42063]]
in coastal Oregon for geese that nest in the Semidi Islands.
The concentration of relatively large numbers of Aleutian Canada
geese on small areas of wintering and migration habitat, most of which
is in private ownership, has created conflicts between landowners and
geese. Typically the conflicts occur over sprouting grain or pasture
grass that is used by both geese and livestock. Northwestern
California, particularly in the Smith River bottoms, remains an
increasingly controversial area for Aleutian Canada geese because only
about 700 ac of State land are now actively managed as foraging habitat
for geese in this area. Many geese forage on intensively managed,
privately owned pastures in this area during their brief fall stopover
and more extensive spring stopover.
In response to the competition between geese and livestock on
private lands, the Service in the Modesto area and the State of
California in northwestern California are more actively managing their
lands to attract geese away from private parcels. In addition, the
Service and State provide technical assistance to willing landowners to
help them manage their lands for geese.
We acknowledge the important role that private landowners have
played in the recovery of the Aleutian Canada goose. Aleutian Canada
geese have used and continue to heavily use private lands for feeding,
loafing and roosting. Some landowners actively manage their lands for
geese with technical assistance from State and Service wildlife
biologists. Other landowners have shown considerable patience as goose
numbers have increased and geese have impacted their crops and competed
with their livestock for grass. The depredation problem may intensify
as Aleutian Canada goose numbers continue to increase.
Other Factors in Support of Delisting
The Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Team lists three additional
factors in support of removing the Aleutian Canada goose from the list
of threatened and endangered species (Byrd 1995). First, a program
designed to reestablish Aleutian Canada geese in the Asian portion of
their range is underway through the cooperation of Japanese and Russian
wildlife agencies and the Service. Lee (1998) provides a chronological
history of this effort, highlights of which are summarized below.
In 1992, we transported 19 captive Aleutian Canada geese to
Petropavlovsk, Kamchatka, Russia to establish a captive population of
geese as a nucleus for reintroduction of Aleutian Canada geese in
Russia. In 1993, a Japanese/Russian team identified Ekarma Island in
the northwest Kuril Islands as a suitable fox-free island for future
releases of Aleutian Canada geese. A total of 86 captive-reared geese
was released in 1995, 1996 and 1997. In winter 1997/1998, Japanese
scientists observed at least 15 Aleutian Canada geese on the wintering
grounds in Japan, including 4 marked birds from the 1997 release of 33
geese. Seven of the birds appeared to be a family group, and Gerasimov
(1998) speculated that the unmarked Aleutian Canada geese may have been
progeny of birds from the earlier releases on Ekarma Island. We are
very encouraged by the early successes of the goose restoration efforts
in Russia and Japan, and will continue to support and participate in
this international phase of the overall restoration program.
Second, the State of California and some cooperating local
landowners are implementing a plan to reduce depredations by geese on
privately owned pastures in the Smith River bottoms in northwestern
California. This plan focuses on providing high quality forage for
geese on about 200 ac of managed pastures owned by the State of
California and hazing birds off of private pastures. A multi-agency
``Lake Earl Working Group'' was formed to address the depredation
problem in northwestern California, and local farmers are working with
the State of California to help manage State lands for geese through
fertilization of pastures and grazing by livestock. Results are
encouraging thus far. In 1995 almost no use by geese occurred on State
lands. The amount of time geese spent on State land increased to 12
percent in 1996, 20 percent in 1997 and 44 percent in 1998. Further
increases in the amount of time geese spend on State land on the order
of an additional 20 percent are expected (M. Fisher, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, pers. comm.).
We do not wish to overstate the success of management of State
lands in northwestern California as a mechanism to reduce conflicts
between Aleutian Canada geese and private landowners. Intensive
management of State lands in northwestern California has been a great
success to date; however, there is a finite amount of forage available
there and these lands must also be managed for other wildlife species
and habitat values. Furthermore, most State lands consist of poor soils
which are not as amenable to intensive management for geese as nearby
privately owned parcels.
Lastly, we have developed a new procedure to monitor the population
of Aleutian Canada geese wintering in California, enabling us to detect
and respond to reverses in the growth of the population. We currently
use two procedures to measure population size. The first involves
coordinated peak counts of Aleutian Canada geese on the wintering
grounds near Modesto, and during early spring as they arrive at and
leave their primary roosts at Castle Rock and Prince Island in
northwestern California. This technique has proved extremely reliable
in the past; however, because numbers of Aleutian Canada geese are now
large, obtaining complete counts is difficult. In addition, Aleutian
Canada geese now often winter in mixed flocks with the similar-looking
Cackling Canada goose (Branta canadensis minima). As a result, we
recently developed an indirect survey technique that is based on a
ratio of marked to unmarked birds. Comparisons of surveys using the
indirect method with ``complete'' counts of geese suggest a high degree
of concordance between the methods. We anticipate that the indirect
count method will become more reliable and widely used if the Aleutian
Canada goose population continues to grow.
In summary, the Recovery Plan for the Aleutian Canada goose
identified three criteria to use for evaluating when recovery had
occurred and when delisting was appropriate. To date, only one recovery
objective, attainment of a total population of the subspecies of at
least 7,500, has been completely achieved, but we believe that the
population is of sufficient size that threats to maintaining recovery
have been sufficiently reduced or eliminated to warrant delisting.
Contrary to our expectations, the Aleutian Canada geese in the central
Aleutians have not recovered despite protection of these birds both on
the breeding and wintering grounds. Similarly, the segment of birds
breeding in the Semidi Islands has not increased in number although it
is not known how large this group of birds was historically. We have
not conducted surveys recently in the central Aleutians to determine
the current goose population on Chagulak Island and to evaluate the
success of recent transplants and determine the number of pioneering
birds to fox-free islands in the area. Nevertheless, the explosive
growth of the western Aleutian breeding segment assures the future
viability of the Aleutian Canada goose subspecies. We remain concerned
about the lack of growth of the Semidi Islands breeding segment.
However, in recent history this small group of birds has been
relatively stable and obvious threats have been removed. We believe
[[Page 42064]]
we can effectively protect this breeding segment from various forms of
take under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species below). In regard to conservation and
management of migration and wintering habitat, we support additional
acquisition and management of habitat, both to secure wintering and
migration habitat and as a tool to reduce future competition between
geese and farmers.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
On April 9, 1998, we published a Notice of Status Review of the
Aleutian Canada goose requesting information and comments on the status
of the Aleutian Canada goose and notifying the public of our intent to
prepare a proposal to remove the subspecies from the list of threatened
and endangered species if appropriate (63 FR 17350, April 9, 1998). We
received five comments on the notice, including one from a branch of
the U.S. Armed Services, one from a public utility, and three from
individuals and organizations. Three of the responses supported
delisting the Aleutian Canada goose; none opposed delisting. Only one
issue of concern was raised in the comments. This issue and our
response is presented below.
Comment: Subpopulations like the Semidi Islands group may need
continued protection under the Act.
Our response: We remain concerned about the stable but small number
of Semidi Islands geese despite protection of these birds on their
winter and summer ranges, and will continue to monitor their status. We
believe that protective measures available under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, i.e., continued hunting closures and regulation of various
forms of take, would provide strong protection for Semidi Islands
geese. The Service and the Pacific Flyway Council will ensure that
Semidi Islands geese are considered during annual regulatory framework
changes that govern the sport harvest of waterfowl, and that
appropriate hunting closures to protect Semidi Islands geese on the
wintering grounds are maintained. These regulatory changes have proven
to be very effective in protecting other populations of geese in the
Pacific Flyway. Additionally, the Pacific Flyway Technical Committee
established an Aleutian Canada Goose subcommittee in 1997 that includes
State and Federal agency representatives. This subcommittee has begun
drafting a management plan for Aleutian Canada geese to ensure that
appropriate management activities are continued following delisting.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
In accordance with the Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR
part 424, a species shall be listed if the Secretary of the Interior
determines that one or more of five factors listed in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act threatens the continued existence of the species. A species
may be delisted according to Sec. 424.11(d) if the best available
scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither
endangered or threatened for one of the following reasons:
1. Extinction;
2. Recovery; or
3. Original data for classification of the species were in error.
After a thorough review of all available information, we have
determined that Aleutian Canada geese are no longer endangered or
threatened with extinction. A substantial recovery has taken place
since the mid-1970s, and none of the five factors addressed in section
4(a)(1) of the Act currently jeopardizes the continued existence of
this subspecies of goose. These factors and their relevance to Aleutian
Canada geese are discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of its Habitat or Range
Threats to habitat of Aleutian Canada geese still exist, primarily
in the form of development and modification of wintering and migration
habitat, and the continued presence of foxes on former nesting islands
in Alaska. However, both on the breeding and wintering/migration
grounds, improvements to habitat have been and continue to be made
through predator removal, fee title acquisition and establishment of
conservation easements to protect migration and wintering habitat, and
management of migration and wintering habitat.
Restoration of habitat on the breeding grounds in the Aleutian
Islands and islands south of the Alaska Peninsula continues as the fox
removal program proceeds. Since 1949, we have restored 33 islands,
totaling more than 596,000 ac, by removing Arctic and red foxes. In
1998, 2 additional islands were cleared of foxes, and 11 islands are
scheduled for restoration between 1999 and 2004. We plan to remove
foxes from 223,000-ac Attu Island in 1999. Attu Island is close to
Agattu Island and to the Alaid-Nizki Island group, all of which have
rapidly growing reestablished populations of Aleutian Canada geese, and
Attu would provide a substantial amount of nesting habitat if it was
colonized. Once cleared of foxes, transplants of family groups of
Aleutian Canada geese to Attu Island would be logistically feasible.
All of the extant nesting islands of Aleutian Canada geese in Alaska,
as well as most of the islands within its historic nesting range, are
protected as part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.
Even if additional fox-free nesting islands are not colonized by
Aleutian Canada geese in the foreseeable future, we believe that the
availability of nesting habitat in the Aleutian Islands is not likely
to limit future population growth or change in a manner that would lead
to a decline in goose abundance. We believe there is considerable
unoccupied nesting habitat available for geese on existing nesting
islands. Despite the availability of nesting habitat, natural expansion
to unoccupied islands east of Buldir is not expected to occur rapidly
because of the presence of bald eagles, a predator of Aleutian Canada
geese, and the strong tendency for Canada geese to return to natal
areas to breed.
On the wintering grounds, improvements to habitat are ongoing
through fee title acquisition of land, establishment of conservation
easements, and management of those lands for feeding, loafing and
roosting by Aleutian Canada geese. The intent is to provide attractive,
high quality habitat for geese on managed lands to reduce crop
depredation on neighboring private farms and ranches. Over 8,000 ac of
winter and migration habitat are secure (Table 2) and are being used by
Aleutian Canada geese. In addition, 33,108 ac of national wildlife
refuge land and 67,000 ac of private land protected under perpetual
conservation easements within the Grassland Ecological Area are located
approximately 40 miles south of the main use area for Aleutian Canada
geese and have recently been used by Aleutian Canada geese.
In addition to migration and wintering habitat already in
conservation status, we are working to increase our land holdings of
habitat currently used by Aleutian Canada geese in the Modesto,
California area. Land acquisition or conservation activities within and
near the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge that are underway
include:
(1) Acquisition of 3,100 ac south of Highway 132 and along the San
Joaquin River, part of which will be suitable winter range for Aleutian
Canada geese;
(2) Negotiation of a conservation easement with the owner of a
1,994-ac
[[Page 42065]]
ranch currently used by Aleutian Canada geese for feeding, loafing and
roosting. The landowner is currently working with the Service to manage
this land for geese. This ranch is currently included within the
authorized boundary of the San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge;
and
(3) Negotiation for fee title acquisition of 378 acres and a long-
term conservation easement on 705 acres on another nearby ranch
currently used by Aleutian Canada geese for feeding, loafing and
roosting. Agricultural practices used on these parcels favor Aleutian
Canada geese although conflicts between the geese and the landowner are
intensifying as goose numbers increase. This ranch is also included
within the authorized boundary of the San Joaquin River National
Wildlife Refuge.
Activities to acquire or conserve other lands within the wintering
and migration range of the Aleutian Canada geese include:
(1) Negotiation for purchase of the two dairies on which Aleutian
Canada geese from the Semidi Islands winter. These dairies are within
the authorized boundary of the Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
The Service has made offers on both pieces of property, but thus far
purchase agreements have not been reached; and
(2) Evaluation by the State of California of acquisition proposals
for additions to the Lake Earl Wildlife Area in northwestern California
as suitable goose foraging habitat.
We believe that sufficient breeding, migration, and wintering
habitat will remain secure over the long-term to allow for the
continued viability of this subspecies.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Historically, Aleuts residing in the Aleutian Islands harvested
Aleutian Canada geese for food. In addition, market hunters on the
wintering grounds, and more recently, sport hunters, harvested Aleutian
Canada geese in the Pacific Flyway. After introduced foxes had reduced
the breeding range of the Aleutian Canada goose and prior to the
identification of the goose's wintering range, sport hunting likely
limited population growth. Therefore, establishment of areas closed to
hunting was an effective conservation measure and likely was
responsible for early increases in goose numbers.
Delisting of the Aleutian Canada goose will not result in
overutilization of the subspecies because take will still be governed
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and corresponding regulations codified
in 50 CFR Part 20. After the Aleutian Canada goose is delisted, we must
decide if and when they can be taken for recreational hunting and for
other purposes. A regulatory framework already exists for managing
migratory waterfowl in the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1988). (See discussion of existing regulatory mechanisms under
factor D.)
Other than sport hunting, no appreciable demand for Aleutian Canada
geese for commercial or recreational purposes is anticipated. There may
be a small demand for birds for scientific purposes. As with hunting,
we will regulate take through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
C. Disease or Predation
Because many waterfowl species in the Pacific Flyway are now highly
concentrated on the greatly reduced wetland acres of their wintering
grounds, they are vulnerable to disease. Disease and other health
factors accounted for 28 percent of the mortality of Aleutian Canada
geese on wintering and migration areas between 1975 and 1991 (n = 583
birds; Springer and Lowe 1998). Avian cholera, a highly infectious
disease caused by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida, has been
identified as the cause of mortality of most of the Aleutian Canada
geese found dead on the wintering grounds near Modesto. From 1983 to
1998, the number of Aleutian Canada geese that are known to have died
annually from avian cholera has ranged from none to 155. However, an
exceptional cold period during December 1998 in California set the
stage for an extensive and intense avian cholera outbreak during
January 1999. Approximately 809 Aleutian Canada geese died of avian
cholera during that month. Additional birds probably died that are not
included in the mortality count, as coyotes (Canis latrans) may have
removed some of the carcases. Although this outbreak was the worst
known for Aleutian Canada geese, it claimed only about 2.5 percent of
the total population. Rapid response to the outbreak and effective
management of afflicted wetlands minimized the toll on the subspecies.
Based on these data, we conclude that disease is a chronic, low-
level problem on the wintering grounds which may occasionally flare up
into a severe outbreak. However, effective land management should
prevent future outbreaks from having serious consequences at the
population level. The Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Team has prepared
and revised a disease and contamination hazard contingency plan that
provides information and direction to reduce the incidence and severity
of both disease and contamination hazards (Byrd et al. 1996). We
implement this plan through an active program of collecting and
disposing of dead and diseased waterfowl to reduce exposure of healthy
geese.
Currently, we employ seasonal biologists to monitor Aleutian Canada
geese in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and in the Crescent
City area. Much of this effort is focused on the San Joaquin River
National Wildlife Refuge and neighboring areas and includes monitoring
for disease outbreaks. When a disease outbreak occurs, these employees
and other refuge staff begin an intensive effort of carcass retrieval
and disposal to break the cycle of cholera infection. Refuge staff also
have the ability to manage disease by managing water levels at roost
sites and wetland basins to avoid concentrating bacteria in those
waters.
Besides disease, other sources of mortality of Aleutian Canada
geese include shooting (49 percent), drowning (see below), collisions
and predation (12 percent) and trapping accidents (2 percent) (Springer
and Lowe 1998). Collectively, they account for only a small amount of
annual mortality. Shooting of Aleutian Canada geese occurred prior to
establishment of hunting closures, but declined after closures were
established. Occasionally, Aleutian Canada geese are shot outside the
closed areas (Springer and Lowe 1998).
On the breeding grounds, predators still prevent breeding on many
islands. As mentioned above, we continue to implement an aggressive
program to eradicate introduced foxes from islands within the Alaska
Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. However, on islands east of Buldir,
predation by bald eagles, in concert with the high degree of site
fidelity exhibited by geese, may limit colonization of new nesting
islands. Non-native rats, ground squirrels, and voles have also been
introduced on a variety of islands within the nesting range of the
Aleutian Canada goose and will be difficult, if not impossible, to
eradicate. These species may prey on Aleutian Canada goose eggs,
hatchlings or goslings if they have the opportunity, although a study
completed in the Semidi Islands suggests that ground squirrels were not
a predator of goose eggs (Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995). Predation of
goslings in the Semidi Islands by ground squirrels and
[[Page 42066]]
Glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens) may be a factor limiting
production of this breeding segment although it has not been quantified
(Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995).
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
If delisted, Aleutian Canada geese will remain protected under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which regulates taking of all migratory
birds. Once delisted, we will evaluate, with cooperation from the
States through the Pacific Flyway Council, and with public comment,
whether protections should be relaxed to allow some take through sport
hunting and other means, and to manage current and future depredation
problems on the wintering grounds and along migration routes. An
effective regulatory framework is in place to manage waterfowl (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). This annual rulemaking process
provides for participation by the States through the Flyway Councils
and opportunity for public input. The Pacific Flyway Council, which is
composed of wildlife agency directors from each of the western States
and Canadian provinces in the Pacific Flyway, including Alaska, will
participate in the formulation of any regulations regarding future
hunting of Aleutian Canada geese. An Aleutian Canada goose subcommittee
of the Pacific Flyway Study Committee (waterfowl experts from the
Flyway States) has undertaken the drafting of a management plan for the
Aleutian Canada Goose that will ensure that overutilization does not
occur (T. Rothe, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pers. comm.).
Continued closure of Canada goose hunting in the wintering area of the
Semidi Islands geese will be a part of any regulatory framework that
emerges for Aleutian Canada geese.
Two recent case histories provide good examples of the
effectiveness of waterfowl management under the provisions of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. By the mid-1980s, populations of the
Cackling Canada goose and Pacific white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons
frontalis) had plummeted to 24,000 birds and 97,000 birds,
respectively. As a result of reductions in sport hunting bag limits,
establishment of areas closed to hunting on the wintering grounds, and
voluntary reductions in take by Alaska Natives on the breeding grounds,
the population of Cackling Canada goose has increased to more than
200,000 birds and the Pacific white-fronted geese to more than 300,000
birds (R. Oates, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm.). We
believe the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will allow
sufficient protection of the Aleutian Canada goose, including the small
group of birds that breeds in the Semidi Islands and winters near
Pacific City, Oregon.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting its Continued Existence
Three incidences of drowning of Aleutian Canada geese in ocean surf
have occurred in recent years (Springer et al. 1989, Pitkin and Lowe
1994): 43 geese near Crescent City, California in 1984; 23 geese near
Pacific City, Oregon in 1987; and 10 geese near Pacific City, Oregon in
1993. All drowning incidents were related to storms. Because the number
of birds in the Semidi Islands breeding segment is small, we are
concerned about these drowning incidents, but little can be done to
prevent their reoccurrence.
At their lowest population level, Aleutian Canada geese may have
numbered in the low hundreds (see Kenyon 1963) and were distributed on
three widely separated remnant nesting islands. Populations that go
through small population bottlenecks may exhibit reduced genetic
variability and suffer from inbreeding depression. Such populations may
not be able to successfully adapt to changes in the environment or to
stochastic (random) events. The lack of growth of the Semidi Islands
breeding segment of Aleutian Canada geese despite protection on the
breeding and wintering grounds led to speculation that this breeding
segment was inbred and lacked genetic variability. A recent genetic
study showed several potential indicators of a recent genetic
bottleneck, including the fact that the Semidi Islands geese have fewer
alleles per loci, as well as a lower haplotype and nucleotide diversity
when compared to Buldir Island birds, indicating lower overall genetic
diversity. However, statistical tests were inconclusive (Pierson et al.
1998).
In summary, we have carefully reviewed all available scientific and
commercial data and conclude the threats that caused the population of
Aleutian Canada geese to decline no longer pose a risk to the continued
survival of the subspecies. A sustained recovery has occurred during
the last three decades as a result of removal of foxes from nesting
islands in Alaska, closure of wintering and migration areas to hunting,
and conservation and management of wintering and migration areas. This
recovery indicates that the subspecies as a whole is no longer
endangered or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future
throughout a significant portion of its range. Therefore, the species
no longer meets the Act's definitions of endangered or threatened.
Under these circumstances, removal from the list of threatened and
endangered wildlife is appropriate.
Effects of This Rule
Take, as defined in the Act, of the Aleutian Canada goose is
currently prohibited. If this proposal is made final, direct protection
by the Act will no longer be provided to the subspecies. In addition,
Federal agencies will no longer be required to consult with us to
insure that the actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. However,
the Aleutian Canada goose would still be afforded protection under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulates the
taking of migratory birds for educational, scientific, and recreational
purposes. It also states that the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized and directed to determine, if, and by what means, the take
of migratory birds should be allowed, and to adopt suitable regulations
permitting and governing the take. In adopting regulations, the
Secretary is to consider such factors as distribution and abundance to
ensure that take is compatible with the protection of the species.
Delisting of the Aleutian Canada goose under the Endangered Species
Act will not affect ongoing negotiations to secure habitat in the
migration and wintering grounds (see discussion under factor A). We
will continue to acquire or conserve additional lands for Aleutian
Canada geese and other migratory waterfowl through fee title
acquisition of land or establishment of conservation easements.
Future Conservation Measures
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that we monitor species for at
least 5 years after delisting. If evidence acquired during this
monitoring period shows that endangered or threatened status should be
reinstated to prevent a significant risk to the subspecies, we may use
the emergency listing authority provided by the Act. At the end of the
5-year monitoring period, we will decide if relisting, continued
monitoring, or an end to monitoring activities is appropriate. We
propose the following plan for monitoring Aleutian Canada geese in the
event they are delisted.
Proposed Monitoring Plan
This monitoring plan is designed to detect changes in the status of
the Aleutian Canada goose primarily by: (1)
[[Page 42067]]
Monitoring population size on wintering and migration areas; (2)
monitoring productivity of the Semidi Islands population segment on the
wintering grounds; and (3) monitoring the status of breeding birds on
nesting islands in Alaska.
(1) Monitoring population size on wintering and migration areas: We
propose to monitor the population of Aleutian Canada geese by using
either or both the indirect population estimation procedure based on a
marked to unmarked ratio of birds on their wintering grounds in the
Modesto area, or direct counts of geese as they leave their roosts
while staging in northwestern California in spring. Aleutian Canada
geese nesting in the Semidi Islands will be most effectively monitored
by conducting counts of foraging birds on their wintering grounds near
Pacific City, Oregon.
(2) Monitoring productivity of the Semidi Islands breeding segment
on its wintering range: Lack of productivity on Kiliktagik and Anowik
Islands appears to be the principal factor in the lack of growth in the
Semidi Islands breeding segment. The reasons for this lack of
productivity are not understood. Because it is possible to distinguish
hatching year birds from older birds on their winter range, we propose
to monitor production of the Semidi Islands geese by making direct
counts of birds on their winter range in Oregon.
(3) Monitoring the status of breeding birds on nesting islands in
Alaska: The status of Aleutian Canada geese on their nesting islands
was last summarized in 1995 (Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995, Byrd 1995). We
propose to determine the status of nesting Aleutian Canada geese on all
the known nesting islands (Agattu, Alaid/Nizki, Buldir, Chagulak,
Amukta, Kilikitagik, Anowik), and islands on which transplants of geese
have occurred but for which the current breeding status is unknown
(Little Kiska, Amchitka, Skagul, Yunaska), at least once during the 5-
year monitoring period.
We will consider relisting if during, or after, the 5-year
monitoring period, it appears that a reversal of the recent recovery
has taken place. We have not established any firm thresholds that if
reached will trigger relisting, but relisting will be considered if:
(1) The overall population of Aleutian Canada geese declines by 25
percent below the current level, and there is a negative population
trend for 2 or more years based on either direct or indirect population
estimates of birds in migration and wintering areas; and if
(2) Through disease or other stochastic (random) events, Aleutian
Canada geese decline appreciably and may be extirpated from one or more
of their principal nesting islands (Agattu, Alaid/Nizki, or Buldir
islands).
We may determine that monitoring is no longer warranted if studies
indicate that the overall population of Aleutian Canada geese is stable
at current levels or increasing and that no known factors threaten the
subspecies. If the Service has identified one or more factors that are
believed to have the potential to cause a decline, monitoring will be
continued beyond the 5-year period. Consistent with all other flyway
management plans, a Pacific Flyway management plan for Aleutian Canada
geese will include a population objective and monitoring activities to
assess the effects of management activities.
We remain committed to monitoring the status of the Semidi Islands
geese as long as necessary to ensure the population's health.
Consequently, we will continue to monitor this breeding segment beyond
the 5-year period on an annual basis on the wintering grounds and
occasionally on the breeding grounds.
In addition to monitoring the status of the Aleutian goose in the
United States, we also intend to actively support and participate in
the ongoing efforts to restore Aleutian Canada geese in Russia and
Japan.
Public Comments Requested
We request comments on three aspects of this proposed rulemaking:
(1) the proposed removal of the Aleutian Canada goose from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; (2) the clarity of this proposal,
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, which requires agencies to write
clear regulations; and (3) the collection of information from the
public during the 5-year monitoring period.
Proposed Delisting
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal be as
accurate as possible. Therefore, we request information and comments
concerning the status of the Aleutian Canada goose and this proposal.
We request information and comments from all affected Federal, State
and local government agencies, the scientific community, industry,
private interests, and all other interested parties. In particular,
comments are sought concerning:
(1) Biological or other relevant data concerning the range,
distribution, numbers and threats to Aleutian Canada geese; and
(2) Suggestions on the 5-year monitoring plan outlined above.
In developing the final rule for the Aleutian Canada goose, we will
take into consideration any information and comments received.
Therefore, the final rule may differ from this proposal.
The Endangered Species Act allows for public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. We must receive requests within 45 days of the
date of publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such
requests must be made in writing, and should be addressed to Ann
Rappoport (see address above).
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that
are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this
proposal easier to understand including answers to questions such as
the following:
(1) Is the discussion in the ``Supplementary Information'' section
of the preamble helpful in understanding the proposal?
(2) Does the proposal contain technical language or jargon that
interferes with its clarity?
(3) Does the format of the proposal (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? What else could we do to make the proposal easier to
understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
rule easier to understand to the office identified in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this document.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR 1320,
which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, require that
Federal agencies obtain approval from OMB before collecting information
from the public. The OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a
collection of information as the obtaining of information by or for an
agency by means of identical questions posed to, or identical
reporting, record keeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on ten or
more persons. Furthermore, 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or
more persons'' refers to the persons to whom a collection of
information is addressed by the agency within any 12-month period. For
purposes of this definition, employees of the Federal government are
not included.
This rule does not include any collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The
information needed to monitor the status of the Aleutian
[[Page 42068]]
Canada goose following delisting will be collected primarily by our
personnel. We do not anticipate a need to request data or other
information from ten or more persons during any 12-month period to
satisfy monitoring information needs. If it becomes necessary to
collect information from 10 or more non-Federal individuals, groups, or
organizations per year, we will first obtain information collection
approval from OMB.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Listing Priority Guidance
The processing of this proposed rule conforms with our Listing
Priority Guidance for Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, published on May 8,
1998. This guidance clarifies the order in which we will process
rulemakings, giving the highest priority (Tier 1) to processing
emergency rules to add species to the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants; second priority (Tier 2) to processing
final determinations on proposals to add species to the lists,
processing new proposals to add species to the Lists, processing
administrative findings on petitions (to add species to the lists,
delist species, or reclassify listed species), and processing a limited
number of proposed or final rules to delist or reclassify species; and
third priority (Tier 3) to processing proposed or final rules
designating critical habitat. Processing of this delisting proposal is
a Tier 2 action.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from Ann Rappoport (see address above).
Author. The primary author of this proposal is Anthony DeGange (see
address above).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulations Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth
below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 17.11 [AMENDED]
2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the entry for the
``Goose, Aleutian Canada, Branta canadensis leucopareia'' under
``Birds.''
Dated: July 8, 1999.
John G. Rogers, Jr.,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-19900 Filed 7-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
