[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7507-7517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-3650]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AF25


Migratory Bird Hunting; Regulations To Increase Harvest of Mid-
Continent Light Geese.

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: 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 authorizes the use of additional hunting methods (electronic 
callers and unplugged shotguns) during a normal open light-goose 
hunting season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, 
excluding falconry, are closed.

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 Interior, ms 634--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, 
D.C. 20240. The public may inspect comments during normal business 
hours in room 634--Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. 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 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. Operational surveys conducted annually on wintering 
grounds are used 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 (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

[[Page 7508]]

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, we 
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. 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 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

[[Page 7509]]

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% 
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.

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 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 rule to mid-continent populations of 
light geese (MCLG): Mid-continent and Western Central Flyway lesser 
snow geese (Chen

[[Page 7510]]

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 an additional but separate 
population reduction strategy. In addition to this rule that amends 50 
CFR Part 20, we are also amending 50 CFR Part 21 to authorize the use 
of a conservation order to increase take of MCLG. The conservation 
order will be in the nature of an order authorizing States to implement 
actions to harvest MCLG, by shooting in a hunting manner, inside or 
outside of the regular open migratory bird hunting season frameworks 
when all waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding 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 this strategy will hinge upon State participation, 
hunter participation, and hunter effectiveness. If a State does not 
participate, then its hunters will not be able to participate in that 
State, decreasing the program's potential. We anticipate that some 
northern and mid-latitude States will elect not to implement this 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 this rule by establishing a light-goose 
only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, 
excluding falconry, are closed.
    We are implementing the second action (conservation order) in order 
to maximize the overall program's potential and to try to achieve our 
management objective within a reasonable time-frame. These actions will 
be complemented by attempts to alter habitat management practices that 
tend to increase MCLG, and hopefully will reduce the need for 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 this rule (amendment 50 CFR Part 20) are rolled 
into the harvest projections for the conservation order. Harvest 
projections for this rule are not in addition to the harvest 
projections for the conservation order.

Revision to 50 CFR Part 20

    We are amending 50 CFR 20.21 with the intent to increase harvest of 
mid-continent light geese during the open hunting season (MCLG) by 
authorizing the use of electronic callers and unplugged shotguns during 
a light goose only season when all other waterfowl and crane hunting 
seasons, excluding falconry, are closed. This is in an effort to reduce 
overabundant MCLG populations that have become seriously injurious to 
other migratory bird populations and to habitat essential to migratory 
bird populations. Conditions under this regulation require that 
participating States inform hunters acting under the authority of the 
amendment of the conditions that apply to the utilization of this 
amendment.
    Under the authority of this rule, States could develop and initiate 
aggressive harvest management strategies by offering hunters additional 
hunting methods to harvest MCLG with the intent to increase harvest of 
MCLG. By operating under an existing program, a regular light-goose 
only season, affected States would not have to create a new program to 
implement the action, which would significantly reduce administrative 
burden to the State and Federal governments. In order to minimize or 
avoid negative impacts to non-target species and to eliminate confusion 
regarding enforcement of the restrictions associated with this action, 
States may only implement this action when all other waterfowl and 
crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed. Although we 
expect this action to facilitate other protection and recovery efforts, 
we do not expect this action (amendment to 50 CFR Part 20) implemented 
alone to achieve our management objective. Therefore, we are 
concurrently implementing an additional but separate population 
reduction strategy (discussed above) to work in concert with this 
action in order to achieve our management objective. We feel the 
overall strategy will result in biologically sound and more cost-
effective and efficient overabundant MCLG population management. This 
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 health and status of MCLG 
populations or threaten the status of other species that could be 
impacted through the implementation of this action. We have evaluation 
and monitoring strategies 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 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 1.5 million MCLG after three years by implementing this 
proposed action. Therefore, we expect the total cumulative harvest to 
be 3.5 million MCLG after three years of implementation of this 
proposed action. We will revoke the amendment to 50 CFR Part 20 if the 
December index is reduced to the goal of 1.6 million birds.
    The impact is expected to be regional within the Central and 
western Mississippi Flyway States that choose to participate. MCLG 
winter in the southern States of the Flyways substantially longer than 
northern or mid-latitude States. Therefore, the opportunity to harvest 
more MCLG is greatest in the south. Additional hunting methods 
authorized by a State under the authority of this rule will facilitate 
a hunter's ability to harvest more MCLG and will facilitate other 
efforts to increase adult mortality and therefore decrease numbers of 
MCLG.
    Although we can expect the additional hunting methods to be 
effective, there is no precedent to guide us in determining to what 
degree they will be effective. It is equally difficult to ascertain to 
what degree the public will utilize the new methods, which will 
influence its effectiveness. However, with certain assumptions, we may

[[Page 7511]]

project an increase in harvest using existing harvest data.
    Before projecting the effect of this action on harvest we must 
establish several assumptions. We are assuming that all affected States 
will act under the authority of the rule and allow the additional 
methods authorized in this action, that current MCLG hunter numbers 
will not decrease, and that the new hunting methods authorized in this 
will increase hunter effectiveness and overall harvest. We do not 
assume that all MCLG hunters will use the new hunting methods and of 
those that do, we do not assume that all will increase their 
effectiveness. We are assuming that 25% of the current MCLG hunters 
will use the new hunting methods and increase his/her effectiveness in 
harvesting MCLG.
    We determined, based on a linear regression analysis of historical 
harvest data, that regular-season harvest has increased approximately 
31,600 MCLG per year for the last ten years. A simple linear regression 
of the harvest data represents our most conservative estimate because 
the analysis does not take into account other factors that influence 
harvest such as the recent regulation changes for light geese. A more 
complex analysis demonstrates that harvest 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 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 can expect to harvest an additional 
339,000 MCLG in the first year of implementation of this action during 
a light-goose only season. Therefore, we expect a total harvest of 
975,500 MCLG in the first year of implementation of this proposed 
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 1.2 million MCLG in the second year of 
implementation, and 1.3 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 harvest to facilitate other efforts, such 
as habitat management on the wintering grounds and increased harvest of 
MCLG by Canadian aboriginals. Decreased MCLG numbers will also relieve 
pressures on the breeding grounds. There is no evidence to suggest that 
the use of additional hunting methods during a light-goose only season 
will result in an over-harvest of MCLG. Once the December index is 
reduced to approximately 1.6 million birds, we will revoke this action 
and the methods we authorized. It is improbable that the use of the 
additional methods will threaten the long-term status of MCLG 
populations, because we will monitor the MCLG populations and act 
accordingly 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. It is expected to reduce the possibility that 
other species will be forced to seek habitat elsewhere or abandon 
unsuitable degraded habitat altogether, which could potentially result 
in decreased reproductive success of affected populations. We expect a 
decrease in MCLG populations to contribute to increased reproductive 
success of adversely impacted populations. Further, we expect that by 
decreasing the numbers of MCLG on wintering and migration stopover 
areas, the risk of transmitting avian cholera to other species will be 
reduced which will reduce the threat of a widespread avian cholera 
outbreak. We do not expect the action to result in an increase in take 
of non-target species. The action will only be allowed when all other 
waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.

Socio-Economic

    Any migratory bird hunting 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. 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

[[Page 7512]]

Central and Mississippi Flyways and avoid a $70 million loss in output 
and reduce the possibility of increased agricultural loss. We expect 
special MCLG population control efforts to create additional take 
opportunities which is expected to add $18 million in output to local 
economies.

Public Comment Received

    The November 9, 1998, proposed rule published in the Federal 
Register (63 FR 60271) 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 821). During the 
comment period, we received 573 comments consisting of 448 from private 
citizens, 21 from State wildlife agencies, 2 from Flyway Councils, 27 
from private organizations, 10 from Native organizations, 43 from 
individuals that signed a petition, and 22 from private organizations 
that signed a petition. Comments generally were dichotomized by two 
points of view.
    Comments in support of such action were received from 248 private 
citizens, 21 State wildlife agencies, 2 Flyway Councils, 12 private 
organizations, 1 Native group, and 35 from individuals that signed a 
petition. Three private individuals and 1 State wildlife agency that 
supported the use of electronic calls did not support the use of 
unplugged shotguns, whereas 1 private individual did not support 
electronic calls but did support the use of unplugged shotguns. All 
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 the requirement 
should be that only other waterfowl seasons be closed in order to 
implement changes in light goose regulations. A State wildlife agency 
and 1 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. Several State wildlife 
agencies and 2 Flyway Councils 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. Several 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 alternative 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.
    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.
    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 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.
    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 20 to 
authorize additional regulatory strategies 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.
    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

[[Page 7513]]

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 decertification 
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 managers and is the reason we feel 
that MCLG populations need to be controlled.
    With regard to documentation of the 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.
    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 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 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 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 these 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 and not 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

[[Page 7514]]

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 in the 2 reports. At the present, we believe that pursuing a 3 
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, long-term 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 
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.
    Concerning the requirement to close several crane wintering and 
migration areas to implementation of MCLG regulatory strategies, we 
feel that this requirement is necessary to 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 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.

[[Page 7515]]

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.
Rockwell, R.F. 1998. Personal Communication. American Museum of 
Natural History. New York, NY.
Ryder, J.P. 1969. Nesting colonies of Ross' goose. Auk:86-282-292.
Sparrowe, R. 1998. Report of the Stakeholder's Committee on Arctic 
Nesting Geese. Rollin Sparrowe, Chair. Wildlife Management 
Institute, Washington, D.C.
Thomas, V.G., and B.K. MacKay. 1998. A critical evaluation of the 
proposed reduction in the mid-continent lesser snow goose population 
to conserve sub-arctic salt marshes of Hudson Bay. The Humane 
Society of the United States (Washington, D.C.), and the Animal 
Protection Institute (Sacramento, CA). 32 pp.
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.
Wood, C.A. 1994. Ecosystem management: Achieving the new land ethic. 
Renewable Resources Journ. Spring issue: 6-21.
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 comment period, we 
received 573 comments consisting of 448 from private citizens, 21 from 
State wildlife agencies, 2 from Flyway Councils, 27 from private 
organizations, 10 from Native organizations, 43 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 have determined that amending 50 CFR Part 20 
to authorize additional regulatory strategies 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 
the Service's consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is available to 
the public at

[[Page 7516]]

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 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.

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), this rule has been 
submitted to Congress. Because this rule deals with the Service's 
migratory bird hunting program, this rule qualifies for an exemption 
under 5 U.S.C. 808(1); therefore, the Department determines that this 
rule shall take effect immediately.

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

    This regulation does not require any information collection for 
which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 
information collection is covered by an existing Office of Management 
and Budget approval number. The information collections contained in 
Sec. 20.20 have been approved by OMB under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and 
assigned clearance number 1018-0015 for the administration of the 
Migratory Bird Harvest Information Survey (50 CFR 20.20). An agency may 
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

Unfunded Mandates

    We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements 
of the Unfunded Mandates Act (2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.), that this 
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 Part 20

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

    For the reasons given in the preamble, we hereby amend part 20, of 
the subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 20--[AMENDED]

    1. 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.


[[Page 7517]]


    2. Revise paragraphs (b) and (g) of Sec. 20.21 Hunting methods to 
read as follows:


Sec. 20.21  Hunting methods.

* * * * *
    (b) With a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than 
three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler, incapable 
of removal without disassembling the gun, so its total capacity does 
not exceed three shells. This restriction does not apply during a 
light-goose (lesser snow and Ross' geese) only season when all other 
waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed 
while hunting light geese in Central and Mississippi Flyway portions of 
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.
* * * * *
    (g) By the use or aid of recorded or electrically amplified bird 
calls or sounds, or recorded or electrically amplified imitations of 
bird calls or sounds. This restriction does not apply during a light-
goose (lesser snow and Ross' geese) only season when all other 
waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed 
while hunting light geese in Central and Mississippi Flyway portions of 
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.

    Dated: February 10, 1999.
Donald Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-3650 Filed 2-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P