Migratory Bird Permits; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on Resident Canada Goose Management

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Migratory Bird Permits; Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement on Resident Canada Goose Management

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is issuing

this notice to advise the public that we are initiating efforts to

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for resident Canada

goose management under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

The EIS will consider a range of management alternatives for addressing

expanding populations of locally-breeding Canada geese that are

increasingly posing threats to health and human safety and injuring

personal and public property. This notice describes possible

alternatives, invites public participation in the scoping process for

preparing the EIS, and identifies the Service official to whom you may

direct questions and comments. While we have yet to determine potential

sites of public scoping meetings, we will publish a notice of any such

public meetings with the locations, dates, and times in the Federal

Register.

DATES: You must submit written comments regarding EIS scoping by

October 18, 1999, to the address below.

ADDRESSES: You should send written comments 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. All comments received, including names and addresses, will

become part of the public record. You may inspect comments during

normal business hours in room 634--Arlington Square Building, 4401 N.

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Andrew, Chief, or Ron W.

Kokel, 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. These geese are usually referred to as ``resident'' Canada

geese. Recent surveys in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways

suggest that the resident breeding population now exceeds 1 million

individuals in both the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways is increasing

dramatically. Because resident Canada geese live in temperate climates

with relatively stable breeding habitat conditions and low numbers of

predators, tolerate human and other disturbances, have a relative

abundance of preferred habitat provided by current urban/suburban

landscaping techniques, and fly relatively short distances to winter

compared with other Canada goose populations, they exhibit a

consistently high annual production and survival. Given these

characteristics, the absence of waterfowl hunting in many of these

areas, and free food handouts by some people, these urban/suburban

resident Canada goose populations are increasingly coming into conflict

with human activities in many parts of the country.

Conflicts between geese and people affect or damage several types

of resources, including property, human health and safety, agriculture,

and natural resources. Common problem areas 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.

Property damage usually involves landscaping and walkways, most

commonly on golf courses and waterfront property. In parks and other

open areas near water, large goose flocks create local problems 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 both the

aesthetic value and recreational use of these areas (Conover and

Chasko, 1985).

Negative impacts on human health and safety occur in several ways.

At airports, large numbers of geese can create a very serious threat to

aviation. Resident Canada geese have been involved in a large number of

aircraft strikes resulting in dangerous landing/take-off conditions and

costly repairs. As a result, many airports have active goose control

programs. Excessive goose droppings are a disease concern for many

people. Public beaches in several States have been closed due to

excessive fecal coliform levels that in some cases have been traced

back to geese and other waterfowl. Additionally, during nesting and

brood rearing, aggressive geese have bitten and chased people.

Agricultural and natural resource impacts include losses to grain

crops, overgrazing of pastures, and degrading water quality. 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.

Until recently, we 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 provided

relief in some areas, it did not completely address the problem. On

June 17, we published a final rule in the Federal Register (64 FR

32766) establishing a new special Canada goose permit. The new permits

are specifically for the management and control of resident Canada

geese. 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 and restrictions of the

permit program. The permits, while restricted to the period between

March 11 and August 31, 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 and local level,

thereby resulting in more responsive and timely control activities. The

new special permits

[[Page 45270]]

further result in biologically sound and more cost-effective and

efficient resident Canada goose damage management. Overall, the new

permit will provide some additional management flexibility needed to

address this serious problem and at the same time simplify the

procedures needed to administer this program. In the short term, we

believe this permit will satisfy the need for an efficient/cost-

effective program while allowing us to maintain management control.

In the long-term, however, 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 continue

to believe that new and innovative approaches and strategies for

dealing with bird/human conflicts will be needed. We have recently

begun the initial work, with the full assistance and cooperation of the

Flyway Councils and the Wildlife Services program of the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS/WS), to develop a long-term

strategy to integrate our management of these birds into a larger

Flyway management plan system. In order to properly examine alternative

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, the preparation of an EIS is necessary.

Resident Canada Goose Populations

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 a higher reproductive and adult survival rate.

While arctic and subarctic Canada goose survival and reproduction are

greatly influenced by weather conditions, resident geese live in more

temperate climates with relatively stable breeding habitat conditions

and low numbers of predators. 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 offers resident geese a relative abundance of 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.

In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest

predominantly within the conterminous United States have increased

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

Flyways (Wood et al., 1994; Kelley et al., 1998; Nelson and Oetting,

1998; Sheaffer and Malecki, 1998; Wilkins and Cooch, 1999) suggest that

the resident breeding population now exceeds 1 million individuals in

both the Atlantic (17 States) and Mississippi (14 States) Flyways.

Available information shows that in the Atlantic Flyway, the resident

population has increased an average of 14 percent per year since 1989.

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. In the Central and Pacific Flyways, populations of resident

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

example, in the Puget Sound area of Washington, a 10-year trend shows

an increase from 3,110 geese in 1988 to 13,512 geese in 1997, an

increase of 434%. We remain concerned about the rapid growth rate

exhibited by these already large populations.

Current Management Actions

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, the

issuance of depredation permits allowing specific control activities,

and the creation of a new special Canada goose permit.

(1) Special Hunting Seasons

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. The original intent of these special seasons

was to provide additional harvest opportunities on resident Canada

geese while minimizing impacts to migrant geese. Initially, we

considered all such seasons experimental, pending a thorough review of

the data gathered by the participating State. We presently offer

special seasons targeting 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.

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 over 272,000 in 1998. In the Mississippi Flyway,

11 of 14 States hold special Canada goose seasons, and harvest has

increased from slightly more than 1,000 in 1981 to over 275,000 in

1998. Both Minnesota and Michigan currently harvest in excess of 70,000

locally-breeding Canada geese per year. While the harvest 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 almost 40,000 in 1998. Putting these harvest numbers in

perspective, Martin and Padding (1999) estimated that hunters harvested

a total of 2,038,700 Canada geese last year in the U.S. Thus,

conservatively, resident Canada geese now comprise roughly 30% of the

total Canada goose harvest in the U.S. (587,000 of 2,038,700). However,

despite these dramatic increases in harvest over the last 10 years,

from less than 24,000 in 1988 to over 587,000 last year (a 24-fold

increase), populations continue to increase in all Flyways.

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 management tool of choice

for dealing with most resident Canada goose conflicts, we realized 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.

(2) Depredation Permits

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 require a

Federal migratory bird permit. These permits are issued in coordination

with APHIS/WS. APHIS/WS is the Federal Agency with lead responsibility

for dealing with wildlife damage complaints. In some instances, APHIS/

WS may do the goose damage management work directly or they may

[[Page 45271]]

serve as agents working under authority of private and/or State

permits.

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 public-health and damage-

management programs. This increased need for assistance places greater

demand on the current permit-issuance system. Unfortunately,

administrative 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 case-by-case permit issuance system can be time-

consuming, cumbersome and inefficient for us and the States.

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, 1998). 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%).

Comparing these figures with previous years' data shows a steady

increase in complaints since 1991. In 1991 APHIS/WS received 1,698

complaints of injurious Canada goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1992). In

response to those complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 92 permits.

Thus, our permit issuance has 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, 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 over the

last 5 years, Region 3 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, before vacating 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.

(3) Special Canada goose permits

On June 17, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 32766) a

final rule establishing a new special Canada goose permit. Designed

specifically for the management and control of resident Canada geese,

the new permits are only available to State conservation or wildlife

management agencies on a State-specific basis. Under the permits,

States and their designated agents can initiate resident goose damage

management and control injury problems within the conditions and

restrictions of the permit program. The permits, while restricted to

the period between March 11 and August 31, 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

and local level, thereby resulting in more responsive and timely

control activities. 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 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. Briefly, some of

the more pertinent restrictions in the new permits are:

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

Canada geese as a management tool but 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 and 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.

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

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

5. 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.

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

utilized methods should

[[Page 45272]]

be consistent with accepted wildlife-damage management programs.

7. States may designate agents who must operate under the

conditions of the State's permit.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

Before establishing the special Canada goose permit, we conducted

an analysis of the environmental effects and a lengthy public

involvement process. The process began with a September 3, 1996, notice

of availability of a ``Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on Permits

for Control of Injurious Canada Geese and Request for Comments on

Potential Regulations'', we published in the Federal Register (61 FR

46431). The notice advised the public that we had prepared a DEA and

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. Based on review and

evaluation of comments by the public and information contained in the

Environmental Assessment, we revised the final rule and determined that

the action 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. The EA and Finding of

No Significant Impact are available to the public at the location

indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

We believe the new special permits established by the June 17 rule

further results in biologically sound and more cost-effective and

efficient resident Canada goose damage management. Overall, the new

permit will provide some additional management flexibility needed to

address this serious problem and at the same time simplify the

procedures needed to administer this program. In the short term, we

believe this permit will satisfy the need for an efficient/cost-

effective program while allowing us to maintain management control. To

date, several States have applied for the new permits.

Alternatives

We are considering the following alternatives. After the scoping

process, we will develop the alternatives to be included in the EIS and

base them on the mission of the Service and comments received during

scoping. We are soliciting your comments on issues, alternatives, and

impacts to be addressed in the EIS.

A. No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, no additional regulatory methods

or strategies would be authorized. We would continue the use of special

hunting seasons, the issuance of depredation permits, and the issuance

of special Canada goose permits. These permits would continue to be

issued under existing regulations.

For each of the next 5 alternatives, as a baseline for comparison,

we would continue the use of special hunting seasons, the issuance of

depredation permits, and the issuance of special Canada goose permits.

All of these permits would continue to be issued under existing

regulations.

B. Increased Promotion of Non-Lethal Control and Management

Under this alternative, we would actively promote the increased use

of non-lethal management tools, such as habitat manipulation and

management, harassment techniques, and trapping and relocation. While

permits would continue to be issued under existing regulations, no

additional regulatory methods or strategies would be introduced.

C. Nest and Egg Depredation Order

This alternative would provide a direct population control strategy

for resident Canada goose breeding areas in the U.S. This alternative

would establish a depredation order authorizing States to implement a

program allowing the take of nests and eggs to stabilize resident

Canada goose populations without threatening their long-term health.

Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place, or would be required,

to estimate population sizes and prevent populations from falling below

either the lower management thresholds established by Flyway Councils,

or individual State population objectives. Since the goal of this

alternative would be to stabilize breeding populations, not direct

reduction, no appreciable reduction in the numbers of adult Canada

geese would likely occur.

D. Depredation Order for Health and Human Safety

This alternative would establish a depredation order authorizing

States to establish and implement a program allowing the take of

resident Canada goose adults, goslings, nests and eggs from populations

posing threats to health and human safety. The intent of this

alternative is to significantly reduce or stabilize resident Canada

goose populations at areas such as airports, water supply reservoirs,

and other such areas, where there is a demonstrated threat to health

and human safety, without threatening the population's long-term

health. Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place, or would be

required, to estimate population sizes and prevent populations from

falling below either the lower management thresholds established by

Flyway Councils, or individual State population objectives. Under this

alternative, some appreciable localized reductions in the numbers of

adult geese could occur.

E. Conservation Order

This alternative would authorize direct population control

strategies such as nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping

and culling programs, or other general population reduction strategies

on resident Canada goose populations in the U.S. This alternative would

establish a conservation order authorizing States to develop and

implement a program allowing the take of geese posing threats to health

and human safety and damaging personal and public property. The intent

of this

[[Page 45273]]

alternative is to significantly reduce or stabilize resident Canada

goose populations at areas where conflicts are occurring without

threatening the long-term health of the overall population. Monitoring

and evaluation programs are in place, or would be required, to estimate

population sizes and prevent populations from falling below either the

lower management thresholds established by Flyway Councils, or

individual State population objectives. State breeding populations

would be monitored annually each spring to determine the maximum

allowable take under the conservation order. Under this alternative,

some appreciable localized reductions in the numbers of adult geese

would likely occur and lesser overall population reductions could

occur.

F. General Depredation Order

This alternative would authorize direct population control

strategies such as nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping

and culling programs, or other general population reduction strategies

on resident Canada goose populations in the U.S. This alternative would

establish a depredation order allowing any authorized person to take

geese posing threats to health and human safety and damaging personal

and public property. The intent of this alternative is to significantly

reduce resident Canada goose populations at areas where conflicts are

occurring. Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place, or would be

required, to estimate population sizes and prevent populations from

falling below either the lower management thresholds established by

Flyway Councils, or individual State population objectives. Under this

alternative, some appreciable localized reductions in the numbers of

adult geese would likely occur and lesser overall population reductions

could occur.

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

Increased promotion of Nest and egg depredation Health and human safety

No action non-lethal control order depredation order Conservation order General depredation order

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

Continued use of Special seasons Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.

Continued use of Depredation Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.

permits.

Continued use of Special Canada Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.

goose permits.

Promotion of non-lethal control Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.

and management.

Goal: Reduction or stabilization Stabilization........... Stabilization........... Stabilization........... Both.................... Both.................... Both.

of population.

Additional take of nests and No...................... No...................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.

eggs.

Additional take of adults and No...................... No...................... No...................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.

goslings.

Additional population monitoring No...................... No...................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes..................... Yes.

Implementation authority given n/a..................... n/a..................... States.................. States.................. States.................. Affected parties.

to.

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

Issue Resolution and Environmental Review

The primary issue to be addressed during the scoping and planning

process for the EIS is to determine which management alternatives for

the control of resident Canada goose populations will be analyzed. We

will prepare a discussion of the potential effect, by alternative,

which will include the following areas:

(1) Resident Canada goose populations and their habitats.

(2) Human health and safety.

(3) Public and private property damage and conflicts.

(4) Sport hunting opportunities.

(5) Socioeconomic effects.

We will conduct the environmental review of the management action

in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental

Policy Act, as appropriate. We are furnishing this

Notice in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7, to obtain suggestions and

information from other agencies, tribes, and the public on the scope of

issues to be addressed in the EIS. A draft EIS should be available to

the public in the spring of 2000.

Public Scoping Meetings

A schedule of public scoping meeting dates, locations, and times is

not available at this time. We will publish a notice of any such

meetings in the Federal Register.

References Cited

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services (formerly

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

Washington, D.C.

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

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.

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.

Martin, E. M., and P. I. Padding. 1999. Preliminary estimates of

waterfowl harvest and hunter activity in the United States during

the 1998 hunting season. Administrative report, July 1999. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

34 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 International Canada

Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.

Wilkins, K. A., and E. G. Cooch. 1999. Waterfowl population status,

1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of

[[Page 45274]]

the Interior, Washington, D.C. 33 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).

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.

Dated: August 11, 1999.

John G. Rogers,

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 99-21472 Filed 8-18-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P