Migratory Bird Hunting; Regulations To Increase Harvest of Mid- Continent Light Geese.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AF25

Migratory Bird Hunting; Regulations To Increase Harvest of Mid-

Continent Light Geese.

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 authorizes the use of additional hunting methods (electronic

callers and unplugged shotguns) during a normal open light-goose

hunting season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons,

excluding falconry, are closed.

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 Interior, ms 634--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington,

D.C. 20240. The public may inspect comments during normal business

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

Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Blohm, Acting Chief, Office

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

358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Lesser snow and Ross' geese that primarily migrate through North

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

extensively with lesser snow geese on both the breeding and wintering

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

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

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

North America primarily in the Central and Mississippi Flyways. They

are referred to as ``light'' geese due to 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. Operational surveys conducted annually on wintering

grounds are used 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 (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

[[Page 7508]]

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, we

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

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

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

nutrients during spring migration assuring that MCLG arrive on the

breeding grounds in prime condition to breed. Increased food subsidies

during spring migration over the last 30 years has resulted in higher

reproductive potential and breeding success (Ankney and McInnes 1978,

Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Consequently, more geese survived the

winter and migration and were healthier as they returned to their

breeding grounds in Canada.

This is not intended to criticize the conservation efforts

accomplished by the implementation of conservation-oriented

agricultural practices. Such efforts have benefitted numerous wildlife

species. 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 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

[[Page 7509]]

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%

annually, resulting in more severe and widespread ecological impacts.

Although several factors influence population dynamics, the greatest

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

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

the populations is the most effective and efficient approach in

reducing the populations. Experts feel that breaking eggs and other

non-lethal techniques have been determined to be ineffective in

significantly reducing the populations within a reasonable time to

preserve and protect habitat (Batt 1997).

We have attempted to curb the growth of MCLG populations by

increasing bag and possession limits and extending the open hunting

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

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

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

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

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

harvest rate indicates that the current management strategies are not

sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth rates.

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 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 rule to mid-continent populations of

light geese (MCLG): Mid-continent and Western Central Flyway lesser

snow geese (Chen

[[Page 7510]]

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 an additional but separate

population reduction strategy. In addition to this rule that amends 50

CFR Part 20, we are also amending 50 CFR Part 21 to authorize the use

of a conservation order to increase take of MCLG. The conservation

order will be in the nature of an order authorizing States to implement

actions to harvest MCLG, by shooting in a hunting manner, inside or

outside of the regular open migratory bird hunting season frameworks

when all waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding 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 this 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 this 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 this rule by establishing a light-goose

only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons,

excluding falconry, are closed.

We are implementing the second action (conservation order) in order

to maximize the overall program's potential and to try to achieve our

management objective within a reasonable time-frame. These actions will

be complemented by attempts to alter habitat management practices that

tend to increase MCLG, and hopefully will reduce the need for 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 this rule (amendment 50 CFR Part 20) are rolled

into the harvest projections for the conservation order. Harvest

projections for this rule are not in addition to the harvest

projections for the conservation order.

Revision to 50 CFR Part 20

We are amending 50 CFR 20.21 with the intent to increase harvest of

mid-continent light geese during the open hunting season (MCLG) by

authorizing the use of electronic callers and unplugged shotguns during

a light goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting

seasons, excluding falconry, are closed. This is in an effort to reduce

overabundant MCLG populations that have become seriously injurious to

other migratory bird populations and to habitat essential to migratory

bird populations. Conditions under this regulation require that

participating States inform hunters acting under the authority of the

amendment of the conditions that apply to the utilization of this

amendment.

Under the authority of this rule, States could develop and initiate

aggressive harvest management strategies by offering hunters additional

hunting methods to harvest MCLG with the intent to increase harvest of

MCLG. By operating under an existing program, a regular light-goose

only season, affected States would not have to create a new program to

implement the action, which would significantly reduce administrative

burden to the State and Federal governments. In order to minimize or

avoid negative impacts to non-target species and to eliminate confusion

regarding enforcement of the restrictions associated with this action,

States may only implement this action when all other waterfowl and

crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed. Although we

expect this action to facilitate other protection and recovery efforts,

we do not expect this action (amendment to 50 CFR Part 20) implemented

alone to achieve our management objective. Therefore, we are

concurrently implementing an additional but separate population

reduction strategy (discussed above) to work in concert with this

action in order to achieve our management objective. We feel the

overall strategy will result in biologically sound and more cost-

effective and efficient overabundant MCLG population management. This

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 health and status of MCLG

populations or threaten the status of other species that could be

impacted through the implementation of this action. We have evaluation

and monitoring strategies to assess the overall impacts of this

proposed action on MCLG harvest and impacts to non-target species that

may be affected by the implementation of this 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 1.5 million MCLG after three years by implementing this

proposed action. Therefore, we expect the total cumulative harvest to

be 3.5 million MCLG after three years of implementation of this

proposed action. We will revoke the amendment to 50 CFR Part 20 if the

December index is reduced to the goal of 1.6 million birds.

The impact is expected to be regional within the Central and

western Mississippi Flyway States that choose to participate. MCLG

winter in the southern States of the Flyways substantially longer than

northern or mid-latitude States. Therefore, the opportunity to harvest

more MCLG is greatest in the south. Additional hunting methods

authorized by a State under the authority of this rule will facilitate

a hunter's ability to harvest more MCLG and will facilitate other

efforts to increase adult mortality and therefore decrease numbers of

MCLG.

Although we can expect the additional hunting methods to be

effective, 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 utilize the new methods, which will

influence its effectiveness. However, with certain assumptions, we may

[[Page 7511]]

project an increase in harvest using existing harvest data.

Before projecting the effect of this action on harvest we must

establish several assumptions. We are assuming that all affected States

will act under the authority of the rule and allow the additional

methods authorized in this action, that current MCLG hunter numbers

will not decrease, and that the new hunting methods authorized in this

will increase hunter effectiveness and overall harvest. We do not

assume that all MCLG hunters will use the new hunting methods and of

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

effectiveness. We are assuming that 25% of the current MCLG hunters

will use the new hunting methods and increase his/her effectiveness in

harvesting MCLG.

We determined, based on a linear regression analysis of historical

harvest data, that regular-season harvest 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 influence

harvest such as the recent regulation changes for light geese. A more

complex analysis demonstrates that harvest 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 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 can expect to harvest an additional

339,000 MCLG in the first year of implementation of this action during

a light-goose only season. Therefore, we expect a total harvest of

975,500 MCLG in the first year of implementation of this proposed

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 1.2 million MCLG in the second year of

implementation, and 1.3 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 harvest to facilitate other efforts, such

as habitat management on the wintering grounds and increased harvest of

MCLG by Canadian aboriginals. Decreased MCLG numbers will also relieve

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

the use of additional hunting methods during a light-goose only season

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 use of the

additional methods 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. It is expected to reduce the possibility that

other species will be forced to seek habitat elsewhere or abandon

unsuitable degraded habitat altogether, which could potentially result

in decreased reproductive success of affected populations. We expect a

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. We do not expect the action to result in an increase in take

of non-target species. The action will only be allowed when all other

waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.

Socio-Economic

Any migratory bird hunting action taken has economic consequences.

Continued inaction is likely to result in ecosystem failure of the

Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-marsh ecosystem and potentially other

ecosystems as MCLG populations expand and exploit new habitats. Without

more effective population control measures to curb the populations, the

populations of MCLG are expected to continue increasing and become more

and more unstable as suitable breeding habitat diminishes. As

population densities increase, the incidence of avian cholera among

MCLG and other species is likely to increase throughout the Flyways,

particularly at migration stopover sites. Losses of other species such

as pintails, white-fronted geese, sandhill cranes, and whooping cranes,

from avian cholera may be great. This may result in reduced hunting,

birdwatching, and other opportunities. It may also result in the season

closures of adversely impacted migratory game birds such as white-

fronted geese, sandhill cranes, and pintails. Goose damage to winter

wheat and other agricultural crops will continue and worsen. Habitat

damage in the Arctic will eventually trigger density-dependent

regulation of the population which likely will result in increased

gosling mortality and may cause the population to decline

precipitously. However, it is not clear when such population regulation

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

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

any hunting, effectively closing MCLG hunting seasons. The length of

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

habitat, which likely will take decades. Although the overall impact of

closures of light-goose seasons in the Central and Mississippi Flyways

that could result from continued degradation of the breeding habitat is

small on a national scale, it would be concentrated where large flocks

of geese stage and winter. 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

[[Page 7512]]

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 Comment Received

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

Register (63 FR 60271) 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 821). During the

comment period, we received 573 comments consisting of 448 from private

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

from private organizations, 10 from Native organizations, 43 from

individuals that signed a petition, and 22 from private organizations

that signed a petition. Comments generally were dichotomized by two

points of view.

Comments in support of such action were received from 248 private

citizens, 21 State wildlife agencies, 2 Flyway Councils, 12 private

organizations, 1 Native group, and 35 from individuals that signed a

petition. Three private individuals and 1 State wildlife agency that

supported the use of electronic calls did not support the use of

unplugged shotguns, whereas 1 private individual did not support

electronic calls but did support the use of unplugged shotguns. All

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 the requirement

should be that only other waterfowl seasons be closed in order to

implement changes in light goose regulations. A State wildlife agency

and 1 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. Several State wildlife

agencies and 2 Flyway Councils 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. Several 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 alternative 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.

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.

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 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.

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 20 to

authorize additional regulatory strategies 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.

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

[[Page 7513]]

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 decertification

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 managers and is the reason we feel

that MCLG populations need to be controlled.

With regard to documentation of the 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.

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 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 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 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 these 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 and not 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

[[Page 7514]]

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 in the 2 reports. At the present, we believe that pursuing a 3

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, long-term 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

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.

Concerning the requirement to close several crane wintering and

migration areas to implementation of MCLG regulatory strategies, we

feel that this requirement is necessary to 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 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.

[[Page 7515]]

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.

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

Natural History. New York, NY.

Ryder, J.P. 1969. Nesting colonies of Ross' goose. Auk:86-282-292.

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

Nesting Geese. Rollin Sparrowe, Chair. Wildlife Management

Institute, Washington, D.C.

Thomas, V.G., and B.K. MacKay. 1998. A critical evaluation of the

proposed reduction in the mid-continent lesser snow goose population

to conserve sub-arctic salt marshes of Hudson Bay. The Humane

Society of the United States (Washington, D.C.), and the Animal

Protection Institute (Sacramento, CA). 32 pp.

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.

Wood, C.A. 1994. Ecosystem management: Achieving the new land ethic.

Renewable Resources Journ. Spring issue: 6-21.

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 comment period, we

received 573 comments consisting of 448 from private citizens, 21 from

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

organizations, 10 from Native organizations, 43 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 have determined that amending 50 CFR Part 20

to authorize additional regulatory strategies 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

the Service's consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is available to

the public at

[[Page 7516]]

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 proposed regulation benefits

small businesses by avoiding ecosystem failure to an ecosystem that

produces migratory bird resources important to American citizens. The

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

preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a

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

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

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

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

in the Central and Mississippi Flyways, subsequently avoiding a $70

million loss in output and reducing the possibility of increased

agricultural loss. We expect special MCLG population control efforts to

create additional take opportunities which is expected to add $18

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis is not required.

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), this rule has been

submitted to Congress. Because this rule deals with the Service's

migratory bird hunting program, this rule qualifies for an exemption

under 5 U.S.C. 808(1); therefore, the Department determines that this

rule shall take effect immediately.

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

This regulation does not require any information collection for

which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The

information collection is covered by an existing Office of Management

and Budget approval number. The information collections contained in

Sec. 20.20 have been approved by OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and

assigned clearance number 1018-0015 for the administration of the

Migratory Bird Harvest Information Survey (50 CFR 20.20). An agency 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.

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 Part 20

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

For the reasons given in the preamble, we hereby amend part 20, of

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

Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 20--[AMENDED]

1. 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.

[[Page 7517]]

2. Revise paragraphs (b) and (g) of Sec. 20.21 Hunting methods to

read as follows:

Sec. 20.21 Hunting methods.

* * * * *

(b) With a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than

three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler, incapable

of removal without disassembling the gun, so its total capacity does

not exceed three shells. This restriction does not apply during a

light-goose (lesser snow and Ross' geese) only season when all other

waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed

while hunting light geese in Central and Mississippi Flyway portions of

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.

* * * * *

(g) By the use or aid of recorded or electrically amplified bird

calls or sounds, or recorded or electrically amplified imitations of

bird calls or sounds. This restriction does not apply during a light-

goose (lesser snow and Ross' geese) only season when all other

waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed

while hunting light geese in Central and Mississippi Flyway portions of

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.

Dated: February 10, 1999.

Donald Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 99-3650 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P