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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

RIN 1018-AF05

Migratory Bird Permits; Establishment of a Conservation Order for

the Reduction of Mid-Continent Light Goose Populations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Mid-continent light goose populations (lesser snow and Ross'

goose combined) has nearly quadrupled within the last 30 years, and

have become seriously injurious to their habitat and habitat important

to other migratory birds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service

or ``we'') believes that these populations exceed the long-term

carrying capacity of their breeding habitats and must be reduced. This

rule adds a new subpart to 50 CFR part 21 for the management of

overabundant Mid-continent light goose populations, and establishes a

conservation order to increase take of such populations under the

authority of this subpart.

DATES: This rule takes effect immediately upon publication on February

16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the EA are available 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, DC 20240. The public may inspect comments during normal

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

Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Lesser snow and Ross' geese that primarily migrate through North

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

extensively with lesser snow geese on both the breeding and wintering

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

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

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

North America primarily in the Central and Mississippi Flyways. They

are referred to as ``light'' geese due to the light coloration of the

white-phase plumage morph, as opposed to true ``dark'' geese such as

the white-fronted or Canada goose. We include both plumage morphs of

lesser snow geese (white, or ``snow'' and dark, or ``blue'') under the

designation light geese.

MCLG breed in the central and eastern arctic and subarctic regions

of northern Canada. MCLG populations are experiencing high population

growth rates and have substantially increased in numbers within the

last 30 years. We use operational surveys conducted annually on

wintering grounds to derive a December index to light goose

populations. December indices of light goose populations represent a

certain proportion of the total wintering population, and thus are

smaller than the true population size. By assuming that the same

proportion of the population is counted each December, we can monitor

trends in the true population size.

The December index of MCP light geese has more than tripled within

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

million birds in 1998 and has increased an average of 5% per year for

the last ten years (Abraham et al. 1996, USFWS 1998b). The December

index of WCFP light geese has quadrupled in 23 years from 52,000 in

1974 to 216,000 in 1997 (USFWS 1997b), and has increased an average of

9% per year for the last ten years (USFWS 1998b). The lesser snow goose

portion of the 1998 MCP December index mentioned above is estimated to

be 2.8 million birds. In 1991, the Central and Mississippi Flyway

Councils jointly agreed to set lower and upper management thresholds

for the MCP of snow geese at 1.0 million and 1.5 million, respectively,

based on the December index. Therefore, the current December index of

MCP lesser snow geese far exceeds the upper management threshold

established by the Flyway Councils.

MCLG populations have also exceeded North American Waterfowl

Management Plan (NAWMP) population objectives, which are also based on

December indices. The MCP lesser snow goose December index of 2.8

million birds far exceeds the NAWMP population objective of 1 million

birds (USDOI et al. 1998d). The lesser snow goose portion of the WCFP

light goose December index is estimated to be 200,000 birds, which

exceeds the NAWMP population objective of 110,000 birds (USDOI et al.

1998d). The estimate of the Ross' goose component of the MCLG

population December index (WCFP and MCP combined) currently exceeds

200,000 birds. This far exceeds the NAWMP Ross' goose population

objective of 100,000 birds

[[Page 7518]]

(USDOI et al. 1998d). We compare current population levels to NAWMP

population objectives to demonstrate that MCLG populations have

increased substantially over what is considered to be a healthy

population level. We are not suggesting that MCLG be reduced for the

sole purpose of meeting NAWMP population objective levels.

By multiply the current MCLG December index of 3.2 million birds by

an adjustment factor of 1.6 (Boyd et. al 1982), we derive an estimate

of 5.12 million breeding birds in spring. This is corroborated by

population surveys conducted on light goose breeding colonies during

spring and summer, which suggest that the breeding population size of

MCLG is in excess of five million birds (D. Caswell pers. comm. 1998).

Included in these population estimates are 1998 estimates for breeding

and non-breeding adult Ross' and lesser snow geese in the Queen Maud

Gulf area northwest of Hudson Bay of 1.29 million and 1.82 million

birds, respectively (Alisauskas et al. 1998). These geese are in

addition to the millions of geese estimated to be nesting along west

Hudson and James Bays where the geese have precipitated severe habitat

degradation and on Southampton and Baffin Islands where signs of

habitat degradation are becoming evident. The estimate of 5.12 million

birds does not include non-breeding geese or geese found in un-surveyed

areas. Therefore, the total MCLG population currently far exceeds 5.12

million birds. Assuming a 10% growth rate in the breeding population

over the next three years, the population will grow from 5.12 million

to approximately 6.8 million in the absence of any new management

actions. Again, this represents a minimum estimate because non-breeding

geese and geese in un-surveyed areas are not included.

Although our intention is to significantly reduce MCLG populations

in order to relieve pressures on the breeding habitats, we feel that

these efforts will not threaten the long-term status of these

populations. We are confident that reduction efforts will not result in

populations falling below either the lower management thresholds

established by Flyway Councils, or the NAWMP population objectives

discussed previously. Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place

to estimate population sizes and will be used to prevent over-harvest

of these populations. An overview of these monitoring programs is

presented in a subsequent section of this document.

The rapid rise of MCLG populations has been influenced heavily by

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

factors are:

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

prairie Canada that provide abundant food resources during migration

and winter;

(2) The establishment of sanctuaries along the Flyways specifically

to increase bird populations;

(3) A decline in harvest rate; and

(4) An increase in adult survival rates.

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

populations, the expansion of agriculture in prairie Canada and the

United States is considered to be the primary attributable factor

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

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

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

coastal marshes they historically utilized. Similarly, MCLG migrating

through the mid-latitude and northern United States and prairie Canada

during spring migration exploit cereal grain crops consisting of corn,

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

estimated 1 to 2 million MCLG stage in the Rainwater Basin in Nebraska

from mid-February to mid-March and primarily feed on corn left over

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

nutrients during spring migration, thus assuring that MCLG arrive on

the breeding grounds in prime condition to breed. Increased food

subsidies during spring migration over the last 30 years has resulted

in higher reproductive potential and breeding success (Ankney and

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

survived the winter and migration and were healthier as they returned

to their breeding grounds in Canada.

This is not intended to criticize the conservation efforts

accomplished by the implementation of conservation-oriented

agricultural practices. Such efforts have benefitted numerous wildlife

species. We merely point out that MCLG have exploited these artificial

resources, resulting in an increase in survival.

Foraging Behavior of MCLG

The feeding behavior of MCLG is characterized by three foraging

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

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

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

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

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

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

the rest, leaving behind large unproductive, and potentially

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

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

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

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

stands of grass.

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

and at lower population levels have had positive effects on the

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

grasses and actually stimulated growth of plant communities resulting

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

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

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

habitat degradation in sensitive ecosystems. The Hudson Bay Lowlands

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

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

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

hypersaline areas devoid of vegetation degraded by rapidly increasing

populations of MCLG have been observed and documented extensively

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

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

populations in the La Perouse Bay area due to severe habitat

degradation. These declines and other ecological changes represent a

decline in biological diversity and indicate the beginning of collapse

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

that some badly degraded habitat will not recover (Abraham and

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

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

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

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

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

levels in the exposed and unprotected soil.

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

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

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

collapse of an existing food chain indicating that the ecosystem is

unable to support its inhabitants. Impacts associated with trophic

cascade are indicative that MCLG populations

[[Page 7519]]

have exceeded the carrying capacity of much of their breeding habitat.

Impacts such as a decline in biological diversity and physiological

stress, malnutrition, and disease in goslings have been documented and

observations of such impacts are increasing. Additional observations in

areas north of Hudson Bay on Southampton and Baffin Islands, northwest

in the Queen Maud Gulf region, and south off the west coast of James

Bay on Akimiski Island also suggest similar habitat degradation

patterns from expanding colonies of MCLG. Batt (1997) reported the

rapid expansion of existing colonies and the establishment of new

colonies in the central and eastern arctic. In 1973, for example,

Canadian Wildlife Service data indicated that approximately 400,000

light geese nested on West Baffin Island. In 1997, approximately 1.8

million breeding adults were counted. Similar colony expansions have

been reported for the Queen Maud Gulf region and Southampton Island.

Rapid colony expansion must be halted and the populations must be

reduced to prevent further habitat degradation and to protect the

remaining habitat upon which numerous wildlife species depend.

Breeding Habitat Status

MCLG breeding colonies occur over a large area encompassing eastern

and central portions of northern Canada. Habitat degradation by MCLG

has been most extensively studied in specific areas where colonies have

expanded exponentially and exhibit severe habitat degradation. For

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

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

and provides important stopover sites for numerous migratory bird

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

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

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

or ``overgrazed'' are being further impacted and will be classified as

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

habitat degradation has been observed by Canadian biologists on

Southampton and Baffin Islands and appear to be following the same

pattern as documented in the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Current research

efforts are underway to confirm observations of habitat degradation by

MCLG in other areas.

Migration and Wintering Habitat Conditions and Degradation

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

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

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

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

crops in the Midwest. Consequently, food availability and suitable

wintering habitat are not limiting MCLG during the migration and

wintering portions of the annual cycle.

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action

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

communities until food and other resources are exhausted, forcing yet

more expansion of colonies. The pattern has been, and will continue to

be, that as existing nesting colonies expand, they exploit successively

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

which become degraded more quickly. Eventually, the coastal salt-marsh

communities surrounding Hudson Bay and James Bay will become remnant.

There will be little chance of recovery of such habitat as long as MCLG

populations remain high. Even if goose populations decline at some

point due to natural causes, which may not occur to the degree

necessary, it will take the habitat a prolonged time period to recover.

The functioning of the whole coastal ecosystem, from consolidation of

sediments by colonizing plants to provision of suitable habitats for

invertebrate and vertebrate fauna, will be detrimentally and possibly

irrevocably altered. Similar conditions will prevail at selected non-

coastal areas where MCLG have occupied most of the suitable nesting

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

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

utilize those habitats have declined locally, presumably due to habitat

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

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

Island and numerous other waterfowl species that migrate and stage with

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

mammalian herbivores will also be impacted as the vegetative

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

expanding populations and the associated ecological impacts identified,

we have concluded that MCLG populations have become seriously injurious

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

other migratory birds.

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

10% annually, resulting in more severe and widespread ecological

impacts. Although several factors influence population dynamics, the

greatest single factor in the populations' increase is high and

increasing adult survival rates (Rockwell et al. 1997b). Therefore,

removing adults from the populations is the most effective and

efficient approach in reducing the populations. Experts feel that

breaking eggs and other non-lethal techniques have been determined to

be ineffective in significantly reducing the populations within a

reasonable time to preserve and protect habitat (Batt 1997).

We have attempted to curb the growth of MCLG populations by

increasing bag and possession limits and extending the open hunting

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

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

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

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

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

decline in harvest rate indicates that the current management

strategies are not sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth

rates.

New Management Actions

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

examined and believe that alternative regulatory strategies designed to

increase MCLG harvest, implemented concurrently with habitat management

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

effective in reducing MCLG populations to levels that the remaining

breeding habitat can sustain. Batt (1997) estimated that the MCLG

population should be reduced by 50% by the year 2005. Based on the

current MCLG December index of approximately 3.2 million birds, this

would entail a reduction of the December index to 1.6 million birds.

Using the adjustment factor of 1.6, this would translate to a minimum

breeding population size of 2.56 million birds. The estimate of 2.56

million birds does not include non-breeding geese or geese found in un-

surveyed areas. Therefore, the total MCLG spring population would be

much higher.

We prefer to implement alternative regulatory strategies designed

to

[[Page 7520]]

increase MCLG harvest afforded by the Migratory Bird Treaty and avoid

the use of more drastic population control measures. More direct

population control measures such as trapping and culling programs may

be necessary if the current regulatory action, in concert with habitat

management, is not successful. Should the conservation order be deemed

unsuccessful we will consider more direct population control measures

to reduce MCLG.

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

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

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

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

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

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,

South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) where they

migrate, stage, or winter. Evidence exists to support the conclusion

that MCLG which migrate, stage, and winter in these areas subsequently

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

severe habitat degradation.

We are concurrently implementing a separate population reduction

strategy. In addition to this proposed rule to amend 50 CFR part 21, we

are also amending 50 CFR part 20 to authorize the use of new hunting

methods to harvest MCLG. The second rule would authorize States to

allow the use of new hunting methods to harvest MCLG during a light-

goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons,

except falconry, are closed. The second rule is published in this issue

of the Federal Register.

We do not expect the second rule (amendment to 50 CFR part 20)

implemented alone to achieve our overall management objective of

reducing the MCLG December index to approximately 1.6 million birds.

The success of that strategy will hinge upon State participation,

hunter participation, and hunter effectiveness. If a State does not

participate, then its hunters will not be able to participate in that

state, decreasing the program's potential. We anticipate that some

northern and mid-latitude States will elect not to implement the second

rule (authorization of electronic calls and un-plugged shotguns) due to

the infeasibility of closing all other waterfowl and crane seasons

during the fall. It is more likely that those states will participate

in a conservation order during the spring, when it is more feasible to

close all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding

falconry. Conversely, many waterfowl and crane hunting seasons in

southern States close prior to 10 March. Therefore, it is much more

feasible for southern States to implement the second rule by

establishing a light-goose only season when all other waterfowl and

crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.

We are implementing the conservation order in order to maximize the

overall program's potential and to try to achieve our management

objective within a reasonable time-frame. This action will be

complemented by attempts to alter habitat management practices that

tend to increase MCLG. These actions will reduce the likelihood of the

need to use more direct population control programs. The conservation

order will allow northern States to participate in this effort and

enable them to harvest MCLG during spring migration, particularly after

10 March. Harvest projections for the second rule (amendment 50 CFR

part 20) are rolled into the harvest projections for the conservation

order. Harvest projections for the second rule are not in addition to

the harvest projections for the conservation order.

Conservation Order for MCLG

We are establishing a new subpart in 50 CFR part 21 for the

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

are establishing a conservation order specifically for the control and

management of MCLG. Conditions under the conservation order require

that participating States inform participants acting under the

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

amendment.

Under the authority of this rule, States could initiate aggressive

harvest management strategies with the intent to increase MCLG harvest

without having to obtain an individual permit, which will significantly

reduce administrative burden on State and Federal governments. A permit

process would slow efforts to reduce the populations and prolong

habitat degradation on the breeding grounds. This rule will enable

States, as a management tool, to use hunters to harvest MCLG, by

shooting in a hunting manner, inside or outside of the regular open

migratory bird hunting season frameworks. States could maximize the

opportunity to increase harvest of MCLG by implementing this action

beyond 10 March, where historically States have been limited by hunting

season framework closing dates to take migratory birds. In order to

minimize or avoid take of non-target species, States may implement this

action only when all waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding

falconry, are closed. We expect that this action will facilitate other

protection and recovery efforts. This rule would further result in

biologically sound and more cost-effective and efficient overabundant

MCLG management and could preclude the use of more drastic direct

population control measures such as trapping and culling programs.

Although the desired goal is to reduce overabundant MCLG populations,

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

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

impacted through the implementation of this rule. We have evaluation

and monitoring strategies to assess the overall impact of this action

on MCLG harvest and impacts to non-target species that may be affected

by the implementation of this action.

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Action

MCLG Populations and Associated Habitats

We project that we will harvest a cumulative total of two million

MCLG over the next three years without the use of this action, based on

current MCLG harvest trends. Under certain assumptions, our most

liberal estimate is that we can expect to cumulatively harvest an

additional 3.8 million MCLG over the next three years of implementation

of this action. This would bring the total cumulative harvest to 5.8

million MCLG after three years of implementation of this action. The

amendment to 50 CFR Part 21 will be revoked if the December index of

MCLG is reduced to the recommended level of approximately 1.6 million

birds. Using the adjustment factor of 1.6, developed by Boyd et. al

(1982) to convert winter indices to spring breeding population indices,

this would result in a minimum estimate of 2.56 million breeding MCLG

in spring. The total spring population would be higher because non-

breeding geese and geese in un-surveyed areas are not included in this

estimate.

The impact is expected to be regional within the Central and

Mississippi Flyway States that choose to participate in the

conservation order. Since the action may take place between 11 March

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

northern States according to migration

[[Page 7521]]

chronology. Increased harvest will be further facilitated by the use of

additional hunting methods (electronic callers and unplugged shotguns)

authorized by a State under the authority of this rule. Although we can

expect the additional hunting methods to be effective in increasing

harvest per hunter, there is no precedent to guide us in determining to

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

ascertain to what degree the public will participate in the

implementation of this action, which will influence its effectiveness.

However, with certain assumptions, we may project an increase in

harvest using existing harvest data.

Before projecting the effect of the action on harvest we must

establish several assumptions. We are assuming that all eligible States

will act under the authority of this rule and will allow all new

hunting methods authorized in the rule (electronic callers and

unplugged shotguns), including the utilization of the maximum number of

days available after the regular light-goose season. We are also

assuming that current MCLG hunter numbers will not decrease and that

the new methods authorized in this rule, if used, will increase hunter

effectiveness and overall harvest. We do not assume that all MCLG

hunters will participate in the implementation of this action and of

those that do, we do not assume that all will increase their

effectiveness by using new hunting methods. We are assuming that 25% of

the MCLG hunters will use the new methods and will increase his/her

effectiveness in harvesting MCLG.

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

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

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

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

consistent throughout the entire light-goose season and that all

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

relationship between the number of hunting days and harvest of

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

our projections regarding MCLG harvest represent our best estimates

based on existing data, and are considered to be a liberal estimate.

We determined, based on a linear regression analysis of historical

harvest data, that regular-season harvest of MCLG has increased

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

linear regression of the harvest data represents our most conservative

estimate because the analysis does not take into account other factors

that may have influenced harvest, such as the recent regulation changes

for light geese. A more complex analysis will demonstrate that harvest

number has actually increased at a faster rate since the bag and

possession limits for light geese have been increased (USFWS 1998c).

Today, more MCLG are harvested with fewer hunters, but hunter

participation in light goose hunting is now increasing. Therefore, we

conservatively project that regular-season harvest will increase 31,600

per year for the next several years.

During 1997-98, hunters harvested 604,900 MCLG in the affected

States (AR, CO, IL, IN, IA, KY, KS, LA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NM, ND, OH,

OK, SD, TN, TX, WI, and WY). Combined with our projection that regular-

season harvest will increase by 31,600 per year without any changes to

hunting regulations, we can expect to harvest 636,500 MCLG in the 1998-

1999 regular light goose season in those affected States. Under the

assumptions stated above, we expect to harvest an additional 618,400

MCLG through the implementation of this proposed action (authorize

electronic callers, unplugged shotguns, and additional days to

harvest). Therefore, we project a total harvest of 1.25 million MCLG in

the first year of implementation of this action. Because we expect

regular-season harvest to increase annually, the total projected

harvest will also increase annually. We expect to harvest a total of

1.9 million MCLG in the second year of implementation and 2.6 million

in the third year of implementation. These estimates include regular-

season harvest of MCLG.

Batt (1997) estimated that the MCLG population should be reduced by

50% by 2005. That would suggest a reduction in the MCLG December index

from approximately 3.2 million birds to approximately 1.6 million

birds. Central and Mississippi Flyway Council management thresholds for

MCP lesser snow geese (not including WCFP lesser snow or Ross' geese)

rests between 1.0 and 1.5 million birds, based on the December index.

Therefore, our MCLG population reduction goal closely parallels those

established by Flyway Councils and the scientific community. As

mentioned previously, a December index of 1.6 million would translate

to a minimum estimate of 2.56 million breeding MCLG in spring. We will

carefully analyze and assess the MCLG reduction on an annual basis,

using the December index and other surveys, to ensure that the

populations are not over-harvested.

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

such as habitat management on the wintering grounds and increased

harvest by Canadian aboriginals. Decreased MCLG numbers will also

relieve pressures on the breeding grounds. There is no evidence to

suggest that the implementation of this action will result in an over-

harvest of MCLG. Once the December index is reduced to approximately

1.6 million birds we will revoke this action and the methods we

authorized. It is improbable that the implementation of this action

will threaten the long-term status of MCLG populations, because we will

monitor the MCLG populations and act accordingly if it is threatened by

modifying or revoking the action.

Other Species

We expect an increase in harvest, and subsequently a decrease in

MCLG numbers, to relieve pressures on other migratory bird populations

that utilize MCLG breeding and wintering grounds and other areas along

the migration routes. This decrease should reduce the possibility that

other species will be forced to seek habitat elsewhere or abandon

unsuitable degraded habitat altogether, which could potentially result

in decreased reproductive success of affected populations. We expect a

significant decrease in MCLG populations to contribute to increased

reproductive success of adversely impacted populations. Further, we

expect that by decreasing the numbers of MCLG on wintering and

migration stopover areas, the risk of transmitting avian cholera to

other species will be reduced which will reduce the threat of a

widespread avian cholera outbreak.

Socio-economic

Any migratory bird hunting or conservation order action has

economic consequences. Continued inaction is likely to result in

ecosystem failure of the Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-marsh ecosystem and

potentially other ecosystems as MCLG populations expand and exploit new

habitats. Without more effective population control measures to curb

the populations, the populations of MCLG are expected to continue

increasing and become more and more unstable as suitable breeding

habitat diminishes. As population densities increase, the incidence of

avian cholera among MCLG and other species is likely to increase

throughout the Flyways, particularly at migration stopover sites.

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

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

result in reduced hunting, birdwatching, and other opportunities.

[[Page 7522]]

It may also result in the season closures of adversely impacted

migratory game birds such as white-fronted geese, sandhill cranes, and

pintails. Goose damage to winter wheat and other agricultural crops

will continue and worsen. Habitat damage in the Arctic will eventually

trigger density-dependent regulation of the population which likely

will result in increased gosling mortality and may cause the population

to decline precipitously. However, it is not clear when such population

regulation will occur and what habitat, if any, will remain to support

the survivors. Such a decline may result in a population too low to

permit any hunting, effectively closing MCLG hunting seasons. The

length of the closures will largely depend on the recovery rate of the

breeding habitat, which likely will take decades. Although the overall

impact of closures of light-goose seasons in the Central and

Mississippi Flyways that could result from continued degradation of the

breeding habitat is small on a national scale, it would be concentrated

where large flocks of geese stage and winter. Because people that

provide services to hunters tend to be those with low incomes, the

impact of a closure would fall disproportionately on low income groups

near goose concentrations. We expect this action to reduce the risk of

light-goose season closures in the Central and Mississippi Flyways and

avoid a $70 million loss in output and reduce the possibility of

increased agricultural loss. We expect special MCLG population control

efforts to create additional take opportunities which is expected to

add $18 million in output to local economies.

Public Comments Received

The November 9, 1998, proposed rule published in the Federal

Register (63 FR 60278) invited public comments from interested parties.

The closing date for receipt of all comments was January 8, 1999, which

was subsequently extended to January 15, 1999 (64 FR 822). During the

comment period, we received 615 comments consisting of 468 from private

citizens, 21 from State wildlife agencies, 2 from Flyway Councils, 27

from private organizations, 10 from Native organizations, 65 from

individuals that signed a petition, and 22 from private organizations

that signed a petition. Comments generally were dichotomized by two

points of view.

To summarize, 361 comments were supportive of our intent to

implement a conservation order to reduce the MCLG population. Comments

in support of such action were received from 268 private citizens, 21

State wildlife agencies, 2 Flyway Councils, 12 private organizations, 1

Native organization, and 57 from people who signed a petition. These

commenters agreed that there was a problem and that the resolution

should entail reduction by lethal means and supported the use of

additional methods to increase take of MCLG. Several State wildlife

agencies and both Flyway Councils suggested that the requirement to

have all other migratory bird hunting seasons closed in order to

implement changes in regulations to address light goose population

control is overly restrictive. They suggested that only other waterfowl

seasons be closed in order to implement changes in light goose

regulations. Furthermore, several of these commenters suggested that

the Service should implement existing dove baiting regulations for the

proposed conservation order rather than the more restrictive waterfowl

baiting regulations. A private citizen voiced opposition to the closure

of falconry seasons during implementation of new light goose regulation

changes.

A State wildlife agency requested clarification on whether the

requirement to close all other migratory bird seasons pertained to

zones within a State, or the entire State, and also whether the

regulation changes could be implemented prior to March 11. Several

State wildlife agencies questioned why other Mississippi Flyway States

(i.e. MI, OH, WI, IN, KY, and TN) were not included in the list of

those eligible to implement alternative regulatory strategies aimed at

MCLG. Some State wildlife agencies urged that the Service not wait a

full five years before the proposed population reduction strategies are

evaluated and other management options are considered. A State wildlife

agency commented that the requirement to close Bosque del Apache NWR

during the period of implementation of light goose regulations was

inappropriate and that existing hunt management plans will avert

potential impacts to whooping cranes.

Several private organizations and a Native organization expressed

support of the findings of the international panel of scientists and

waterfowl managers that documented (Batt 1997) habitat degradations

caused by overabundant light goose and recommended actions to reduce

populations. However, the organizations urged monitoring and evaluation

of management actions and that such actions should be used only until

populations are sufficiently reduced. A private organization that fully

supported the proposed actions expressed concern about differing views

in the academic and management community about the magnitude of harvest

that is necessary to effect the desired population reduction.

Conversely, 254 comments received were in opposition to the

Service's intent to reduce MCLG populations by use of lethal means

either because they believe it is not legally or scientifically

justified to reduce the populations, or attempts to do so would be

inhumane. Comments in opposition to such action were received from 200

private citizens, 15 private organizations, 9 Native organizations, 8

individuals that signed a petition, and 22 private organizations that

signed a petition.

Many commenters stated that grazing by geese may be changing the

vegetation communities on their breeding grounds but they ``cannot

devastate an ecosystem of which they are a part''. Furthermore, they

felt that if there are too many geese for their habitats to support,

the geese will either nest in other areas or fail to successfully raise

young. A private individual commented that the habitat destruction

occurring in the arctic may be due to pollution and increased salinity

resulting from oil drilling.

Several private organizations commented that the draft

Environmental Assessment and the Proposed Rule fail to provide detailed

estimates of the extent of grazing damage caused by MCLG. They further

stated that we have not adequately addressed the relationship between

isostatic uplift (raising of land due to the removal of pressure once

exerted by glaciers) and vegetative succession, or the agricultural

practices that have contributed to expansion of MCLG populations. In

addition they criticized the lack of reliable current breeding

population estimates of MCLG and our inability to demonstrate that

current populations are higher than those ever experienced in the past.

Furthermore, they questioned how killing millions of snow geese in the

mid-western U.S. could remedy alleged damage to habitats at specific

sites in the Canadian arctic. Finally, they protested that Native

groups in Canada that would be directly impacted by the proposals were

not consulted in the development of management actions. Comments

provided by several Native organizations indicated that they were not

consulted and they oppose the management action.

A private organization recommended nest destruction, egging, and

hazing of geese from areas that have sustained habitat changes as

alternatives to the proposed actions. Furthermore, they stated that the

use of lethal control, if it

[[Page 7523]]

is justified at all, must be conducted at specific sites where damage

is occurring to be effective. Finally, they advocated that the Service

implement ecosystem management to address the MCLG issue. Their view of

ecosystem management assumes that the component species of an ecosystem

determine their own distribution and abundance, consistent with the age

and condition of their habits, thus requiring a more ``hands-off rather

than a direct, interventionist, approach by managers.''

Many private individuals and several private organizations

commented that an Environmental Assessment was insufficient to comply

with NEPA requirements, and that a full Environmental Impact Statement

should be prepared before action is taken to address this problem. A

private organization commented that the Service will be violating the

1916 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain for the

Protection of Migratory Birds if take of MCLG beyond March 10 is

allowed. They believed that a conservation order to be implemented

beyond March 10 will constitute an illegal hunting season on a

protected species.

Service response: We have conducted an Environmental Assessment of

alternative regulatory strategies to reduce MCLG populations. Based on

review and evaluation of the information contained in the assessment,

we have determined that the proposed action to amend 50 CFR Part 21 to

establish a conservation order for the reduction of MCLG populations is

not 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. Therefore, preparation

of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The EA and

Finding of No Significant Impact are available to the public at the

location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

With regard to violation of the 1916 Convention, regulations

allowing the take of migratory birds are authorized by the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. Secs. 703-712), which implements the

four bilateral migratory bird treaties the United States entered into

with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. Section 3 of the Act authorizes

and directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow hunting, taking,

etc. of migratory birds subject to the provisions of, and in order to

carry out the purposes of, the four migratory bird treaties. The

Convention with Great Britain establishes a ``closed'' season on

hunting migratory game birds between March 10 and September 1. However,

Section VII of the U.S.-Canada Migratory Bird Treaty authorizes

permitting the take, kill, etc. of migratory birds that, under

extraordinary conditions, become seriously injurious to agricultural or

other interests. We are exercising this authority to carry out a

necessary management action. Although ``hunters'' will be utilized in

this effort, this is not intended as an open season or extension of a

season. This is a management effort that is being carried out in

partnership with State/Tribal wildlife agencies under strict monitoring

and control requirements contained in the order. The information

available to us as discussed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and in the

Environmental Assessment accompanying this action, demonstrates that

the extraordinary population levels are causing serious injury to the

breeding habitat of light geese and other migratory birds, and the

habitat of other wildlife species. Therefore, we believe that

implementation of this conservation order is in accordance with and

compatible with the terms of the Convention.

We are unaware of any evidence indicating that the severe habitat

damage occurring in MCLG breeding areas is the result of oil drilling

activities. The feeding behavior of MCLG causes the removal of

vegetation from sites and sets in motion a series of events that causes

soil salinity to increase. With regard to the ability of MCLG to

devastate an ecosystem of which they are a part, we point to studies

summarized by Abraham and Jefferies (1997) indicating that goose

feeding activities reduce the thickness of the vegetation mat that

insulates the underlying marine sediments from the air. Evaporation

rates from the surface sediments increase and inorganic salts from the

marine clay produce high salt concentrations that reduce growth of

preferred forage plants. This together with continued intensive grazing

by geese maintains open areas and high salt concentration and results

in a positive feedback producing increased destruction of salt-marsh

areas and desertification of the landscape. This is illustrated by

fenced exclosure plots on impacted areas that prevent geese from

grazing in plots. Both the exclosures and the areas in their immediate

vicinity are experiencing isostatic uplift (raising of land as a result

of glacial retreat) and yet the rate of plant species turnover in the

two areas is markedly different, driven by excessive goose foraging.

Several commenters stated that recolonization of mud flats by plants

will occur naturally. However, they do not elaborate on the amount of

time this process will require. Exclosure experiments indicate that it

may take at least 15 years for vegetation stands to begin to develop,

which would require total absence of goose foraging. This length of

time is beyond the life expectancy of a single age cohort of lesser

snow geese. Hence, the effects on the habitat outlive the geese.

With regard to the assertion that if there are too many geese for

their habitats to support, the geese will nest in other areas or fail

to raise young, we generally concur. We note that geese have the

ability to escape the effects of high population densities by their

ability to disperse from breeding colonies. However, there are signs

that habitat in the areas geese are dispersing to are also being

degraded, forcing the birds to disperse even further. Thus, birds

invade previously undisturbed habitats and consume plant biomass to the

point where it is no longer advantageous to remain in those areas, and

then they disperse. The ability to disperse to and subsequently degrade

new habitats is of much concern to wildlife managers and is the reason

we feel that MCLG populations need to be controlled. With regard to

documentation of the total acreage of damage caused by MCLG, we note

that quantification of habitat degradation by geese in the entire

arctic and sub-arctic region is made difficult by logistical

constraints. However, we point to the numerous habitat studies that

document habitat damage, which are summarized in the report by Batt

(1997). This information has been collected during the past 25+ years

by numerous scientists of varying disciplines. Most claims of little or

no damage to habitats have been based solely on a report by Thomas and

MacKay (1998), which was the result of a field trip to a limited number

of sites on the west coast of Hudson Bay that lasted less than 72

hours. We do not believe this cursory examination of habitats in this

region is a valid method of documenting habitat degradation due to MCLG

activity.

Concerning the relationship between isostatic uplift and plant

succession, we acknowledge the impact that this geologic process has on

plant communities. However, the time frame in which the process occurs

is much slower than the time frame in which geese can impact habitats.

Therefore, we do not believe that isostatic uplift will create new

habitat quickly enough to counteract damage created by geese.

[[Page 7524]]

With regard to the relationship between agricultural practices and

MCLG populations, we have previously stated that habitat management

approaches to population control should be pursued in conjunction with

alternative regulatory strategies (63 FR 60281). Inclusion of habitat

management strategies is beyond the scope of our rulemaking authority.

This may create the false impression to some observers that we are

considering only lethal means to control MCLG populations. In fact, we

are working with our partners to develop various non-regulatory action

plans that will include land use recommendations for the Northern

Prairie, Midwest, and Gulf Coast regions of the U.S. to address habitat

management approaches to controlling overabundant MCLG populations

(Bisbee 1998). We are also pursuing changing habitat management

practices on our own lands. We believe that a comprehensive, long-term

strategy that involves both lethal methods and habitat management is a

sound approach to addressing the MCLG issue.

Concerning the question of how killing MCLG in the U.S. will remedy

damage to habitats in specific breeding colonies in the Canadian

arctic, we point out that MCLG migrate and winter in large

concentrations almost exclusively in the Central and Mississippi

Flyways. Therefore, these regulatory strategies aimed at taking MCLG in

this portion of the U.S. will reduce the number of birds returning to

breeding areas that are experiencing habitat degradation. It will also

reduce the number of birds that are able to disperse to and degrade

other breeding habitats. We believe this is a cost-effective and

efficient alternative to selective culling of birds at breeding

colonies, which would entail massive disposal efforts and waste of

birds at enormous cost. Similarly, we believe that alternative

regulatory strategies will be more cost-effective and efficient control

methods than proposals to destroy nest, harvest eggs, and haze geese

from breeding colonies.

With regard to our ability to estimate the current size of the

breeding population of MCLG, we point out that the lack of definitive

continental breeding population estimates is due to the enormous

logistical barriers to designing a comprehensive survey of the entire

arctic and sub-arctic region. Consequently, we have relied on surveys

conducted on wintering areas in December to provide an index to the

breeding population. It is clear that many people are confused about

the relationship between the December index and the breeding population

size. The December survey results in a count of MCLG on portions of its

wintering range and does not represent a total population count, nor is

it intended to be such. However, we believe that the December index

tracks the true population size and allows managers to determine when

the MCLG population is increasing, decreasing, or is stable. In fact,

we have used the December index in the development of annual snow goose

hunting regulations since its inception in 1969. Therefore, we have

chosen to use the December index to determine the status of the MCLG

population. In the proposed rule (63 FR 60278) we made an incorrect

contextual reference to the Central and Mississippi Flyway Council

(1982) management guideline of 800,000 to 1.2 million birds because

this guideline was based on snow goose population estimates for the

breeding grounds, rather than on wintering ground indices. We will

continue to base our objectives on winter indices. In order to achieve

a 50% reduction in the MCLG population, this would entail achieving a

reduction in the December index from approximately 3.2 million to 1.6

million birds. In 1991, the Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils

passed resolutions to adopt management goals for MCLG of 1 to 1.5

million birds, based on the December index. Therefore, our objective is

in close agreement with management goals previously stated by the

Flyway Councils. Beginning in January 1999, the Central and Mississippi

Flyway Councils designated a January survey of wintering MCLG to be the

official index to the population, which we will use to monitor the

population. This change should have negligible effect on the winter

index and subsequent management objectives.

With regard to debate about the magnitude of harvest that is

necessary to bring about the desired population reduction, we point out

that the debate is centered around the annual harvest that is required

to achieve the reduction by the year 2005. Rockwell et al. (1997)

recommend a 2-3 fold increase in annual harvest to achieve the desired

population reduction. The authors stated that, ``different assumptions

will lead to somewhat different values under this type of strategy * *

* (Rockwell et al. 1997:99). Subsequently, Cooke et al. (unpublished

report) estimated that annual harvest would need to be increased by a

factor of anywhere from 3.5 to 6.7 to reduce the MCLG population. We

note the near overlap in the ranges of recommended increases in annual

harvest contained in the two reports. At the present, we believe that

pursuing a three-fold increase in annual harvest represents a

responsible approach to MCLG population reduction. Implementation of

new regulatory strategies will allow managers to measure the actual

effects of such strategies on the MCLG population. If this harvest

level is subsequently deemed inadequate to achieve the population-

reduction goal, this strategy will be re-evaluated.

With regard to the relationship between current MCLG population

levels and those experienced in the past, we point out the problems

with comparisons of anecdotal accounts of MCLG population levels with

population indices derived from modern aerial surveys. We suggest that

debates about anecdotal accounts of former MCLG abundance will not be

fruitful. What is known, is that current MCLG population indices

derived from standardized aerial surveys are higher than ever

previously recorded. Therefore, we believe that alternative regulatory

strategies to address overabundant MCLG and their impacts on habitat

are appropriate and urgently needed.

Concerning consultation with Native groups that may be affected by

alternative regulatory strategies implemented in the U.S., we point out

that the U.S. has met the legal obligation to consult with the

government of Canada. In turn, various territorial, provincial and

federal governments in Canada have consulted with aboriginal groups

through various forums, and through the distribution of reports and

proposals for Canadian hunting seasons. These consultations are and

will continue to be ongoing. Because the locations of many of the

largest light goose breeding colonies are north of 60 degrees north

latitude, much of the direct consultation to date has been with people

in those areas. We have also been informed that a number of Inuit

groups such as the Arviat Hunters and Trappers Organization, and the

Aiviq Hunters and Trappers Association in Cape Dorset have already

participated in pilot programs to increase their harvest of light

geese. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has had the light goose

overabundance issue as a standing item for some time. Other northern

wildlife management boards, including the Inuvialuit which participated

in a stakeholder's committee, have been informed of the light goose

issue. In light of this information, we feel claims that Native groups

have not been consulted are unfounded.

We disagree with the view that an ecosystem approach to managing

[[Page 7525]]

overabundant MCLG requires a ``hands off'' rather than a direct

interventionist approach by managers. In fact, we believe that

implementation of alternative regulatory strategies to address this

problem is the epitome of ecosystem management. The Service's goal of

its ecosystem approach is the effective conservation of natural

biological diversity through perpetuation of dynamic, healthy

ecosystems (USFWS 1995). Others have defined ecosystem management as

``the integration of ecologic, economic, and social principles to

manage biological and physical systems in a manner that safeguards the

ecological sustainability, natural diversity, and productivity of the

landscape'' (Wood 1994). We believe that if MCLG populations are not

immediately controlled by direct methods, that biological diversity on

breeding areas will decline, productivity of the landscape will be

severely reduced, and the health of the ecosystem will be compromised

to the extent that it will take many decades to recover, if ever.

With regard to the comment that requiring closure of all other

migratory bird seasons is overly restrictive, we agree. Our intent is

to minimize the impacts of regulatory strategies on non-target species,

and we believe that limiting the required closure to all waterfowl and

crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, will not increase the

potential impacts on non-target species. These closures can be

undertaken on a zone basis within a state. Such strategies could be

implemented prior to March 11 in a given year, as long as the above

requirement is met. With regards to the eligibility of the States of

MI, OH, WI, IN, KY, and TN to implement alternative regulatory

strategies, we agree that these States harvest light geese during

normal hunting seasons, and thus would have the potential to harvest

MCLG using alternative regulatory strategies. For example, 20,000 to

60,000 snow geese annually winter in western Kentucky. Therefore, we

are including all Mississippi Flyway and Central Flyway States as being

eligible for implementation of such strategies.

With regards to baiting regulations, we prefer to utilize current

regulations that pertain to waterfowl. Implementation of dove baiting

regulations in a waterfowl management strategy may create confusion

among hunters. The larger question of the use of baiting to increase

harvest of MCLG may need to be re-visited, once we have experience with

the alternative regulations options currently being implemented. We

note that baiting regulations for all migratory birds are currently

under review and a decision with regards to the use of baiting to

control MCLG should be postponed until the review is completed.

Concerning the requirement to close several crane wintering and

migration areas to implementation of MCLG regulatory strategies, we

feel that this requirement will help ensure protection of whooping

cranes. We believe a conservative approach to implementing new MCLG

strategies is warranted, at least initially. Once we gain experience in

dealing with these new strategies, and if a determination is made that

such closures are unnecessary, they can be discontinued at that time.

With regard to monitoring programs that are needed to evaluate MCLG

control measures and the status of their population, we note that the

Arctic Goose Joint Venture has developed a draft science needs document

that outlines various population and habitat monitoring programs.

Included in this document are banded sample sizes that are needed to

detect average annual changes in survival rates of MCLG. The document

outlines banding goals for various breeding colonies. Breeding

population surveys that will be utilized include photo inventories and

helicopter surveys of selected breeding colonies. Annual indices to

MCLG population size will continue to be derived from winter surveys

conducted in the U.S. Harvest estimates for normal light goose hunting

seasons will continue to be derived through existing federal harvest

surveys. Estimates of harvest during the conservation order will be

obtained from individual State wildlife agencies. We will accomplish

habitat monitoring through satellite imagery and continuation of on the

ground sampling associated with current research projects.

We agree that we should not to wait until five years have elapsed

before an evaluation of the MCLG conservation order is completed and

other alternatives are considered. Annual monitoring will indicate if

the conservation order is effective in reducing the MCLG population. We

will consider additional population-reduction strategies if the

conservation order is deemed ineffective. We note that non-lethal

management strategies to control MCLG populations recently have been

completed or are under development (e.g. Bisbee 1998). We look forward

to working with all stakeholders in the development of long-term

strategies to deal effectively with overabundant MCLG.

References Cited

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

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

International Waterfowl Symposium, Memphis, TN.

Abraham, K. F., and R. L. Jefferies. 1997. High goose populations:

causes, impacts and implications. Pages 7-72 in B. D. J. Batt, ed.

Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat

Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and Canadian Wildlife

Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120 pp.

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

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

Manage. 52:403-414.

Alisauskas, R., S.M. Slattery, D.K. Kellett, D.S. Stern, and K.D.

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

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

Wildlife Service, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 21pp.

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

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

471.

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

the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture

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

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

Bisbee, R. 1998. Gulf states action plan for mid-continent snow

geese: A specific action plan focused on public land management for

the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Washington, D.C.

Boyd, H., G. E. J. Smith and F. G. Cooch. 1982. The lesser snow

goose of the eastern Canadian Arctic: their status during 1964-1979

and their management from 1982-1990. Canadian Wildlife Service

Occasional Paper No. 46. 21 pp.

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

Mid-continent population of lesser snow geese: projected impacts of

reductions in survival and fertility on population growth rates.

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

Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint

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

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

pp.

Rockwell, R. F., D. Pollack, K. F. Abraham, P. M. Kotanen, and R. L.

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

Perouse Bay? The Hudson Bay Project status report for Ducks

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

Auk:86-282-292.

Rockwell, R. F. 1998. Personal Communication. American Museum of

Natural History. New York, NY.

[[Page 7526]]

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

Nesting Geese. Rollin Sparrowe, Chair. Wildlife Management

Institute, Washington, D.C.

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

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

Waterfowl Management Plan--fulfilling the legacy: expanding the

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

USFWS. 1995. An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife

conservation. Concept Document. Washington, D.C. 21 pp.

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

Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 32 pp.

USFWS. 1997b. Harvest and population survey data book, Central

Flyway, compiled by D.E. Sharp. Office of Migratory Bird Management,

Denver, CO. 123 pp.

USFWS. 1998a. Mid-continent Lesser Snow Goose Workshops: Central and

Mississippi Flyways, Fall 1997. Office of Migratory Bird Management

and Division of Refuges, Arlington, VA.

USFWS. 1998b. Waterfowl populations status, 1998. Department of the

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 31 pp.

USFWS. 1998c. Waterfowl Population Status, 1998. Department of the

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, VA.

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

distribution and migration report (Mississippi Flyway States).

Proceedings 11th Annual Southeastern Association of Game and Fish

Commissioners: 105-115.

Effective Date

Under the APA (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 this rule will,

therefore, take effect immediately upon publication. This rule relieves

a restriction and, in addition, it is not in the public interest to

delay the effective date of this rule. During the public comment period

we received 615 comments consisting of 468 from private citizens, 21

from State wildlife agencies, 2 from Flyway Councils, 27 from private

organizations, 10 from Native organizations, 65 from individuals that

signed a petition, and 22 from private organizations that signed a

petition. It is in the best interest of migratory birds and their

habitats to implement a conservation order to reduce the number of

MCLG. It is in the best interest of the hunting public to provide

alternative regulatory options to address the problem of overabundant

MCLG that may affect other migratory bird populations and hunting

seasons.

NEPA Considerations

In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the

Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing NEPA (40

CFR 1500-1508), we prepared an Environmental Assessment in January

1999. This EA is available to the public at the location indicated

under the ADDRESSES caption. Based on review and evaluation of the

information in the EA, we determined that amending 50 CFR Part 21 to

establish a conservation order for the reduction of MCLG populations

would not be a major Federal action that would significantly affect the

quality of the human environment. This Environmental Assessment

considers short-term options for addressing the ever-increasing MCLG

population. In 2000, we will initiate the preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement to consider the effects on the human

environment of a range of long-term resolutions for the MCLG

population. Completion of the EIS by summer 2002 will afford the

Service the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the current

preferred alternative. It will also allow for a more detailed

evaluation of options to correspond with the results of the assessment

and ongoing MCLG issues.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

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

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

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

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

the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or

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

* * * '' We have completed a Section 7 consultation under the ESA for

this rule and determined that establishment of a conservation order for

the reduction of MCLG populations is not likely to affect any

threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species. The result of

our consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is available to the public

at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The economic impacts of this rulemaking will fall

disproportionately on small businesses because of the structure of the

waterfowl hunting related industries. The regulation benefits small

businesses by avoiding ecosystem failure to an ecosystem that produces

migratory bird resources important to American citizens. The Regulatory

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

of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a significant effect

on a substantial number of small entities. Data are not available to

estimate the number of small entities affected, but it is unlikely to

be a substantial number on a national scale. We expect this action to

reduce the risk of light-goose season closures in the Central and

Mississippi Flyways subsequently avoiding a $70 million loss in output

and reducing the possibility of increased agricultural loss. We expect

special MCLG population control efforts to create additional take

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

economies. We have determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

This rule was not subject to review by the Office of Management and

Budget under E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write

regulations that are easy to understand. The Service invites comments

on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to

questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule

clearly stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon

that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule

(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.)

aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand

if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the

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

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

Service do to make the rule easier to understand?

Congressional Review

This is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Under the Act, information collections must be

approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 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 estimate that State/Tribal governments that

participate in the program will expend an average of 30 hours annually

to fulfill the information

[[Page 7527]]

collection requirements. Any suggestions on how to reduce this burden

should be sent to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 222-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20204. We will use the recordkeeping and reporting requirements

imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR Part 21, Subpart E to

administer this program, particularly in the assessment of impacts

alternative regulatory strategies may have on MCLG and other migratory

bird populations. We will require the information collected to

authorize State and Tribal governments responsible for migratory bird

management to take MCLG within our guidelines. Specifically, OMB has

approved the information collection requirements of this action and

assigned clearance number 1018-0103 (expires 01/31/2002).

Unfunded Mandates

We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Unfunded Mandates.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that

these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections

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

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

reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity, has been written to

minimize litigation, provides a clear legal standard for affected

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

law or regulation. We do not anticipate that this rule will require any

additional involvement of the justice system beyond enforcement of

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

been implemented through previous rulemakings.

Takings Implication Assessment

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule, authorized by

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings

implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected

property rights. The rule will not result in the physical occupancy of

property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking

of any property. In fact, the rule allows hunters to exercise

privileges that would be otherwise unavailable; and, therefore, reduce

restrictions on the use of private and public property.

Federalism Effects

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the

Federal government has been given responsibility over these species by

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. These rules do not have a substantial

direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities

of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or

administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612,

these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not

have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,

``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal

Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible

effects on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that

there are no effects.

Authorship

The primary author of this final rule is James R. Kelley, Jr.,

Office of Migratory Bird Management.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby amend parts 20

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

Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 20--[AMENDED]

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

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

Sec. 20.22 [Amended]

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

added following the word ``season''.

PART 21--[AMENDED]

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

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

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

follows:

Subpart E--Control of Overabundant Migratory Bird Populations

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

(a) Which waterfowl species are covered by this order? This

conservation order addresses management of lesser snow (Anser c.

caerulescens) and Ross' (Anser rossii) geese that breed, migrate, and

winter in the mid-continent portion of North America, primarily in the

Central and Mississippi Flyways (Mid-continent light geese).

(b) In what areas can the conservation order be implemented? (1)

The following States, or portions of States, that are contained within

the boundaries of the Central and Mississippi Flyways: Alabama,

Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

(2) Tribal lands within the geographic boundaries in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section.

(3) The following areas within the boundaries in paragraph (b)(1)

of this section above are closed to the conservation order after 10

March: Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge (CO); Bosque del Apache

National Wildlife Refuge (NM); the area within 5 miles of the Platte

River from Lexington, Nebraska to Grand Island, Nebraska; the following

area in and around Aransas National Wildlife Refuge; those portions of

Refugio, Calhoun, and Aransas counties that lie inside a line extending

from 5 nautical miles offshore to and including Pelican Island, thence

to Port O'Conner, thence northwest along State Highway 185 and

southwest along State Highway 35 to Aransas Pass, thence southeast

along State Highway 361 to Port Aransas, thence east along the Corpus

Christi Channel, thence southeast along the Aransas Channel, extending

to 5 nautical miles offshore; except that it is lawful to take Mid-

continent light geese after 10 March

[[Page 7528]]

within the Guadalupe WMA. If at any time evidence is presented that

clearly demonstrates that there no longer exists a need to close the

above areas, we will publish a proposal to remove the closures in the

Federal Register.

(c) What is required in order for State/Tribal governments to

participate in the conservation order? Any State or Tribal government

responsible for the management of wildlife and migratory birds may,

without permit, kill or cause to be killed under its general

supervision, mid-continent light geese under the following conditions:

(1) Activities conducted under this section may not affect

endangered or threatened species as designated under the Endangered

Species Act.

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

intended to relieve pressures on migratory birds and habitat essential

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

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

any regulations promulgated under section 3 of the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act.

(3) Control activities may be conducted only when all waterfowl and

crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.

(4) Control measures employed through this section may be

implemented only between the hours of one-half hour before sunrise to

one-half hour after sunset.

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

actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal Agency with

jurisdiction.

(6) States and Tribes must designate participants who must operate

under the conditions of this section.

(7) States and Tribes must inform participants of the requirements/

conditions of this section that apply.

(8) States and Tribes must keep records of activities carried out

under the authority of this section, including the number of mid-

continent light geese taken under this section, the methods by which

they were taken, and the dates they were taken. The States and Tribes

must submit an annual report summarizing activities conducted under

this section on or before August 1 of each year, to the appropriate

Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and Wildlife (see Sec. 2.2 of this

chapter).

(d) What is required in order for individuals to participate in the

conservation order? Individual participants in State or tribal programs

covered by this section are required to comply with the following

requirements:

(1) Nothing in this section authorizes the take of mid-continent

light geese contrary to any State or Tribal laws or regulations; and

none of the privileges granted under this section may be exercised

unless persons acting under the authority of the conservation order

possesses whatever permit or other authorization(s) as may be required

for such activities by the State or Tribal government concerned.

(2) Participants who take mid-continent light geese under this

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

but may possess, transport, and otherwise properly use them.

(3) Participants acting under the authority of this section must

permit at all reasonable times including during actual operations, any

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

game law enforcement officer free and unrestricted access over the

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

must promptly furnish whatever information an officer requires

concerning the operation.

(4) Participants acting under the authority of this section may

take mid-continent light geese by any method except those prohibited as

follows:

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

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

poison, drug, explosive, or stupefying substance;

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

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

means of concealment beneath the surface of the water;

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

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

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

stationary motor vehicle or stationary motor-driven land conveyance;

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

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

shut off and the sails furled, and its progress therefrom has ceased. A

craft under power may be used only to retrieve dead or crippled birds;

however, the craft may not be used under power to shoot any crippled

birds;

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

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

Mid-continent light geese on an area where tame or captive live geese

are present unless such birds are and have been for a period of 10

consecutive days before the taking, confined within an enclosure that

substantially reduces the audibility of their calls and totally

conceals the birds from the sight of Mid-continent light geese;

(vi) By means or aid of any motor-driven land, water, or air

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

concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of Mid-continent light

geese;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or

harvesting; or

(viii) Participants may not possess shot (either in shotshells or

as loose shot for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin,

or other shots that are authorized in 50 CFR 20.21(j). Season

limitations in that rule do not apply to participants acting under this

order.

(e) Under what conditions would the conservation order be revoked?

The Service will annually assess the overall impact and effectiveness

of the conservation order to ensure compatibility with long-term

conservation of this resource. If at any time evidence is presented

that clearly demonstrates that there no longer exists a serious threat

of injury to the area or areas involved, we will initiate action to

revoke the conservation order.

(f) Will information concerning the conservation order be

collected? The information collection requirements of the conservation

order have been approved by OMB and assigned clearance number 1018-

0103. 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. The recordkeeping and

[[Page 7529]]

reporting requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR

Part 21, Subpart E will be utilized to administer this program,

particularly in the assessment of impacts alternative regulatory

strategies may have on Mid-continent light geese and other migratory

bird populations. The information collected will be required to

authorize State and Tribal governments responsible for migratory bird

management to take Mid-continent light geese within the guidelines

provided by the Service.

Dated: February 10, 1999.

Donald Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 99-3649 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P