[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