[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60271-60278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29953]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 60272]]
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.
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. 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). 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). 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
(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
[[Page 60273]]
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. 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 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. Impacts such as a decline
in biological diversity and physiological stress, malnutrition, and
disease in goslings have been documented and observations of such
impacts are increasing. Additional observations in areas north of
Hudson Bay on Southampton and Baffin Islands, northwest in the Queen
Maud Gulf region, and south off the west coast of James Bay on Akimiski
Island also suggest similar habitat degradation patterns from expanding
colonies of MCLG. Batt (1997) reported the rapid expansion of existing
colonies and the establishment of new colonies in the central and
eastern arctic. In 1973, for example, Canadian Wildlife Service data
indicated that approximately 400,000 light geese nested on West Baffin
Island. In 1997, approximately 1.8 million breeding adults were
counted. Similar colony expansions have been reported for the Queen
Maud Gulf region and Southampton Island. Rapid colony expansion must be
halted and the populations must be reduced to prevent further habitat
degradation and to protect the remaining habitat upon which numerous
wildlife species depend.
Breeding Habitat Status
MCLG breeding colonies occur over a large area encompassing eastern
and central portions of Northern Canada. Habitat degradation by MCLG
has been most extensively studied in specific areas where colonies have
expanded exponentially and exhibit severe habitat degradation. 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.
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,
[[Page 60274]]
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. 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.
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.
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. 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
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
[[Page 60275]]
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. 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
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. 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).
Combined with our projection that harvest will increase by 31,600 per
year without any changes to hunting regulations, we can expect to
harvest 634,400 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 301,300 MCLG through the implementation
of this proposed action during a light-goose only season bringing the
total projected harvest to 935,700 MCLG in the first year of
implementation of this proposed action. These figures are based on
increasing harvest number. Therefore, we expect this projected harvest
to increase annually. We expect to harvest 1.1 million MCLG in the
second year of implementation and 1.2 million in the third year of
implementation.
Central and Mississippi Flyway Council management guidelines
suggest that MCLG populations should rest between approximately 800,000
and 1.2 million birds based on the December index (USFWS 1998b, Central
and Mississippi Flyway Councils 1982). Batt (1997) estimate that the
populations should be reduced by 50% by 2005. Based on the December
index, that would suggest a reduction from approximately three million
birds to approximately 1.5 million 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
[[Page 60276]]
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
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
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. 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.
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.
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
[[Page 60277]]
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. 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. 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
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
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
[[Page 60278]]
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. 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:
* * * * *
(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.
* * * * *
(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