[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7517-7529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3649]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Mid-continent light goose populations (lesser snow and Ross' 
goose combined) has nearly quadrupled within the last 30 years, and 
have become seriously injurious to their habitat and habitat important 
to other migratory birds. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service 
or ``we'') believes that these populations exceed the long-term 
carrying capacity of their breeding habitats and must be reduced. This 
rule adds a new subpart to 50 CFR part 21 for the management of 
overabundant Mid-continent light goose populations, and establishes a 
conservation order to increase take of such populations under the 
authority of this subpart.

DATES: This rule takes effect immediately upon publication on February 
16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the EA are available by writing to the Chief, 
Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Department of the Interior, ms 634--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20240. The public may inspect comments during normal 
business hours in room 634--Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Lesser snow and Ross' geese that primarily migrate through North 
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, and Missouri, and winter 
in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and eastern, central, and southern 
Texas and other Gulf Coast States are referred to as the Mid-continent 
population of light geese (MCP). Lesser snow and Ross' geese that 
primarily migrate through Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado and winter in 
New Mexico, northwestern Texas, and Chihuahua, Mexico are referred to 
as the Western Central Flyway population of light geese (WCFP). Ross' 
geese are often mistaken for lesser snow geese due to their similar 
appearance. Ross' geese occur in both the MCP and the WCFP and mix 
extensively with lesser snow geese on both the breeding and wintering 
grounds. MCP and WCFP lesser snow and Ross' geese are collectively 
referred to as Mid-continent light geese (MCLG) because they breed, 
migrate, and winter in the ``Mid-continent'' or central portions of 
North America primarily in the Central and Mississippi Flyways. They 
are referred to as ``light'' geese due to the light coloration of the 
white-phase plumage morph, as opposed to true ``dark'' geese such as 
the white-fronted or Canada goose. We include both plumage morphs of 
lesser snow geese (white, or ``snow'' and dark, or ``blue'') under the 
designation light geese.
    MCLG breed in the central and eastern arctic and subarctic regions 
of northern Canada. MCLG populations are experiencing high population 
growth rates and have substantially increased in numbers within the 
last 30 years. We use operational surveys conducted annually on 
wintering grounds to derive a December index to light goose 
populations. December indices of light goose populations represent a 
certain proportion of the total wintering population, and thus are 
smaller than the true population size. By assuming that the same 
proportion of the population is counted each December, we can monitor 
trends in the true population size.
    The December index of MCP light geese has more than tripled within 
30 years from an estimated 800,000 birds in 1969 to approximately three 
million birds in 1998 and has increased an average of 5% per year for 
the last ten years (Abraham et al. 1996, USFWS 1998b). The December 
index of WCFP light geese has quadrupled in 23 years from 52,000 in 
1974 to 216,000 in 1997 (USFWS 1997b), and has increased an average of 
9% per year for the last ten years (USFWS 1998b). The lesser snow goose 
portion of the 1998 MCP December index mentioned above is estimated to 
be 2.8 million birds. In 1991, the Central and Mississippi Flyway 
Councils jointly agreed to set lower and upper management thresholds 
for the MCP of snow geese at 1.0 million and 1.5 million, respectively, 
based on the December index. Therefore, the current December index of 
MCP lesser snow geese far exceeds the upper management threshold 
established by the Flyway Councils.
    MCLG populations have also exceeded North American Waterfowl 
Management Plan (NAWMP) population objectives, which are also based on 
December indices. The MCP lesser snow goose December index of 2.8 
million birds far exceeds the NAWMP population objective of 1 million 
birds (USDOI et al. 1998d). The lesser snow goose portion of the WCFP 
light goose December index is estimated to be 200,000 birds, which 
exceeds the NAWMP population objective of 110,000 birds (USDOI et al. 
1998d). The estimate of the Ross' goose component of the MCLG 
population December index (WCFP and MCP combined) currently exceeds 
200,000 birds. This far exceeds the NAWMP Ross' goose population 
objective of 100,000 birds

[[Page 7518]]

(USDOI et al. 1998d). We compare current population levels to NAWMP 
population objectives to demonstrate that MCLG populations have 
increased substantially over what is considered to be a healthy 
population level. We are not suggesting that MCLG be reduced for the 
sole purpose of meeting NAWMP population objective levels.
    By multiply the current MCLG December index of 3.2 million birds by 
an adjustment factor of 1.6 (Boyd et. al 1982), we derive an estimate 
of 5.12 million breeding birds in spring. This is corroborated by 
population surveys conducted on light goose breeding colonies during 
spring and summer, which suggest that the breeding population size of 
MCLG is in excess of five million birds (D. Caswell pers. comm. 1998). 
Included in these population estimates are 1998 estimates for breeding 
and non-breeding adult Ross' and lesser snow geese in the Queen Maud 
Gulf area northwest of Hudson Bay of 1.29 million and 1.82 million 
birds, respectively (Alisauskas et al. 1998). These geese are in 
addition to the millions of geese estimated to be nesting along west 
Hudson and James Bays where the geese have precipitated severe habitat 
degradation and on Southampton and Baffin Islands where signs of 
habitat degradation are becoming evident. The estimate of 5.12 million 
birds does not include non-breeding geese or geese found in un-surveyed 
areas. Therefore, the total MCLG population currently far exceeds 5.12 
million birds. Assuming a 10% growth rate in the breeding population 
over the next three years, the population will grow from 5.12 million 
to approximately 6.8 million in the absence of any new management 
actions. Again, this represents a minimum estimate because non-breeding 
geese and geese in un-surveyed areas are not included.
    Although our intention is to significantly reduce MCLG populations 
in order to relieve pressures on the breeding habitats, we feel that 
these efforts will not threaten the long-term status of these 
populations. We are confident that reduction efforts will not result in 
populations falling below either the lower management thresholds 
established by Flyway Councils, or the NAWMP population objectives 
discussed previously. Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place 
to estimate population sizes and will be used to prevent over-harvest 
of these populations. An overview of these monitoring programs is 
presented in a subsequent section of this document.
    The rapid rise of MCLG populations has been influenced heavily by 
human activities (Sparrowe, 1998, Batt 1997). The greatest attributable 
factors are:
    (1) The expansion of agricultural areas in the United States and 
prairie Canada that provide abundant food resources during migration 
and winter;
    (2) The establishment of sanctuaries along the Flyways specifically 
to increase bird populations;
    (3) A decline in harvest rate; and
    (4) An increase in adult survival rates.
    Although all of these factors contributed to the rapid rise in MCLG 
populations, the expansion of agriculture in prairie Canada and the 
United States is considered to be the primary attributable factor 
(Sparrowe 1998, Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Today, MCLG continue to 
exploit soybean, rice, and other crops during the winter, primarily in 
the Gulf Coast States and are observed less frequently in the natural 
coastal marshes they historically utilized. Similarly, MCLG migrating 
through the mid-latitude and northern United States and prairie Canada 
during spring migration exploit cereal grain crops consisting of corn, 
wheat, barley, oats and rye (Alisauskas et al. 1988). For example, 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, thus assuring that MCLG arrive on 
the breeding grounds in prime condition to breed. Increased food 
subsidies during spring migration over the last 30 years has resulted 
in higher reproductive potential and breeding success (Ankney and 
McInnes 1978, Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Consequently, more geese 
survived the winter and migration and were healthier as they returned 
to their breeding grounds in Canada.
    This is not intended to criticize the conservation efforts 
accomplished by the implementation of conservation-oriented 
agricultural practices. Such efforts have benefitted numerous wildlife 
species. We merely point out that MCLG have exploited these artificial 
resources, resulting in an increase in survival.

Foraging Behavior of MCLG

    The feeding behavior of MCLG is characterized by three foraging 
methods. Where spring thawing has occurred and above-ground plant 
growth has not begun, lesser snow geese dig into and break open the 
turf (grubbing) consuming the highly nutritious below-ground biomass, 
or roots, of plants. Grubbing continues into late spring. Lesser snow 
geese also engage in shoot-pulling where the geese pull the shoots of 
large sedges, consume the highly nutritious basal portion, and discard 
the rest, leaving behind large unproductive, and potentially 
unrecoverable areas (Abraham and Jefferies 1997). A third feeding 
strategy utilized by many species is grazing which in some cases, 
stimulates plant growth. Both lesser snow geese and Ross' geese graze. 
Due to their shorter bill size, Ross' geese are able to graze shorter 
stands of grass.
    Grubbing, grazing, and shoot-pulling are natural feeding behaviors 
and at lower population levels have had positive effects on the 
ecosystem. For example, at lower numbers, geese fed on the tundra 
grasses and actually stimulated growth of plant communities resulting 
in a positive feedback loop between the geese and the vegetation. 
However, the rapidly expanding numbers of geese, coupled with the short 
tundra growing season, disrupted the balance and has resulted in severe 
habitat degradation in sensitive ecosystems. The Hudson Bay Lowlands 
salt-marsh ecosystem, for example, consists of a 1,200 mile strip of 
coastline along west Hudson and James Bays, Canada. It contains 
approximately 135,000 acres of coastal salt-marsh habitat. Vast 
hypersaline areas devoid of vegetation degraded by rapidly increasing 
populations of MCLG have been observed and documented extensively 
throughout the Hudson Bay Lowlands (Abraham and Jefferies 1997). 
Rockwell et al. (1997a) observed the decline of more than 30 avian 
populations in the La Perouse Bay area due to severe habitat 
degradation. These declines and other ecological changes represent a 
decline in biological diversity and indicate the beginning of collapse 
of the current Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-marsh ecosystem. Experts fear 
that some badly degraded habitat will not recover (Abraham and 
Jefferies 1997). For example, in a badly degraded area, less than 20% 
of the vegetation within an exclosure (fenced in area where geese 
cannot feed) has recovered after 15 years of protection from MCLG 
(Abraham and Jefferies 1997). Recovery rates of degraded areas are 
further slowed by the short tundra growing season and the high salinity 
levels in the exposed and unprotected soil.
    Long-term research efforts have indicated signs of ``trophic 
cascade'' in La Perouse Bay, Cape Henrietta Maria, and Akimiski Island 
(R. Rockwell pers. comm. 1998). Trophic cascade is essentially the 
collapse of an existing food chain indicating that the ecosystem is 
unable to support its inhabitants. Impacts associated with trophic 
cascade are indicative that MCLG populations

[[Page 7519]]

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. For 
example, the Hudson Bay Lowlands salt-marsh ecosystem lies within a 
135,000 acre narrow strip of coastline along west Hudson and James Bays 
and provides important stopover sites for numerous migratory bird 
species. Of the 135,000 acres of habitat in the Hudson Bay Lowlands, 
35% is considered to be destroyed, 30% is damaged, and 35% is 
overgrazed (Batt 1997). Habitats currently categorized as ``damaged'' 
or ``overgrazed'' are being further impacted and will be classified as 
``destroyed'' if goose populations continue to expand. Accelerated 
habitat degradation has been observed by Canadian biologists on 
Southampton and Baffin Islands and appear to be following the same 
pattern as documented in the Hudson Bay Lowlands. Current research 
efforts are underway to confirm observations of habitat degradation by 
MCLG in other areas.

Migration and Wintering Habitat Conditions and Degradation

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

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action

    At each site they occupy, MCLG will continue to degrade the plant 
communities until food and other resources are exhausted, forcing yet 
more expansion of colonies. The pattern has been, and will continue to 
be, that as existing nesting colonies expand, they exploit successively 
poorer quality habitats, which are less able to accommodate them and 
which become degraded more quickly. Eventually, the coastal salt-marsh 
communities surrounding Hudson Bay and James Bay will become remnant. 
There will be little chance of recovery of such habitat as long as MCLG 
populations remain high. Even if goose populations decline at some 
point due to natural causes, which may not occur to the degree 
necessary, it will take the habitat a prolonged time period to recover. 
The functioning of the whole coastal ecosystem, from consolidation of 
sediments by colonizing plants to provision of suitable habitats for 
invertebrate and vertebrate fauna, will be detrimentally and possibly 
irrevocably altered. Similar conditions will prevail at selected non-
coastal areas where MCLG have occupied most of the suitable nesting 
habitats. As many as 30 other avian species, including American wigeon, 
Northern shoveler, stilt sandpiper, Hudsonian godwit, and others, that 
utilize those habitats have declined locally, presumably due to habitat 
degradation by MCLG. Other species, such as Southern James Bay Canada 
geese, a species of management concern, that breed on nearby Akimiski 
Island and numerous other waterfowl species that migrate and stage with 
MCLG, have been and will continue to be negatively impacted. Arctic 
mammalian herbivores will also be impacted as the vegetative 
communities upon which they depend become depleted. Due to the rapidly 
expanding populations and the associated ecological impacts identified, 
we have concluded that MCLG populations have become seriously injurious 
to themselves and other migratory birds, their habitat and habitat of 
other migratory birds.
    We expect that MCLG populations will continue to grow at least 5-
10% 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 
actual number of geese harvested has increased (USFWS 1997b). The 
decline in harvest rate indicates that the current management 
strategies are not sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth 
rates.

New Management Actions

    We realize that current MCLG management policies need to be re-
examined and believe that alternative regulatory strategies designed to 
increase MCLG harvest, implemented concurrently with habitat management 
and other non-lethal control measures, have the potential to be 
effective in reducing MCLG populations to levels that the remaining 
breeding habitat can sustain. Batt (1997) estimated that the MCLG 
population should be reduced by 50% by the year 2005. Based on the 
current MCLG December index of approximately 3.2 million birds, this 
would entail a reduction of the December index to 1.6 million birds. 
Using the adjustment factor of 1.6, this would translate to a minimum 
breeding population size of 2.56 million birds. The estimate of 2.56 
million birds does not include non-breeding geese or geese found in un-
surveyed areas. Therefore, the total MCLG spring population would be 
much higher.
    We prefer to implement alternative regulatory strategies designed 
to

[[Page 7520]]

increase MCLG harvest afforded by the Migratory Bird Treaty and avoid 
the use of more drastic population control measures. More direct 
population control measures such as trapping and culling programs may 
be necessary if the current regulatory action, in concert with habitat 
management, is not successful. Should the conservation order be deemed 
unsuccessful we will consider more direct population control measures 
to reduce MCLG.
    We restrict the scope of this 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 (Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, 
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, 
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) where they 
migrate, stage, or winter. Evidence exists to support the conclusion 
that MCLG which migrate, stage, and winter in these areas subsequently 
return to breed in the arctic and subarctic areas that are experiencing 
severe habitat degradation.
    We are concurrently implementing a separate population reduction 
strategy. In addition to this proposed rule to amend 50 CFR part 21, we 
are also amending 50 CFR part 20 to authorize the use of new hunting 
methods to harvest MCLG. The second rule would authorize States to 
allow the use of new hunting methods to harvest MCLG during a light-
goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, 
except falconry, are closed. The second rule is published in this issue 
of the Federal Register.
    We do not expect the second rule (amendment to 50 CFR part 20) 
implemented alone to achieve our overall management objective of 
reducing the MCLG December index to approximately 1.6 million birds. 
The success of 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 in that 
state, decreasing the program's potential. We anticipate that some 
northern and mid-latitude States will elect not to implement the second 
rule (authorization of electronic calls and un-plugged shotguns) due to 
the infeasibility of closing all other waterfowl and crane seasons 
during the fall. It is more likely that those states will participate 
in a conservation order during the spring, when it is more feasible to 
close all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding 
falconry. Conversely, many waterfowl and crane hunting seasons in 
southern States close prior to 10 March. Therefore, it is much more 
feasible for southern States to implement the second rule by 
establishing a light-goose only season when all other waterfowl and 
crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.
    We are implementing the conservation order in order to maximize the 
overall program's potential and to try to achieve our management 
objective within a reasonable time-frame. This action will be 
complemented by attempts to alter habitat management practices that 
tend to increase MCLG. These actions will reduce the likelihood of the 
need to use more direct population control programs. The conservation 
order will allow northern States to participate in this effort and 
enable them to harvest MCLG during spring migration, particularly after 
10 March. Harvest projections for the second rule (amendment 50 CFR 
part 20) are rolled into the harvest projections for the conservation 
order. Harvest projections for the second rule are not in addition to 
the harvest projections for the conservation order.

Conservation Order for MCLG

    We are establishing a new subpart in 50 CFR part 21 for the 
management of overabundant MCLG populations. Under this new subpart, we 
are establishing a conservation order specifically for the control and 
management of MCLG. Conditions under the conservation order require 
that participating States inform participants acting under the 
authority of the conservation order of the conditions that apply to the 
amendment.
    Under the authority of this rule, States could initiate aggressive 
harvest management strategies with the intent to increase MCLG harvest 
without having to obtain an individual permit, which will significantly 
reduce administrative burden on State and Federal governments. A permit 
process would slow efforts to reduce the populations and prolong 
habitat degradation on the breeding grounds. This rule will enable 
States, as a management tool, 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 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 
action only when all waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding 
falconry, are closed. We expect that this action will facilitate other 
protection and recovery efforts. This 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 reduce overabundant MCLG populations, 
we believe that this 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 rule. We have evaluation 
and monitoring strategies to assess the overall impact of this action 
on MCLG harvest and impacts to non-target species that may be affected 
by the implementation of this action.

Summary of Environmental Consequences of Action

MCLG Populations and Associated Habitats

    We project that we will harvest a cumulative total of two million 
MCLG over the next three years without the use of this action, based on 
current MCLG harvest trends. Under certain assumptions, our most 
liberal estimate is that we can expect to cumulatively harvest an 
additional 3.8 million MCLG over the next three years of implementation 
of this action. This would bring the total cumulative harvest to 5.8 
million MCLG after three years of implementation of this action. The 
amendment to 50 CFR Part 21 will be revoked if the December index of 
MCLG is reduced to the recommended level of approximately 1.6 million 
birds. Using the adjustment factor of 1.6, developed by Boyd et. al 
(1982) to convert winter indices to spring breeding population indices, 
this would result in a minimum estimate of 2.56 million breeding MCLG 
in spring. The total spring population would be higher because non-
breeding geese and geese in un-surveyed areas are not included in this 
estimate.
    The impact is expected to be regional within the Central and 
Mississippi Flyway States that choose to participate in the 
conservation order. Since the 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

[[Page 7521]]

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 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 action, which will influence its effectiveness. 
However, with certain assumptions, we may project an increase in 
harvest using existing harvest data.
    Before projecting the effect of the action on harvest we must 
establish several assumptions. We are assuming that all eligible States 
will act under the authority of this rule and will allow all new 
hunting methods authorized in the 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 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 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 action. It is important to note that the 
relationship between the number of hunting days and harvest of 
migratory birds continues to be extensively analyzed. In that respect, 
our projections regarding MCLG harvest represent our best estimates 
based on existing data, and are considered to be a liberal estimate.
    We determined, based on a linear regression analysis of historical 
harvest data, that regular-season harvest 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, but hunter 
participation in light goose hunting is now increasing. Therefore, we 
conservatively project that regular-season harvest will increase 31,600 
per year for the next several years.
    During 1997-98, hunters harvested 604,900 MCLG in the affected 
States (AR, CO, IL, IN, IA, KY, KS, LA, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NM, ND, OH, 
OK, SD, TN, TX, WI, and WY). Combined with our projection that regular-
season harvest will increase by 31,600 per year without any changes to 
hunting regulations, we can expect to harvest 636,500 MCLG in the 1998-
1999 regular light goose season in those affected States. Under the 
assumptions stated above, we expect to harvest an additional 618,400 
MCLG through the implementation of this proposed action (authorize 
electronic callers, unplugged shotguns, and additional days to 
harvest). Therefore, we project a total harvest of 1.25 million MCLG in 
the first year of implementation of this action. Because we expect 
regular-season harvest to increase annually, the total projected 
harvest will also increase annually. We expect to harvest a total of 
1.9 million MCLG in the second year of implementation and 2.6 million 
in the third year of implementation. These estimates include regular-
season harvest of MCLG.
    Batt (1997) estimated that the MCLG population should be reduced by 
50% by 2005. That would suggest a reduction in the MCLG December index 
from approximately 3.2 million birds to approximately 1.6 million 
birds. Central and Mississippi Flyway Council management thresholds for 
MCP lesser snow geese (not including WCFP lesser snow or Ross' geese) 
rests between 1.0 and 1.5 million birds, based on the December index. 
Therefore, our MCLG population reduction goal closely parallels those 
established by Flyway Councils and the scientific community. As 
mentioned previously, a December index of 1.6 million would translate 
to a minimum estimate of 2.56 million breeding MCLG in spring. We will 
carefully analyze and assess the MCLG reduction on an annual basis, 
using the December index and other surveys, to ensure that the 
populations are not over-harvested.
    We expect an increase in MCLG harvest to facilitate other efforts, 
such as habitat management on the wintering grounds and increased 
harvest by Canadian aboriginals. Decreased MCLG numbers will also 
relieve pressures on the breeding grounds. There is no evidence to 
suggest that the implementation of this action will result in an over-
harvest of MCLG. Once the December index is reduced to approximately 
1.6 million birds we will revoke this action and the methods we 
authorized. It is improbable that the implementation of this action 
will threaten the long-term status of MCLG populations, because we will 
monitor the MCLG populations and act accordingly if it is threatened by 
modifying or revoking the action.

Other Species

    We expect an increase in harvest, and subsequently a decrease in 
MCLG numbers, to relieve pressures on other migratory bird populations 
that utilize MCLG breeding and wintering grounds and other areas along 
the migration routes. This decrease should 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 migratory bird hunting or conservation order action 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.

[[Page 7522]]

It may also result in the season closures of adversely impacted 
migratory game birds such as white-fronted geese, sandhill cranes, and 
pintails. Goose damage to winter wheat and other agricultural crops 
will continue and worsen. Habitat damage in the Arctic will eventually 
trigger density-dependent regulation of the population which likely 
will result in increased gosling mortality and may cause the population 
to decline precipitously. However, it is not clear when such population 
regulation will occur and what habitat, if any, will remain to support 
the survivors. Such a decline may result in a population too low to 
permit any hunting, effectively closing MCLG hunting seasons. The 
length of the closures will largely depend on the recovery rate of the 
breeding habitat, which likely will take decades. Although the overall 
impact of closures of light-goose seasons in the Central and 
Mississippi Flyways that could result from continued degradation of the 
breeding habitat is small on a national scale, it would be concentrated 
where large flocks of geese stage and winter. Because people that 
provide services to hunters tend to be those with low incomes, the 
impact of a closure would fall disproportionately on low income groups 
near goose concentrations. We expect this action to reduce the risk of 
light-goose season closures in the 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

    The November 9, 1998, proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register (63 FR 60278) invited public comments from interested parties. 
The closing date for receipt of all comments was January 8, 1999, which 
was subsequently extended to January 15, 1999 (64 FR 822). During the 
comment period, we received 615 comments consisting of 468 from private 
citizens, 21 from State wildlife agencies, 2 from Flyway Councils, 27 
from private organizations, 10 from Native organizations, 65 from 
individuals that signed a petition, and 22 from private organizations 
that signed a petition. Comments generally were dichotomized by two 
points of view.
    To summarize, 361 comments were supportive of our intent to 
implement a conservation order to reduce the MCLG population. Comments 
in support of such action were received from 268 private citizens, 21 
State wildlife agencies, 2 Flyway Councils, 12 private organizations, 1 
Native organization, and 57 from people who signed a petition. 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. Several State wildlife 
agencies and both Flyway Councils suggested that the requirement to 
have all other migratory bird hunting seasons closed in order to 
implement changes in regulations to address light goose population 
control is overly restrictive. They suggested that only other waterfowl 
seasons be closed in order to implement changes in light goose 
regulations. Furthermore, several of these commenters suggested that 
the Service should implement existing dove baiting regulations for the 
proposed conservation order rather than the more restrictive waterfowl 
baiting regulations. A private citizen voiced opposition to the closure 
of falconry seasons during implementation of new light goose regulation 
changes.
    A State wildlife agency requested clarification on whether the 
requirement to close all other migratory bird seasons pertained to 
zones within a State, or the entire State, and also whether the 
regulation changes could be implemented prior to March 11. Several 
State wildlife agencies questioned why other Mississippi Flyway States 
(i.e. MI, OH, WI, IN, KY, and TN) were not included in the list of 
those eligible to implement alternative regulatory strategies aimed at 
MCLG. Some State wildlife agencies urged that the Service not wait a 
full five years before the proposed population reduction strategies are 
evaluated and other management options are considered. A State wildlife 
agency commented that the requirement to close Bosque del Apache NWR 
during the period of implementation of light goose regulations was 
inappropriate and that existing hunt management plans will avert 
potential impacts to whooping cranes.
    Several private organizations and a Native organization expressed 
support of the findings of the international panel of scientists and 
waterfowl managers that documented (Batt 1997) habitat degradations 
caused by overabundant light goose and recommended actions to reduce 
populations. However, the organizations urged monitoring and evaluation 
of management actions and that such actions should be used only until 
populations are sufficiently reduced. A private organization that fully 
supported the proposed actions expressed concern about differing views 
in the academic and management community about the magnitude of harvest 
that is necessary to effect the desired population reduction.
    Conversely, 254 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 legally or scientifically 
justified to reduce the populations, or attempts to do so would be 
inhumane. Comments in opposition to such action were received from 200 
private citizens, 15 private organizations, 9 Native organizations, 8 
individuals that signed a petition, and 22 private organizations that 
signed a petition.
    Many commenters stated that grazing by geese may be changing the 
vegetation communities on their breeding grounds but they ``cannot 
devastate an ecosystem of which they are a part''. Furthermore, they 
felt that if there are too many geese for their habitats to support, 
the geese will either nest in other areas or fail to successfully raise 
young. A private individual commented that the habitat destruction 
occurring in the arctic may be due to pollution and increased salinity 
resulting from oil drilling.
    Several private organizations commented that the draft 
Environmental Assessment and the Proposed Rule fail to provide detailed 
estimates of the extent of grazing damage caused by MCLG. They further 
stated that we have not adequately addressed the relationship between 
isostatic uplift (raising of land due to the removal of pressure once 
exerted by glaciers) and vegetative succession, or the agricultural 
practices that have contributed to expansion of MCLG populations. In 
addition they criticized the lack of reliable current breeding 
population estimates of MCLG and our inability to demonstrate that 
current populations are higher than those ever experienced in the past. 
Furthermore, they questioned how killing millions of snow geese in the 
mid-western U.S. could remedy alleged damage to habitats at specific 
sites in the Canadian arctic. Finally, they protested that Native 
groups in Canada that would be directly impacted by the proposals were 
not consulted in the development of management actions. Comments 
provided by several Native organizations indicated that they were not 
consulted and they oppose the management action.
    A private organization recommended nest destruction, egging, and 
hazing of geese from areas that have sustained habitat changes as 
alternatives to the proposed actions. Furthermore, they stated that the 
use of lethal control, if it

[[Page 7523]]

is justified at all, must be conducted at specific sites where damage 
is occurring to be effective. Finally, they advocated that the Service 
implement ecosystem management to address the MCLG issue. Their view of 
ecosystem management assumes that the component species of an ecosystem 
determine their own distribution and abundance, consistent with the age 
and condition of their habits, thus requiring a more ``hands-off rather 
than a direct, interventionist, approach by managers.''
    Many private individuals and several private organizations 
commented that an Environmental Assessment was insufficient to comply 
with NEPA requirements, and that a full Environmental Impact Statement 
should be prepared before action is taken to address this problem. A 
private organization commented that the Service will be violating the 
1916 Convention Between the United States and Great Britain for the 
Protection of Migratory Birds if take of MCLG beyond March 10 is 
allowed. They believed that a conservation order to be implemented 
beyond March 10 will constitute an illegal hunting season on a 
protected species.
    Service response: We have conducted an Environmental Assessment of 
alternative regulatory strategies to reduce MCLG populations. Based on 
review and evaluation of the information contained in the assessment, 
we have determined that the proposed action to amend 50 CFR Part 21 to 
establish a conservation order for the reduction of MCLG populations is 
not a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality 
of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(c) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, we made a 
Finding of No Significant Impact on this action. Therefore, preparation 
of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The EA and 
Finding of No Significant Impact are available to the public at the 
location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
    With regard to violation of the 1916 Convention, regulations 
allowing the take of migratory birds are authorized by the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. Secs. 703-712), which implements the 
four bilateral migratory bird treaties the United States entered into 
with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia. Section 3 of the Act authorizes 
and directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow hunting, taking, 
etc. of migratory birds subject to the provisions of, and in order to 
carry out the purposes of, the four migratory bird treaties. The 
Convention with Great Britain establishes a ``closed'' season on 
hunting migratory game birds between March 10 and September 1. However, 
Section VII of the U.S.-Canada Migratory Bird Treaty authorizes 
permitting the take, kill, etc. of migratory birds that, under 
extraordinary conditions, become seriously injurious to agricultural or 
other interests. We are exercising this authority to carry out a 
necessary management action. Although ``hunters'' will be utilized in 
this effort, this is not intended as an open season or extension of a 
season. This is a management effort that is being carried out in 
partnership with State/Tribal wildlife agencies under strict monitoring 
and control requirements contained in the order. The information 
available to us as discussed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and in the 
Environmental Assessment accompanying this action, demonstrates that 
the extraordinary population levels are causing serious injury to the 
breeding habitat of light geese and other migratory birds, and the 
habitat of other wildlife species. Therefore, we believe that 
implementation of this conservation order is in accordance with and 
compatible with the terms of the Convention.
    We are unaware of any evidence indicating that the severe habitat 
damage occurring in MCLG breeding areas is the result of oil drilling 
activities. The feeding behavior of MCLG causes the removal of 
vegetation from sites and sets in motion a series of events that causes 
soil salinity to increase. With regard to the ability of MCLG to 
devastate an ecosystem of which they are a part, we point to studies 
summarized by Abraham and Jefferies (1997) indicating that goose 
feeding activities reduce the thickness of the vegetation mat that 
insulates the underlying marine sediments from the air. Evaporation 
rates from the surface sediments increase and inorganic salts from the 
marine clay produce high salt concentrations that reduce growth of 
preferred forage plants. This together with continued intensive grazing 
by geese maintains open areas and high salt concentration and results 
in a positive feedback producing increased destruction of salt-marsh 
areas and desertification of the landscape. This is illustrated by 
fenced exclosure plots on impacted areas that prevent geese from 
grazing in plots. Both the exclosures and the areas in their immediate 
vicinity are experiencing isostatic uplift (raising of land as a result 
of glacial retreat) and yet the rate of plant species turnover in the 
two areas is markedly different, driven by excessive goose foraging. 
Several commenters stated that recolonization of mud flats by plants 
will occur naturally. However, they do not elaborate on the amount of 
time this process will require. Exclosure experiments indicate that it 
may take at least 15 years for vegetation stands to begin to develop, 
which would require total absence of goose foraging. This length of 
time is beyond the life expectancy of a single age cohort of lesser 
snow geese. Hence, the effects on the habitat outlive the geese.
    With regard to the assertion that if there are too many geese for 
their habitats to support, the geese will nest in other areas or fail 
to raise young, we generally concur. We note that geese have the 
ability to escape the effects of high population densities by their 
ability to disperse from breeding colonies. However, there are signs 
that habitat in the areas geese are dispersing to are also being 
degraded, forcing the birds to disperse even further. Thus, birds 
invade previously undisturbed habitats and consume plant biomass to the 
point where it is no longer advantageous to remain in those areas, and 
then they disperse. The ability to disperse to and subsequently degrade 
new habitats is of much concern to wildlife managers and is the reason 
we feel that MCLG populations need to be controlled. With regard to 
documentation of the total acreage of damage caused by MCLG, we note 
that quantification of habitat degradation by geese in the entire 
arctic and sub-arctic region is made difficult by logistical 
constraints. However, we point to the numerous habitat studies that 
document habitat damage, which are summarized in the report by Batt 
(1997). This information has been collected during the past 25+ years 
by numerous scientists of varying disciplines. Most claims of little or 
no damage to habitats have been based solely on a report by Thomas and 
MacKay (1998), which was the result of a field trip to a limited number 
of sites on the west coast of Hudson Bay that lasted less than 72 
hours. We do not believe this cursory examination of habitats in this 
region is a valid method of documenting habitat degradation due to MCLG 
activity.
    Concerning the relationship between isostatic uplift and plant 
succession, we acknowledge the impact that this geologic process has on 
plant communities. However, the time frame in which the process occurs 
is much slower than the time frame in which geese can impact habitats. 
Therefore, we do not believe that isostatic uplift will create new 
habitat quickly enough to counteract damage created by geese.

[[Page 7524]]

    With regard to the relationship between agricultural practices and 
MCLG populations, we have previously stated that habitat management 
approaches to population control should be pursued in conjunction with 
alternative regulatory strategies (63 FR 60281). Inclusion of habitat 
management strategies is beyond the scope of our rulemaking authority. 
This may create the false impression to some observers that we are 
considering only lethal means to control MCLG populations. In fact, we 
are working with our partners to develop various non-regulatory action 
plans that will include land use recommendations for the Northern 
Prairie, Midwest, and Gulf Coast regions of the U.S. to address habitat 
management approaches to controlling overabundant MCLG populations 
(Bisbee 1998). We are also pursuing changing habitat management 
practices on our own lands. We believe that a comprehensive, long-term 
strategy that involves both lethal methods and habitat management is a 
sound approach to addressing the MCLG issue.
    Concerning the question of how killing MCLG in the U.S. will remedy 
damage to habitats in specific breeding colonies in the Canadian 
arctic, we point out that MCLG migrate and winter in large 
concentrations almost exclusively in the Central and Mississippi 
Flyways. Therefore, these regulatory strategies aimed at taking MCLG in 
this portion of the U.S. will reduce the number of birds returning to 
breeding areas that are experiencing habitat degradation. It will also 
reduce the number of birds that are able to disperse to and degrade 
other breeding habitats. We believe this is a cost-effective and 
efficient alternative to selective culling of birds at breeding 
colonies, which would entail massive disposal efforts and waste of 
birds at enormous cost. Similarly, we believe that alternative 
regulatory strategies will be more cost-effective and efficient control 
methods than proposals to destroy nest, harvest eggs, and haze geese 
from breeding colonies.
    With regard to our ability to estimate the current size of the 
breeding population of MCLG, we point out that the lack of definitive 
continental breeding population estimates is due to the enormous 
logistical barriers to designing a comprehensive survey of the entire 
arctic and sub-arctic region. Consequently, we have relied on surveys 
conducted on wintering areas in December to provide an index to the 
breeding population. It is clear that many people are confused about 
the relationship between the December index and the breeding population 
size. The December survey results in a count of MCLG on portions of its 
wintering range and does not represent a total population count, nor is 
it intended to be such. However, we believe that the December index 
tracks the true population size and allows managers to determine when 
the MCLG population is increasing, decreasing, or is stable. In fact, 
we have used the December index in the development of annual snow goose 
hunting regulations since its inception in 1969. Therefore, we have 
chosen to use the December index to determine the status of the MCLG 
population. In the proposed rule (63 FR 60278) we made an incorrect 
contextual reference to the Central and Mississippi Flyway Council 
(1982) management guideline of 800,000 to 1.2 million birds because 
this guideline was based on snow goose population estimates for the 
breeding grounds, rather than on wintering ground indices. We will 
continue to base our objectives on winter indices. In order to achieve 
a 50% reduction in the MCLG population, this would entail achieving a 
reduction in the December index from approximately 3.2 million to 1.6 
million birds. In 1991, the Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils 
passed resolutions to adopt management goals for MCLG of 1 to 1.5 
million birds, based on the December index. Therefore, our objective is 
in close agreement with management goals previously stated by the 
Flyway Councils. Beginning in January 1999, the Central and Mississippi 
Flyway Councils designated a January survey of wintering MCLG to be the 
official index to the population, which we will use to monitor the 
population. This change should have negligible effect on the winter 
index and subsequent management objectives.
    With regard to debate about the magnitude of harvest that is 
necessary to bring about the desired population reduction, we point out 
that the debate is centered around the annual harvest that is required 
to achieve the reduction by the year 2005. Rockwell et al. (1997) 
recommend a 2-3 fold increase in annual harvest to achieve the desired 
population reduction. The authors stated that, ``different assumptions 
will lead to somewhat different values under this type of strategy * * 
* (Rockwell et al. 1997:99). Subsequently, Cooke et al. (unpublished 
report) estimated that annual harvest would need to be increased by a 
factor of anywhere from 3.5 to 6.7 to reduce the MCLG population. We 
note the near overlap in the ranges of recommended increases in annual 
harvest contained in the two reports. At the present, we believe that 
pursuing a three-fold increase in annual harvest represents a 
responsible approach to MCLG population reduction. Implementation of 
new regulatory strategies will allow managers to measure the actual 
effects of such strategies on the MCLG population. If this harvest 
level is subsequently deemed inadequate to achieve the population-
reduction goal, this strategy will be re-evaluated.
    With regard to the relationship between current MCLG population 
levels and those experienced in the past, we point out the problems 
with comparisons of anecdotal accounts of MCLG population levels with 
population indices derived from modern aerial surveys. We suggest that 
debates about anecdotal accounts of former MCLG abundance will not be 
fruitful. What is known, is that current MCLG population indices 
derived from standardized aerial surveys are higher than ever 
previously recorded. Therefore, we believe that alternative regulatory 
strategies to address overabundant MCLG and their impacts on habitat 
are appropriate and urgently needed.
    Concerning consultation with Native groups that may be affected by 
alternative regulatory strategies implemented in the U.S., we point out 
that the U.S. has met the legal obligation to consult with the 
government of Canada. In turn, various territorial, provincial and 
federal governments in Canada have consulted with aboriginal groups 
through various forums, and through the distribution of reports and 
proposals for Canadian hunting seasons. These consultations are and 
will continue to be ongoing. Because the locations of many of the 
largest light goose breeding colonies are north of 60 degrees north 
latitude, much of the direct consultation to date has been with people 
in those areas. We have also been informed that a number of Inuit 
groups such as the Arviat Hunters and Trappers Organization, and the 
Aiviq Hunters and Trappers Association in Cape Dorset have already 
participated in pilot programs to increase their harvest of light 
geese. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has had the light goose 
overabundance issue as a standing item for some time. Other northern 
wildlife management boards, including the Inuvialuit which participated 
in a stakeholder's committee, have been informed of the light goose 
issue. In light of this information, we feel claims that Native groups 
have not been consulted are unfounded.
    We disagree with the view that an ecosystem approach to managing

[[Page 7525]]

overabundant MCLG requires a ``hands off'' rather than a direct 
interventionist approach by managers. In fact, we believe that 
implementation of alternative regulatory strategies to address this 
problem is the epitome of ecosystem management. The Service's goal of 
its ecosystem approach is the effective conservation of natural 
biological diversity through perpetuation of dynamic, healthy 
ecosystems (USFWS 1995). Others have defined ecosystem management as 
``the integration of ecologic, economic, and social principles to 
manage biological and physical systems in a manner that safeguards the 
ecological sustainability, natural diversity, and productivity of the 
landscape'' (Wood 1994). We believe that if MCLG populations are not 
immediately controlled by direct methods, that biological diversity on 
breeding areas will decline, productivity of the landscape will be 
severely reduced, and the health of the ecosystem will be compromised 
to the extent that it will take many decades to recover, if ever.
    With regard to the comment that requiring closure of all other 
migratory bird seasons is overly restrictive, we agree. Our intent is 
to minimize the impacts of regulatory strategies on non-target species, 
and we believe that limiting the required closure to all waterfowl and 
crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, will not increase the 
potential impacts on non-target species. These closures can be 
undertaken on a zone basis within a state. Such strategies could be 
implemented prior to March 11 in a given year, as long as the above 
requirement is met. With regards to the eligibility of the States of 
MI, OH, WI, IN, KY, and TN to implement alternative regulatory 
strategies, we agree that these States harvest light geese during 
normal hunting seasons, and thus would have the potential to harvest 
MCLG using alternative regulatory strategies. For example, 20,000 to 
60,000 snow geese annually winter in western Kentucky. Therefore, we 
are including all Mississippi Flyway and Central Flyway States as being 
eligible for implementation of such strategies.
    With regards to baiting regulations, we prefer to utilize current 
regulations that pertain to waterfowl. Implementation of dove baiting 
regulations in a waterfowl management strategy may create confusion 
among hunters. The larger question of the use of baiting to increase 
harvest of MCLG may need to be re-visited, once we have experience with 
the alternative regulations options currently being implemented. We 
note that baiting regulations for all migratory birds are currently 
under review and a decision with regards to the use of baiting to 
control MCLG should be postponed until the review is completed.
    Concerning the requirement to close several crane wintering and 
migration areas to implementation of MCLG regulatory strategies, we 
feel that this requirement will help ensure protection of whooping 
cranes. We believe a conservative approach to implementing new MCLG 
strategies is warranted, at least initially. Once we gain experience in 
dealing with these new strategies, and if a determination is made that 
such closures are unnecessary, they can be discontinued at that time.
    With regard to monitoring programs that are needed to evaluate MCLG 
control measures and the status of their population, we note that the 
Arctic Goose Joint Venture has developed a draft science needs document 
that outlines various population and habitat monitoring programs. 
Included in this document are banded sample sizes that are needed to 
detect average annual changes in survival rates of MCLG. The document 
outlines banding goals for various breeding colonies. Breeding 
population surveys that will be utilized include photo inventories and 
helicopter surveys of selected breeding colonies. Annual indices to 
MCLG population size will continue to be derived from winter surveys 
conducted in the U.S. Harvest estimates for normal light goose hunting 
seasons will continue to be derived through existing federal harvest 
surveys. Estimates of harvest during the conservation order will be 
obtained from individual State wildlife agencies. We will accomplish 
habitat monitoring through satellite imagery and continuation of on the 
ground sampling associated with current research projects.
    We agree that we should not to wait until five years have elapsed 
before an evaluation of the MCLG conservation order is completed and 
other alternatives are considered. Annual monitoring will indicate if 
the conservation order is effective in reducing the MCLG population. We 
will consider additional population-reduction strategies if the 
conservation order is deemed ineffective. We note that non-lethal 
management strategies to control MCLG populations recently have been 
completed or are under development (e.g. Bisbee 1998). We look forward 
to working with all stakeholders in the development of long-term 
strategies to deal effectively with overabundant MCLG.

References Cited

Abraham, K. F., R. L. Jefferies, R. F. Rockwell, and C. D. MacInnes. 
1996. Why are there so many white geese in North America? 7th 
International Waterfowl Symposium, Memphis, TN.
Abraham, K. F., and R. L. Jefferies. 1997. High goose populations: 
causes, impacts and implications. Pages 7-72 in B. D. J. Batt, ed. 
Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat 
Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture Special Publication. U. S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. and Canadian Wildlife 
Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120 pp.
Alisauskas, R., C. D. Ankney, and E. E. Klaas. 1988. Winter diets 
and nutrition of mid-continental lesser snow geese. J. Wildl. 
Manage. 52:403-414.
Alisauskas, R., S.M. Slattery, D.K. Kellett, D.S. Stern, and K.D. 
Warner. 1998. Spatial and temporal dynamics of Ross's and snow goose 
colonies in Queen Maud Gulf Bird Sanctuary, 1966-1998. Canadian 
Wildlife Service, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 21pp.
Ankney, C. D. and C. D. MacInnes. 1978. Nutrient reserves and 
reproductive performance of female lesser snow geese. Auk 95:459-
471.
Batt, B. D. J., editor. 1997. Arctic ecosystems in peril: report of 
the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture 
Special Publication. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, 
D.C. and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario.
Bisbee, R. 1998. Gulf states action plan for mid-continent snow 
geese: A specific action plan focused on public land management for 
the years 1998, 1999, and 2000. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Washington, D.C.
Boyd, H., G. E. J. Smith and F. G. Cooch. 1982. The lesser snow 
goose of the eastern Canadian Arctic: their status during 1964-1979 
and their management from 1982-1990. Canadian Wildlife Service 
Occasional Paper No. 46. 21 pp.
Rockwell, R. F., E. Cooch, and S. Brault. 1997a. Dynamics of the 
Mid-continent population of lesser snow geese: projected impacts of 
reductions in survival and fertility on population growth rates. 
Pages 73-100 in B. D. J. Batt, ed. Arctic Ecosystems in Peril: 
Report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint 
Venture Special Publication. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Washington, D.C. and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120 
pp.
Rockwell, R. F., D. Pollack, K. F. Abraham, P. M. Kotanen, and R. L. 
Jefferies. 1997b. Are there declines in bird species using La 
Perouse Bay? The Hudson Bay Project status report for Ducks 
Unlimited, Inc. Ryder, J. P. 1969. Nesting colonies of Ross' goose. 
Auk:86-282-292.
Rockwell, R. F. 1998. Personal Communication. American Museum of 
Natural History. New York, NY.

[[Page 7526]]

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. 1995. An ecosystem approach to fish and wildlife 
conservation. Concept Document. Washington, D.C. 21 pp.
USFWS. 1997a. Waterfowl population status, 1997. Office of Migratory 
Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 32 pp.
USFWS. 1997b. Harvest and population survey data book, Central 
Flyway, compiled by D.E. Sharp. Office of Migratory Bird Management, 
Denver, CO. 123 pp.
USFWS. 1998a. Mid-continent Lesser Snow Goose Workshops: Central and 
Mississippi Flyways, Fall 1997. Office of Migratory Bird Management 
and Division of Refuges, Arlington, VA.
USFWS. 1998b. Waterfowl populations status, 1998. Department of the 
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 31 pp.
USFWS. 1998c. Waterfowl Population Status, 1998. Department of the 
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Arlington, VA.
Yancey, R., M. Smith, H. Miller, and L. Jahn. 1958. Waterfowl 
distribution and migration report (Mississippi Flyway States). 
Proceedings 11th Annual Southeastern Association of Game and Fish 
Commissioners: 105-115.

Effective Date

    Under the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) we waive the 30-day period before 
the rule becomes effective and find that ``good cause'' exists, within 
the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA, and this rule will, 
therefore, take effect immediately upon publication. This rule relieves 
a restriction and, in addition, it is not in the public interest to 
delay the effective date of this rule. During the public comment period 
we received 615 comments consisting of 468 from private citizens, 21 
from State wildlife agencies, 2 from Flyway Councils, 27 from private 
organizations, 10 from Native organizations, 65 from individuals that 
signed a petition, and 22 from private organizations that signed a 
petition. It is in the best interest of migratory birds and their 
habitats to implement a conservation order to reduce the number of 
MCLG. It is in the best interest of the hunting public to provide 
alternative regulatory options to address the problem of overabundant 
MCLG that may affect other migratory bird populations and hunting 
seasons.

NEPA Considerations

    In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the 
Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing NEPA (40 
CFR 1500-1508), we prepared an Environmental Assessment in January 
1999. This EA is available to the public at the location indicated 
under the ADDRESSES caption. Based on review and evaluation of the 
information in the EA, we determined that amending 50 CFR Part 21 to 
establish a conservation order for the reduction of MCLG populations 
would not be a major Federal action that would significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment. This Environmental Assessment 
considers short-term options for addressing the ever-increasing MCLG 
population. In 2000, we will initiate the preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement to consider the effects on the human 
environment of a range of long-term resolutions for the MCLG 
population. Completion of the EIS by summer 2002 will afford the 
Service the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the current 
preferred alternative. It will also allow for a more detailed 
evaluation of options to correspond with the results of the assessment 
and ongoing MCLG issues.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884) provides that `` Each Federal agency 
shall, in consultation with the Secretary, insure that any action 
authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or 
result in the destruction or adverse modification of (critical) habitat 
* * * '' We have completed a Section 7 consultation under the ESA for 
this rule and determined that establishment of a conservation order for 
the reduction of MCLG populations is not likely to affect any 
threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species. The result of 
our consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is available to the public 
at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The economic impacts of this rulemaking will fall 
disproportionately on small businesses because of the structure of the 
waterfowl hunting related industries. The 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 this action to 
reduce the risk of light-goose season closures in the Central and 
Mississippi Flyways subsequently avoiding a $70 million loss in output 
and reducing the possibility of increased agricultural loss. We expect 
special MCLG population control efforts to create additional take 
opportunities which is expected to add $18 million in output to local 
economies. We have determined that a Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

    This rule was not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget under E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand. The Service invites comments 
on how to make this rule easier to understand, including answers to 
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule 
clearly stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon 
that interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule 
(grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) 
aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand 
if it were divided into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the 
description of the rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of 
the preamble helpful in understanding the rule? What else could the 
Service do to make the rule easier to understand?

Congressional Review

    This is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801-808).

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

    We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d). Under the Act, information collections must be 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Agencies 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. We estimate that State/Tribal governments that 
participate in the program will expend an average of 30 hours annually 
to fulfill the information

[[Page 7527]]

collection requirements. Any suggestions on how to reduce this burden 
should be sent to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 222-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, 
DC 20204. We will use the recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR Part 21, Subpart E to 
administer this program, particularly in the assessment of impacts 
alternative regulatory strategies may have on MCLG and other migratory 
bird populations. We will require the information collected to 
authorize State and Tribal governments responsible for migratory bird 
management to take MCLG within our guidelines. Specifically, OMB has 
approved the information collection requirements of this action and 
assigned clearance number 1018-0103 (expires 01/31/2002).

Unfunded Mandates

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

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that 
these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. This rule has been reviewed 
by the Office of the Solicitor. Specifically, this rule has been 
reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity, has been written to 
minimize litigation, provides a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct, and specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal 
law or regulation. We do not anticipate that this rule will require any 
additional involvement of the justice system beyond enforcement of 
provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 that have already 
been implemented through previous rulemakings.

Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule, authorized by 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings 
implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected 
property rights. The rule will not result in the physical occupancy of 
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking 
of any property. In fact, the rule allows hunters to exercise 
privileges that would be otherwise unavailable; and, therefore, reduce 
restrictions on the use of private and public property.

Federalism Effects

    Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the 
Federal government has been given responsibility over these species by 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. These rules do not have a substantial 
direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities 
of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or 
administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12612, 
these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible 
effects on Federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that 
there are no effects.

Authorship

    The primary author of this final rule is James R. Kelley, Jr., 
Office of Migratory Bird Management.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

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

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby 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 Sec. 20.22, the phrase ``except as provided in part 21'' is 
added following the word ``season''.

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 Sec. 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.

    (a) Which waterfowl species are covered by this order? This 
conservation order addresses management of lesser snow (Anser c. 
caerulescens) and Ross' (Anser rossii) geese that breed, migrate, and 
winter in the mid-continent portion of North America, primarily in the 
Central and Mississippi Flyways (Mid-continent light geese).
    (b) In what areas can the conservation order be implemented? (1) 
The following States, or portions of States, that are contained within 
the boundaries of the Central and Mississippi Flyways: Alabama, 
Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 
Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    (2) Tribal lands within the geographic boundaries in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section.
    (3) The following areas within the boundaries in paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section above are closed to the conservation order after 10 
March: Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge (CO); Bosque del Apache 
National Wildlife Refuge (NM); the area within 5 miles of the Platte 
River from Lexington, Nebraska to Grand Island, Nebraska; the following 
area in and around Aransas National Wildlife Refuge; those portions of 
Refugio, Calhoun, and Aransas counties that lie inside a line extending 
from 5 nautical miles offshore to and including Pelican Island, thence 
to Port O'Conner, thence northwest along State Highway 185 and 
southwest along State Highway 35 to Aransas Pass, thence southeast 
along State Highway 361 to Port Aransas, thence east along the Corpus 
Christi Channel, thence southeast along the Aransas Channel, extending 
to 5 nautical miles offshore; except that it is lawful to take Mid-
continent light geese after 10 March

[[Page 7528]]

within the Guadalupe WMA. If at any time evidence is presented that 
clearly demonstrates that there no longer exists a need to close the 
above areas, we will publish a proposal to remove the closures in the 
Federal Register.
    (c) What is required in order for State/Tribal governments to 
participate in the conservation order? Any State or Tribal government 
responsible for the management of wildlife and migratory birds may, 
without permit, kill or cause to be killed under its general 
supervision, mid-continent light geese under the following conditions:
    (1) Activities conducted under this section may not affect 
endangered or threatened species as designated under the Endangered 
Species Act.
    (2) 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.
    (3) Control activities may be conducted only when all waterfowl and 
crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.
    (4) Control measures employed through this section may be 
implemented only between the hours of one-half hour before sunrise to 
one-half hour after sunset.
    (5) Nothing in this section may limit or initiate management 
actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal Agency with 
jurisdiction.
    (6) States and Tribes must designate participants who must operate 
under the conditions of this section.
    (7) States and Tribes must inform participants of the requirements/
conditions of this section that apply.
    (8) States and Tribes 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 States and Tribes 
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. 2.2 of this 
chapter).
    (d) What is required in order for individuals to participate in the 
conservation order? Individual participants in State or tribal programs 
covered by this section are required to comply with the following 
requirements:
    (1) Nothing in this section authorizes the take of mid-continent 
light geese contrary to any State or Tribal 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 or Tribal government concerned.
    (2) Participants 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.
    (3) Participants 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.
    (4) Participants acting under the authority of this section may 
take mid-continent light geese by any method except those prohibited as 
follows:
    (i) 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;
    (ii) 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;
    (iii) 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;
    (iv) 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. A 
craft under power may be used only to retrieve dead or crippled birds; 
however, the craft may not be used under power to shoot any crippled 
birds;
    (v) 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 
Mid-continent light geese on an area where tame or captive live 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 Mid-continent light geese;
    (vi) By means or aid of any motor-driven land, water, or air 
conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in the 
concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of Mid-continent light 
geese;
    (vii) 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 shucked on the field where grown, or grains found 
scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural planting or 
harvesting; or
    (viii) Participants may not possess shot (either in shotshells or 
as loose shot for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, or bismuth-tin, 
or other shots that are authorized in 50 CFR 20.21(j). Season 
limitations in that rule do not apply to participants acting under this 
order.
    (e) Under what conditions would the conservation order be revoked? 
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 initiate action to 
revoke the conservation order.
    (f) Will information concerning the conservation order be 
collected? The information collection requirements of the conservation 
order have been approved by OMB and assigned clearance number 1018-
0103. Agencies 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. The recordkeeping and

[[Page 7529]]

reporting requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR 
Part 21, Subpart E will be utilized to administer this program, 
particularly in the assessment of impacts alternative regulatory 
strategies may have on Mid-continent light geese and other migratory 
bird populations. The information collected will be required to 
authorize State and Tribal governments responsible for migratory bird 
management to take Mid-continent light geese within the guidelines 
provided by the Service.

    Dated: February 10, 1999.
Donald Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-3649 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P