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: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-continent lesser snow goose and Ross' goose population

has nearly quadrupled in the last 30 years. The Western Central Flyway

lesser snow and Ross' goose population also has quadrupled in the last

23 years. Collectively, these central and eastern arctic and subarctic-

nesting light goose populations are referred to as Mid-continent light

geese (MCLG)

Due to high population growth rates, a decline in adult mortality,

and an increase in winter survival, MCLG are now seriously injurious to

their habitat and habitat important to other migratory birds which

poses a serious threat to the short and long-term health and status of

migratory bird populations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service

or ``we'') believes that MCLG populations exceed long-term sustainable

levels for their arctic and subarctic breeding habitats and the

populations must be reduced. This proposed rule will authorize the use

of additional hunting methods (electronic callers and unplugged

shotguns) during a normal open light-goose hunting season when all

other migratory bird hunting seasons are closed. We designed the

program to increase MCLG harvest and to provide a biologically sound

and cost effective and efficient method for the reduction and

management of overabundant MCLG populations.

DATES: The comment period for this proposed rule closes January 8,

1999.

nd unplugged

shotguns) during a normal open light-goose hunting season when all

other migratory bird hunting seasons are closed. We designed the

program to increase MCLG harvest and to provide a biologically sound

and cost effective and efficient method for the reduction and

management of overabundant MCLG populations.

DATES: The comment period for this proposed rule closes January 8,

1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to 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: Bob 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

nce. 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 their light coloration as

opposed to ``dark'' geese such as the white-fronted or Canada goose.

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. MCP light geese have more than tripled within 30 years

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

birds in 1998 and have grown an average of 5% per year for the last ten

years (Abraham et al. 1996, USFWS 1998b). WCFP light geese have

quadrupled in 23 years from 52,000 in 1974 to 216,000 in 1997 (USFWS

1997b), and have increased an average of 9% per year for the last ten

years (USFWS 1998b). The above population estimates are not true

population counts and likely underestimate the true population sizes.

They were derived from an index which is used to detect population

growth trends by sampling a portion of a population. Breeding colony

estimates, actual population counts estimated from spring and summer

surveys, suggest that the actual population sizes of MCLG may be in

excess of five million breeding birds (D. Caswell pers. comm. 1998).

For example, in one area northwest of Hudson Bay alone, the Queen Maud

Gulf, estimates for breeding and non-breeding (failed to successfully

nest) adult Ross' and lesser snow geese for 1998 are 1.29 million and

1.82 million birds, respectively (Alisauskas et al. 1998)

uggest that the actual population sizes of MCLG may be in

excess of five million breeding birds (D. Caswell pers. comm. 1998).

For example, in one area northwest of Hudson Bay alone, the Queen Maud

Gulf, estimates for breeding and non-breeding (failed to successfully

nest) adult Ross' and lesser snow geese for 1998 are 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. MCLG populations have

exceeded the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)

population objective levels in both the United States and Canada. NAWMP

population objective levels are used to demonstrate that MCLG

populations have increased substantially over what is considered to be

a healthy population level, not to suggest that MCLG be reduced to

NAWMP population objective levels. Population management thresholds,

however, are management thresholds that specify both an upper and lower

population level objective.

Ross' geese (WCFP and MCP) currently exceed 200,000 birds (December

index) and breeding colony estimates (actual counts of nesting birds)

approached 400,000 birds in 1996 (Batt 1997) and exceeded 1 million

birds in1998; both estimates well exceed the recommended minimum

population objective level for Ross' geese of 100,000 birds (USDOI et

al. 1998). MCP lesser snow geese estimates currently exceed 2.8 million

birds (December index); the lower and upper population management

thresholds are 800,000 and 1.2 million birds, respectively (Central and

Mississippi Flyway Councils 1982) with a recommended minimum population

objective level of 1 million birds (USDOI et al. 1998)

objective level for Ross' geese of 100,000 birds (USDOI et

al. 1998). MCP lesser snow geese estimates currently exceed 2.8 million

birds (December index); the lower and upper population management

thresholds are 800,000 and 1.2 million birds, respectively (Central and

Mississippi Flyway Councils 1982) with a recommended minimum population

objective level of 1 million birds (USDOI et al. 1998). WCFP lesser

snow goose estimates currently exceed 200,000 birds (December index)

which exceeds the recommended minimum population objective level of

110,000 birds (USDOI et al. 1998). Although our intention is to

significantly reduce these populations to relieve pressures on the

breeding habitats, we feel that these efforts will not threaten the

long-term status of these populations as we are confident reduction

efforts will not result in the populations falling below the population

goal and management objective levels indicated above. Evaluation and

assessment mechanisms are in place to estimate population sizes and

will be used to prevent the over-harvest of these populations.

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

s 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

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

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. It is merely to point out that MCLG have exploited these

artificial resources which has resulted 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 (grub) 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

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. Much of the

degraded habitat is unlikely to recover (Abraham and Jefferies 1997).

In badly degraded areas, less than 20% of the vegetation within an

exclosure 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

rophic

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 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

n

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. The

Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-marsh ecosystem, for example, 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 moving and will continue to move into the

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

Accelerated habitat degradation has occurred 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 suggest 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.

at 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. 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 with little chance of

recovery as long as MCLG populations remain high and for some time

after it declines from natural causes, if they do. 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 likely come to 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

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.

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

Migratory Bird 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 1997).

The decline in harvest rate indicates that the current management

strategies are not sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth

rates

owever, 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 1997).

The decline in harvest rate indicates that the current management

strategies are not sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth

rates.

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. 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 proposed

action is not successful. Should the proposed action be unsuccessful in

five years, 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 (primarily Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois,

Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and

Wyoming) where they migrate, stage, or winter. Evidence exists to

support the conclusion that MCLG migrate, stage, and winter in these

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

severe habitat degradation

, Colorado, Illinois,

Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,

Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and

Wyoming) where they migrate, stage, or winter. Evidence exists to

support the conclusion that MCLG migrate, stage, and winter in these

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

severe habitat degradation.

We are concurrently proposing an additional but separate population

reduction strategy. In addition to this proposed rule to amend 50 CFR

part 20, we are also proposing to amend 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 migratory bird hunting seasons are closed. This proposal is

also in the nature of a proposed rule and the notice and request for

comments appears in this issue of the Federal Register.

We do not expect this proposed action (amendment to 50 CFR part 20)

implemented alone to achieve our management objective which is to

reduce MCLG populations such that the December index falls within

800,000 and 1.2 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 decreasing the program's potential. We do

not expect some States to participate in this proposed action due to

the infeasibility of implementing the action when all other migratory

bird hunting seasons are closed. MCLG migrate through northern and Mid-

latitude States in the fall, however, the geese typically do not reach

some of those States prior to 10 March during spring migration

rticipate decreasing the program's potential. We do

not expect some States to participate in this proposed action due to

the infeasibility of implementing the action when all other migratory

bird hunting seasons are closed. MCLG migrate through northern and Mid-

latitude States in the fall, however, the geese typically do not reach

some of those States prior to 10 March during spring migration. For

those States to be able to utilize this proposed action, they would

have to close all other migratory bird hunting seasons in the fall,

which is highly unlikely. Conversely, many migratory bird hunting

seasons in the southern States close prior to 10 March. Therefore, it

is much more feasible for southern States to implement this proposed

action by establishing a light-goose only season when all other

migratory bird seasons are closed. We are proposing the second action

(conservation order) referred to above in order to maximize the

program's potential and obtain our management objective within a

reasonable time-frame to avoid the use of more direct population

control programs. The second proposed action, a 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 proposed action (amendment to 50

CFR part 20) are rolled into the harvest projections for the second

proposed action (conservation order) and are not in addition to the

harvest projections for the second proposed action.

Proposed Revision to 50 CFR 20

participate in this effort and enable

them to harvest MCLG during spring migration, particularly after 10

March. Harvest projections for this proposed action (amendment to 50

CFR part 20) are rolled into the harvest projections for the second

proposed action (conservation order) and are not in addition to the

harvest projections for the second proposed action.

Proposed Revision to 50 CFR 20

We propose to revise 50 CFR part 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 migratory bird

hunting seasons 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 the proposed regulation require that

participating States inform all hunters acting under the authority of

the proposed amendment of the conditions

that apply to the utilization of this proposed amendment.

Under the authority of this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed action, States may only implement this

proposed action when all other migratory bird hunting seasons are

closed

the proposed 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 proposed action, States may only implement this

proposed action when all other migratory bird hunting seasons are

closed. Although we expect this proposed action to facilitate other

protection and recovery efforts,, we do not expect this proposed action

(amendment to 50 CFR part 20) implemented alone to achieve our

management objective. Therefore, we are concurrently proposing an

additional but separate population reduction strategy (discussed above)

to work in concert with this proposed action to obtain our management

objective. We feel the overall strategy will result in biologically

sound and more cost-effective and efficient overabundant MCLG

population 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 significantly reduce

overabundant MCLG populations, we believe that this proposed action

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 proposed action. Evaluation and monitoring

strategies are in place 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 proposed action.

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

MCLG Populations and Associated Habitats

that could be impacted through

the implementation of this proposed action. Evaluation and monitoring

strategies are in place 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 proposed action.

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

MCLG Populations and Associated Habitats

We project that we will harvest two million MCLG over the next

three years without the use of this proposed action based on current

MCLG harvest trends. Under certain assumptions, our most liberal

estimate indicates that we can expect to harvest an additional one

million MCLG within three years of implementation of this proposed

action bringing the total harvest to three million MCLG within three

years of implementation of this proposed action. Once the December

index falls within 800,000 to 1.2 million birds, the proposed

amendments to 50 CFR part 20 will be revoked. The impact is expected to

be regional within the Central and western Mississippi Flyway States.

MCLG winter in the southern States in the Flyways substantially longer

than northern or Mid-latitude States. Therefore, the opportunity to

harvest more MCLG is greatest in those States. Additional hunting

methods authorized by a State under the authority of this proposed

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

project an increase in harvest using existing harvest data.

Several assumptions must be established before projecting the

effect of the proposed action on harvest

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

project an increase in harvest using existing harvest data.

Several assumptions must be established before projecting the

effect of the proposed action on harvest. We are assuming that all

affected States will act under the authority of this proposed rule and

allow the additional methods authorized in this proposed action, that

current MCLG hunter numbers will not decrease, and that the new hunting

methods authorized in this proposed action, if used, 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 harvest number 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 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 and hunter participation and light goose

hunting is increasing. Therefore, conservatively, we projected that

harvest will increase 31,600 per year for the next 5 years.

In 1997-98, 602,800 MCLG were harvested in the affected States (AR,

CO, IL, IA, KS, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NM, ND, OK, SD, TX, and WY)

illion birds in the December index; a

figure which coincides with the management guidelines determined by the

Central and Mississippi Flyway Council. Therefore, our efforts will

focus on a goal similar to those documented. It is important to

understand that the December index is not a population count. It is

simply used to detect population growth trends by sampling a portion of

a population. The reduction of MCLG will be carefully analyzed and

assessed 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, to decrease MCLG numbers and 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 reflects a number within the management guidelines

mentioned above (approximately 800,000-1.2 million), the proposed

action will be revoked and the methods authorized will no longer be

allowed. 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 to avoid it by

modifying or revoking the proposed action.

Other Species

es

mentioned above (approximately 800,000-1.2 million), the proposed

action will be revoked and the methods authorized will no longer be

allowed. 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 to avoid it by

modifying or revoking the proposed action.

Other Species

An increase in harvest, and subsequently a decrease in MCLG

numbers, is expected 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 proposed action

to result in an increased intake of non-target species. The proposed

action will only be allowed when all other migratory bird hunting

seasons are closed.

Socioeconomic

CLG 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 proposed action

to result in an increased intake of non-target species. The proposed

action will only be allowed when all other migratory bird hunting

seasons are closed.

Socioeconomic

Any 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

ependent 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. As

hunter services tend to be performed by people with low incomes, the

impact of a closure would fall disproportionately on low income groups

near goose concentrations. We expect the proposed 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 Comment Received

On April 6, 1998, we issued in the Federal Register (63 FR 16819) a

notice of intent announcing that we would develop a draft Environmental

Assessment to examine alternative regulatory strategies to reduce MCLG

populations. This notice invited public comment on possible regulatory

alternatives. The notice also advised the public that the draft

Environmental Assessment along with a proposed rule would be published

in the Federal Register later this year for public review and comment

cing that we would develop a draft Environmental

Assessment to examine alternative regulatory strategies to reduce MCLG

populations. This notice invited public comment on possible regulatory

alternatives. The notice also advised the public that the draft

Environmental Assessment along with a proposed rule would be published

in the Federal Register later this year for public review and comment.

As a result of this invitation for public comment, 247 comments

consisting of 1 from a Federal agency, 8 from State wildlife agencies,

7 from private organizations, 1 from a Flyway Council, 115 from private

citizens, and 115 from people who signed a petition were received.

Comments were generally dichotomized by two key points of concern.

To summarize, 186 comments were supportive of our intent to examine

alternative regulatory strategies designed to increase MCLG harvest to

reduce the MCLG population. These commenters agreed that there was a

problem and that the resolution should entail reduction by lethal means

and supported the use of additional hunting methods to increase harvest

of MCLG. Comments in support of such action were received from 1

Federal agency, 8 State wildlife agencies, 1 Flyway Council, 5 private

conservation agencies, 94 private citizens, and 77 from people who

signed a petition. Conversely, 59 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 scientifically justified to

reduce the populations or attempts to do so would be inhumane. Instead,

these commenters offered two non-lethal recommendations to reduce the

populations: (1) Hazing adults off nests and (2) egging (destroying

nests) on the breeding grounds. Comments in support of no action or

non-lethal action were received from 2 private animal welfare agencies,

19 private citizens, and 38 from people who signed a petition

ations or attempts to do so would be inhumane. Instead,

these commenters offered two non-lethal recommendations to reduce the

populations: (1) Hazing adults off nests and (2) egging (destroying

nests) on the breeding grounds. Comments in support of no action or

non-lethal action were received from 2 private animal welfare agencies,

19 private citizens, and 38 from people who signed a petition.

Additionally, 2 comments were received in support of reducing the

populations by use of lethal means, however, recommended use of Federal

and State wildlife agency programs such as trapping and culling.

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

any birds and we do not believe that authorizing additional hunting

methods or by providing additional opportunities to increase harvest of

MCLG is inhumane. We also prefer non-lethal control activities, such as

habitat modification, as the first means of resolving this issue.

However, habitat modification and other harassment tactics do not

always work satisfactorily and lethal methods are sometimes necessary

to increase the effectiveness of non-lethal management methods.

Further, MCLG breed in remote locations in the arctic and subarctic

regions of Northern Canada. Implementing control activities in those

areas is cost-prohibitive and dangerous. Instead, we feel that

providing States with additional opportunity and means to increase MCLG

harvest while implementing non-lethal control measures concurrently is

the most efficient and feasible short-term

solution. We will continue to work jointly with the Canadian Wildlife

Service to reduce MCLG in both the United States and in Canada.

References Cited

is cost-prohibitive and dangerous. Instead, we feel that

providing States with additional opportunity and means to increase MCLG

harvest while implementing non-lethal control measures concurrently is

the most efficient and feasible short-term

solution. We will continue to work jointly with the Canadian Wildlife

Service to reduce MCLG in both the United States and in Canada.

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.

____________________, 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.

____________________, S.M. Slattery, D.K. Kellett, D.S. Stern, and

K.D. Warner. 1998. Spatial and temporal dynamics of Ross' 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.

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

itat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture

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

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

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.

____________________, 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.

____________________. 1998. Personal Communication. American Museum

of Natural History. New York, NY.

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. 1998d. 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. 1997a. Waterfowl population status, 1997. Office of Migratory

Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 32 pp.

____________________. 1997b. Harvest and population survey data

book, Central Flyway, compiled by D.E. Sharp. Office of Migratory

Bird Management, Denver, CO. 123 pp.

____________________. 1998a. Mid-continent Lesser Snow Goose

Workshops: Central and Mississippi Flyways, Fall 1997. Office of

Migratory Bird Management and Division of Refuges, Arlington, VA.

____________________. 1998b. Waterfowl populations status, 1998.

Department of Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,

VA

.E. Sharp. Office of Migratory

Bird Management, Denver, CO. 123 pp.

____________________. 1998a. Mid-continent Lesser Snow Goose

Workshops: Central and Mississippi Flyways, Fall 1997. Office of

Migratory Bird Management and Division of Refuges, Arlington, VA.

____________________. 1998b. Waterfowl populations status, 1998.

Department of Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington,

VA. 31pp.

____________________. 1998c. Waterfowl Population Status, 1998.

Department of 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.

NEPA Considerations

We have prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA), as defined

under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

in connection with this proposed regulation. The EA is available for

public review at the above address.

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

* * *'' Consequently, we initiated Section 7 consultation under the ESA

for this proposed rulemaking. Completed results of our consultation

under Section 7 of the ESA may be inspected by the public in, and will

be available to the public from, the Office of Migratory Bird

Management at the above address.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, and Executive

Order 12630

l) habitat

* * *'' Consequently, we initiated Section 7 consultation under the ESA

for this proposed rulemaking. Completed results of our consultation

under Section 7 of the ESA may be inspected by the public in, and will

be available to the public from, the Office of Migratory Bird

Management at the above address.

Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 12866, and Executive

Order 12630

The economic impacts of this proposed 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. Migratory bird

regulations are recognized as exempt from takings implication

assessment under E.O. 12630. This rule was not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

hich is expected to add $18

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis is not required. Migratory bird

regulations are recognized as exempt from takings implication

assessment under E.O. 12630. This rule was not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

This regulation does not require any additional information

collection 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 proposed

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 the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

t ``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 the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined

that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 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. It is not anticipated 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.

Public Comment Invited

The policy of the Department of the Interior is, whenever

practical, to afford you the opportunity to participate in the

rulemaking process. Accordingly, interested persons may submit written

comments, suggestions, or objections regarding this proposal to the

location identified in the address section above. Comments must be

received on or before (Insert 60 days from the date of publication of

this notice). Following review and consideration of the comments, we

intend to issue a final rule.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations

that are easy to understand

omments, suggestions, or objections regarding this proposal to the

location identified in the address section above. Comments must be

received on or before (Insert 60 days from the date of publication of

this notice). Following review and consideration of the comments, we

intend to issue a final rule.

Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations

that are easy to understand. We invite your 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 in or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided

into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type

and is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' (50 CFR 21.60) (5) Is the

description of the rule in the Supplementary Information section of the

preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else could we do to

make the rule easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this

rule easier to understand to `` Office of Regulatory Affairs,

Department of the Interior, room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington,

DC 20240. You may also e-mail the comments to this address:

E[email protected].

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 propose to amend

part 20 of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, as set forth below:

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

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

PART 20--[AMENDED]

Sec. 20.21 [Amended]

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

read as follows:

* * * * *

he preamble, we hereby propose to amend

part 20 of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, as set forth below:

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

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

PART 20--[AMENDED]

Sec. 20.21 [Amended]

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

read as follows:

* * * * *

(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. Provided that during a light-goose only season

when all other migratory bird hunting seasons are closed, nothing in

this paragraph (b) prohibits the taking of lesser snow and Ross' geese

in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North

Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming with a shotgun that

is capable of holding more than three shells. This exception is subject

to an annual assessment by the Service based on harvest data collected

from the previous year to determine the effectiveness of this section

in meeting the management goals and objectives associated with the

reduction of Mid-continent light goose (lesser snow and Ross' geese)

populations. The Service will annually publish the determination of

that assessment in the Federal Register.

* * * * *

to an annual assessment by the Service based on harvest data collected

from the previous year to determine the effectiveness of this section

in meeting the management goals and objectives associated with the

reduction of Mid-continent light goose (lesser snow and Ross' geese)

populations. The Service will annually publish the determination of

that assessment in the Federal Register.

* * * * *

(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. Provided that during a light goose only season

when all other migratory bird hunting seasons are closed, nothing in

this paragraph (g) prohibits the taking of lesser snow and Ross' geese

in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North

Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, South Dakota, and Wyoming with recorded or

electrically amplified bird calls or sounds or recorded or electrically

amplified imitations of bird calls or sounds. This exception is subject

to an annual assessment by the Service based on harvest data collected

from the previous year to determine the effectiveness of this

regulation in meeting the management goals and objectives associated

with the reduction of Mid-continent light goose (Mid-continent lesser

snow and Ross' geese) populations. The Service will annually publish

the determination of that assessment in the Federal Register.

* * * * *

Dated: October 30, 1998.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 98-29953 Filed 11-5-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P