[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26268-26270]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12141]
[[Page 26267]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part XII
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
Migratory Bird Hunting; Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement on White Goose Management; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 1999 /
Notices
[[Page 26268]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Migratory Bird Hunting; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement on White Goose Management
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or ``we'') is
issuing this notice to advise the public that we are initiating efforts
to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that considers a
range of management alternatives aimed at addressing population
expansion of lesser snow geese, Ross' snow geese, and greater snow
geese (white geese). This notice describes possible alternatives,
invites public participation in the scoping process for preparing the
EIS, and identifies the Service official to whom questions and comments
may be directed. Potential sites of public scoping meetings in
important white goose migration and wintering areas are yet to be
determined. A notice of public meetings with the locations, dates, and
times will be published in the Federal Register.
DATES: Written comments regarding EIS scoping should be submitted by
July 12, 1999, to the address below.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jonathan Andrew, Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, (703) 358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With regard to Mid-continent light geese,
because of the high population levels and habitat destruction described
below, we believe that management action is necessary. In fact, we
promulgated regulations on February 16, 1999, (64 FR 7507; 64 FR 7517)
that authorized additional methods of take of light geese and
established a conservation order for the reduction of the Mid-continent
Light Goose Population. In issuing those regulations, we indicated that
we would initiate preparation of an EIS beginning in 2000 to consider
the effects on the human environment of a range of long-term
resolutions for the MCLG population problem. Those regulations were
subsequently challenged in Federal District Court by several animal
rights groups. Though the judge refused to preliminarily enjoin the
program, he did indicate a likelihood that the plaintiffs might prevail
on the EIS issue when the lawsuit proceeded. In light of our earlier
commitment to prepare an EIS on the larger, long-term program and to
preclude further litigation on the issue, we decided to withdraw the
regulations and to begin preparation of the EIS now.
Mid-Continent Light Geese
Lesser snow (Anser c. caerulescens) and Ross' (Anser rossii) geese,
that primarily migrate through the Central and Mississippi Flyways, 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. They are referred to as ``light'' geese due
to the light coloration of the white-phase plumage form, as opposed to
``dark'' geese such as white-fronted geese or Canada geese. We include
both plumage forms of lesser snow geese (white, or ``snow'' and dark,
or ``blue'') under the designation light geese.
The total MCLG population is experiencing a high population growth
rate and has substantially increased in size within the last 30 years.
Potential reasons for this high growth rate include decreased harvest
rates, availability of waste grains in agricultural areas,
establishment of refuges, and higher survival rates. The total MCLG
population is comprised of two population segments; namely the Mid-
continent Population (MCP) and the Western Central Flyway Population
(WCFP). We use operational surveys conducted annually on wintering
grounds to derive a winter index to light goose populations. The winter
index of MCP light geese has more than tripled within 30 years from an
estimated 800,000 birds in 1969 to approximately 2.6 million birds in
1999 and has increased an average of 5% per year for the last ten years
(Abraham et al. 1996, USFWS 1998). The 1999 MCP winter index of 2.6
million geese is comprised of approximately 2.4 million lesser snow
geese and 147,000 Ross' geese. The winter index of WCFP light geese has
quadrupled in 23 years from 52,000 in 1974 to 216,000 in 1997 (USFWS
1997), and has increased an average of 9% per year for the last ten
years (USFWS 1998). Counts of light geese wintering in Mexico are
obtained every 3 years, therefore 1997 represents the last year that a
total WCFP count was made. The 1997 WCFP winter index of 216,000 geese
is comprised of approximately 151,000 lesser snow geese and 65,000
Ross' geese.
The total MCLG population (MCP and WCFP combined), based on the
1997 and 1999 winter indices, is approximately 2.8 million geese (Table
1). 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 winter
index. Therefore, the current winter index of MCP lesser snow geese far
exceeds the upper management threshold established by the Flyway
Councils. Segments of the total MCLG population have also exceeded
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) population objectives,
which are also based on winter indices. The MCP lesser snow goose
winter index of 2.4 million birds far exceeds the NAWMP population
objective of 1 million birds (USDOI et al. 1998). The lesser snow goose
portion of the WCFP light goose winter index is estimated to be 151,000
birds, which exceeds the NAWMP population objective of 110,000 birds
(USDOI et al. 1998). The estimate of the Ross' goose component of the
total MCLG population winter index (WCFP and MCP combined) is
approximately 212,000 birds. This exceeds the NAWMP Ross' goose
population objective of 100,000 birds (USDOI et al. 1998). We compare
current population levels to NAWMP population objectives to demonstrate
that the total MCLG population has increased substantially over what is
considered to be healthy population level.
Table 1.--Components of the Mid-Continent Light Goose Population (MCLG) Winter Index
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAWMP goal d
Species MCP a WCFP b Total MCLG Flyway council goal c --------------------------------------
MCP WCFP Total MCLG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lesser snow goose.................... 2,429,000 151,000 2,580,000 1.0-1.5 million.................... 1,000,000 110,000 1,110,000
[[Page 26269]]
Ross' goose.......................... 146,800 65,000 211,800 N/A e.............................. N/A N/A 100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................ 2,575,800 216,000 2,791,800 N/A................................ N/A N/A 1,210,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Mid-Continent Population (1999 index).
b Western Central Flyway Population (1997 index).
c Represents lower and upper management thresholds.
d North American Waterfowl Management Plan goals.
e Not applicable; goal not developed.
By multiplying the current MCLG December index of 2.8 million birds
by an adjustment factor of 1.6 (Boyd et al. 1982), we derive an
estimate of 4.5 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.). The
estimate of 4.5 million birds does not include non-breeding geese or
geese found in unsurveyed areas. Therefore, the total MCLG population
currently far exceeds 4.5 million birds.
We believe that the MCLG population has exceeded the long-term
carrying capacity of its breeding habitat and must be reduced. These
geese have become seriously injurious to their arctic and subarctic
habitat and habitat important to other migratory birds. We have
described previously (February 16, 1999; 64 FR 7517) how light geese
have impacted breeding habitats through their feeding actions, which
triggers a series of events that leads to long-term habitat
destruction. Batt (1997) summarized the results of numerous studies
that have investigated the dynamics of the MCLG population and the
impacts it is having on breeding habitats. We believe that MCLG
population reduction measures are necessary to prevent further habitat
destruction and to protect the remaining habitat upon which numerous
wildlife species depend.
Batt (1997) estimated that the MCLG population should be reduced by
50% by 2005. That would suggest a reduction from the 1999 MCLG winter
index of approximately 2.8 million birds to approximately 1.4 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 winter index.
Therefore, our goal to reduce the MCLG population to 1.4 million birds
by 2005 closely parallels those established by Flyway Councils and the
scientific community. Using previously mentioned conversion factors, a
winter index of 1.4 million would translate to a minimum estimate of
2.24 million breeding MCLG in spring. The estimate of 2.24 million
birds does not include non-breeding geese or geese found in unsurveyed
areas. Therefore, the total MCLG spring population would be much
higher. We plan to carefully analyze and assess the MCLG reduction on
an annual basis, using the winter index and other surveys, to ensure
that the populations are not over-harvested.
Greater Snow Geese
Greater snow geese (Anser c. atlanticus) breed in the eastern
Arctic of Canada and Greenland and migrate southward through Quebec,
New York, and New England to their wintering grounds in the mid-
Atlantic U.S. The greater snow goose population has expanded from less
than 50,000 birds in the late 1960s to approximately 700,000 today.
These estimates are based on operational spring surveys conducted on
staging areas in the St. Lawrence Valley. With a growth rate of about
9% per year, the population is expected to reach 1,000,000 by 2002 and
2,000,000 by 2010 (Batt 1998).
Although the greater snow goose population has experienced a high
growth rate, studies in the Arctic have not documented extensive damage
to breeding habitats as of yet. It is estimated that the population is
only about one-half of the carrying capacity of the site of the largest
breeding colony on Bylot Island. However, high populations of greater
snow geese are negatively impacting natural marshes in the St. Lawrence
estuary and some coastal marshes of the Mid-Atlantic U.S (Batt 1998).
The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended that the population
be stabilized by the year 2002 at between 800,000 to 1,000,000 birds
(Batt 1998). This strategy is intended to prevent the destruction of
arctic habitat that is likely to occur if the population exceeds the
carrying-capacity of breeding areas.
Past Management Actions
We have attempted to curb the growth of white goose populations by
increasing bag and possession limits and extending the open hunting
season length for white geese to 107 days, the maximum allowed by the
Migratory Bird Treaty between the U.S. and Canada. However, due to the
rapid rise in white goose numbers and low hunter success rates, the
harvest rate (the percentage of the population that is harvested) has
declined. The decline in harvest rate indicates that current harvest
regulations are not sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth
rates.
In cooperation with our State partners, we have developed several
Regional Action Plans (Gulf Coast, Midwest, and Northern Prairie) in
the central U.S. to implement land management activities that will
assist in reduction of the MCLG population. Such activities include
land management, water management, increasing accessibility of State
and Federal lands to hunters, and development of public outreach
programs. We do not believe that Regional Action Plans alone can
achieve MCLG population reduction goals. However, the plans will
compliment the management alternative chosen as a result of the EIS
process.
On February 16, 1999, we published two rules that authorized new
methods of take for white geese (electronic calls and unplugged
shotguns; 64 FR 7507), and established a conservation order for the
reduction of the MCLG population (64 FR 7517). The new regulations were
made available only to States in the Mississippi and Central Flyways.
Several animal rights groups subsequently filed a legal challenge to
the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact upon
which the implementation of the rules were based. Although the judge
refused to issue an injunction, he did indicate
[[Page 26270]]
a likelihood that plaintiffs might succeed on their argument that an
EIS should have been prepared. In order to avoid further litigation, we
have decided to withdraw those regulations and initiate preparation of
an EIS. The regulations will be withdrawn in a separate rulemaking
notice in the Federal Register.
Alternatives
We are considering the following alternatives as a result of public
comments received on the Environmental Assessment. After the scoping
process, we will develop the alternatives to be included in the EIS and
base them on the mission of the Service and comments received during
scoping. We are soliciting your comments on issues, alternatives, and
impacts to be addressed in the EIS.
A. No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, no additional regulatory methods
or direct population control strategies would be authorized. Normal
white goose hunting regulations that existed prior to February 16,
1999, would remain in place.
B. New Regulatory Alternatives (Proposed Action)
This alternative seeks to provide new regulatory options to
wildlife management agencies that will increase the harvest of white
geese above that which results from existing hunting frameworks. This
approach may include legalization of additional hunting methods such as
electronic calls, unplugged shotguns, expanded shooting hours, and
baiting. This alternative also includes establishment of a conservation
order in the U.S. to reduce and/or stabilize white goose populations. A
conservation order would authorize taking of white geese after the
normal framework closing date of March 10, through August 31.
The intent of this alternative is to significantly reduce or
stabilize white goose populations without threatening their long-term
health. We are confident that reduction or stabilization efforts will
not result in populations falling below either the lower management
thresholds established by Flyway Councils, or the NAWMP population
objectives. Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place to estimate
population sizes and will be used to prevent over-harvest of these
populations.
C. Direct Population Control on Wintering and Migration Areas in the
U.S.
This alternative would involve direct population control strategies
such as trapping and culling programs, market hunting, or other general
strategies that would result in the killing of white geese on migration
and/or wintering areas in the U.S. Some of these types of control
measures could involve disposal of large numbers of carcasses.
D. Seek Direct Population Control on Breeding Grounds by Canada
This alternative, if successful, would involve direct population
control strategies, such as trapping and culling programs, market
hunting, or other general strategies, that would result in killing of
white geese on breeding colonies in Canada. Some of these types of
control measures could involve disposal of large numbers of carcasses.
We do not have the authority to implement direct population control
measures on migration or breeding areas in Canada. Therefore, this
alternative would require extensive consultation with Canada in order
to urge implementation of control measures on breeding areas. Such
measures may or may not involve active U.S. participation.
Issue Resolution and Environmental Review
The primary issue to be addressed during the scoping and planning
process for the EIS is to determine which management alternatives for
the control of white goose populations will be analyzed. We will
prepare a discussion of the potential effect, by alternative, which
will include the following areas:
(1) White goose populations and their habitats.
(2) Other bird populations and their habitats.
(3) Effects on other species of flora and fauna.
(4) Socioeconomic effects.
Environmental review of the management action will be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), as appropriate. This Notice is being furnished in
accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7, to obtain suggestions and information
from other agencies, tribes, and the public on the scope of issues to
be addressed in the EIS. A draft EIS should be available to the public
in the fall of 1999.
Public Scoping Meetings
A schedule of public scoping meeting dates, locations, and times is
not available at this time. Notice of such meetings will be published
in the Federal Register.
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.
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, DC
and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 120 pp.
Batt, B.D.J., editor. 1998. The greater snow goose: report of the
Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. Arctic Goose Joint Venture
Special Publication. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC
and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 88 pp.
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.
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 DC.
USFWS. 1997. Harvest and population survey data book, Central
Flyway, compiled by D.E. Sharp. Office of Migratory Bird Management,
Denver, CO. 123 pp.
USFWS. 1998. Waterfowl populations status, 1998. Department of
Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA. 31 pp.
Authorship. The primary author of this Notice is James R. Kelley,
Jr., Office of Migratory Bird Management.
Dated: May 7, 1999.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-12141 Filed 5-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P