Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit

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

establishes, in cooperation with State wildlife agencies, a Canada

goose damage management program. This program is designed to provide a

biologically sound and more cost-effective and efficient method for the

control of locally-breeding Canada geese that pose a threat to health

and human safety and damage personal and public property.

DATES: The rule becomes effective June 17, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You may request copies of the EA and comments received on

the proposed rule by writing to the Chief, Office of Migratory Bird

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

ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20240. You may

inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Andrew, Chief, Office of

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

1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Numbers of Canada geese that nest and reside predominantly within

the conterminous United States have increased exponentially in recent

years (Rusch et al., 1995; Ankney, 1996). These increasing populations

of locally-breeding geese are resulting in increasing numbers of

conflicts with human activities and property, and concerns related to

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

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (We) has attempted to address this

growing problem through existing annual hunting season frameworks and

the issuance of control permits on a case-by-case basis. While this

approach has provided relief in some areas, we realize that sport

harvest will not completely address the problem and that the current

permit-issuance system is a time-consuming and burdensome process for

both applicants and us. Therefore, we are changing the way we issue

permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for control and management

of resident Canada geese that either pose a threat to health and human

safety or cause damage to personal and public property.

Which Canada Geese Are Affected by This Rule?

The geographic scope of this rule is restricted to the conterminous

United States and to Canada geese (Branta canadensis) that nest and/or

reside predominately within the conterminous United States. Primarily,

these geese consist mainly of B. c. maxima and B.c. moffitti, the

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

within the conterminous United States are usually considered members of

these two subspecies or hybrids between the various subspecies

originating in captivity and introduced into numerous areas throughout

the conterminous United States. No evidence presently exists

documenting breeding between Canada geese nesting within the

conterminous United States and those subspecies nesting in northern

Canada and Alaska. For the purposes of this rule, we will collectively

refer to all Canada geese nesting in the conterminous United States

and/or Canada geese residing within the conterminous United States in

the months of June, July, and August as ``resident'' Canada geese.

For the most part, the remaining subspecies of Canada geese

recognized in North America nest in arctic and sub-arctic regions of

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

in the conterminous United States only during the fall, winter and

spring of the year, or as a result of human placement.

How Does This New Program Avoid Conflicts With the Management of

Other Migratory Canada Goose Populations?

Generally, we have stressed the need to manage all geese on a

population basis, guided by cooperatively-developed management plans.

However, resident Canada goose populations and the development of a

resident Canada goose damage management program presented several

potential problems with this approach. Because resident goose

populations interact and overlap with other Canada goose populations

during the fall and winter, any management action or program targeted

at resident Canada geese during the fall and winter could potentially

affect these other goose populations. Therefore, to avoid potential

conflicts with existing management plans for other goose populations,

this new program is further restricted to March 11 through August 31 of

each year. These dates encompass the period when sport hunting is

prohibited throughout the conterminous United States by the Migratory

Bird Treaty (1916) and resulting regulations promulgated under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918). Any injury and damage complaints

occurring during September 1 to March 10, the period open to sport

hunting, will continue to be addressed through either migratory bird

hunting regulations or the existing migratory bird permit process.

What Authority Does the Service Have To Establish This New Program?

Regulations governing the issuance of permits to take, capture,

kill, possess, and transport migratory birds are authorized by the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and are promulgated in 50 CFR parts 13 and

21.

How Are These Resident Canada Geese Different Than Other Canada

Geese Populations? Other Than Location, Do They Behave Differently

or Have Different Biological Characteristics?

Canada geese, like other geese, are long-lived birds with

relatively low reproduction rates and high survival rates. However, of

all the Canada goose subspecies, the subspecies comprising most

resident geese have higher reproductive and adult survival rates.

Resident geese live in more temperate climates with relatively stable

breeding habitat conditions and low numbers of predators. Arctic and

subarctic Canada goose survival and reproduction are greatly influenced

by weather conditions. Additionally, nesting resident geese are very

tolerant of human disturbance and willing to nest in close proximity to

other geese (Gosser and Conover, 1999; Zenner and LaGrange, 1998).

Urban and suburban landscaping in the conterminous United States also

offers resident geese a relative abundance of their preferred habitat

(park-like open areas with short grass adjacent to small bodies of

water). Also, resident geese fly relatively short distances to winter

compared with other Canada goose populations. All of these factors

result in consistently high annual reproduction and survival for the

resident Canada goose population.

What Is the Current Status of These Resident Populations?

In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest

predominantly within the conterminous United States have increased

tremendously. Recent

[[Page 32767]]

surveys in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways (Wood et al.,

1994; Kelley et al., 1998; Nelson and Oetting, 1998; Sheaffer and

Malecki, 1998) suggest that the resident breeding population now

exceeds 1 million individuals in both the Atlantic and Mississippi

Flyways and is increasing exponentially.

Information from the 1998 Waterfowl Status Report (Kelley et al.,

1998) shows that in the Atlantic Flyway, the resident population has

increased an average of 14 percent per year since 1989. Last spring,

the population estimate was 970,055 geese in the northeastern U.S., a

number which is, however, similar to 1997. In the Mississippi Flyway,

the resident population of Canada geese has increased at a rate of

about 6 percent per year during the last 10 years. The 1998 spring

population estimate was 1,167,085 geese, an increase of 21 percent from

1997. In the Central and Pacific Flyways, populations of resident

Canada geese have similarly increased over the last few years. In some

areas, numbers of resident Canada geese have increased to record high

levels. We remain concerned about the rapid growth rate exhibited by

these already large populations, especially in parts of the Atlantic

and Mississippi Flyways.

What Interests Are Being Injured by These Large Populations (i.e.,

What Are Some of the Problems and Conflicts)?

Urban and suburban resident Canada goose populations are

increasingly coming into conflict with human activities in many parts

of the country, especially at public parks, airports, public beaches

and swimming facilities, water-treatment reservoirs, corporate business

areas, golf courses, schools, college campuses, private lawns,

amusement parks, cemeteries, hospitals and residential subdivisions,

and along or between highways. In parks and other open areas near

water, large goose flocks create a nuisance with their abundant

droppings and feather litter (Conover and Chasko, 1985). Surveys have

found that while most landowners like seeing some geese on their

property, eventually, increasing numbers of geese and the associated

accumulation of goose droppings on lawns cause many landowners to view

geese as a nuisance and thus reduce the aesthetic value and

recreational use of these areas (Conover and Chasko, 1985).

Additionally, goose droppings in heavy concentrations can overfertilize

lawns and degrade water quality resulting in eutrophication of lakes

with excessive algae growth (Manny et al., 1994). Overall, complaints

related to personal and public property damage, agricultural damage and

other public conflicts are increasing as resident Canada goose

populations increase.

How Has the Service Dealt With These Problems in the Past?

To date, we have tried to address injurious resident Canada goose

problems through existing hunting seasons, the creation of new special

Canada goose seasons designed to target resident populations, and

issuance of permits allowing specific control activities.

Have Special Hunting Seasons Been Adequate To Solve the Problems?

Special Canada goose seasons are hunting seasons specifically

designed to target resident populations through either time or area

restrictions. We first initiated special seasons targeting resident

Canada geese in 1977 in the Mississippi Flyway with an experimental

late season in Michigan. Following this and other early experiments in

Michigan and several other Midwestern States, we gave notice of pending

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

Register (51 FR 20681). We finalized criteria for special early seasons

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

expanded them to include special late seasons in the September 26,

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

special seasons was to provide additional harvest opportunities on

resident Canada geese while minimizing impacts to migrant geese. The

criteria were necessary to control harvests of non-target populations

and required States to conduct annual evaluations. Initially, we

considered all such seasons experimental, pending a thorough review of

the data gathered by the participating State. Early seasons are

generally held during early September, with late seasons occurring only

after the regular season, but no later than February 15.

We presently offer special seasons for resident Canada geese in all

four Flyways, with 31 States participating. They are most popular among

States when regular Canada goose seasons are restricted to protect

migrant populations of Canada geese. Currently, restrictive harvest

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

Cackling and Aleutian Canada goose populations.

Harvest of Canada geese during these special seasons has increased

substantially over the last 10 years. In the Atlantic Flyway, 16 of 17

States hold special Canada goose seasons, with harvest rising from

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to over 20,000 in 1995.

Creation of these special harvest opportunities has helped to limit

the problems and conflicts between geese and people in some areas.

However, many resident Canada geese remain in urban and suburban areas

throughout the fall and winter where these areas afford them almost

complete protection from sport harvest. Thus, while the creation of

these special hunting seasons is our first and preferred alternative

for dealing with most conflicts, we realize that harvest management

will never completely address this growing problem and permits to

conduct otherwise prohibited control activities will continue to be

necessary to balance human needs with expanding resident Canada goose

populations.

Have Control Measures Under the Existing Permit System Been

Adequate?

Complex Federal and State responsibilities are involved with all

migratory bird control activities, including the control of resident

Canada geese. All State and private control activities, except

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

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

require us to issue a Federal permit. Additionally, we issue permits to

alleviate migratory bird depredations in coordination with the Wildlife

Services program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

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

dealing with wildlife damage complaints. In most instances, State

permits are required as well.

However, APHIS/WS has limited personnel and resources to respond to

requests for assistance. Likewise, as the number of complaints and

conflicts continue to increase, the public will place greater demand on

us and the States to assist in goose damage-management programs. This

increased need for assistance places greater demand on the current

permit-issuance system. Unfortunately, administrative

[[Page 32768]]

procedures involved in the issuance of permits many times cause a lag

time of several weeks between our receipt of a permit request, our

evaluation and decision on issuing the permit, and the ultimate

issuance of a site-specific permit authorizing a control action. In the

interim, even small numbers of geese can cause significant damage to

personal property and result in economic, recreational, and aesthetic

losses. Thus, with the increase in complaints, the current permit

issuance system has become time-consuming, cumbersome and inefficient

for us and the States.

How Have the Number of Complaints and Requests for Assistance and

Permits Increased?

A brief summary of the complaints/requests for control permits

placed with APHIS/WS indicates the increasing number of public

conflicts. In 1997, APHIS/WS received 3,295 complaints of injurious

Canada goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1997). In response to those

complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 354 permits. The vast

majority of these complaints concerned agricultural, human health and

safety, and property issues and came primarily from the Northeastern/

New England area (50%) and the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area (29%). In

1996 and 1995, APHIS/WS received 3,265 and 2,884 complaints,

respectively, of injurious goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1996; APHIS/WS,

1995 ). In response to those complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue

321 permits in 1996 and 250 permits in 1995.

Comparing these figures with previous years' data shows a steady

increase in complaints since 1991. For example, in 1993 and 1991 APHIS/

WS received 2,802 and 1,698 complaints, respectively, of injurious

Canada goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1993; APHIS/WS, 1991). In response to

those complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 192 and 92 permits,

respectively.

Has the Number of Permits Issued Increased Correspondingly?

Yes. Our permit issuance has also increased tremendously in recent

years. For example, Region 5 (the Northeastern/New England area) issued

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

to addle eggs in 1994. Two years later in 1996, Region 5 issued 70

site-specific permits to kill resident Canada geese, 1 permit to

relocate geese, and 151 permits to addle eggs. In addition, the Region

issued Statewide permits to relocate birds and addle eggs to agencies

in certain States. Over 3 years, these permits resulted in the

relocation of over 2,600 geese, the addling of eggs in over 2,300

nests, and the take of over 1,000 birds.

In Region 3, the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area, the number and

extent of permits issued to manage and control resident Canada geese

has also increased significantly in the past few years. In 1994, the

Region issued 149 permits authorizing resident Canada goose control

activities, including trapping and relocation, destruction of nests/

eggs, and take of adults. In 1998, Region 3 issued 225 permits

authorizing resident Canada goose control activities. In total, permit

holders, including APHIS/WS, airports, and state wildlife agencies,

reported taking in excess of 27,000 eggs and 6,800 geese, and trapped

and relocated over 70,000 resident Canada geese (complete reports

through 1997, partial reports for 1998). States in which control

activities were conducted included Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Since 1995, Region 3 has also issued permits to the Michigan

Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Department of Natural

Resources authorizing the capture and processing of resident Canada

geese as food for local food-shelf programs. Minnesota's permit was a

part of the their Urban Goose Management Program for the Minneapolis-

St. Paul Metropolitan Area (initiated in 1982). In 1995, the first year

under these permits, Michigan and Minnesota were authorized to take up

to 2,000 and 325 geese, respectively. Michigan reported taking 24 birds

with Minnesota taking its full allotment of 325 birds. Since then,

Minnesota has been authorized to annually take up to 2,500 resident

Canada geese for its food-shelf program. In the three years under the

program since 1995, Minnesota has reported taking 5,399 birds.

Likewise, Michigan was also issued permits for 1996-1998 authorizing

the take up to 1,000 resident Canada geese for its food-shelf programs.

Michigan subsequently reported taking 490 birds in 1996 and 952 birds

in 1997. Michigan vacated their 1998 permit.

In Region 1, the Pacific Northwest/West Coast area, we have

primarily limited permits for the control of resident Canada geese to

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

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

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

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

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

take of 2,000 eggs in the Puget Sound Area and another 500 eggs in the

City of Fremont, California.

What Exactly Are the New Permits Authorized By This Rule and How

Will They Work?

We, with our State and other Federal partners, believe development

of an alternative method of issuing permits to control problem resident

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

agencies can provide responsible, cost-effective, and efficient

assistance. The special Canada goose permit authorized by this rule

provide the States that opportunity while maintaining protection of our

migratory bird resources. The new special Canada goose permits will

allow States and their designated agents to conduct management

activities as soon as it becomes apparent that resident Canada geese

are a problem. The new permits would also rely on a greater application

of community standards and preferences by allowing judgments

determining appropriate levels of control to be made at a more local

level.

The new permits are specifically for the management and control of

resident Canada geese (as defined in the rule). We will issue permits

to State conservation or wildlife management agencies on a State-

specific basis, so States and their designated agents can initiate

resident goose damage management and control injury problems within the

conditions/restrictions of the permit program. The permits will be

restricted to the period between March 11 and August 31. This new

special permit will increase the use and availability of control

measures, decrease the number of injurious resident Canada geese in

localized areas, have little impact on hunting or other recreation

dependent on the availability of resident Canada geese, and allow

injury/damage problems to be dealt with on the State/local level,

thereby resulting in more responsive and timely control activities. The

new special permits will further result in biologically sound and more

cost-effective and efficient resident Canada goose damage management.

Those States not wishing to obtain these new permits would continue to

operate under the current permitting process.

What Do States Need To Do To Apply for the New Permits?

Applications for the new special permit would require several items

from the State:

1. A detailed statement estimating the size of the resident Canada

goose breeding population in the State;

[[Page 32769]]

2. A request for the number of resident Canada geese, including

eggs and nests, to be taken;

3. A statement showing that such damage-control actions will either

provide for human health and safety or protect personal property, or

compelling justification that the permit is needed to allow resolution

of other conflicts between people and resident Canada geese; and

4. A statement indicating that the State will inform all designated

agents of the permit conditions applying to the implementation of

resident Canada goose damage management activities.

What Are the Conditions and Restrictions of the New Permit Program?

The special resident Canada goose damage-management permits are

subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

1. State wildlife agencies (States) may take injurious resident

Canada geese as a management tool. States should utilize non-lethal

management tools to the extent they consider appropriate in an effort

to minimize lethal take.

2. Control activities should not adversely affect other migratory

birds or any species designated under the Endangered Species Act as

threatened or endangered.

3. States may conduct control activities March 11 through August

31. States should make a concerted effort to limit the take of adult

birds to June, July, and August in order to minimize the potential

impact on other migrant populations. In areas where the threatened

Aleutian Canada goose (B. c. leucoperia) has been present during the

previous 10 years in California, Oregon and Washington, lethal control

activities are restricted to May 1 through August 31. If this

subspecies is delisted, we will review this provision.

4. States must conduct control activities clearly as such (e.g.,

they cannot be set up to provide a hunting opportunity).

5. States cannot use the permits to limit or initiate management

actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal Agency with

jurisdiction.

6. States must properly dispose of or utilize Canada geese killed

in control programs. States may donate Canada geese killed under these

permits to public museums or public scientific and educational

institutions for exhibition, scientific, or educational purposes, or

charities for human consumption. States may also bury or incinerate

geese. States may not allow for Canada geese taken under these permits,

nor their plumage, to be sold, offered for sale, bartered, or shipped

for purpose of sale or barter.

7. States may use their own discretion for methods of take but

utilized methods should be consistent with accepted wildlife-damage

management programs.

8. States may designate agents who must operate under the

conditions of the State's permit.

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

out control measures under a special permit must have in their

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

of an agent, while carrying out any control activity.

10. States must keep records of all activities, including those of

designated agents, carried out under the special permits. We will

require an annual report detailing activities conducted under a permit.

11. We will annually review States' reports and will periodically

assess the overall impact of this program to ensure compatibility with

the long-term conservation of this resource.

12. States should not construe anything in the permits to authorize

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

on any Federal land without written authorization by the appropriate

management authority. Further, States are not authorized to conduct

control activities authorized by the permits without any required State

permit.

13. We reserve the authority to immediately suspend or revoke any

permit if we find that the State has not adhered to the terms and

conditions specified in 50 CFR 13.27 and 13.28 or if we determine that

the State's population of resident Canada geese no longer poses a

threat to human health or safety, to personal property, or of injury to

other interests.

How Will This New Permit Actually Affect ``On-the-Ground'' Resident

Canada Goose Control and Management Activities? Will We See a

Dramatic Increase In The Use of Control Activities?

Under the new permits, we expect that the use of resident Canada

goose control and management activities, particularly lethal control

methods such as egg and nest destruction, will increase. We also expect

an initial increase in the lethal control methods associated with

hazing techniques of adult birds. However, following this initial

increase in control activities, we expect the hazing methods to become

more effective and probably result in fewer overall lethal control

activities.

Won't This Large-Scale Increased Use of Control Activities Result

in Harm to the Population?

No. We expect these lethal and non-lethal activities to decrease

the number of injurious resident Canada geese in localized areas,

especially urban and suburban areas. Regionally, we expect little

overall impact on the resident Canada goose population because many

goose populations have demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest

rates in excess of 20 percent. We anticipate the magnitude of any

lethal control activities will be well below 20 percent of any State's

resident Canada goose breeding population.

Will These New Permits Impact Existing Sport Hunting Opportunities?

We expect little impact on sport hunting under the new special

permits. Resident Canada goose populations in areas targeted for

management/control activities are generally those that provide little

or no sport hunting opportunities due to restricted access within urban

and suburban areas. As such, hunting in these areas is either precluded

or severely restricted. We would expect areas and resident Canada goose

populations already open to sport hunting to remain open, as special

Canada goose season frameworks and guidelines would not change.

What Are Some of the Other Benefits of These New Permits?

By allowing States and local jurisdictions to deal with injurious

resident Canada goose problems, instead of having the Service do so at

a regional level, we expect control activities will be more responsive

and timely to the problem(s) than is currently the case. Consequently,

we expect that with reduced injurious populations and more effective

hazing programs, fewer complaints are likely to occur and less resident

Canada goose damage is likely.

With State fish and wildlife agencies responding to individual

resident Canada goose problems within their respective jurisdictions,

our administrative responsibilities for each individual control

activity that currently necessitate the determination or issuance of a

permit is expected to decrease significantly. Currently, in most

instances, we must decide on a case-by-case basis whether a permit

should be issued. This new permit would greatly lessen the number of

these permits and the associated administrative procedures.

Public Comment

On September 3, 1996, we issued in the Federal Register (61 FR

46431) a

[[Page 32770]]

notice of availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on

Permits for Control of Injurious Canada Geese and Request for Comments

on Potential Regulations. The notice advised the public that we had

prepared a DEA. The notice also announced our intent to consider

regulatory changes to the process for issuance of permits to control

injurious resident Canada geese. We subsequently extended the public

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

As a result of this invitation for public comment, we received 101

comments including two from Federal agencies, 28 from State wildlife

agencies, 24 from private organizations and 47 from private citizens.

After consideration of the comments, we revised our DEA.

On March 31, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (63 FR

15698) a proposal to establish a Canada goose damage management program

(i.e., Special Canada Goose Permit). In response to our proposed rule,

we received 465 comments from Federal, State and local agencies, non-

governmental organizations, and individuals. In addition, we received

several petitions containing 1,674 signatures. We summarize the issues

and provide our responses below. We also believe it is important to

note that some of the comments we received on the proposed rule were

very similar to comments received on the DEA. While we previously

responded to these issues in our March 31, 1998 proposed rule, we

respond here again as a convenience to the reader.

Issue: Many private individuals and several private organizations

commented that our Environmental Assessment was insufficient to comply

with NEPA requirements, and that we should prepare a full Environmental

Impact Statement before taking any action on the program.

Service Response: We conducted an Environmental Assessment of

alternative regulatory strategies to control and manage resident Canada

geese that either pose a threat to health and human safety or cause

damage to personal and public property. We considered four alternatives

to the way permits for control and management of injurious resident

Canada geese are issued:

Alternative 1. Continue current permitting procedures as described

in 50 CFR part 21. This would be the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2. Add a new permit option specifically for the

management of injurious resident Canada geese. The permits would be

available to State conservation or wildlife management agencies on a

State-specific basis. Under the permits, States and their designated

agents could initiate resident goose damage management and control

injury problems within the conditions/restrictions of the program. Such

permits would be restricted to the period between March 11 and August

31.

Alternative 3. Issue a depredation order allowing State

conservation agencies to control resident Canada goose damage. The

depredation order would allow States to control injury from resident

Canada geese within the conditions/restrictions of the depredation

order. Such a depredation order would be restricted to the period

between March 11 and August 31.

Alternative 4. More restrictive use of permits to control resident

Canada goose damage, limited to situations where geese pose a direct

threat to human life or safety.

We selected Alternative 2, the addition of a new permit option

specifically for resident Canada goose control and management available

to State conservation agencies on a State-specific basis. This

alternative would increase the use and availability of control

measures, decrease the number of injurious resident Canada geese in

localized areas, have little impact on hunting or other recreation

dependent on the availability of resident Canada geese, and allow

injury and damage problems to be dealt with on the State or local

level, thereby resulting in more responsive and timely control

activities. This alternative would further result in biologically sound

and more cost-effective and efficient resident Canada goose damage

management.

Based on review and evaluation of comments by the public and

information contained in the EA, we determined that the action to amend

50 CFR Part 21 to establish a special Canada goose permit program for

the control and management of resident Canada geese would not be a

major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the

human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, we made a

Finding of No Significant Impact on this action and determined that

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. This

determination was based on consideration of the following factors which

were addressed in the Finding of No Significant Impact and provided

below:

1. While the program is State-wide in application, resident Canada

goose damage management activities conducted under the program will

likely occur in localized areas only. The control activities resulting

from this program would likely occur under individual special permits

issued under the current permit regulations contained in 50 CFR part

21.

2. On balance, the impact of the new program will be beneficial in

that reducing the number and frequency of injury to human interests

will be beneficial to the human environment. However, because of the

limited numbers of geese likely to be taken under the program, the

benefits will not be significant. Likewise, due to the large and

expanding population of resident Canada geese, adverse impacts (taking

of individual geese) will not be significant in the context of the

human environment.

3. The activities conducted under the program will not

significantly affect public health and safety. While we believe that

any impacts to public health and safety will be beneficial, impacts

will not be significantly beneficial. The program will likely have a

beneficial impact on human health and safety through a reduction in the

likelihood of bird aircraft strikes, conflicts with people and

property, and potential concerns over the transmission of disease to

humans.

4. Although there is controversy over the program, it primarily has

to do with objections by some groups opposed to any take of Canada

geese rather than over the analysis or scientific basis for determining

the impacts of our action. While some of these groups are opposed to

all goose or other wildlife damage management activities and dispute

the actual context of damage, the methods and impacts are generally not

controversial among wildlife managers and wildlife damage management

experts, nor the general public. All relevant concerns have been

addressed in the Environmental Consequences chapter in the

Environmental Assessment.

5. The possible effects of the program on the quality of the human

environment are not highly uncertain and do not involve unique or

unknown risks. The effects and potential risks were determined in the

process of development of the Environmental Assessment.

6. The program does not establish a precedent for actions with

future significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a

future consideration. We have issued similar permits for goose control

activities on a case-by-case or State-wide basis and States are

currently conducting Canada goose damage management activities

[[Page 32771]]

under these permits. Likewise, we have issued similar regulations, in

the form of depredation orders, for other species, such as the double-

crested cormorant, blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and magpies.

Any future similar actions, either for Canada geese, or any other

migratory bird species, would be analyzed under NEPA, with public

involvement, on their own merits.

7. There are no significant cumulative effects identified by this

assessment. Under this program, we expect that the use of resident

Canada goose control and management activities, particularly lethal

control methods such as egg and nest destruction, would increase.

Lethal control methods associated with hazing techniques of adult birds

would also be expected to initially increase. However, following this

initial increase, continual use of hazing methods should become more

effective and may result in fewer overall lethal control activities.

Such lethal and nonlethal activities would be expected to decrease the

number of injurious resident Canada geese in specific localized areas,

especially urban and suburban areas. Regionally and nationally, we

expect little overall population impact because many Canada goose

populations have demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest rates in

excess of 20 percent. We anticipate that the magnitude of any lethal

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

resident Canada goose breeding population. As discussed in the

Environmental Assessment, we expect the program to slow the overall

population growth rate and address specific localized injurious

population, but not significantly impact the overall population.

8. The program will fully comply with the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended. The Service determined that the program is not likely

to adversely affect the Aleutian Canada goose, a Federally listed

threatened species.

9. The program will not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or

local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the

environment.

The EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are available to the

public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

Issue: Some commenters expressed concern that we did not have the

authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and subsequent

regulations to allow non-Service entities (i.e., States) to issue

permits. Many saw this as an attempt to abrogate our goose-management

responsibility.

Service Response: As we indicated in the proposed rule, we will

utilize a process whereby permits are only issued to State conservation

or wildlife management agencies responsible for migratory bird

management. State conservation agency employees or their designated

agents could then carry out resident Canada goose damage management and

control injurious problems within the conditions/restrictions of the

permit program. This process is essentially no different than the

current permitting process contained in 50 CFR part 21.

Issue: A large number of comments challenged the notion that there

are in fact ``injurious'' Canada geese and that the entire concept and

definition of ``resident'' Canada geese is invalid. Some commenters saw

the new permit program as a mechanism to remove Canada geese from the

protection afforded them under the Migratory Bird Treaty (Treaty).

Service Response: We strongly disagree with these assertions and

have included data in the EA that demonstrate the impact of resident

Canada goose populations on personal property, agricultural

commodities, and health and human safety. In addition, data is

presented that clearly points out that Canada goose populations do nest

in parts of the conterminous United States during the spring and summer

and that these birds are increasingly causing injury to people and

property. Furthermore, we are not redefining what is or is not a

migratory bird under the Treaty. Canada geese are clearly protected by

the Treaty and will continue to be. We are using the term ``resident''

to identify those commonly injurious Canada geese that will be the

subject of permitted control activities within the scope of the Treaty.

Additionally, in response to comments, we have clarified the definition

of ``resident geese'' to read: Resident Canada geese means Canada geese

that nest within the conterminous United States and/or Canada geese

which reside within the conterminous United States during the months of

June, July, or August.

Issue: Several commenters believed the Treaty only authorizes the

killing of migratory birds if they are seriously injurious to

commercial interests, not personal property.

Service Response: Article VII of the Treaty states, ``Permits to

kill any of the above named birds, which under extraordinary conditions

may become seriously injurious to the agricultural or other interests

in any particular community (emphasis added), may be issued by the

proper authorities * * *''. We believe that resident Canada goose

populations have reached this level. The information available to us as

discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and in the Environmental

Assessment accompanying this action, demonstrates that the current

population levels are causing serious injury to increasing numbers of

people and property. The Treaty does not limit the ``interests'' to be

protected to those that are commercial. Rather, it provides the High

Contracting Parties broad authority to address any affected interests.

Therefore, we believe that establishment and implementation of this

permit program is in accordance with the terms of the Treaty.

Issue: Some commenters questioned the actual risks posed by Canada

geese on human health and safety.

Service Response: Although the human health and safety risks

associated with resident Canada geese are difficult to quantify, we

believe that the available data clearly indicate the potential negative

impacts on health and safety issues (APHIS/WS, 1999). While we agree

that the risk to human health from pathogens originating from geese is

currently believed to be low, we are only beginning to understand these

risks. Additional research is needed to assist in the quantification

and understanding of these processes. Further, it is clear from bird-

aircraft strike data that resident Canada geese can cause significant

aircraft safety concerns. We believe that increasingly large

populations of geese, especially in localized areas, only serve to

increase the uncertainty associated with these risks.

Issue: A large number of commenters questioned the validity of

resident Canada goose damage estimates supplied by APHIS/WS.

Service Response: According to APHIS/WS (1999), each damage report

received is questioned for both scope and magnitude in order to

determine reasonable and practical solutions to reduce damage.

Preference is given to non-lethal alternatives. However, if capture and

euthanasia are ultimately requested or recommended, APHIS/WS makes a

site visit to verify damage and ensure some non-lethal methods have

been tried and were ineffective to adequately reduce the damage. We

believe APHIS/WS's approach is appropriate.

Issue: Several commenters believed the permit process does not

allow adequate Federal oversight.

Service Response: We disagree. State applications for the special

permits require several detailed statements regarding the size of the

resident Canada goose breeding population in the State and the number

of resident Canada geese, including eggs and nests, to be

[[Page 32772]]

taken. In addition, the State must show that such damage-control

actions will either provide for human health and safety or protect

personal property, or compelling justification that the permit is

needed to allow resolution of other conflicts between people and

resident Canada geese. Any failure to follow these application

procedures results in a rejected application. Further, after issuance

of a permit, the State and its designated agents must follow the permit

restrictions and report all activities conducted under the permit. As

always, we retain the right to immediately revoke any permit violated.

This process is essentially no different than the current permit-

issuance system contained in 50 CFR part 21.

Issue: Some commenters stated that the time period associated with

damage management control is too restrictive.

Service Response: We acknowledge that complaints about injurious

geese are increasing outside the time frame covered by the special

permit. The permit program is designed to specifically address problems

caused by resident geese during the time period when hunting seasons

cannot be opened. We will continue to address injurious goose problems

not covered within the permit time frame on a case-by-case basis.

Issue: Several commenters recommended the issuance of permits for a

period of 5 years rather than 3 years.

Service Response: We concur that permits could reasonably be issued

for a period of 5 years given timely submission of annual reports

documenting the actions taken under authority of the permit. However,

failure to submit complete annual reports may result in suspension or

revocation of the permit.

Issue: Several commenters recommended elimination of the paperwork

and reporting requirements.

Service Response: Information specific to the applicant State's

population of resident Canada geese and the take requested is vital to

the application and ultimate decision on a permit. The reporting

requirement is essential for us to be able to monitor the action and

assess possible impacts to the population. Additionally, we will

utilize this information and other pertinent biological and population-

specific data as the basis for determining the permitted take.

Issue: Several commenters stated that the special permit was

unacceptable because it merely shifts costs and workload from the

Federal level to the State level without providing additional funds to

the States.

Service Response: We are not obligating States to apply for this

new permit. States may continue to handle injurious goose situations

with the current permitting system on a case-by-case basis.

Issue: Several commenters suggested that conditioning the permit

whereby taking Canada geese could occur ``. . . only after applicable

non-lethal alternatives means . . . have proven to be unsuccessful or

not feasible'' is too restrictive.

Service Response: We never intended that a State would need to

prove the need for lethal control at each site before implementation of

lethal control techniques. We believe this decision should be based on

the experience and judgement of professional wildlife managers on-site.

Thus, we have amended the wording of 21.26(c)(1)(I) to read as follows:

``Take of resident Canada geese as a management tool pursuant to this

section may not exceed the number authorized by the permit. States

should utilize non-lethal goose management tools to the extent they

deem appropriate in an effort to minimize lethal take.''

Issue: Several commenters requested clarification that research

activities are not included as a part of the proposed permit program.

Service Response: Because the permit program is for the purpose of

resolving injurious behavior of resident Canada geese, it is clear that

scientific research is not covered. All researchers who are not Federal

employees must have a scientific collecting permit to take any

migratory birds. We believe additional wording to clarify this point is

unnecessary.

Issue: Several commenters requested clarification of designated

agents and use of APHIS/WS as designated agents.

Service Response: ``Designated agents'' means individuals or

organizations and their employees who have written authority from the

State wildlife management agency (permit holder) to implement State-

approved resident Canada goose control measures. Thus, States could

utilize APHIS/WS as a designated agent.

Issue: Some commenters were concerned that the new permit process

does not allow more hunting opportunity.

Service Response: The purpose of the new special permit program is

to resolve injurious resident Canada goose problems, not create more

hunting opportunity. More specifically, the permit program is designed

to address problems caused by resident geese during the time period

when hunting seasons cannot be opened. For those States wishing to

primarily handle injurious resident populations through sport hunting,

sufficient hunting opportunities designed to target resident Canada

goose populations, while protecting migrant populations, exist in the

current hunting season frameworks.

Issue: Several commenters believed that the size of the resident

goose population in the State has little to do with the population

causing a problem in a localized area.

Service Response: We designed the new special permit program to

allow those States with widespread injurious goose problems the

latitude to deal with those problems on a broader management basis than

the current case-by-case basis. We believe the State wildlife agency is

the logical authority, within the context of the new special permit's

guidelines, to determine the proper goose management control activities

for the State's resident Canada goose population, including those

smaller, more localized populations. However, the new permit program

does not preclude a State from applying for a depredation permit under

the current permit regulations to deal with a specific localized

injurious goose problem. In fact, we realize that injurious situations

will continue to occur outside of the March 11 to August 31 time period

allowed under the new permit program. We will continue to deal with

these situations on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, as we stated

earlier, information on the State's goose population is an essential

part of the basis for our permit decisions and our long-term monitoring

of the population.

Issue: Several commenters were concerned that this action

establishes a precedent for future actions.

Service Response: We reiterate that this program does not establish

a precedent for actions with future significant effects or represent a

decision in principle about a future consideration. As we stated

earlier, in the past, we have issued similar permits for goose control

activities on a case-by-case or State-wide basis. States are currently

conducting Canada goose damage management activities under these

permits. Likewise, we have issued similar regulations, in the form of

either depredation orders or permits, for other species, such as the

double-crested cormorant, blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and

magpies. Any future similar actions, either for Canada geese, or any

other migratory bird species, would be analyzed under NEPA, with public

involvement, on their own merits.

Issue: A large number of commenters indicated that they are

philosophically

[[Page 32773]]

opposed to the killing of Canada geese and any other ``inhumane''

treatments of these birds. They expressed preferences for non-lethal

solutions to all resident Canada goose/human conflicts and pointed out

that people need to be more tolerant of wildlife. Some commenters also

opposed the removal of geese on the grounds that these management

actions were only short-term solutions.

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

any birds, but do not believe the capture and relocation, or processing

for human consumption, of resident Canada geese from human conflict

areas is by definition ``inhumane.'' Over the past few years, States

have rounded up thousands of problem resident Canada geese and

relocated them to unoccupied sites. However, few such unoccupied sites

remain. Therefore, we believe that humane lethal control of some geese

is an appropriate part of an integrated resident Canada goose damage

and control management program.

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

modification, as the first means of eliminating resident Canada goose

conflict and damage problems and have specified language to this effect

in the final regulations. However, habitat modification and other

harassment tactics do not always work satisfactorily and lethal methods

are sometimes necessary to increase the effectiveness of non-lethal

management methods.

There are many situations where resident Canada geese have created

injurious situations and damage problems that few people would accept

if they had to deal directly with the problem situation. We continue to

encourage state wildlife management agencies to work with not only the

local citizens impacted by the management actions but all citizens.

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

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

resident Canada goose management activities may result in an overall

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

round-ups and lethal control.

Issue: Some commenters indicated that they were concerned about the

potential loss of aesthetic value if Canada geese were removed from

areas.

Service Response: While we attempted to consider the views of all

those concerned, we admit that this was difficult given the highly

variable values people place on geese and other wildlife. Some

commenters conveyed their pleasure and appreciation for being able to

see geese locally in their neighborhood. However, we must weigh these

benefits with the views of other commenters who wanted to see fewer

geese because of the damage, including loss in the aesthetic value,

being caused by excessive numbers of geese on personal and public

property .

Issue: Several commenters believed that the special permit fell far

short of providing the States with more authority and less burdensome

regulations. Further, it does not provide States with enough management

flexibility. They believed a depredation order approach would be a more

cost-effective/efficient means to manage injurious resident Canada

Geese.

Service Response: As we indicated in the proposed rule, we included

the depredation order alternative in the EA. However, while we agree

that depredation orders in other circumstances have proven to be

valuable tools in wildlife damage management, we believe that

management of resident Canada geese deserves special attention and

consideration which, at this time, is best provided by the special

Canada goose permit program. We believe that the special Canada goose

permit program will provide the management flexibility needed to

address this serious problem and at the same time simplify the

procedures needed to administer this program. The special Canada goose

permit program will satisfy the need for an efficient and cost-

effective program while allowing us to maintain management control.

However, in the long-term, we realize that more management

flexibility will likely be necessary. Because of the unique locations

where large numbers of these geese nest, feed, and reside, we believe

that new and innovative approaches to dealing with bird/human conflicts

will be needed. In order to best deal with this problem, we have begun

to develop a short-term and long-term strategy. In the short-term,

these regulations to create and issue a new special permit specifically

for resident Canada goose control and damage management will

significantly reduce Service administrative costs for this activity,

provide quicker response to injurious situation and more effectively

control resident Canada goose populations throughout the conterminous

United States. In the long-term, we have recently begun the initial

groundwork, with the full assistance and cooperation of the Flyway

Councils and APHIS/WS, to integrate our management of these birds into

a larger Flyway management plan system. We believe the end result of

this approach should provide States with more management flexibility

and authority to deal with resident Canada geese within their State

while increasing the commitment to establish population goals and

objectives, management planning, and population monitoring.

References

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services (Formerly

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

D.C.

________. 1994. 1993 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.

________. 1996. 1995 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.

________. 1997. 1996 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.

________. 1998. 1997 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.

________. 1999. Environmental assessment for the management of

conflicts with non-migratory (resident) Canada geese, migratory

Canada geese, and urban/suburban ducks in the Commonwealth of

Virginia. APHIS/WS, Moseley, VA. 65 pp. + app.

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

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

Conover, M. R., and G. G. Chasko. 1985. Nuisance Canada goose

problems in the eastern United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13(3):228-

233.

Gosser, A. L., and M. R. Conover. 1999. Will the availability of

insular nesting sites limit reproduction in urban Canada goose

populations? J. Wildl. Manage. 63(1):369-373.

Kelley, J. R., D. F. Caithamer, and K. A. Wilkins. 1998. Waterfowl

population status, 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department

of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 31 pp. + appendices.

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

Scientific Publications. Oxford, London. 96 pp.

Manny, B. A., W. C. Johnson, and R. G. Wetzel. 1994. Nutrient

additives by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs: predicting their

effects on productivity and water quality. Hydrobiologia 279:121-

132.

Nelson, H. K. and R. B. Oetting. 1998. Giant Canada goose flocks in

the United States. Pages 483-495 in D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D.

Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and management of Canada

geese. Proceedings of the International Canada Goose Symposium,

Milwaukee, WI.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheaffer, S. E. and R. A. Malecki. 1998. Status of Atlantic Flyway

resident nesting Canada geese. Pages 29-34 in D. H. Rusch, M. D.

Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and

management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the

[[Page 32774]]

International Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.

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

spring survey of giant Canada goose survey in the Mississippi

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

Zenner, G. G., and T. G. LaGrange. 1998. Densities and fates of

Canada goose nests on islands in north-central Iowa. Pages 53-60 in

D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds.

Biology and management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the

International Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.

Effective Date

Under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553 (d)) we waive

the 30-day period before the rule becomes effective and find that

``good cause'' exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the

APA, and so this rule will take effect immediately upon publication. It

is not in the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule.

In many parts of the country, especially the northeastern and mid-

western States, locally-breeding Canada geese have already nested and

produced broods. Molting will soon take place (typically mid-June to

mid-July) and any delay in the effective date of this rule could reduce

the effectiveness of potential damage management actions for this year.

It is in the best interest of the public to establish this new special

permit program to allow State wildlife agencies the ability to reduce

the number and frequency of injurious resident Canada geese. It is also

in the best interest of the public to provide alternative regulatory

options to address the problem of overabundant resident Canada geese

that may affect the public's health and safety.

NEPA Considerations

We prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in

connection with this regulation. Based on review and evaluation of the

information contained in the EA, we determined that the proposed action

to amend 50 CFR Part 21 to establish a special Canada goose permit for

the control and management of resident Canada geese would not be a

major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the

human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, we made a

Finding of No Significant Impact on this action and determined that

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. The

EA is available to the public at the location indicated under the

ADDRESSES caption.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

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

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

review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in

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

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

jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification

of (critical) habitat * * *'' Consequently, we initiated Section 7

consultation under the ESA for this rulemaking. You may inspect

completed results of our consultation under Section 7 of the ESA at the

location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

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

3507(d)), we submitted the necessary paperwork to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) for approval to collect the information

required by the applicant and permittee. Under the Act, OMB must

approve information collections. After review, OMB approved the

information collection requirements of the Special Canada Goose Permit

and assigned clearance number 1018-0099. We will use the information

collection requirement to administer this program and in the issuance

and monitoring of these special permits. Federal agencies may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will

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

determined that this rulemaking would not have a significant effect on

a substantial number of small entities, which include small businesses,

organizations and small governmental jurisdiction. This rule will only

effect State wildlife agencies responsible for migratory bird

management that wish to initiate a resident Canada goose control and

damage management program within our guidelines. We anticipate that

less than 45 applicants will annually apply. Therefore, this rule will

have minimal effect on small entities.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

Executive Order 12866

We determined that this rule is not significant under the

definition in Executive Order 12866, and therefore, not subject to OMB

review.

Unfunded Mandates

We determined and certify in compliance with the requirements of

the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking

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

local or State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

The Department, in promulgating this rule, determined that these

regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Accordingly, we hereby amend part 21 of subchapter B, chapter I,

title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 21--[AMENDED]

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

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

2. Amend Sec. 21.3 by adding alphabetically definitions for

``Resident Canada geese'' and ``Service.''

Sec. 21.3 Definitions.

* * * * *

Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the

conterminous United States and/or Canada geese which reside within the

conterminous United States during the months of June, July, or August.

Service or we means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department

of the Interior.

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

Sec. 21.26. Special Canada goose permit.

(a) What is the special Canada goose permit and what is its

purpose? The special Canada goose permit is a permit issued by us to a

State wildlife agency authorizing certain resident Canada goose

management and control activities

[[Page 32775]]

that are normally prohibited. We will only issue such a permit when it

will contribute to human health and safety, protect personal property,

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

management and control activities conducted under the permit are

intended to relieve or prevent injurious situations only. No person

should construe the permit as opening, reopening, or extending any

hunting season contrary to any regulations established under Section 3

of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

(b) Who may receive a permit? Only State wildlife agencies (State)

are eligible to receive a permit to undertake the various goose

management and control activities. Additionally, only employees or

designated agents of a permitted State wildlife agency may undertake

activities for injurious resident Canada geese in accordance with the

conditions specified in the permit, conditions contained in 50 CFR part

13, and conditions specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

(c) How does a State apply for a permit? Any State wildlife agency

wishing to obtain a permit must submit an application to the

appropriate Regional Director (see Sec. 13.11(b) of this subchapter)

containing the general information and certification required by

Sec. 13.12(a) of this subchapter plus the following information:

(1) A detailed statement showing that the goose management and

control activities will either provide for human health and safety,

protect personal property, or allow resolution of other injury to

people or property;

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

population in the State;

(3) The requested annual take of resident Canada geese, including

eggs and nests;

(4) A statement indicating that the State will inform and brief all

employees and designated agents of the requirements of these

regulations and permit conditions.

(d) What are the conditions of the permit? The special Canada goose

permits are subject to the general conditions in 50 CFR part 13, the

conditions elsewhere in this section, and, unless otherwise

specifically authorized on the permit, the conditions outlined below:

(1) What are the limitations on management and control activities?

(i) Take of resident Canada geese as a management tool under this

section may not exceed the number authorized by the permit. States

should utilize non-lethal goose management tools to the extent they

deem appropriate in an effort to minimize lethal take.

(ii) Methods of take for the control of injurious resident Canada

geese are at the State's discretion. Methods include, but are not

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

manipulation and other damage control techniques consistent with

accepted wildlife damage-management programs.

(2) When may a State conduct management and control activities?

States and their employees and agents may conduct management and

control activities, including the take of resident Canada geese, under

this section between March 11 and August 31. In California, Oregon and

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

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

control activities are restricted to May 1 through August 31,

inclusive.

(3) How must the States dispose or utilize geese taken under this

permit? States and their employees and agents may possess, transport,

and otherwise dispose of Canada geese taken under this section. States

must utilize such birds by donation to public museums or public

institutions for scientific or educational purposes, by processing them

for human consumption and distributing them free of charge to

charitable organizations, or by burying or incinerating them. States,

their employees, and designated agents may not sell, offer for sale,

barter, or ship for the purpose of sale or barter any Canada geese

taken under this section, nor their plumage or eggs.

(4) How does the permit relate to existing State law? No person

conducting management and control activities under this section should

construe the permit to authorize the killing of injurious resident

Canada geese contrary to any State law or regulation, nor on any

Federal land without specific authorization by the responsible

management agency. No person may exercise the privileges granted under

this section unless they possess any permits required for such

activities by any State or Federal land manager.

(5) When conducting management and control activities, are there

any special inspection requirements? Any State employee or designated

agent authorized to carry out management and control activities must

have a copy of the permit and designation in their possession when

carrying out any activities. The State must also require the property

owner or occupant on whose premises the State is conducting activities

to allow, at all reasonable times, including during actual operations,

free and unrestricted access to any Service special agent or refuge

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

other wildlife law enforcement officer (wildlife officer) on the

premises where they are, or were, conducting activities. Furthermore,

any State employee or designated agent conducting such activities must

promptly furnish whatever information is required concerning such

activities to any such wildlife officer.

(6) What are the reporting requirements of the permit? Any State

employee or designated agent exercising the privileges granted by this

section must keep records of all activities carried out under the

authority of this permit, including the number of Canada geese killed

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

activities, including the time, numbers and location of birds, eggs,

and nests taken and non-lethal techniques utilized, before December 31

of each year. The State should submit the annual report to the

appropriate Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and Wildlife (see

Sec. 10.22 of this subchapter).

(7) What are the limitations of the special permit? The following

limitations apply:

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

State's boundaries without written permission of the Federal Agency

with jurisdiction.

(ii) States may not undertake any actions under any permit issued

under this section if the activities adversely affect other migratory

birds or species designated as endangered or threatened under the

authority of the Endangered Species Act.

(iii) We will only issue permits to State wildlife agencies in the

conterminous United States.

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

conditions of the permit.

(v) How long is the special permit valid? A special Canada goose

permit issued or renewed under this section expires on the date

designated on the face of the permit unless it is amended or revoked or

such time that we determine that the State's population of resident

Canada geese no longer poses a threat to human health or safety,

personal property, or injury to other interests. In all cases, the term

of the permit may not exceed five (5) years from the date of issuance

or renewal.

(vi) Can we revoke the special permit? We reserve the right to

suspend or revoke any permit, as specified in Sec. 13.27 and Sec. 13.28

of this subchapter.

[[Page 32776]]

(e) What are the OMB information collection requirements of the

permit program? OMB has approved the information collection

requirements of the permit and assigned clearance number 1018-0099.

Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays

a currently valid OMB control number. We will use the information

collection requirements to administer this program and in the issuance

and monitoring of these special permits. We will require the

information from State wildlife agencies responsible for migratory bird

management in order to obtain a special Canada goose permit, and to

determine if the applicant meets all the permit issuance criteria, and

to protect migratory birds. We estimate the public reporting burden for

this collection of information to average 8 hours per response for 45

respondents (States), including the time for reviewing instructions,

gathering and maintaining data needed, and completing and reviewing the

collection of information. Thus, we estimate the total annual reporting

and record-keeping for this collection to be 360 hours. States may send

comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the

burden, to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish

and Wildlife Service, ms 224-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, DC

20240, or the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction

Project 1018-0099, Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: June 9, 1999

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 99-15408 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P