[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 216 (Monday, November 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60278-60287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-29954]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

RIN 1018-AF05


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-continent lesser snow goose and Ross' goose population 
has nearly quadrupled in the last 30 years. The Western Central Flyway 
lesser snow and Ross' goose population also has quadrupled in the last 
23 years. Collectively, these central and eastern arctic and subarctic-
nesting light goose populations are referred to as Mid-continent light 
geese (MCLG)
    Due to high population growth rates, a decline in adult mortality, 
and an increase in winter survival, MCLG are now seriously injurious to 
their habitat and habitat important to other migratory birds which 
poses a serious threat to the short and long-term health and status of 
migratory bird populations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service 
or ``we'') believes that MCLG populations exceed long-term sustainable 
levels for their arctic and subarctic breeding habitats and the 
populations must be reduced. This proposed rule proposes the addition 
of a new subpart to 50 CFR

[[Page 60279]]

part 21 for the management of overabundant MCLG populations. We, in 
cooperation with State wildlife agencies, are further proposing to 
implement a population control program by establishing a conservation 
order for MCLG under the authority of the proposed subpart. This 
proposed rule will increase the use and availability of additional 
hunting methods and will authorize take of MCLG outside of the normal 
open light-goose hunting season. 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. Comments 
and suggestions on the requirements should be sent directly to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and 
Budget; Attention: Interior Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503; and a 
copy of the comments should be sent to the Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224--ARLSQ, 1849 
C Street NW, Washington DC 20204.

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). In 
an 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' goose estimates (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 1998; both estimates well exceed the 
recommended minimum population objective level for Ross' geese of 
100,000 birds (USDOI et al. 1998d). MCP lesser snow geese estimates 
currently exceed 2.9 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. 1998d). 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. 1998d). 
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 in the natural 
coastal marshes they historically utilized. Similarly, MCLG migrating 
through the Mid-latitude and northern United States and prairie

[[Page 60280]]

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. Experts fear 
that some badly degraded habitat will not recover (Abraham and 
Jefferies 1997). For example, in a badly degraded area, less than 20% 
of the vegetation within an exclosure (fenced in area where geese 
cannot feed) has recovered after 15 years of protection from MCLG 
(Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Recovery rates of degraded areas are 
further slowed by the short tundra growing season and the high salinity 
levels in the exposed and unprotected soil.
    Long-term research efforts have indicated signs of ``trophic 
cascade'' in La Perouse Bay, Cape Henrietta Maria, and Akimiski Island 
(R. Rockwell pers. comm. 1998). Trophic cascade is essentially the 
collapse of an existing food chain indicating that the ecosystem is 
unable to support its inhabitants. Impacts associated with trophic 
cascade are indicative that MCLG populations have exceeded the carrying 
capacity of much of their breeding habitat. Impacts such as a decline 
in biological diversity and physiological stress, malnutrition, and 
disease in goslings have been documented and observations of such 
impacts are increasing. Additional observations in areas north of 
Hudson Bay on Southampton and Baffin Islands, northwest in the Queen 
Maud Gulf region, and south off the west coast of James Bay on Akimiski 
Island also suggest similar habitat degradation 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 been observed on Southampton and 
Baffin Islands and appear to be following the same pattern as 
documented in the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Current research efforts are 
underway to confirm observations of habitat degradation by MCLG in 
other areas.

Migration and Wintering Habitat Conditions and Degradation

    There is no evidence to support that wintering habitat for MCLG is 
threatened or that it may limit population growth. Presently, there are 
approximately 2.25 million acres of rice fields in Texas, Louisiana, 
and Arkansas, in addition to the millions of acres of cereal grain 
crops in the Midwest. Consequently, food availability and suitable 
wintering habitat are not limiting MCLG during the migration and 
wintering portions of the annual cycle.

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action

    At each site they occupy, MCLG will continue to degrade the plant 
communities until food and other resources are exhausted, forcing yet 
more expansion. The pattern has been, and will continue to be, that as 
existing nesting colonies expand, they exploit successively poorer 
quality habitats, which are less able to accommodate them and which 
become degraded more

[[Page 60281]]

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. Due to the rapidly 
expanding populations and the associated ecological impacts identified, 
we have concluded that MCLG populations have become seriously injurious 
to themselves and other migratory birds, their habitat and habitat of 
other migratory birds.
    We expect that MCLG populations will continue to grow at least 5% 
annually, resulting in more severe and widespread ecological impacts. 
Although several factors influence population dynamics, the greatest 
single factor in the populations' increase is high and increasing adult 
survival rates (Rockwell et al. 1997b). Therefore, removing adults from 
the populations is the most effective and efficient approach in 
reducing the populations. Experts feel that breaking eggs and other 
non-lethal techniques have been determined to be ineffective in 
significantly reducing the populations within a reasonable time to 
preserve and protect habitat (Batt 1997).
    We have attempted to curb the growth of MCLG populations by 
increasing bag and possession limits and extending the open hunting 
season length for light geese to 107 days, the maximum allowed by the 
Treaty. However, due to the rapid rise in MCLG numbers, low hunter 
success, and low hunter interest, harvest rate (the percentage of the 
population that is harvested), has declined despite evidence that the 
number of geese harvested has increased (USFWS 1997b). The decline in 
harvest rate indicates that the current management strategies are not 
sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth rates.
    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 21, we are also proposing to amend 50 CFR part 20 to authorize the 
use of new hunting methods to harvest MCLG. That proposed rule would 
authorize States to allow the use of new hunting methods to harvest 
MCLG during a light-goose only season when all other migratory bird 
hunting seasons are closed. The proposal is also in the nature of a 
proposed rule and the notice and request for comments is published in 
this issue of the Federal Register.
    We do not expect the second proposed action (amendment to 50 CFR 
part 20) implemented alone to achieve our overall 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 that strategy will 
hinge upon State participation, hunter participation, and hunter 
effectiveness. If a State does not participate, then its hunters will 
not be able to participate, decreasing the program's potential. We do 
not expect some States to participate in that 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 the second 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 that proposed 
action by establishing a light-goose only season when all other 
migratory bird seasons are closed. We are proposing this proposed 
action (conservation order) in order to maximize the overall program's 
potential and obtain our management objective within a reasonable time-
frame to avoid the use of more direct population control programs. This 
proposed action, conservation order, will allow northern States to 
participate in this effort and enable them to harvest MCLG during 
spring migration, particularly after 10 March. Harvest projections for 
the second proposed action (amendment 50 CFR part 20) are rolled into 
the harvest projections for this proposed action (conservation order). 
Harvest projections for the second proposed action would not be in 
addition to the harvest projections for this proposed action.

Proposed Conservation Order for MCLG

    We propose to establish a new subpart in 50 CFR part 21 for the 
management of overabundant MCLG populations. Under this new subpart, we 
propose to establish a conservation order specifically for the control 
and management of MCLG. Conditions under the conservation order require 
that participating States inform all participants acting under the 
authority of the conservation order of the conditions that apply to the 
proposed amendment.
    Under the authority of this proposed rule, States could initiate 
aggressive

[[Page 60282]]

harvest management strategies with the intent to increase MCLG harvest 
without having to obtain an individual permit, which will significantly 
reduce administrative burden to the State and Federal governments. A 
permit process would slow efforts to reduce the populations and prolong 
habitat degradation on the breeding grounds. This proposed rule will 
enable States to use hunters to harvest MCLG, by shooting in a hunting 
manner, inside or outside of the regular open migratory bird hunting 
season frameworks. States could maximize the opportunity to increase 
harvest of MCLG by implementing this proposed action beyond 10 March, 
where historically States have been limited by hunting season framework 
closing dates to take migratory birds. In order to minimize or avoid 
take of non-target species, States may implement this proposed action 
only when all migratory bird hunting seasons are closed. It is expected 
that this proposed action will facilitate other protection and recovery 
efforts. This proposed rule would further result in biologically sound 
and more cost-effective and efficient overabundant MCLG management and 
could preclude the use of more drastic, direct population control 
measures such as trapping and culling programs. Although the desired 
goal is to significantly reduce overabundant MCLG populations, we 
believe that this proposed rule will not threaten the long-term status 
of MCLG populations or threaten the status of other species that could 
be impacted through the implementation of this proposed rule. 
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 within three years 
without the use of this proposed action based on current MCLG harvest 
trends. Under certain assumptions, our most liberal estimate projects 
that we can expect to harvest an additional three million MCLG within 
three years of implementation of this proposed action bringing the 
total harvest to five million MCLG within three years of implementation 
of this proposed action. Once the December index falls within 
recommended management guidelines (800,000 to 1.2 million birds), then 
the proposed amendment to 50 CFR part 21 will be revoked.
    The impact is expected to be regional within the Central and 
western Mississippi Flyway States that choose to utilize the proposed 
action. Since the proposed action may take place between 11 March and 
31 August, we expect MCLG take to increase among Mid-latitude and 
northern States according to migration chronology. Increased harvest 
will be further facilitated by the use of additional hunting methods 
(electronic callers and unplugged shotguns) authorized by a State under 
the authority of this proposed rule. Although we can expect the 
additional hunting methods to be effective in increasing harvest per 
hunter, there is no precedent to guide us in determining to what degree 
they will be effective. It is equally difficult to ascertain to what 
degree the public will participate in the implementation of this 
proposed action, 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 action 
and will allow all new hunting methods authorized in this proposed rule 
(electronic callers and unplugged shotguns), including the utilization 
of the maximum number of days available after the regular light-goose 
season. We are also assuming that current MCLG hunter numbers will not 
decrease and that the new methods authorized in this proposed rule, if 
used, will increase hunter effectiveness and overall harvest. We do not 
assume that all MCLG hunters will participate in the implementation of 
this proposed action and of those that do, we do not assume that all 
will increase their effectiveness by using new hunting methods. We are 
assuming that 25% of the MCLG hunters will use the new methods and will 
increase his/her effectiveness in harvesting MCLG.
    States that have MCLG after 10 March may choose not to harvest MCLG 
after 10 March. Of those that do, the number of days each State may 
harvest outside of their regular open light-goose season likely will 
vary. For purposes of this exercise, we are assuming MCLG harvest is 
consistent throughout the entire light-goose season and that all 
affected States will use the proposed action. It is important to note 
that the issue of just how additional days influences harvest of 
migratory birds continues to be extensively analyzed. In that respect, 
our projections regarding MCLG harvest are our best estimates based on 
the data that we have and represent a liberal estimate.
    We determined, based on a linear regression analysis of historical 
harvest data, that harvest number of MCLG has increased approximately 
31,600 MCLG per year for the last ten years. A simple linear regression 
of the harvest data represents our most conservative estimate because 
the analysis does not take into account other factors that may have 
influenced harvest such as the recent regulation changes for light 
geese. A more complex analysis will demonstrate that harvest number has 
actually increased at a faster rate since the bag and possession limits 
for light geese have been increased (USFWS 1998c). Today, more MCLG are 
harvested with fewer hunters and hunter participation in 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 expect to 
harvest an additional 576,300 MCLG through the implementation of this 
proposed action (authorize electronic callers, unplugged shotguns, and 
additional days to harvest) bringing the total projected harvest to 1.2 
million 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 1.8 million MCLG in the second year of implementation 
and 2.4 million in the third year of implementation.
    Central and Mississippi Flyway Council management guidelines 
suggest that MCLG populations should rest between 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 3 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

[[Page 60283]]

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 MCLG harvest to facilitate other efforts, 
such as habitat management on the wintering grounds and increased 
harvest by Canadian aboriginals, to decrease MCLG numbers and relieve 
pressures on the breeding grounds. There is no evidence to suggest that 
the implementation of this proposed action will result in an over-
harvest of MCLG. Once the December index reflects a number within the 
management guidelines mentioned above (800,000--1.2 million), the 
proposed action will be revoked and the methods authorized will no 
longer be used. It is improbable that the implementation of this 
proposed action 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 significant decrease in MCLG populations to 
contribute to increased reproductive success of adversely impacted 
populations. Further, we expect that by decreasing the numbers of MCLG 
on wintering and migration stopover areas, the risk of transmitting 
avian cholera to other species will be reduced which will reduce the 
threat of a widespread avian cholera outbreak.

Socio-economic

    Any 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 Comments 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 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 methods to increase take 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 population by use of lethal means, 
however, recommended use of Federal 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 increasing take of MCLG by 
providing additional opportunities or methods for take 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

[[Page 60284]]

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 take 
of MCLG while implementing non-lethal control measures concurrently is 
the most efficient and feasible short-term solution. We will continue 
to work jointly with the Canadian Wildlife Service to reduce MCLG in 
both the United States and in Canada.

References Cited

Abraham, K.F., R.L. Jefferies, R.F. Rockwell, and C.D. MacInnes. 
1996. Why are there so many white geese in North America? 7th 
International Waterfowl Symposium, Memphis, TN.
____________________, and R.L. Jefferies. 1997. High goose 
populations: causes, impacts and implications. Pages 7-72 in B.D.J. 
Batt, ed. Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report of the Arctic Goose 
Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special 
Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and 
Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120 pp.
Alisauskas, R., C.D. Ankney, and E.E. Klaas. 1988. Winter diets and 
nutrition of mid-continental lesser snow geese. J. Wildl. Manage. 
52:403-414.
____________________, S.M. Slattery, D.K. Kellett, D.S. Stern, and 
K.D. Warner. 1998. Spatial and temporal dynamics of Ross's and snow 
goose colonies in Queen Maud Gulf Bird Sanctuary, 1966-1998. 
Canadian Wildlife Service, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 21 pp.
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.
Central and Mississippi Flyway Councils. 1982. Wildfowl Management 
Guidelines.
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. 1998. 1998 update to the North American 
Waterfowl Management Plan--fulfilling the legacy: expanding the 
vision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.
USFWS. 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. 31 pp.
____________________. 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

    The collection of information described below will be submitted to 
OMB for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-13). We will not conduct or sponsor any information 
collection until approved by OMB and a final regulation is published, 
and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. The proposed 
information collection will be used to administer this program and, 
particularly in the assessment of impacts alternative regulatory 
strategies may have on MCLG and other migratory bird populations. The 
information collected will be required to authorize State wildlife 
management agencies

[[Page 60285]]

responsible for migratory bird management to take MCLG within the 
guidelines provided by the Service. The annual number of State 
participants is expected to be 17. The reporting burden for this 
collection of information is estimated to average 30 hours per 
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and 
maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the collection of 
information, yielding an annual burden of 510 hours.

  Burden Estimates for Reporting Requirements for the Conservation Order To Reduce Mid-continent Populations of
                                                   Light Geese
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Avg. time
                                                                     Number of     required per
                         Type of report                               reports         report       Burden hours
                                                                     annually        (minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Take or Removal*........................................              17           1,800             510
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* General take or removal includes authorized human-related mortality.

    We expect a maximum of 17 annual reports per year from all 
participating States. We estimate that each annual report will require 
about 6 hours to complete, therefore, the burden assumed by the 
participants is 102 hours or less.
    Comments are invited from you on: (1) Whether the collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of 
the agency, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden, including 
the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of 
appropriate, automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological 
collection techniques or other forms of information collection 
technology. Comments and suggestions on the requirements should be sent 
directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of 
Management and Budget; Attention: Interior Desk Officer, Washington, DC 
20503; and a copy of the comments should be sent to the Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, US Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224--
ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington DC 20204. A copy should also be 
sent directly to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20204 or electronically to [email protected].

Unfunded Mandates

    We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements 
of the Unfunded Mandates Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq) that this proposed 
rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given 
year on local or State government or private entities. This rule will 
not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small governments. No 
governments below the State level will be affected by this rule. A 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required. This rule will not 
produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, i.e., 
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    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. Specifically, we 
invite comment from affected States regarding the feasibility in 
implementing the proposed rule within the conditions provided. Comments 
must be received on or before January 8, 1998. Following review and 
consideration of the comments, we will 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 Parts 20 and 21

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby propose to amend 
parts 20 and 21, of the subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 20--[AMENDED]

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

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


Sec. 20.22  [Amended]

    2. In Section 20.22, the phrase ``except as provided in part 21'' 
is added following the word ``season''.

[[Page 60286]]

PART 21--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Subpart E, consisting of Section 21.60, is added to read as 
follows:

Subpart E--Control of Overabundant Migratory Bird Populations


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

    Any State agency responsible for the management of wildlife and 
migratory birds may, without permit, kill or cause to be killed under 
its general supervision, lesser snow and Ross' geese (Mid-continent 
light geese) in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, 
Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming: 
Provided that:
    (a) Persons who take Mid-continent light geese under this section 
may not sell or offer for sale those birds nor their plumage, but may 
possess, transport, and otherwise properly use them.
    (b) Persons acting under the authority of this section must permit 
at all reasonable times including during actual operations, any Federal 
or State game or deputy game agent, warden, protector, or other game 
law enforcement officer free and unrestricted access over the premises 
on which such operations have been or are being conducted; and must 
promptly furnish whatever information an officer requires concerning 
the operation.
    (c) Nothing in this section authorizes the take of Mid-continent 
light geese contrary to any State laws or regulations; and none of the 
privileges granted under this section may be exercised unless persons 
acting under the authority of the conservation order possesses whatever 
permit or other authorization(s) as may be required for such activities 
by the State concerned.
    (d) Activities conducted under this section may not affect 
endangered or threatened species as designated under the Endangered 
Species Act.
    (e) Control activities must be conducted clearly as such and are 
intended to relieve pressures on migratory birds and habitat essential 
to migratory bird populations only and are not to be construed as 
opening, re-opening, or extending any open hunting season contrary to 
any regulations promulgated under section 3 of the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act.
    (f) Control activities may be conducted only when all migratory 
bird hunting seasons are closed.
    (g) Control measures employed through this section may be 
implemented only between the hours of \1/2\ hour before sunrise to \1/
2\ hour after sunset.
    (h) Nothing in this section may limit or initiate management 
actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal Agency with 
jurisdiction.
    (i) States must designate participants who must operate under the 
conditions of this section.
    (j) States must inform all participants of the requirements/
conditions of this section that apply.
    (k) States must keep records of activities carried out under the 
authority of this section, including the number of Mid-continent light 
geese taken under this section, the methods by which they were taken, 
and the dates they were taken. The State must submit an annual report 
summarizing activities conducted under this section on or before August 
1 of each year, to the appropriate Assistant Regional Director--Refuges 
and Wildlife (see Sec. 10.22).
    (l) Persons acting under the authority of this section may take 
Mid-continent light geese by any method except those prohibited in this 
section. No persons may take Mid-continent light geese:
    (1) With a trap, snare, net, rifle, pistol, swivel gun, shotgun 
larger than 10 gauge, punt gun, battery gun, machine gun, fish hook, 
poison, drug, explosive, or stupefying substance;
    (2) From or by means, aid, or use of a sinkbox or any other type of 
low floating device, having a depression affording the person a means 
of concealment beneath the surface of the water;
    (3) From or by means, aid, or use of any motor vehicle, motor-
driven land conveyance, or aircraft of any kind, except that 
paraplegics and persons missing one or both legs may take from any 
stationary motor vehicle or stationary motor-driven land conveyance;
    (4) From or by means of any motorboat or other craft having a motor 
attached, or any sailboat, unless the motor has been completely shut 
off and the sails furled, and its progress therefrom has ceased: 
Provided, That a craft under power may be used to retrieve dead or 
crippled birds; however, crippled birds may not be shot from such craft 
under power;
    (5) By the use or aid of live birds as decoys; although not limited 
to, it shall be a violation of this paragraph for any person to take 
migratory waterfowl on an area where tame or captive live ducks or 
geese are present unless such birds are and have been for a period of 
10 consecutive days before the taking, confined within an enclosure 
that substantially reduces the audibility of their calls and totally 
conceals the birds from the sight of wild migratory waterfowl;
    (6) By means or aid of any motordriven land, water, or air 
conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in the 
concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of any migratory bird;
    (7) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area. As used 
in this paragraph, ``baiting'' means the placing, exposing, depositing, 
distributing, or scattering of shelled, shucked, or unshucked corn, 
wheat or other grain, salt, or other feed so as to constitute for such 
birds a lure, attraction or enticement to, on, or over any areas where 
hunters are attempting to take them; and ``baited area'' means any area 
where shelled, shucked, or unshucked corn, wheat or other grain, salt, 
or other feed capable of luring, attracting, or enticing such birds is 
directly or indirectly placed, exposed, deposited, distributed, or 
scattered; and such area shall remain a baited area for 10 days 
following complete removal of all such corn, wheat or other grain, 
salt, or other feed. However, nothing in this paragraph prohibits the 
taking of Mid-continent light geese on or over standing crops, flooded 
standing crops (including aquatics), flooded harvested croplands, grain 
crops properly shocked on the field where grown, or grains found 
scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or 
harvesting; or
    (8) While possessing shot (either in shotshells or as loose shot 
for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin (97 parts 
bismuth: 3 parts tin with 1 percent residual lead) shot, or such shot 
approved as nontoxic by the Director and identified in 50 CFR 20.21(j).
    (m) The Service will annually assess the overall impact and 
effectiveness of the conservation order to ensure compatibility with 
long-term conservation of this resource. If at any time evidence is 
presented that clearly demonstrates that there no longer exists a 
serious threat of injury to the area or areas involved, we will publish 
immediately a notice of intent to revoke the conservation order in the 
Federal Register.


[[Page 60287]]


    Dated: October 30, 1998.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 98-29954 Filed 11-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P