Migratory Bird Permits; Establishment of a Conservation Order for the Reduction of Mid-Continent Light Goose Populations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

RIN 1018-AF05

Migratory Bird Permits; Establishment of a Conservation Order for

the Reduction of Mid-Continent Light Goose Populations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Mid-continent lesser snow goose and Ross' goose population

has nearly quadrupled in the last 30 years. The Western Central Flyway

lesser snow and Ross' goose population also has quadrupled in the last

23 years. Collectively, these central and eastern arctic and subarctic-

nesting light goose populations are referred to as Mid-continent light

geese (MCLG)

Due to high population growth rates, a decline in adult mortality,

and an increase in winter survival, MCLG are now seriously injurious to

their habitat and habitat important to other migratory birds which

poses a serious threat to the short and long-term health and status of

migratory bird populations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service

or ``we'') believes that MCLG populations exceed long-term sustainable

levels for their arctic and subarctic breeding habitats and the

populations must be reduced. This proposed rule proposes the addition

of a new subpart to 50 CFR

[[Page 60279]]

part 21 for the management of overabundant MCLG populations. We, in

cooperation with State wildlife agencies, are further proposing to

implement a population control program by establishing a conservation

order for MCLG under the authority of the proposed subpart. This

proposed rule will increase the use and availability of additional

hunting methods and will authorize take of MCLG outside of the normal

open light-goose hunting season. We designed the program to increase

MCLG harvest and to provide a biologically sound and cost effective and

efficient method for the reduction and management of overabundant MCLG

populations.

DATES: The comment period for this proposed rule closes January 8,

1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Chief, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, ms

634--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. The public may

inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634--Arlington

Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Comments

and suggestions on the requirements should be sent directly to the

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and

Budget; Attention: Interior Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503; and a

copy of the comments should be sent to the Information Collection

Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224--ARLSQ, 1849

C Street NW, Washington DC 20204.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Blohm, Acting Chief, Office of

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-

1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Lesser snow and Ross' geese that primarily migrate through North

Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri, and winter

in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and eastern, central, and southern

Texas and other Gulf Coast States are referred to as the Mid-continent

population of light geese (MCP). Lesser snow and Ross' geese that

primarily migrate through Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado and winter in

New Mexico, northwestern Texas, and Chihuahua, Mexico are referred to

as the Western Central Flyway population of light geese (WCFP). Ross'

geese are often mistaken for lesser snow geese due to their similar

appearance. Ross' geese occur in both the MCP and the WCFP and mix

extensively with lesser snow geese on both the breeding and wintering

grounds. MCP and WCFP lesser snow and Ross' geese are collectively

referred to as Mid-continent light geese (MCLG) because they breed,

migrate, and winter in the ``Mid-continent'' or central portions of

North America primarily in the Central and Mississippi Flyways. They

are referred to as ``light'' geese due to their light coloration as

opposed to ``dark'' geese such as the white-fronted or Canada goose.

MCLG breed in the central and eastern arctic and subarctic regions

of Northern Canada. MCLG populations are experiencing high population

growth rates and have substantially increased in numbers within the

last 30 years. MCP light geese have more than tripled within 30 years

from an estimated 800,000 birds in 1969 to approximately three million

birds in 1998 and have grown an average of 5% per year for the last ten

years (Abraham et al. 1996, USFWS 1998b). WCFP light geese have

quadrupled in 23 years from 52,000 in 1974 to 216,000 in 1997 (USFWS

1997b), and have increased an average of 9% per year for the last ten

years (USFWS 1998b). The above population estimates are not true

population counts and likely underestimate the true population sizes.

They were derived from an index which is used to detect population

growth trends by sampling a portion of a population. Breeding colony

estimates, actual population counts estimated from spring and summer

surveys, suggest that the actual population sizes of MCLG may be in

excess of five million breeding birds (D. Caswell pers. comm. 1998). In

an area northwest of Hudson Bay alone, the Queen Maud Gulf, estimates

for breeding and non-breeding (failed to successfully nest) adult Ross'

and lesser snow geese for 1998 are 1.29 million and 1.82 million birds,

respectively (Alisauskas et al. 1998). These geese are in addition to

the millions of geese estimated to be nesting along west Hudson and

James Bays where the geese have precipitated severe habitat degradation

and on Southampton and Baffin Islands where signs of habitat

degradation are becoming evident. MCLG populations have exceeded the

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) population objective

levels in both the United States and Canada. NAWMP population objective

levels are used to demonstrate that MCLG populations have increased

substantially over what is considered to be a healthy population level,

not to suggest that MCLG be reduced to NAWMP population objective

levels. Population management thresholds, however, are management

thresholds that specify both an upper and lower population level

objective.

Ross' goose estimates (WCFP and MCP) currently exceed 200,000 birds

(December index) and breeding colony estimates (actual counts of

nesting birds) approached 400,000 birds in 1996 (Batt 1997), and

exceeded 1 million birds 1998; both estimates well exceed the

recommended minimum population objective level for Ross' geese of

100,000 birds (USDOI et al. 1998d). MCP lesser snow geese estimates

currently exceed 2.9 million birds (December index); the lower and

upper population management thresholds are 800,000 and 1.2 million

birds, respectively (Central and Mississippi Flyway Councils 1982) with

a recommended minimum population objective level of 1 million birds

(USDOI et al. 1998d). WCFP lesser snow goose estimates currently exceed

200,000 birds (December index) which exceeds the recommended minimum

population objective level of 110,000 birds (USDOI et al. 1998d).

Although our intention is to significantly reduce these populations to

relieve pressures on the breeding habitats, we feel that these efforts

will not threaten the long-term status of these populations as we are

confident reduction efforts will not result in the populations falling

below the population goal and management objective levels indicated

above. Evaluation and assessment mechanisms are in place to estimate

population sizes and will be used to prevent the over-harvest of these

populations.

The rapid rise of MCLG populations has been influenced heavily by

human activities (Sparrowe, 1998, Batt 1997). The greatest attributable

factors are:

(1) The expansion of agricultural areas in the United States and

prairie Canada that provide abundant food resources during migration

and winter;

(2) The establishment of sanctuaries along the Flyways specifically

to increase bird populations;

(3) A decline in harvest rate; and

(4) An increase in adult survival rates.

Although all of these factors contributed to the rapid rise in MCLG

populations, the expansion of agriculture in prairie Canada and the

United States is considered to be the primary attributable factor

(Sparrowe 1998, Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Today, MCLG continue to

exploit soybean, rice, and other crops during the winter primarily in

the Gulf Coast States and are observed less frequently in the natural

coastal marshes they historically utilized. Similarly, MCLG migrating

through the Mid-latitude and northern United States and prairie

[[Page 60280]]

Canada during spring migration exploit cereal grain crops consisting of

corn, wheat, barley, oats and rye (Alisauskas et al. 1988). For

example, an estimated 1 to 2 million MCLG stage in the Rainwater Basin

in Nebraska from mid-February to mid-March and primarily feed on corn

left over from harvesting (USFWS 1998a). These crops provide MCLG with

additional nutrients during spring migration assuring that MCLG arrive

on the breeding grounds in prime condition to breed. Increased food

subsidies during spring migration over the last 30 years has resulted

in higher reproductive potential and breeding success (Ankney and

McInnes 1978, Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Consequently, more geese

survived the winter and migration and were healthier as they returned

to their breeding grounds in Canada.

This is not intended to criticize the conservation efforts

accomplished by the implementation of conservation-oriented

agricultural practices. Such efforts have benefitted numerous wildlife

species. It is merely to point out that MCLG have exploited these

artificial resources which has resulted in an increase in survival.

Foraging Behavior of MCLG

The feeding behavior of MCLG is characterized by three foraging

methods. Where spring thawing has occurred and above-ground plant

growth has not begun, lesser snow geese dig into and break open the

turf (grub) consuming the highly nutritious below-ground biomass, or

roots, of plants. Grubbing continues into late spring. Lesser snow

geese also engage in shoot-pulling where the geese pull the shoots of

large sedges, consume the highly nutritious basal portion, and discard

the rest, leaving behind large unproductive, and potentially

unrecoverable areas (Abraham and Jefferies 1997). A third feeding

strategy utilized by many species is grazing which in some cases,

stimulates plant growth. Both lesser snow geese and Ross' geese graze.

Due to their shorter bill size, Ross' geese are able to graze shorter

stands of grass.

Grubbing, grazing, and shoot-pulling are natural feeding behaviors

and at lower population levels have had positive effects on the

ecosystem. For example, at lower numbers, geese fed on the tundra

grasses and actually stimulated growth of plant communities resulting

in a positive feedback loop between the geese and the vegetation.

However, the rapidly expanding numbers of geese, coupled with the short

tundra growing season, disrupted the balance and has resulted in severe

habitat degradation in sensitive ecosystems. The Hudson Bay Lowlands

salt-marsh ecosystem, for example, consists of a 1,200 mile strip of

coastline along west Hudson and James Bays, Canada. It contains

approximately 135,000 acres of coastal salt-marsh habitat. Vast

hypersaline areas devoid of vegetation degraded by rapidly increasing

populations of MCLG have been observed and documented extensively

throughout the Hudson Bay Lowlands (Abraham and Jefferies 1997).

Rockwell et al. (1997a) observed the decline of more than 30 avian

populations in the La Perouse Bay area due to severe habitat

degradation. These declines and other ecological changes represent a

decline in biological diversity and indicate the beginning of collapse

of the current Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-marsh ecosystem. Experts fear

that some badly degraded habitat will not recover (Abraham and

Jefferies 1997). For example, in a badly degraded area, less than 20%

of the vegetation within an exclosure (fenced in area where geese

cannot feed) has recovered after 15 years of protection from MCLG

(Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Recovery rates of degraded areas are

further slowed by the short tundra growing season and the high salinity

levels in the exposed and unprotected soil.

Long-term research efforts have indicated signs of ``trophic

cascade'' in La Perouse Bay, Cape Henrietta Maria, and Akimiski Island

(R. Rockwell pers. comm. 1998). Trophic cascade is essentially the

collapse of an existing food chain indicating that the ecosystem is

unable to support its inhabitants. Impacts associated with trophic

cascade are indicative that MCLG populations have exceeded the carrying

capacity of much of their breeding habitat. Impacts such as a decline

in biological diversity and physiological stress, malnutrition, and

disease in goslings have been documented and observations of such

impacts are increasing. Additional observations in areas north of

Hudson Bay on Southampton and Baffin Islands, northwest in the Queen

Maud Gulf region, and south off the west coast of James Bay on Akimiski

Island also suggest similar habitat degradation patterns from expanding

colonies of MCLG. Batt (1997) reported the rapid expansion of existing

colonies and the establishment of new colonies in the central and

eastern arctic. In 1973, for example, Canadian Wildlife Service data

indicated that approximately 400,000 light geese nested on West Baffin

Island. In 1997, approximately 1.8 million breeding adults were

counted. Similar colony expansions have been reported for the Queen

Maud Gulf region and Southampton Island. Rapid colony expansion must be

halted and the populations must be reduced to prevent further habitat

degradation and to protect the remaining habitat upon which numerous

wildlife species depend.

Breeding Habitat Status

MCLG breeding colonies occur over a large area encompassing eastern

and central portions of Northern Canada. Habitat degradation by MCLG

has been most extensively studied in specific areas where colonies have

expanded exponentially and exhibit severe habitat degradation. The

Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-marsh ecosystem, for example, lies within a

135,000 acre narrow strip of coastline along west Hudson and James Bays

and provides important stopover sites for numerous migratory bird

species. Of the 135,000 acres of habitat in the Hudson Bay Lowlands,

35% is considered to be destroyed, 30% is damaged, and 35% is

overgrazed (Batt 1997). Habitats currently categorized as ``damaged''

or ``overgrazed'' are moving and will continue to move into the

``destroyed'' category if goose populations continue to expand.

Accelerated habitat degradation has been observed on Southampton and

Baffin Islands and appear to be following the same pattern as

documented in the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Current research efforts are

underway to confirm observations of habitat degradation by MCLG in

other areas.

Migration and Wintering Habitat Conditions and Degradation

There is no evidence to support that wintering habitat for MCLG is

threatened or that it may limit population growth. Presently, there are

approximately 2.25 million acres of rice fields in Texas, Louisiana,

and Arkansas, in addition to the millions of acres of cereal grain

crops in the Midwest. Consequently, food availability and suitable

wintering habitat are not limiting MCLG during the migration and

wintering portions of the annual cycle.

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action

At each site they occupy, MCLG will continue to degrade the plant

communities until food and other resources are exhausted, forcing yet

more expansion. The pattern has been, and will continue to be, that as

existing nesting colonies expand, they exploit successively poorer

quality habitats, which are less able to accommodate them and which

become degraded more

[[Page 60281]]

quickly. Eventually, the coastal salt-marsh communities surrounding

Hudson Bay and James Bay will become remnant with little chance of

recovery as long as MCLG populations remain high and for some time

after it declines from natural causes, if they do. The functioning of

the whole coastal ecosystem, from consolidation of sediments by

colonizing plants to provision of suitable habitats for invertebrate

and vertebrate fauna, will be detrimentally and possibly irrevocably

altered. Similar conditions will likely come to prevail at selected

non-coastal areas where MCLG have occupied most of the suitable nesting

habitats. As many as 30 other avian species, including American wigeon,

Northern shoveler, stilt sandpiper, Hudsonian godwit, and others, that

utilize those habitats have declined locally, presumably due to habitat

degradation by MCLG. Other species, such as Southern James Bay Canada

geese, a species of management concern, that breed on nearby Akimiski

Island and numerous other waterfowl species that migrate and stage with

MCLG, have been and will continue to be negatively impacted. Arctic

mammalian herbivores will also be impacted as the vegetative

communities upon which they depend become depleted. Due to the rapidly

expanding populations and the associated ecological impacts identified,

we have concluded that MCLG populations have become seriously injurious

to themselves and other migratory birds, their habitat and habitat of

other migratory birds.

We expect that MCLG populations will continue to grow at least 5%

annually, resulting in more severe and widespread ecological impacts.

Although several factors influence population dynamics, the greatest

single factor in the populations' increase is high and increasing adult

survival rates (Rockwell et al. 1997b). Therefore, removing adults from

the populations is the most effective and efficient approach in

reducing the populations. Experts feel that breaking eggs and other

non-lethal techniques have been determined to be ineffective in

significantly reducing the populations within a reasonable time to

preserve and protect habitat (Batt 1997).

We have attempted to curb the growth of MCLG populations by

increasing bag and possession limits and extending the open hunting

season length for light geese to 107 days, the maximum allowed by the

Treaty. However, due to the rapid rise in MCLG numbers, low hunter

success, and low hunter interest, harvest rate (the percentage of the

population that is harvested), has declined despite evidence that the

number of geese harvested has increased (USFWS 1997b). The decline in

harvest rate indicates that the current management strategies are not

sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth rates.

We realize that current MCLG management policies need to be re-

examined and believe that alternative regulatory strategies designed to

increase MCLG harvest, implemented concurrently with habitat management

and other non-lethal control measures, have the potential to be

effective in reducing MCLG populations to levels that the remaining

breeding habitat can sustain. We prefer to implement alternative

regulatory strategies designed to increase MCLG harvest afforded by the

Migratory Bird Treaty and avoid the use of more drastic population

control measures. More direct population control measures such as

trapping and culling programs may be necessary if the current proposed

action is not successful. Should the proposed action be unsuccessful in

five years, we will consider more direct population control measures to

reduce MCLG.

We restrict the scope of this proposed rule to Mid-continent

populations of light geese (MCLG): Mid-continent and Western Central

Flyway lesser snow geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens) and Ross'

geese (C. rossi) and the United States portions of the Central and

Mississippi Flyways (primarily Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois,

Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and

Wyoming) where they migrate, stage, or winter. Evidence exists to

support the conclusion that MCLG migrate, stage, and winter in these

areas and breed in the arctic and subarctic areas that are experiencing

severe habitat degradation.

We are concurrently proposing an additional but separate population

reduction strategy. In addition to this proposed rule to amend 50 CFR

part 21, we are also proposing to amend 50 CFR part 20 to authorize the

use of new hunting methods to harvest MCLG. That proposed rule would

authorize States to allow the use of new hunting methods to harvest

MCLG during a light-goose only season when all other migratory bird

hunting seasons are closed. The proposal is also in the nature of a

proposed rule and the notice and request for comments is published in

this issue of the Federal Register.

We do not expect the second proposed action (amendment to 50 CFR

part 20) implemented alone to achieve our overall management objective

which is to reduce MCLG populations such that the December index falls

within 800,000 and 1.2 million birds. The success of that strategy will

hinge upon State participation, hunter participation, and hunter

effectiveness. If a State does not participate, then its hunters will

not be able to participate, decreasing the program's potential. We do

not expect some States to participate in that proposed action due to

the infeasibility of implementing the action when all other migratory

bird hunting seasons are closed. MCLG migrate through northern and Mid-

latitude States in the fall, however, the geese typically do not reach

some of those States prior to 10 March during spring migration. For

those States to be able to utilize the second proposed action, they

would have to close all other migratory bird hunting seasons in the

fall, which is highly unlikely. Conversely, many migratory bird hunting

seasons in the southern States close prior to 10 March. Therefore, it

is much more feasible for southern States to implement that proposed

action by establishing a light-goose only season when all other

migratory bird seasons are closed. We are proposing this proposed

action (conservation order) in order to maximize the overall program's

potential and obtain our management objective within a reasonable time-

frame to avoid the use of more direct population control programs. This

proposed action, conservation order, will allow northern States to

participate in this effort and enable them to harvest MCLG during

spring migration, particularly after 10 March. Harvest projections for

the second proposed action (amendment 50 CFR part 20) are rolled into

the harvest projections for this proposed action (conservation order).

Harvest projections for the second proposed action would not be in

addition to the harvest projections for this proposed action.

Proposed Conservation Order for MCLG

We propose to establish a new subpart in 50 CFR part 21 for the

management of overabundant MCLG populations. Under this new subpart, we

propose to establish a conservation order specifically for the control

and management of MCLG. Conditions under the conservation order require

that participating States inform all participants acting under the

authority of the conservation order of the conditions that apply to the

proposed amendment.

Under the authority of this proposed rule, States could initiate

aggressive

[[Page 60282]]

harvest management strategies with the intent to increase MCLG harvest

without having to obtain an individual permit, which will significantly

reduce administrative burden to the State and Federal governments. A

permit process would slow efforts to reduce the populations and prolong

habitat degradation on the breeding grounds. This proposed rule will

enable States to use hunters to harvest MCLG, by shooting in a hunting

manner, inside or outside of the regular open migratory bird hunting

season frameworks. States could maximize the opportunity to increase

harvest of MCLG by implementing this proposed action beyond 10 March,

where historically States have been limited by hunting season framework

closing dates to take migratory birds. In order to minimize or avoid

take of non-target species, States may implement this proposed action

only when all migratory bird hunting seasons are closed. It is expected

that this proposed action will facilitate other protection and recovery

efforts. This proposed rule would further result in biologically sound

and more cost-effective and efficient overabundant MCLG management and

could preclude the use of more drastic, direct population control

measures such as trapping and culling programs. Although the desired

goal is to significantly reduce overabundant MCLG populations, we

believe that this proposed rule will not threaten the long-term status

of MCLG populations or threaten the status of other species that could

be impacted through the implementation of this proposed rule.

Evaluation and monitoring strategies are in place to assess the overall

impacts of this proposed action on MCLG harvest and impacts to non-

target species that may be affected by the implementation of this

proposed action.

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

MCLG Populations and Associated Habitats

We project that we will harvest two million MCLG within three years

without the use of this proposed action based on current MCLG harvest

trends. Under certain assumptions, our most liberal estimate projects

that we can expect to harvest an additional three million MCLG within

three years of implementation of this proposed action bringing the

total harvest to five million MCLG within three years of implementation

of this proposed action. Once the December index falls within

recommended management guidelines (800,000 to 1.2 million birds), then

the proposed amendment to 50 CFR part 21 will be revoked.

The impact is expected to be regional within the Central and

western Mississippi Flyway States that choose to utilize the proposed

action. Since the proposed action may take place between 11 March and

31 August, we expect MCLG take to increase among Mid-latitude and

northern States according to migration chronology. Increased harvest

will be further facilitated by the use of additional hunting methods

(electronic callers and unplugged shotguns) authorized by a State under

the authority of this proposed rule. Although we can expect the

additional hunting methods to be effective in increasing harvest per

hunter, there is no precedent to guide us in determining to what degree

they will be effective. It is equally difficult to ascertain to what

degree the public will participate in the implementation of this

proposed action, which will influence its effectiveness. However, with

certain assumptions, we may project an increase in harvest using

existing harvest data.

Several assumptions must be established before projecting the

effect of the proposed action on harvest. We are assuming that all

affected States will act under the authority of this proposed action

and will allow all new hunting methods authorized in this proposed rule

(electronic callers and unplugged shotguns), including the utilization

of the maximum number of days available after the regular light-goose

season. We are also assuming that current MCLG hunter numbers will not

decrease and that the new methods authorized in this proposed rule, if

used, will increase hunter effectiveness and overall harvest. We do not

assume that all MCLG hunters will participate in the implementation of

this proposed action and of those that do, we do not assume that all

will increase their effectiveness by using new hunting methods. We are

assuming that 25% of the MCLG hunters will use the new methods and will

increase his/her effectiveness in harvesting MCLG.

States that have MCLG after 10 March may choose not to harvest MCLG

after 10 March. Of those that do, the number of days each State may

harvest outside of their regular open light-goose season likely will

vary. For purposes of this exercise, we are assuming MCLG harvest is

consistent throughout the entire light-goose season and that all

affected States will use the proposed action. It is important to note

that the issue of just how additional days influences harvest of

migratory birds continues to be extensively analyzed. In that respect,

our projections regarding MCLG harvest are our best estimates based on

the data that we have and represent a liberal estimate.

We determined, based on a linear regression analysis of historical

harvest data, that harvest number of MCLG has increased approximately

31,600 MCLG per year for the last ten years. A simple linear regression

of the harvest data represents our most conservative estimate because

the analysis does not take into account other factors that may have

influenced harvest such as the recent regulation changes for light

geese. A more complex analysis will demonstrate that harvest number has

actually increased at a faster rate since the bag and possession limits

for light geese have been increased (USFWS 1998c). Today, more MCLG are

harvested with fewer hunters and hunter participation in light goose

hunting is increasing. Therefore, conservatively, we projected that

harvest will increase 31,600 per year for the next 5 years.

In 1997-98, 602,800 MCLG were harvested in the affected States (AR,

CO, IL, IA, KS, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NM, ND, OK, SD, TX, and WY).

Combined with our projection that harvest will increase by 31,600 per

year without any changes to hunting regulations, we can expect to

harvest 634,400 MCLG in the 1998-1999 regular light goose season in

those affected States. Under the assumptions stated above, we expect to

harvest an additional 576,300 MCLG through the implementation of this

proposed action (authorize electronic callers, unplugged shotguns, and

additional days to harvest) bringing the total projected harvest to 1.2

million MCLG in the first year of implementation of this proposed

action. These figures are based on increasing harvest number.

Therefore, we expect this projected harvest to increase annually. We

expect to harvest 1.8 million MCLG in the second year of implementation

and 2.4 million in the third year of implementation.

Central and Mississippi Flyway Council management guidelines

suggest that MCLG populations should rest between 800,000 and 1.2

million birds based on the December index (USFWS 1998b, Central and

Mississippi Flyway Councils 1982). Batt (1997) estimate that the

populations should be reduced by 50% by 2005. Based on the December

index, that would suggest a reduction from approximately 3 million

birds to approximately 1.5 million birds in the December index; a

figure which coincides with the management guidelines determined by the

Central and Mississippi Flyway Council. Therefore, our efforts will

focus on a

[[Page 60283]]

goal similar to those documented. It is important to understand that

the December index is not a population count. It is simply used to

detect population growth trends by sampling a portion of a population.

The reduction of MCLG will be carefully analyzed and assessed on an

annual basis using the December index and other surveys to ensure that

the populations are not over-harvested.

We expect an increase in MCLG harvest to facilitate other efforts,

such as habitat management on the wintering grounds and increased

harvest by Canadian aboriginals, to decrease MCLG numbers and relieve

pressures on the breeding grounds. There is no evidence to suggest that

the implementation of this proposed action will result in an over-

harvest of MCLG. Once the December index reflects a number within the

management guidelines mentioned above (800,000--1.2 million), the

proposed action will be revoked and the methods authorized will no

longer be used. It is improbable that the implementation of this

proposed action will threaten the long-term status of MCLG populations

because we will monitor the MCLG populations and act accordingly to

avoid it by modifying or revoking the proposed action.

Other Species

An increase in harvest, and subsequently a decrease in MCLG

numbers, is expected to relieve pressures on other migratory bird

populations that utilize MCLG breeding and wintering grounds and other

areas along the migration routes. It is expected to reduce the

possibility that other species will be forced to seek habitat elsewhere

or abandon unsuitable degraded habitat altogether, which could

potentially result in decreased reproductive success of affected

populations. We expect a significant decrease in MCLG populations to

contribute to increased reproductive success of adversely impacted

populations. Further, we expect that by decreasing the numbers of MCLG

on wintering and migration stopover areas, the risk of transmitting

avian cholera to other species will be reduced which will reduce the

threat of a widespread avian cholera outbreak.

Socio-economic

Any action taken has economic consequences. Continued inaction is

likely to result in ecosystem failure of the Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-

marsh ecosystem and potentially other ecosystems as MCLG populations

expand and exploit new habitats. Without more effective population

control measures to curb the populations, the populations of MCLG are

expected to continue increasing and become more and more unstable as

suitable breeding habitat diminishes. As population densities increase,

the incidence of avian cholera among MCLG and other species is likely

to increase throughout the Flyways, particularly at migration stopover

sites. Losses of other species such as pintails, white-fronted geese,

sandhill cranes, and whooping cranes, from avian cholera may be great.

This may result in reduced hunting, birdwatching, and other

opportunities. It may also result in the season closures of adversely

impacted migratory game birds such as white-fronted geese, sandhill

cranes, and pintails. Goose damage to winter wheat and other

agricultural crops will continue and worsen. Habitat damage in the

Arctic will eventually trigger density-dependent regulation of the

population which likely will result in increased gosling mortality and

may cause the population to decline precipitously.

However, it is not clear when such population regulation will occur

and what habitat, if any, will remain to support the survivors. Such a

decline may result in a population too low to permit any hunting,

effectively closing MCLG hunting seasons. The length of the closures

will largely depend on the recovery rate of the breeding habitat which

likely will take decades. Although the overall impact of closures of

light-goose seasons in the Central and Mississippi Flyways that could

result from continued degradation of the breeding habitat is small on a

national scale, it would be concentrated where large flocks of geese

stage and winter. As hunter services tend to be performed by people

with low incomes, the impact of a closure would fall disproportionately

on low income groups near goose concentrations. We expect the proposed

action to reduce the risk of light-goose season closures in the Central

and Mississippi Flyways and avoid a $70 million loss in output and

reduce the possibility of increased agricultural loss. We expect

special MCLG population control efforts to create additional take

opportunities which is expected to add $18 million in output to local

economies.

Public Comments Received

On April 6, 1998, we issued in the Federal Register (63 FR 16819) a

notice of intent announcing that we would develop a draft Environmental

Assessment to examine alternative regulatory strategies to reduce MCLG

populations. This notice invited public comment on possible regulatory

alternatives. The notice also advised the public that the draft

Environmental Assessment along with a proposed rule would be published

in the Federal Register later this year for public review and comment.

As a result of this invitation for public comment, 247 comments

consisting of 1 from a Federal agency, 8 from State wildlife agencies,

7 from private organizations, 1 from a Flyway Council, 115 from private

citizens, and 115 from people who signed a petition were received.

Comments were generally dichotomized by two key points of concern.

To summarize, 186 comments were supportive of our intent to examine

alternative regulatory strategies to reduce the MCLG population. These

commenters agreed that there was a problem and that the resolution

should entail reduction by lethal means and supported the use of

additional methods to increase take of MCLG. Comments in support of

such action were received from 1 Federal agency, 8 State wildlife

agencies, 1 Flyway Council, 5 private conservation agencies, 94 private

citizens, and 77 from people who signed a petition. Conversely, 59

comments received were in opposition to the Service's intent to reduce

MCLG populations by use of lethal means either because they believe it

is not scientifically justified to reduce the populations or attempts

to do so would be inhumane. Instead, these commenters offered two non-

lethal recommendations to reduce the populations: (1) Hazing adults off

nests and (2) egging (destroying nests) on the breeding grounds.

Comments in support of no action or non-lethal action were received

from 2 private animal welfare agencies, 19 private citizens, and 38

from people who signed a petition. Additionally, 2 comments were

received in support of reducing the population by use of lethal means,

however, recommended use of Federal wildlife agency programs such as

trapping and culling.

Service Response: We are also opposed to the inhumane treatment of

any birds and we do not believe that increasing take of MCLG by

providing additional opportunities or methods for take of MCLG is

inhumane. We also prefer non-lethal control activities, such as habitat

modification, as the first means of resolving this issue. 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. Further, MCLG breed

in remote locations in the arctic and

[[Page 60284]]

subarctic regions of Northern Canada. Implementing control activities

in those areas is cost-prohibitive and dangerous. Instead, we feel that

providing States with additional opportunity and means to increase take

of MCLG while implementing non-lethal control measures concurrently is

the most efficient and feasible short-term solution. We will continue

to work jointly with the Canadian Wildlife Service to reduce MCLG in

both the United States and in Canada.

References Cited

Abraham, K.F., R.L. Jefferies, R.F. Rockwell, and C.D. MacInnes.

1996. Why are there so many white geese in North America? 7th

International Waterfowl Symposium, Memphis, TN.

____________________, and R.L. Jefferies. 1997. High goose

populations: causes, impacts and implications. Pages 7-72 in B.D.J.

Batt, ed. Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report of the Arctic Goose

Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special

Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and

Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120 pp.

Alisauskas, R., C.D. Ankney, and E.E. Klaas. 1988. Winter diets and

nutrition of mid-continental lesser snow geese. J. Wildl. Manage.

52:403-414.

____________________, S.M. Slattery, D.K. Kellett, D.S. Stern, and

K.D. Warner. 1998. Spatial and temporal dynamics of Ross's and snow

goose colonies in Queen Maud Gulf Bird Sanctuary, 1966-1998.

Canadian Wildlife Service, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 21 pp.

Ankney, C.D. and C.D. MacInnes. 1978. Nutrient reserves and

reproductive performance of female lesser snow geese. Auk 95:459-

471.

Batt, B.D.J., editor. 1997. Arctic ecosystems in peril: report of

the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture

Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,

D.C. and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.

Central and Mississippi Flyway Councils. 1982. Wildfowl Management

Guidelines.

Rockwell, R.F., E. Cooch, and S. Brault. 1997a. Dynamics of the Mid-

continent population of lesser snow geese: projected impacts of

reductions in survival and fertility on population growth rates.

Pages 73-100 in B.D.J. Batt, ed. Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report

of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint

Venture Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, D.C. and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120

pp.

____________________, D. Pollack, K.F. Abraham, P.M. Kotanen, and

R.L. Jefferies. 1997b. Are there declines in bird species using La

Perouse Bay? The Hudson Bay Project status report for Ducks

Unlimited, Inc. Ryder, J.P. 1969. Nesting colonies of Ross' goose.

Auk:86-282-292.

____________________. 1998. Personal Communication. American Museum

of Natural History. New York, NY.

Sparrowe, R. 1998. Report of the Stakeholder's Committee on Arctic

Nesting Geese. Rollin Sparrowe, Chair. Wildlife Management

Institute, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Environment Canada, and Secretaria

De Desarrollo Social. 1998. 1998 update to the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan--fulfilling the legacy: expanding the

vision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.

USFWS. 1997a. Waterfowl population status, 1997. Office of Migratory

Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 32 pp.

____________________. 1997b. Harvest and population survey data

book, Central Flyway, compiled by D.E. Sharp. Office of Migratory

Bird Management, Denver, CO. 123 pp.

____________________. 1998a. Mid-continent Lesser Snow Goose

Workshops: Central and Mississippi Flyways, Fall 1997. Office of

Migratory Bird Management and Division of Refuges, Arlington, VA.

____________________. 1998b. Waterfowl populations status, 1998.

Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,

VA. 31 pp.

____________________. 1998c. Waterfowl Population Status, 1998.

Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,

VA.

Yancey, R., M. Smith, H. Miller, and L. Jahn. 1958. Waterfowl

distribution and migration report (Mississippi Flyway States).

Proceedings 11th Annual Southeastern Association of Game and Fish

Commissioners: 105-115.

NEPA Considerations

We have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA), as defined

under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

in connection with this proposed regulation. The EA is available for

public review at the above address.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884) provides that ``Each Federal agency

shall, in consultation with the Secretary, insure that any action

authorized, funded, or carried out . . . is not likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or

result in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) habitat

. . .'' Consequently, we initiated Section 7 consultation under the ESA

for this proposed rulemaking. Completed results of our consultation

under Section 7 of the ESA may be inspected by the public in, and will

be available to the public from, the Office of Migratory Bird

Management at the above address.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, and Executive

Order 12630

The economic impacts of this proposed rulemaking will fall

disproportionately on small businesses because of the structure of the

waterfowl hunting related industries. The proposed regulation benefits

small businesses by avoiding ecosystem failure to an ecosystem that

produces migratory bird resources important to American citizens. The

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires the

preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a

significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. Data are

not available to estimate the number of small entities affected, but it

is unlikely to be a substantial number on a national scale. We expect

the proposed action to reduce the risk of light-goose season closures

in the Central and Mississippi Flyways subsequently avoiding a $70

million loss in output and reducing the possibility of increased

agricultural loss. We expect special MCLG population control efforts to

create additional take opportunities which is expected to add $18

million in output to local economies. We have determined that a

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis is not required. Migratory bird

regulations are recognized as exempt from takings implication

assessment under E.O. 12630. This rule was not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

The collection of information described below will be submitted to

OMB for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). We will not conduct or sponsor any information

collection until approved by OMB and a final regulation is published,

and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information

unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. The proposed

information collection will be used to administer this program and,

particularly in the assessment of impacts alternative regulatory

strategies may have on MCLG and other migratory bird populations. The

information collected will be required to authorize State wildlife

management agencies

[[Page 60285]]

responsible for migratory bird management to take MCLG within the

guidelines provided by the Service. The annual number of State

participants is expected to be 17. The reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to average 30 hours per

response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and

maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the collection of

information, yielding an annual burden of 510 hours.

Burden Estimates for Reporting Requirements for the Conservation Order To Reduce Mid-continent Populations of

Light Geese

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Avg. time

Number of required per

Type of report reports report Burden hours

annually (minutes)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Take or Removal*........................................ 17 1,800 510

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* General take or removal includes authorized human-related mortality.

We expect a maximum of 17 annual reports per year from all

participating States. We estimate that each annual report will require

about 6 hours to complete, therefore, the burden assumed by the

participants is 102 hours or less.

Comments are invited from you on: (1) Whether the collection of

information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of

the agency, including whether the information will have practical

utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden, including

the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be

collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of

information on those who are to respond, including through the use of

appropriate, automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological

collection techniques or other forms of information collection

technology. Comments and suggestions on the requirements should be sent

directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of

Management and Budget; Attention: Interior Desk Officer, Washington, DC

20503; and a copy of the comments should be sent to the Information

Collection Clearance Officer, US Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224--

ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington DC 20204. A copy should also be

sent directly to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20204 or electronically to [email protected]

Unfunded Mandates

We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements

of the Unfunded Mandates Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq) that this proposed

rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given

year on local or State government or private entities. This rule will

not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small governments. No

governments below the State level will be affected by this rule. A

Small Government Agency Plan is not required. This rule will not

produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, i.e.,

it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined

that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in

Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. This rule has been

reviewed by the Office of the Solicitor. Specifically, this rule has

been reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity, has been written to

minimize litigation, provides a clear legal standard for affected

conduct, and specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal

law or regulation. It is not anticipated that this rule will require

any additional involvement of the justice system beyond enforcement of

provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 that have already

been implemented through previous rulemakings.

Public Comment Invited

The policy of the Department of the Interior is, whenever

practical, to afford you the opportunity to participate in the

rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written

comments, suggestions, or objections regarding this proposal to the

location identified in the address section above. Specifically, we

invite comment from affected States regarding the feasibility in

implementing the proposed rule within the conditions provided. Comments

must be received on or before January 8, 1998. Following review and

consideration of the comments, we will issue a final rule.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations

that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make

this rule easier to understand including answers to questions such as

the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)

Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with

its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid in or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided

into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type

and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' (50 CFR 21.60) (5) Is the

description of the rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of

the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else could we do

to make the rule easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this

rule easier to understand to `` Office of Regulatory Affairs,

Department of the Interior, room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address:

E[email protected].

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby propose to amend

parts 20 and 21, of the subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 20--[AMENDED]

The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712; and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.

Sec. 20.22 [Amended]

2. In Section 20.22, the phrase ``except as provided in part 21''

is added following the word ``season''.

[[Page 60286]]

PART 21--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Pub. L. 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)).

2. Subpart E, consisting of Section 21.60, is added to read as

follows:

Subpart E--Control of Overabundant Migratory Bird Populations

Sec. 21.60 Conservation Order for Mid-continent light geese.

Any State agency responsible for the management of wildlife and

migratory birds may, without permit, kill or cause to be killed under

its general supervision, lesser snow and Ross' geese (Mid-continent

light geese) in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas,

Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming:

Provided that:

(a) Persons who take Mid-continent light geese under this section

may not sell or offer for sale those birds nor their plumage, but may

possess, transport, and otherwise properly use them.

(b) Persons acting under the authority of this section must permit

at all reasonable times including during actual operations, any Federal

or State game or deputy game agent, warden, protector, or other game

law enforcement officer free and unrestricted access over the premises

on which such operations have been or are being conducted; and must

promptly furnish whatever information an officer requires concerning

the operation.

(c) Nothing in this section authorizes the take of Mid-continent

light geese contrary to any State laws or regulations; and none of the

privileges granted under this section may be exercised unless persons

acting under the authority of the conservation order possesses whatever

permit or other authorization(s) as may be required for such activities

by the State concerned.

(d) Activities conducted under this section may not affect

endangered or threatened species as designated under the Endangered

Species Act.

(e) Control activities must be conducted clearly as such and are

intended to relieve pressures on migratory birds and habitat essential

to migratory bird populations only and are not to be construed as

opening, re-opening, or extending any open hunting season contrary to

any regulations promulgated under section 3 of the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act.

(f) Control activities may be conducted only when all migratory

bird hunting seasons are closed.

(g) Control measures employed through this section may be

implemented only between the hours of \1/2\ hour before sunrise to \1/

2\ hour after sunset.

(h) Nothing in this section may limit or initiate management

actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal Agency with

jurisdiction.

(i) States must designate participants who must operate under the

conditions of this section.

(j) States must inform all participants of the requirements/

conditions of this section that apply.

(k) States must keep records of activities carried out under the

authority of this section, including the number of Mid-continent light

geese taken under this section, the methods by which they were taken,

and the dates they were taken. The State must submit an annual report

summarizing activities conducted under this section on or before August

1 of each year, to the appropriate Assistant Regional Director--Refuges

and Wildlife (see Sec. 10.22).

(l) Persons acting under the authority of this section may take

Mid-continent light geese by any method except those prohibited in this

section. No persons may take Mid-continent light geese:

(1) With a trap, snare, net, rifle, pistol, swivel gun, shotgun

larger than 10 gauge, punt gun, battery gun, machine gun, fish hook,

poison, drug, explosive, or stupefying substance;

(2) From or by means, aid, or use of a sinkbox or any other type of

low floating device, having a depression affording the person a means

of concealment beneath the surface of the water;

(3) From or by means, aid, or use of any motor vehicle, motor-

driven land conveyance, or aircraft of any kind, except that

paraplegics and persons missing one or both legs may take from any

stationary motor vehicle or stationary motor-driven land conveyance;

(4) From or by means of any motorboat or other craft having a motor

attached, or any sailboat, unless the motor has been completely shut

off and the sails furled, and its progress therefrom has ceased:

Provided, That a craft under power may be used to retrieve dead or

crippled birds; however, crippled birds may not be shot from such craft

under power;

(5) By the use or aid of live birds as decoys; although not limited

to, it shall be a violation of this paragraph for any person to take

migratory waterfowl on an area where tame or captive live ducks or

geese are present unless such birds are and have been for a period of

10 consecutive days before the taking, confined within an enclosure

that substantially reduces the audibility of their calls and totally

conceals the birds from the sight of wild migratory waterfowl;

(6) By means or aid of any motordriven land, water, or air

conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in the

concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of any migratory bird;

(7) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area. As used

in this paragraph, ``baiting'' means the placing, exposing, depositing,

distributing, or scattering of shelled, shucked, or unshucked corn,

wheat or other grain, salt, or other feed so as to constitute for such

birds a lure, attraction or enticement to, on, or over any areas where

hunters are attempting to take them; and ``baited area'' means any area

where shelled, shucked, or unshucked corn, wheat or other grain, salt,

or other feed capable of luring, attracting, or enticing such birds is

directly or indirectly placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or

scattered; and such area shall remain a baited area for 10 days

following complete removal of all such corn, wheat or other grain,

salt, or other feed. However, nothing in this paragraph prohibits the

taking of Mid-continent light geese on or over standing crops, flooded

standing crops (including aquatics), flooded harvested croplands, grain

crops properly shocked on the field where grown, or grains found

scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or

harvesting; or

(8) While possessing shot (either in shotshells or as loose shot

for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin (97 parts

bismuth: 3 parts tin with 1 percent residual lead) shot, or such shot

approved as nontoxic by the Director and identified in 50 CFR 20.21(j).

(m) The Service will annually assess the overall impact and

effectiveness of the conservation order to ensure compatibility with

long-term conservation of this resource. If at any time evidence is

presented that clearly demonstrates that there no longer exists a

serious threat of injury to the area or areas involved, we will publish

immediately a notice of intent to revoke the conservation order in the

Federal Register.

[[Page 60287]]

Dated: October 30, 1998.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 98-29954 Filed 11-5-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P