[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47332-47333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22382]
[[Page 47331]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
Migratory Bird Hunting; Environmental Impact Statement on White Goose
Management; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 167 / Monday, August 30, 1999 /
Notices
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[[Page 47332]]
Fish and Wildlife Service
Migratory Bird Hunting; Environmental Impact Statement on White
Goose Management; Notice
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or ``we'') is
issuing this notice to invite public participation in the scoping
process for preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that
considers a range of management alternatives aimed at addressing
population expansion of lesser snow geese, Ross' geese, and greater
snow geese (white geese). This notice invites further public
participation in the scoping process, identifies the location, date,
and time of public scoping meetings, and identifies the Service
official to whom questions and comments may be directed.
DATES: Written comments regarding EIS scoping should be submitted by
November 22, 1999, to the address below. Dates for nine public scoping
meetings are identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 634--Arlington, VA 22203.
Alternatively, comments may be submitted electronically to the
following address: white_goose_eis@fws.gov. The public may inspect
comments during normal business hours in Room 634--Arlington Square
Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Locations for
nine public scoping meetings are identified in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jon Andrew, Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, (703) 358-1714, or James Kelley, Office of Migratory
Bird Management (703) 358-1964.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 13, 1999, we published a Notice of
Intent to prepare an EIS on white goose management (64 FR 26268). This
action is in response to population expansion of white geese, which has
resulted in habitat degradation in certain breeding, migration, and/or
wintering areas of the three species of geese involved.
Lesser Snow Geese and Ross' Geese
We believe that the combined population of lesser snow geese and
Ross' geese in the mid-continent region has exceeded the long-term
carrying capacity of its breeding habitat and must be reduced. These
geese have become seriously injurious to their arctic and subarctic
habitat and habitat important to other migratory birds. We believe that
population reduction measures are necessary to prevent further habitat
destruction and to protect the remaining habitat upon which numerous
wildlife species depend. The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group
estimated that the combined population of lesser snow geese and Ross'
geese in the mid-continent region should be reduced by 50% by 2005
(Batt 1997). That would suggest a reduction from the 1999 winter index
of approximately 2.8 million birds to approximately 1.4 million birds.
Greater Snow Geese
The greater snow goose population has expanded from less than
50,000 birds in the late 1960s to approximately 700,000 today. With a
growth rate of about 9% per year, the population is expected to reach
1,000,000 by 2002 and 2,000,000 by 2010 (Batt 1998). While researchers
have not documented the damage to the breeding habitat of greater snow
geese to the same degree as the mid-continent white geese, high
populations of greater snow geese are negatively impacting natural
marshes in the St. Lawrence estuary and some coastal marshes of the
Mid-Atlantic U.S (Batt 1998). The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group
recommended that the population be stabilized by the year 2002 at
between 800,000 to 1,000,000 birds (Batt 1998). This strategy is
intended to prevent the destruction of arctic habitat that is likely to
occur if the population exceeds the carrying-capacity of breeding
areas.
Alternatives
We are considering the following alternatives as a result of public
comments we received previously. After the scoping process, we will
develop the alternatives to be included in the EIS and base them on the
mission of the Service and comments received during scoping. We are
soliciting your comments on issues, alternatives, and impacts to be
addressed in the EIS.
A. No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no additional regulatory methods
or direct population control strategies would be authorized. Existing
white goose hunting regulations would remain in place.
B. New Regulatory Alternatives (Proposed Action)
This alternative seeks to provide new regulatory options to
wildlife management agencies that will increase the harvest of white
geese above that which results from existing hunting frameworks. This
approach may include legalization of additional hunting methods such as
electronic calls, unplugged shotguns, and expanded shooting hours. This
alternative also includes establishment of a conservation order in the
U.S. to reduce and/or stabilize white goose populations. A conservation
order would authorize taking of white geese after the normal framework
closing date of March 10, through August 31.
The intent of this alternative is to significantly reduce or
stabilize white goose populations without threatening their long-term
health. We are confident that reduction or stabilization efforts will
not result in populations falling below either the lower management
thresholds established by Flyway Councils, or the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan population objectives. Monitoring and
evaluation programs are in place to estimate population sizes and will
be used to prevent over-harvest of these populations.
C. Direct Population Control on Wintering and Migration Areas in the
U.S.
This alternative would involve direct population control strategies
such as trapping and culling programs, market hunting, or other general
strategies that would result in the killing of white geese on migration
and/or wintering areas in the U.S. Some of these types of control
measures could involve disposal of large numbers of carcasses.
D. Seek Direct Population Control on Breeding Grounds by Canada
This alternative, if successful, would involve direct population
control strategies, such as trapping and culling programs, market
hunting, or other general strategies, that would result in killing of
white geese on breeding colonies in Canada. Some of these types of
control measures could involve disposal of large numbers of carcasses.
We do not have the authority to implement direct population control
measures on migration or breeding areas in Canada. Therefore, this
alternative would require extensive consultation with Canada in order
to urge implementation of control measures on breeding areas. Such
measures may or
[[Page 47333]]
may not involve active U.S. participation.
Issue Resolution and Environmental Review
The primary issue to be addressed during the scoping and planning
process for the EIS is to determine which management alternatives for
the control of white goose populations will be analyzed. We will
prepare a discussion of the potential effect, by alternative, which
will include the following areas:
(1) White goose populations and their habitats.
(2) Other bird populations and their habitats.
(3) Effects on other species of flora and fauna.
(4) Socioeconomic effects.
Environmental review of the management action will be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), as appropriate. This Notice is being furnished in
accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7, to obtain suggestions and information
from other agencies, tribes, and the public on the scope of issues to
be addressed in the EIS. A draft EIS should be available to the public
in the winter of 2000.
Public Scoping Meetings
Nine public scoping meetings will be held on the following dates at
the indicated locations and times:
1. September 29, 1999; Pomona, NJ at the Richard Stockton College
of New Jersey, A Wing Lecture Hall, Jimmie Leeds Road, 7 p.m. to 9:30
p.m.
2. September 30, 1999; Dover, DE at the Richardson and Robbins
Auditorium, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, 89 Kings Highway, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
3. October 3, 1999; Sacramento, CA at the Auditorium, Resource
Building, 1416 Ninth St., 3 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
4. October 5, 1999; Rosenberg, TX at the Texas Agricultural
Extension Service Building, 1436 Band Road, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
5. October 6, 1999; Baton Rouge, LA at the Louisiana Room, First
Floor, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Building, 2000
Quail Drive, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
6. October 12, 1999; Bismarck, ND at the North Dakota Game and Fish
Department Auditorium, 100 N. Bismarck Expressway, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
7. October 13, 1999; Bloomington, MN at the Best Western
Thunderbird Hotel and Convention Center, 2201 East 78th Street, 7 p.m.
to 9:30 p.m.
8. October 14, 1999; Kansas City, MO at the Holiday Inn Sports
Complex, 4011 Blue Ridge Cutoff, 7 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
9. October 21, 1999; Washington, DC in the Auditorium of the
Department of the Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW, 9 a.m. to 11:30
a.m.
Meeting participants may choose to submit oral and/or written
comments on the EIS scoping process. To facilitate planning, we request
that individuals or organizations that desire to submit oral comments
at meetings to send us their name and the meeting location at which
comments will be submitted. Name and meeting location information
should be sent to the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
However, submission of names prior to a particular meeting is not
required in order to present oral comments at any meeting.
Written comments may also be submitted by November 22, 1999, to the
location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption. Alternatively, comments
may be submitted electronically by November 22, 1999, to the following
email address: white__goose__eis@fws.gov.
References Cited
Batt, B.D.J., editor. 1997. Arctic ecosystems in peril: report of
the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture
Special Publication. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC
and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120pp.
Batt, B.D.J., editor. 1998. The greater snow goose: report of the
Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture
Special Publication. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC
and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 88pp.
Authorship
The primary author of this Notice is James R. Kelley, Jr., Office
of Migratory Bird Management.
Dated: August 24, 1999.
Paul R. Schmidt,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-22382 Filed 8-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
