Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit

SUMMARY: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

proposes, in cooperation with State wildlife agencies (States), to

establish a Canada goose damage management program. This program is

designed to provide a biologically sound and more cost-effective and

efficient method for the control of locally-breeding (resident) Canada

geese that pose a threat to health and human safety and are responsible

for damage to personal and public property.

DATES: The comment period for this proposed rule closes June 1, 1998.

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, Office of

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

1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Numbers of Canada geese that nest and reside predominantly within

the conterminous United States have increased exponentially in recent

years (Rusch et al., 1995; Ankney, 1996). These geese are sometimes

collectively referred to as ``resident'' Canada geese. These increasing

populations of locally-breeding geese are resulting in increasing

numbers of conflicts with human activities, and concerns related to

human health and safety are increasing (Ankney, 1996). To date, the

Service has attempted to address this growing problem through existing

annual hunting season frameworks and issuance of control permits on a

case-by-case basis. While this approach has provided relief in some

areas, the Service realizes that sport harvest will not completely

address the problem and that the current permit-issuance system has

become a time-consuming and burdensome process for both applicants and

the Service. Therefore, the Service is proposing changes to the way

permits for control and management of resident Canada geese that either

pose a threat to health and human safety or cause damage to personal

and public property are issued under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by

the Service. Presently, the regulations governing the issuance of

permits to take, capture, kill, possess, and transport migratory birds

are authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and are promulgated in

50 CFR parts 13 and 21.

The geographic scope of this proposed rule is restricted to the

conterminous United States and to the two subspecies of Canada geese

(Branta canadensis) that nest and reside predominately within the

conterminous United States (B. c. maxima and B.c. moffitti), the

``giant'' and ``western'' Canada geese, respectively. Nesting geese

within the conterminous United States are considered members of these

two subspecies or hybrids between the various subspecies originating in

captivity and artificially introduced into numerous areas throughout

the conterminous United States. No evidence presently exists

documenting breeding between Canada geese nesting within the

conterminous United States and those subspecies nesting in northern

Canada and Alaska. The geese nesting and residing within the

conterminous United States in the months of June, July, and August will

be collectively referred to in this proposed rule as ``resident''

Canada geese.

The remaining 9 subspecies of Canada geese recognized in North

America nest, for the most part, in arctic and sub-arctic regions of

Canada and Alaska (Lack 1974). These subspecies are encountered in the

conterminous United States only during the fall, winter and spring of

the year, or as a result of human placement.

Generally, the Service has stressed the need to manage geese on a

population basis, guided by cooperatively-developed management plans.

However, resident Canada goose populations and the development of a

resident Canada goose damage management program present several

potential problems with this approach. Because resident goose

populations interact and overlap with other Canada goose populations

during the fall and winter, these other goose populations could

potentially be affected by any management action or program targeted at

resident Canada geese during the fall and winter. Therefore, to avoid

potential conflicts with existing management plans for other goose

populations, the temporal scope of this proposed rule is restricted to

the period March 11 through August 31 each year. These dates encompass

the period when sport hunting is prohibited throughout the conterminous

United States by the Migratory Bird Treaty (1916) and resulting

regulations promulgated under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918).

Injury/damage complaints occurring during the period September 1 to

March 10, the period open to sport hunting, are outside the scope of

this proposed rule and will continue to be addressed through either

migratory bird hunting regulations or the existing migratory bird

permit process.

Population Status/Public Conflicts

In the early 1960's Hanson (1965) rediscovered the giant Canada

goose, then believed to be extinct (Delacour 1954). Hanson (1965)

estimated there were about 50,000 of this subspecies left in both

Canada and the United States at the time of his survey. In recent

years, however, the numbers of these Canada geese that nest

predominantly within the conterminous United States have increased

tremendously. Recent surveys in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central

Flyways (Nelson and Oetting, 1991; Sheaffer and Malecki, 1991; Wood et

al., 1994; Caithamer and Dubovsky, 1997) suggest that the resident

breeding population now exceeds 1 million individuals in both the

Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways and is increasing exponentially.

Information from the 1997 Waterfowl Status Report (Caithamer and

Dubovsky, 1997) shows that in the Atlantic Flyway, the resident

population has increased an average of 17 percent per year since 1989

and currently exceeds 1 million geese. In the Mississippi Flyway, the

resident population of Canada geese has increased at a rate of about 6

percent per year during the last 10 years and also currently exceeds 1

million birds. In the Central and Pacific Flyways, populations of

resident Canada geese have similarly increased over the last few years.

In some areas, numbers of resident Canada geese have increased to

record high levels. The Service is concerned about the rapid growth

rate and large sizes of resident goose populations, especially in parts

of the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways.

Further, in some regions, the management of these large populations

of resident canada geese is confounded by the presence of migratory

Canada goose populations that are considered to be below management

objectives. A case in point is the migratory Atlantic Population (AP)

of Canada geese which

[[Page 15699]]

nests in northern Quebec and winters in the Atlantic Flyway. The number

of breeding pairs of migratory AP geese declined from 118,000 in 1988

to only 29,000 in 1995. While numbers of this migratory population have

since increased to 63,000 in 1997, as stated above, Atlantic Flyway

resident Canada geese are estimated to have a population now exceeding

1 million. Traditional methods of dealing with the growing resident

Canada goose population in the Atlantic Flyway, such as hunting, are

not available in areas with migrating and wintering AP geese. The

difficulty and challenge faced by the Service and State wildlife

management agencies is one of striving to increase the migratory

population while simultaneously addressing the problems caused by the

growing resident population.

In many areas of the country, these burgeoning populations of

resident Canada geese are increasingly coming into conflict with human

activities. The urban/suburban populations have a relative abundance of

preferred habitat provided by current landscaping techniques (i.e.,

open areas with short grass adjacent to small bodies of water), and

this habitat availability combined with the lack of natural predators,

the absence of waterfowl hunting in many of these areas, and free

handouts of food by some people has served to increase resident Canada

goose populations exponentially. Problem habitat examples include

public parks, airports, public beaches and swimming facilities, water-

treatment reservoirs, corporate business areas, golf courses, schools,

college campuses, private lawns, amusement parks, cemeteries,

hospitals, residential subdivisions, and along or between highways. As

a consequence, injury complaints related to agricultural damage and

other public conflicts are increasing as resident Canada goose

populations increase.

To date, the Service has attempted to address injurious resident

Canada goose problems through existing hunting seasons, the creation of

new special Canada goose seasons designed to target resident

populations, and issuance of permits allowing specific control

activities.

The overall guidance for all existing and special hunting seasons

is provided in a 1975 Environmental Impact Statement and a 1988

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of

Interior 1975, 1988). In general, the Service's approach has been to

support special seasons, and as experience and information are gained,

to allow expansion and simplification consistent with established

criteria.

Special seasons targeting resident Canada geese were first

initiated in 1977 in the Mississippi Flyway with an experimental late

season in Michigan. Following these early experiments in Michigan and

several other Midwestern States, the Service gave notice of pending

criteria for special Canada goose seasons in the June 6, 1986, Federal

Register (51 FR 20681). Criteria for special early seasons were

finalized in the August 9, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 29905) and

later were expanded to include special late seasons in September 26,

1991, Federal Register (56 FR 49111). The original intent of these

special seasons was to provide additional harvest opportunities on

resident Canada geese while minimizing impacts to migrant geese. The

criteria were necessary to control harvests of non-target populations

and required States to conduct annual evaluations. Initially, all

seasons were considered experimental, pending a thorough review of the

data gathered by the participating State. Early seasons are generally

held during early September, with late seasons occurring only after the

regular season, but no later than February 15.

Special seasons for resident Canada geese are presently offered in

all four Flyways, with 29 States participating. They are most popular

among States when regular Canada goose seasons are restricted to

protect migrant populations of Canada geese. Currently restrictive

harvest regimes are in place for the Atlantic, Southern James Bay,

Dusky, Cackling and Aleutian Canada goose populations.

Harvest of Canada geese during these special seasons has increased

substantially over the last 8 years. In the Atlantic Flyway, 16 of 17

States hold special Canada goose seasons, with harvest rising from

about 2,300 in 1988 to almost 124,000 in 1995 (MBMO, 1997). In the

Mississippi Flyway, 10 of 14 States hold special Canada goose seasons,

and harvest has increased from less than 10,000 birds in 1986 to almost

150,000 in 1995. Michigan currently harvests in excess of 50,000

locally-breeding Canada geese per year. While the opportunities are not

as significant in the Central and Pacific Flyways, as areas and seasons

have expanded, harvest has increased from approximately 1,300 in 1989

to over 20,000 in 1995.

While creation of special harvest opportunities has helped to limit

the problem in some areas, many resident Canada geese remain in urban

and suburban areas throughout the fall and winter where these areas

afford them almost complete protection from sport harvest. The Service

realizes that harvest management will never completely address this

problem and permits to conduct otherwise prohibited control activities

will continue to be necessary to balance human needs with expanding

resident Canada goose populations.

Complex Federal and State responsibilities are involved with Canada

goose control activities. All State and private activities, except

techniques intended to either scare geese out of or preclude them from

a specific area, such as harassment, habitat management, or repellents,

require a Federal permit, issued by the Service. Additionally, permits

to alleviate migratory bird depredations are issued by the Service in

coordination with the Wildlife Services (formerly Animal Damage

Control) program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS/WS). APHIS/WS is the Federal Agency with lead responsibility for

dealing with wildlife damage complaints. In most instances, State

permits are required as well.

A brief summary of the complaints/requests for control permits

placed with APHIS/WS indicates the increasing number of public

conflicts. In 1996, the APHIS/WS received 3,265 complaints of injurious

goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1996). In response to those complaints,

APHIS/WS dispersed 513,585 Canada geese. In addition, those 3,265

complaints resulted in APHIS/WS recommending the Service issue 321

permits. Those recommendations included 93 for take, 5 for capture/

relocation, and 238 for egg/nest destruction.

In 1995, APHIS/WS received 2,884 complaints of injurious goose

activity which resulted in the dispersal of 525,000 Canada geese

(APHIS/WS, 1995). In addition, during that same period, the APHIS/WS

program reviewed 2,224 permit requests dealing with the control of

injurious Canada geese (APHIS/WS, 1995). Of those 2,224 requests,

APHIS/WS recommended the Service issue 250 permits. Those

recommendations included 68 for take, 5 for capture/relocation, and 195

for egg/nest destruction.

Comparing these figures with previous years' data shows a steady

increase in complaints since 1991. For example, in 1991 APHIS/WS

received 1,698 complaints of injurious goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1991).

In 1993, there were 2,802 complaints (APHIS/WS, 1993). In response to

those complaints, APHIS/WS dispersed 730,692 and 862,809 geese,

respectively, and recommended the Service issue 92 and 192 permits,

respectively.

[[Page 15700]]

Permit issuance by the Service has also increased in recent years

as resident Canada goose populations have grown to high levels in some

areas. In Region 5 (the Northeastern/New England area), the Service

issued 26 site-specific permits to kill resident Canada geese and 54

permits to addle eggs in 1994. In 1995, Region 5 issued 56 site-

specific permits to kill resident Canada geese, 2 permits to relocate

geese, and 109 permits to addle eggs. These permits resulted in the

reported take of 291 geese, the relocation of 0 geese, and the addling

of eggs in 833 nests. In 1996, Region 5 issued 70 site-specific permits

to kill resident Canada geese, 1 permit to relocate geese, and 151

permits to addle eggs. These permits resulted in the reported take of

807 geese, the relocation of 0 geese, and the addling of eggs in 1,235

nests.

In addition to the site-specific permits, from 1994-96, Region 5

issued 10 statewide permits for the relocation of resident Canada geese

to three government agencies: APHIS/WS, Delaware Division of Fisheries

and Wildlife, and the Virginia Department of Agriculture (VDA). APHIS/

WS and VDA were also authorized to addle eggs under these permits. From

all statewide permits combined, in 1994, 2,573 resident Canada geese

were relocated and eggs were addled in 24 nests. In 1995, 1,900 geese

were relocated and eggs were addled in 45 nests. In 1996, 1,764

resident Canada geese were relocated and eggs were addled in 165 nests.

In the Service's Region 3, the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area, the

number and extent of permits issued to manage and control resident

Canada geese has increased significantly in the past few years. In

1994, the Service issued 53 permits to trap and relocate, 84 permits to

destroy nests/eggs and 12 permits allowing take of adults. These

permits resulted in the relocation of 6,821 resident Canada geese, 176

nests and 1,300 eggs destroyed, and 31 adult geese killed. In 1995,

Region 3 authorized 111 permits to either trap and relocate birds,

destroy nests/eggs, or allow take of adults in Illinois, Indiana,

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. These 111 permits

resulted in the relocation of 1,015 resident Canada geese, the

destruction of 1,797 nests sites, and the take of 616 adult geese. In

addition to the above site-specific permits, Region 3 issued Statewide

permits in 1995 to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Ohio Department of

Natural Resources allowing Statewide trapping and relocation

activities. Michigan reported relocating over 4,000 resident Canada

geese, Minnesota moved between 5,000 and 7,000 birds, and Ohio

conducted goose roundups at approximately 1,000 sites across the state.

In 1996, Region 3 issued 226 permits authorizing resident Canada goose

control activities. Permit holders, including APHIS/WS, airports, and

state wildlife agencies, reported taking 6,922 eggs and 827 geese, and

trapped and relocated over 15,300 resident Canada geese. States in

which control activities were conducted included Illinois, Indiana,

Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Since 1995, the Service's Region 3 has also issued permits to the

Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Department

of Natural Resources (MDNR) authorizing the capture and processing of

resident Canada geese as food for local food-shelf programs.

Minnesota's permit was a part of the MDNR's Urban Goose Management

Program for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area (initiated in

1982). In 1995, under these permits, Michigan and Minnesota were

authorized to take up to 2,000 and 325 geese, respectively. Michigan

reported taking 24 birds with Minnesota taking its full allotment of

325 birds. In 1996, Michigan and Minnesota were again authorized to

take up to 1,000 and 2,500 resident Canada geese, respectively, for the

food-shelf programs. Michigan reported taking 490 birds and Minnesota

1,847. In 1997, the Service again issued Michigan and Minnesota permits

authorizing the take up to 1,000 and 2,500 resident Canada geese,

respectively, for the food-shelf programs.

In Region 1, the Pacific Northwest/West Coast area, the Service has

primarily limited permits for the control of resident Canada geese to

the addling of eggs. In 1995, the Region issued permits authorizing the

take of 900 eggs in the Puget Sound Area of Washington. In 1996, this

number was increased to 2,000 eggs and 200 adult birds. APHIS/WS

subsequently reported taking 911 and 1,570 eggs in 1995 and 1996,

respectively, and 6 geese in 1996. For 1997, the Region has again

authorized the take of 2,000 eggs in the Puget Sound Area and another

500 eggs in the City of Fremont, California.

The Service realizes that APHIS/WS has limited personnel and

resources to respond to requests for assistance. Likewise, as the

number of complaints continue to increase, greater demand will be

placed on the Service and the States to assist in damage-management

programs. With the increase in complaints, the current system is

becoming time-consuming, cumbersome and inefficient. The Service, with

its State and other Federal partners, believe development of an

alternative method of issuing permits to control problem resident

Canada geese, beyond those presently employed, is needed so that

agencies can provide responsible, cost-effective, and efficient

assistance. The proposed special Canada goose permit provides the

States that opportunity while maintaining protection of our migratory

bird resources.

Proposed Special Canada Goose Permit

The Service proposes to add a new permit option available to State

conservation agencies specifically for resident Canada goose control

and damage management. The special permit would only be available to a

State conservation or wildlife management agency responsible for

migratory bird management. Under this permit, States and their

designated agents could initiate resident goose damage management and

control injury problems within the conditions/restrictions of the

program. Those States not wishing to obtain this new permit would

continue to operate under the current permitting process.

Applications for the special permit would require a detailed

statement from the State estimating the size of the resident Canada

goose population in the State, requesting the number of resident Canada

geese, including eggs and nests, to be taken, and showing that such

damage-control action will either provide for human health and safety,

protect personal property, or provide compelling justification that the

permit is needed to allow resolution of other conflicts between people

and resident Canada geese. The permit holder (i.e., State Agency) would

also be required to inform all designated agents of the permit

conditions that apply to the implementation of resident Canada goose

damage management.

The special resident Canada goose damage-management permit would be

subject to the following conditions/restrictions:

1. Take of injurious resident Canada geese as a management tool

could be utilized only after applicable non-lethal alternative means of

eliminating the damage problem have been proven to be unsuccessful or

not feasible.

2. No other migratory birds or any species designated under the

Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered may be affected by

the action.

3. Actions under the State permit are limited to the period between

March 11

[[Page 15701]]

and August 31. Permits will be issued annually. In California, Oregon

and Washington, in areas where the threatened Aleutian Canada goose (B.

c. leucoperia) has been present during the previous 10 years, lethal

control activities are restricted to the period May 1 through August

31, inclusive. Delisting of this subspecies would result in a review of

this provision.

4. Control activities must be conducted clearly as such and cannot

be set up so as to be in fact a ``hunt.''

5. The permit cannot be used to limit or initiate management

actions on Federal land within a State without concurrence of the

Federal Agency with jurisdiction.

6. Canada geese killed in control programs must be properly

disposed of or utilized. Canada geese killed under this permit may be

donated to public museums or public scientific and educational

institutions for exhibition, scientific, or educational purposes or

given to charities for human consumption, or buried or incinerated.

This permit does not, however, allow for Canada geese taken pursuant to

this section, nor their plumage, to be sold, offered for sale,

bartered, or shipped for purpose of sale or barter.

7. Methods of take are at the discretion of the permittee

responsible for the control action. Methods may include, but are not

limited to, firearms, alpha-chloralose, traps, egg and nest

manipulation and other control techniques that are consistent with

accepted wildlife-damage management programs.

8. States may designate agents who must operate under the

conditions of the permit.

9. Any employee/designated agent authorized by the State to carry

out control measures under the special permit must retain in their

possession a copy of the State's permit, and designation, in the case

of an agent, while carrying out any control activity.

10. Any State agency, when exercising the privileges of this

permit, must keep records of all activities, including those of

designated agents, carried out under the authority of the special

permit. An annual report detailing activities conducted under the

permit will be required by the Service prior to any permit renewal.

11. The Service will annually review reports submitted by permit

holders and will periodically assess the overall impact of this permit

program to ensure compatibility with long-term conservation of this

resource.

12. Nothing in the permit should be construed to authorize the

killing of Canada geese contrary to any State law or regulation or on

any Federal land without written authorization by the appropriate

management authority, and none of the privileges granted under the

permit shall be exercised without any State permit that may be required

for such activities.

13. The Service reserves the authority to immediately suspend or

revoke any permit if it finds that the terms and conditions set forth

have not been adhered to as specified in 50 CFR 13.27 and 13.28.

Currently, nearly all permits for resident Canada goose control

activities are handled, evaluated, and issued on a case-by-case

specific basis. However, with the increasing numbers of requests for

permits, the permit-issuance process has become time-consuming and

lengthy in some instances. Thus, the Service believes that it is likely

that some injury to people and property from resident Canada geese are

tolerated rather than go through the lengthy permit-issuance process.

With the proposed special resident-goose damage-management permit, the

Service expects that the use of resident Canada goose control and

management activities, particularly lethal control methods such as egg/

nest destruction, would increase. Lethal control methods associated

with hazing techniques of adult birds would also be expected to

initially increase. However, following this initial increase, continual

use of hazing methods should become more effective and may result in

fewer overall lethal control activities. Such lethal and non-lethal

activities would be expected to decrease the number of injurious

resident Canada geese in localized areas, especially urban/suburban

areas. Regionally, little overall impact on the resident Canada goose

population would be expected because many goose populations have

demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest rates in excess of 20

percent. The Service anticipates the magnitude of any lethal control

activities will be well below 20 percent of any State's resident Canada

goose breeding population.

Little impact on sport hunting would be expected under the proposed

special permit. Resident Canada goose populations in areas that are

targeted for management/control activities are generally those that

provide little or no sport hunting opportunities due to restricted

access within urban/suburban areas where hunting is either precluded or

severely restricted. Areas and resident Canada goose populations

already open to sport hunting would be expected to remain open, as

special Canada goose season frameworks and guidelines would not change.

However, due to the increased availability of control measures, there

could be the removal of some open hunting areas due to public use/

safety considerations. Further, some potential hunting areas under

consideration as open hunting areas might lose some justification and

basis for opening hunting.

The Service also expects that this approach would result in more

aggressive resident Canada goose-control activities. By allowing

injurious resident Canada goose problems to be dealt with on the State/

local level, instead of the Service's Regional level, it is expected

that control activities would be more responsive and timely to the

problem(s) than is currently the case. Consequently, it is expected

that with reduced injurious populations and more effective hazing

programs, fewer complaints would be likely to occur and less resident

Canada goose damage would be likely.

With State fish and wildlife agencies responding to individual

resident Canada goose problems within their respective jurisdictions,

Service administrative responsibilities for each individual control

activity that currently necessitate the determination and/or issuance

of a permit would be expected to decrease significantly. Currently, the

Service, in most instances, must decide on a case-by-case basis whether

a permit should be issued. This new permit would greatly lessen the

number of these permits.

Summary of Comments

On September 3, 1996, the Service issued in the Federal Register

(61 FR 46431) a notice of availability of a Draft Environmental

Assessment (DEA) on Permits for Control of Injurious Canada Geese and

Request for Comments on Potential Regulations. The notice advised the

public that a DEA had been prepared and was available for public

comment. The notice also announced the Service's intent to consider

regulatory changes to the process for issuance of permits to control

injurious resident Canada geese. The Service subsequently extended the

public comment period on November 12, 1996 (61 FR 58084).

As a result of this invitation for public comment, the Service

received 101 comments including two from Federal agencies, 28 from

State wildlife agencies, 24 from private organizations and 47 from

private citizens. Comments included a wide range of topics; however,

several patterns emerged that indicated key points of concern.

To summarize, the August 1996 DEA offered the following three

permit alternatives: first, to continue the

[[Page 15702]]

existing permit procedure; second, to provide a special Canada goose

permit to APHIS/WS and State wildlife agencies with the added authority

of allowing subpermits to be issued by APHIS/WS and the States to

others; and thirdly, to develop a more restrictive permit procedure.

The DEA identified the second option as the preferred alternative,

describing a procedure for issuing special resident Canada goose

permits and providing the additional option of subpermitting resident

Canada goose damage management activities to designated agents. After

consideration of the comments received, the Service has revised the

preferred alternative as described below in the discussion of comments.

This change will provide the Service with more direct control but does

not alter the conclusions or analyses displayed in the EA.

Many commenters expressed support for ``cleaning up'' the process

and making it more responsive to the needs of the public. However, some

comments challenged the need for any type of resident Canada goose

damage-management activities. For purposes of this proposed rule, the

following review combines comments into general categories. The issues

and the Service response to each are summarized below:

Issue 1: Several commenters expressed concern that the Service did

not have the authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act) and

subsequent regulations to allow non-Service entities (APHIS/WS, States)

to issue permits. This theme was repeated throughout and many saw this

as an attempt by the Service to abrogate their goose-management

responsibility.

Service Response: With regard to the issues raised by these

comments, the Service has decided to utilize a process whereby permits

would only be issued to State conservation or wildlife management

agencies. The Service proposes a system whereby State employees or

designated agents may carry out resident Canada goose damage management

and control injurious problems within the conditions/restrictions of

the permit program.

Issue 2: Several comments suggested that the special permit be

replaced by a depredation order, arguing that this approach would be a

more cost-effective/efficient means to manage resident Canada Geese.

Service Response: The Service has included this alternative in the

revised EA. However, while the Service agrees that depredation orders

in other circumstances have proven to be valuable tools in wildlife

damage management, the Service believes that management of resident

Canada geese deserves special attention and consideration which can

best be provided by the proposed special Canada goose permit. The

Service believes that a special Canada goose permit will provide the

management flexibility needed to address this serious problem and at

the same time simplify the procedures needed to administer this

program. A special Canada goose permit will satisfy the need for an

efficient/cost-effective program while allowing the Service to maintain

management control.

Issue 3: Several comments challenged the notion that there are in

fact ``injurious'' Canada geese and that the entire concept of

``resident'' Canada geese is invalid.

Service Response: The Service strongly disagrees with both these

assertions and has included data in the revised EA that demonstrate the

impact of resident Canada goose populations on personal property,

agricultural commodities, and health and human safety. In addition,

data are available that clearly point out that Canada goose populations

do, in fact, nest in parts of the conterminous United States during the

spring and summer and that these birds are causing injury to people and

property. These data are presented in the revised EA. Furthermore, the

Service is not redefining what is or is not a migratory bird under the

Treaty. We are using the term ``resident'' to identify those commonly

injurious Canada geese that will be the subject of control activities

within the scope of the Treaty.

Issue 4: A number of comments included in the August 1996 DEA

addressed the procedures that dealt with the implementation of a

resident Canada goose damage-management program. These comments

expressed concern that the methods of take were too restrictive, that

no mention was made of egg and nest management, that the time period

associated with damage control was too restrictive, that the 25 percent

population figure was unrealistic and virtually impossible to

ascertain, and the directions for disposition of geese were incomplete.

Service Response: The Service carefully considered all these

comments and has made modifications in the proposed regulation to

address the concerns expressed. Information specific to the applicant

State's population of resident geese and the numbers expected to be

taken annually will now be required in the application. The Service

will utilize this information and other pertinent biological and

population-specific data as the basis for determining the premitted

take. The Service made major changes to expand the methods of take to

include the use of alpha-chloralose when warranted and to allow the on-

site biologist more flexibility. The Service also made provisions to

include egg-addling and nest destruction as viable damage-management

tools. The Service agrees that the 25 percent population figure on

which to determine allowable take is nebulous and does not provide a

legitimate guideline for identifying a population level.

Issue 5: A large number of commenters indicated that they were

philosophically opposed to the killing of Canada geese and any other

``inhumane'' treatments of these birds. They expressed preferences for

non-lethal solutions to all resident Canada goose/human conflicts and

pointed out that people need to be more tolerant of wildlife. Some

commenters also opposed the removal of geese on the grounds that these

management actions were only short-term solutions.

Service Response: The Service is also opposed to the inhumane

treatment of any birds, but does not believe the capture and

relocation, or processing for human consumption, of resident Canada

geese from human conflict areas is by definition ``inhumane.'' Over the

past few years, thousands of problem resident Canada geese have been

rounded up by wildlife managers and relocated to unoccupied sites.

However, few such sites remain. Therefore, the Service believes that

humane lethal control of some geese is an appropriate part of an

integrated resident Canada goose damage/control management program.

The Service also prefers non-lethal control activities, such as

habitat modification, as the first means of eliminating resident Canada

goose conflict/damage problems and has specified language to this

effect in the proposed regulations. However, habitat modification and

other harassment tactics do not always work satisfactorily and lethal

methods are sometimes necessary to increase the effectiveness of non-

lethal management methods.

There are many situations where resident Canada geese have created

injurious situations and damage problems that few people would accept

if they had to directly deal with the problem situation. The Service

continues to encourage state wildlife management agencies to work with

not only the local citizens impacted by the management actions but all

citizens.

[[Page 15703]]

While it is unlikely that all resident Canada goose/human conflicts

can be eliminated in all urban settings, implementation of broad-scale

resident Canada goose management activities may result in an overall

reduced need for other management actions, such as large-scale goose

round-ups and lethal control.

References

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services (formerly

Animal Damage Control). 1992. 1991 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS,

Washington, D.C.

--------------------. 1994. 1993 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS,

Washington, D.C.

--------------------. 1996. 1995 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS,

Washington, D.C.

--------------------. 1997. 1996 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS,

Washington, D.C.

Ankney, C. D. 1996. An embarrassment of riches: Too many geese. J.

Wildl. Manage. 60(2): 217-223.

Caithamer, D. F., and J. A. Dubovsky. 1997. Waterfowl population

status, 1997. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the

Interior, Washington, D.C. 32 pp. + appendices.

Delacour, J. T. 1954. The waterfowl of the world. Vol. 1. Country

Life, Ltd., London,. 251 pp.

Hanson, H. C. 1965. The giant Canada goose. Southern Illinois

University Press. Carbondale. 226 pp.

Lack, D. 1974. Evolution Illustrated by Waterfowl. Blackwell

Scientific Publications. Oxford, London. 96 pp.

Nelson, H. K. and R. B. Oetting. In press. Recent urbanization of

Canada geese. in D. H. Rusch, editor. Proceedings International

Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.

Rusch, D. H., R. E. Malecki, and R. E. Trost. 1995. Canada geese in

North America. Pages 26-28 in LaRoe, E. T., G. S. Farris, C. E.

Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac. Editors. OUR LIVING RESOURCES:

A report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of

U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Biological Service. Washington, D.C. 530 pp.

Sheaffer, S. E. and R. A. Malecki. In press. Status of Atlantic

Flyway resident nesting Canada geese. in D. H. Rusch, ed.

Proceedings International Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1975. Final Environmental Impact

Statement: Issuance of annual regulations permitting the sport

hunting of migratory birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, D.C. 710 pp + appendices.

--------------------. 1988. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement: Issuance of annual regulations permitting the sport

hunting of migratory birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, D.C. 339 pp. + appendices.

Wood, J. C., D. H. Rusch, and M. Samuel. 1994. Results of the 1994

spring survey of giant Canada goose survey in the Mississippi

Flyway. U.W. Co-op Unit. 9 pp. (mimeo).

NEPA Considerations

The Service has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), as

defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, in connection with this proposed regulation. The EA is available

for review at the above address.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

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

U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that, ``The Secretary shall

review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in

furtherance of the purposes of this Act'' (and) shall ``ensure that any

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

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification

of (critical) habitat ...'' Consequently, the Service initiated Section

7 consultation under the ESA for this proposed rulemaking. Completed

results of the Service's consultation under Section 7 of the ESA may be

inspected by the public in, and will be available to the public from,

the Office of Migratory Bird Management at the above address.

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.

3507(d)), the Service is submitting the necessary paperwork to OMB for

approval to collect this information. The Service will not collect any

information until approved by OMB and a final regulation is published.

Additionally, no person may be required to respond to a collection of

information unless it displays a currently valid OMB number. The

proposed information collection requirement will be used to administer

this program and, particularly in the issuance and monitoring of these

special Canada goose permits. The information requested will be

required to obtain a special Canada goose permit, and to determine if

the applicant meets all the permit issuance criteria, and to protect

migratory birds.

The applicants will be State wildlife agencies responsible for

migratory bird management that wish to initiate a resident Canada goose

control and damage management program within the guidelines provided by

the Service. The annual number of applicants is estimated to be less

than 45. The public reporting burden for this collection of information

is estimated to average 8 hours per response, including the time for

reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining data needed, and

completing and reviewing the collection of information, yielding an

annual burden of 360 hours.

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

of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function

of the Service, including whether the information will have practical

utility; (2) The accuracy of the Service's burden of the collection of

information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions

used; (3) The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be

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

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

electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.

Comments and suggestions on the requirement should be sent directly to

the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management

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

a copy of the comments should be sent to the Information Collection

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

C Street NW., Washington, DC 20204.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will

have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.

The Service has determined that this proposed rulemaking would not have

a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which

include small businesses, organizations and small governmental

jurisdiction. This proposed rule will only effect State wildlife

agencies responsible for migratory bird management that wish to

initiate a resident Canada goose control and damage management program

within the guidelines provided by the Service. The Service anticipates

that the annual number of applicants will be less than

[[Page 15704]]

45. Therefore, this proposed rule will have minimal effect on small

entities.

Executive Order 12866

The Service has determined that this proposed rule is not

significant under the definition in Executive Order 12866. Therefore,

this proposed rule was not subject to review by the Office of

Management and Budget.

Unfunded Mandates

The Service has determined and certifies in compliance with the

requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that

this proposed rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more

in any given year on local or State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined

that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in

Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Public Comment Invited

The policy of the Department of the Interior is, whenever

practical, to afford the public the opportunity to participate in the

rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written

comments, suggestions, or objections regarding this proposal to the

location identified in the address section above. Comments must be

received on or before June 1, 1998. Following review and consideration

of the comments, the Service will issue a final rule on these proposed

amendments.

The Service is also requesting comments on the proposed information

collection requirements. Comments should be submitted to the Service's

Information Collection Clearance Officer at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1849 C Street, NW., ms 224--ARLSQ, Washington, D.C. 20240; or

by calling 703/358-1943.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 21 of

subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as set forth below:

PART 21--[AMENDED]

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

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

2. Amend Sec. 21.3 by adding alphabetically a definition for

``Resident Canada geese.''

Sec. 21.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest and reside

within the conterminous United States in the months of June, July, and

August.

3. Add a new Sec. 21.26 to read as follows:

* * * * *

Sec. 21.26. Special Canada goose permit.

The Service may issue to State wildlife agencies a special permit

authorizing resident Canada goose damage management actions, when

issuance of such a permit will contribute to human health and safety,

or will protect personal property, or when presented with compelling

justification in the permit application that issuance of the permit

will allow resolution or prevention of injury to people or property.

The privileges granted under this section are intended to relieve or

prevent injurious situations only, and shall not be construed by the

permittee as opening, reopening, or extending any hunting season

contrary to regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 3 of the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

(a) Permit requirement. The Director may, upon receipt of an

application from a State wildlife agency, and in accordance with the

criteria of this section, issue a permit to any such agency to

undertake various methods of control, including lethal control, of

injurious resident Canada geese in accordance with the above

requirements. Only employees or designated agents of a permitted State

wildlife agency may take injurious resident Canada geese in accordance

with conditions specified in the permit, conditions set forth in 50 CFR

part 13, and as specified in (c) below.

(b) Application procedures. A State wildlife agency must submit an

application to the appropriate Regional Director (see section 13.11(b)

of this subchapter). Each such application must contain the general

information and certification required by section 13.12(a) of this

subchapter plus the following information:

(1) A detailed statement which makes a sufficient showing that the

control action will provide for human health and safety, or will

protect personal property, or provides other compelling justification

that the permit is needed to allow resolution of other injury to people

or property.

(2) An estimate of the size of the resident Canada goose population

in the State and the annual number of resident Canada geese, including

eggs and nests, for which authorization to take is requested.

(3) A statement that indicates that the permit holder (State

Agency) will inform and brief all employees/designated agents of the

requirements of these regulations and permit conditions that apply to

the implementation of resident Canada goose control measures.

(c) Additional permit conditions. In addition to the general

conditions set forth in part 13 of this subchapter B and elsewhere in

this section and unless otherwise specifically authorized on the

permit, the special resident Canada goose permits shall be subject to

the following conditions:

(1) Limitations and methods of take.

(i) Take of resident Canada geese as a management tool pursuant to

this section may be utilized only after applicable non-lethal

alternative means of eliminating the damage problem have been proven to

be unsuccessful or are not feasible and may not exceed the number

authorized by the permit.

(ii) Method of take for the control of resident Canada geese is at

the discretion of the permittee responsible for the action. Methods may

include, but are not limited to, firearms, alpha-chloralose, traps, egg

and nest manipulation and other damage control techniques that are

consistent with accepted wildlife damage-management programs.

(2) Time frame. Permittees and their employees and agents may take

only injurious resident Canada geese pursuant to this section between

March 11 and August 31 in any year. In California, Oregon and

Washington, in areas where the threatened Aleutian Canada goose (B. c.

leucoperia) has been present during the previous 10 years, lethal

control activities are restricted to the period May 1 through August

31, inclusive.

(3) Disposal and utilization. The permittee and its employees and

agents may possess, transport, and otherwise dispose of by donation to

public museums or public institutions for scientific or educational

purposes, injurious resident Canada geese killed pursuant to this

section. Additionally, geese taken under authority of a permit issued

under this section may be processed for human consumption and

distributed free of charge to charitable organizations or buried or

incinerated. A permit issued under this section shall not allow for

resident Canada geese

[[Page 15705]]

taken pursuant to this section, nor their plumage or eggs, to be sold,

offered for sale, bartered, or shipped for the purpose of sale or

barter.

(4) State law. Nothing in this section shall be construed to

authorize the killing of injurious resident Canada geese contrary to

any State law or regulation, nor on any Federal land without specific

authorization by the agency responsible for the management of these

lands. None of the privileges granted under this section shall be

exercised unless the person possesses any permits as may be required

for such activities by any State or by any Federal land manager.

(5) Inspection. Any State employee/designated agent authorized to

carry out control measures under a permit granted under this section

shall retain in their possession a copy of the permit and designation

while carrying out any activity under the permit. The permit holder

shall require the property owner or occupant on whose premises

activities are carried out to allow, at all reasonable times, including

during actual operations, any Service special agent, refuge officer or

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

wildlife law enforcement officer free and unrestricted access over the

premises on which such operations have been or are being conducted, and

shall furnish promptly to such officer whatever information may be

required concerning said operations.

(6) Reporting. Any State employee or designated agents exercising

the privileges granted by this section shall keep records of all

activities carried out under the authority of this special-purpose

permit, including the number of Canada geese killed pursuant to this

section and their disposition. The State must submit an annual report

detailing activities conducted under this section, including the time,

numbers and location of birds, eggs, and nests taken and non-lethal

techniques utilized on or before December 31 of each year. The annual

report shall be provided to the appropriate Assistant Regional Director

- Refuges and Wildlife (see section 10.22 of this chapter).

(7) Limitations. The following limitations shall apply:

(i) Nothing in this section applies to any Federal land within a

State's boundaries without written permission of the Federal Agency

with jurisdiction.

(ii) No action under any special permit issued under this section

may be undertaken if other migratory birds or species designated as

endangered or threatened under the authority of the Endangered Species

Act are or will be affected by the control activity.

(iii) Permits will only be issued to State wildlife agencies in the

conterminous United States.

(iv) States may designate agents who must operate under the

conditions of the permit.

(v) Term of permit--a special Canada goose permit issued or renewed

under this section expires on the date designated on the face of the

permit unless amended or revoked, but the term of the permit shall not

exceed three (3) years form the date of issuance or renewal.

(vi) Permit revocation--the Service reserves the right to suspend

or revoke any permit, as specified in 50 CFR 13.27 and 13.28.

* * * * *

Dated: March 4, 1998.

Donald Barry,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 98-8151 Filed 3-30-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-F