[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 116 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32766-32776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15408]



[[Page 32765]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IX





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Fish and Wildlife Service



_______________________________________________________________________



50 CFR Part 21



Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 116 / Thursday, June 17, 1999 / Rules 
and Regulations  

[[Page 32766]]



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 21

RIN 1018-AE46


Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 
establishes, in cooperation with State wildlife agencies, a Canada 
goose damage management program. This program is designed to provide a 
biologically sound and more cost-effective and efficient method for the 
control of locally-breeding Canada geese that pose a threat to health 
and human safety and damage personal and public property.

DATES: The rule becomes effective June 17, 1999.

ADDRESSES: You may request copies of the EA and comments received on 
the proposed rule by writing to the Chief, Office of Migratory Bird 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, 
ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20240. You may 
inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington 
Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Andrew, Chief, Office of 
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-
1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Numbers of Canada geese that nest and reside predominantly within 
the conterminous United States have increased exponentially in recent 
years (Rusch et al., 1995; Ankney, 1996). These increasing populations 
of locally-breeding geese are resulting in increasing numbers of 
conflicts with human activities and property, and concerns related to 
human health and safety are increasing (Ankney, 1996). To date, the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (We) has attempted to address this 
growing problem through existing annual hunting season frameworks and 
the issuance of control permits on a case-by-case basis. While this 
approach has provided relief in some areas, we realize that sport 
harvest will not completely address the problem and that the current 
permit-issuance system is a time-consuming and burdensome process for 
both applicants and us. Therefore, we are changing the way we issue 
permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for control and management 
of resident Canada geese that either pose a threat to health and human 
safety or cause damage to personal and public property.

Which Canada Geese Are Affected by This Rule?

    The geographic scope of this rule is restricted to the conterminous 
United States and to Canada geese (Branta canadensis) that nest and/or 
reside predominately within the conterminous United States. Primarily, 
these geese consist mainly of B. c. maxima and B.c. moffitti, the 
``giant'' and ``western'' Canada goose, respectively. Nesting geese 
within the conterminous United States are usually considered members of 
these two subspecies or hybrids between the various subspecies 
originating in captivity and introduced into numerous areas throughout 
the conterminous United States. No evidence presently exists 
documenting breeding between Canada geese nesting within the 
conterminous United States and those subspecies nesting in northern 
Canada and Alaska. For the purposes of this rule, we will collectively 
refer to all Canada geese nesting in the conterminous United States 
and/or Canada geese residing within the conterminous United States in 
the months of June, July, and August as ``resident'' Canada geese.
    For the most part, the remaining subspecies of Canada geese 
recognized in North America nest in arctic and sub-arctic regions of 
Canada and Alaska (Lack 1974). These subspecies are usually encountered 
in the conterminous United States only during the fall, winter and 
spring of the year, or as a result of human placement.

How Does This New Program Avoid Conflicts With the Management of 
Other Migratory Canada Goose Populations?

    Generally, we have stressed the need to manage all geese on a 
population basis, guided by cooperatively-developed management plans. 
However, resident Canada goose populations and the development of a 
resident Canada goose damage management program presented several 
potential problems with this approach. Because resident goose 
populations interact and overlap with other Canada goose populations 
during the fall and winter, any management action or program targeted 
at resident Canada geese during the fall and winter could potentially 
affect these other goose populations. Therefore, to avoid potential 
conflicts with existing management plans for other goose populations, 
this new program is further restricted to March 11 through August 31 of 
each year. These dates encompass the period when sport hunting is 
prohibited throughout the conterminous United States by the Migratory 
Bird Treaty (1916) and resulting regulations promulgated under the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918). Any injury and damage complaints 
occurring during September 1 to March 10, the period open to sport 
hunting, will continue to be addressed through either migratory bird 
hunting regulations or the existing migratory bird permit process.

What Authority Does the Service Have To Establish This New Program?

    Regulations governing the issuance of permits to take, capture, 
kill, possess, and transport migratory birds are authorized by the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and are promulgated in 50 CFR parts 13 and 
21.

How Are These Resident Canada Geese Different Than Other Canada 
Geese Populations? Other Than Location, Do They Behave Differently 
or Have Different Biological Characteristics?

    Canada geese, like other geese, are long-lived birds with 
relatively low reproduction rates and high survival rates. However, of 
all the Canada goose subspecies, the subspecies comprising most 
resident geese have higher reproductive and adult survival rates. 
Resident geese live in more temperate climates with relatively stable 
breeding habitat conditions and low numbers of predators. Arctic and 
subarctic Canada goose survival and reproduction are greatly influenced 
by weather conditions. Additionally, nesting resident geese are very 
tolerant of human disturbance and willing to nest in close proximity to 
other geese (Gosser and Conover, 1999; Zenner and LaGrange, 1998). 
Urban and suburban landscaping in the conterminous United States also 
offers resident geese a relative abundance of their preferred habitat 
(park-like open areas with short grass adjacent to small bodies of 
water). Also, resident geese fly relatively short distances to winter 
compared with other Canada goose populations. All of these factors 
result in consistently high annual reproduction and survival for the 
resident Canada goose population.

What Is the Current Status of These Resident Populations?

    In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest 
predominantly within the conterminous United States have increased 
tremendously. Recent

[[Page 32767]]

surveys in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways (Wood et al., 
1994; Kelley et al., 1998; Nelson and Oetting, 1998; Sheaffer and 
Malecki, 1998) suggest that the resident breeding population now 
exceeds 1 million individuals in both the Atlantic and Mississippi 
Flyways and is increasing exponentially.
    Information from the 1998 Waterfowl Status Report (Kelley et al., 
1998) shows that in the Atlantic Flyway, the resident population has 
increased an average of 14 percent per year since 1989. Last spring, 
the population estimate was 970,055 geese in the northeastern U.S., a 
number which is, however, similar to 1997. In the Mississippi Flyway, 
the resident population of Canada geese has increased at a rate of 
about 6 percent per year during the last 10 years. The 1998 spring 
population estimate was 1,167,085 geese, an increase of 21 percent from 
1997. In the Central and Pacific Flyways, populations of resident 
Canada geese have similarly increased over the last few years. In some 
areas, numbers of resident Canada geese have increased to record high 
levels. We remain concerned about the rapid growth rate exhibited by 
these already large populations, especially in parts of the Atlantic 
and Mississippi Flyways.

What Interests Are Being Injured by These Large Populations (i.e., 
What Are Some of the Problems and Conflicts)?

    Urban and suburban resident Canada goose populations are 
increasingly coming into conflict with human activities in many parts 
of the country, especially at public parks, airports, public beaches 
and swimming facilities, water-treatment reservoirs, corporate business 
areas, golf courses, schools, college campuses, private lawns, 
amusement parks, cemeteries, hospitals and residential subdivisions, 
and along or between highways. In parks and other open areas near 
water, large goose flocks create a nuisance with their abundant 
droppings and feather litter (Conover and Chasko, 1985). Surveys have 
found that while most landowners like seeing some geese on their 
property, eventually, increasing numbers of geese and the associated 
accumulation of goose droppings on lawns cause many landowners to view 
geese as a nuisance and thus reduce the aesthetic value and 
recreational use of these areas (Conover and Chasko, 1985). 
Additionally, goose droppings in heavy concentrations can overfertilize 
lawns and degrade water quality resulting in eutrophication of lakes 
with excessive algae growth (Manny et al., 1994). Overall, complaints 
related to personal and public property damage, agricultural damage and 
other public conflicts are increasing as resident Canada goose 
populations increase.

How Has the Service Dealt With These Problems in the Past?

    To date, we have tried to address injurious resident Canada goose 
problems through existing hunting seasons, the creation of new special 
Canada goose seasons designed to target resident populations, and 
issuance of permits allowing specific control activities.

Have Special Hunting Seasons Been Adequate To Solve the Problems?

    Special Canada goose seasons are hunting seasons specifically 
designed to target resident populations through either time or area 
restrictions. We first initiated special seasons targeting resident 
Canada geese in 1977 in the Mississippi Flyway with an experimental 
late season in Michigan. Following this and other early experiments in 
Michigan and several other Midwestern States, we gave notice of pending 
criteria for special Canada goose seasons in the June 6, 1986, Federal 
Register (51 FR 20681). We finalized criteria for special early seasons 
in the August 9, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 29905) and later 
expanded them to include special late seasons in the September 26, 
1991, Federal Register (56 FR 49111). The original intent of these 
special seasons was to provide additional harvest opportunities on 
resident Canada geese while minimizing impacts to migrant geese. The 
criteria were necessary to control harvests of non-target populations 
and required States to conduct annual evaluations. Initially, we 
considered all such seasons experimental, pending a thorough review of 
the data gathered by the participating State. Early seasons are 
generally held during early September, with late seasons occurring only 
after the regular season, but no later than February 15.
    We presently offer special seasons for resident Canada geese in all 
four Flyways, with 31 States participating. They are most popular among 
States when regular Canada goose seasons are restricted to protect 
migrant populations of Canada geese. Currently, restrictive harvest 
regimes are in place for the Atlantic, Southern James Bay, Dusky, 
Cackling and Aleutian Canada goose populations.
    Harvest of Canada geese during these special seasons has increased 
substantially over the last 10 years. In the Atlantic Flyway, 16 of 17 
States hold special Canada goose seasons, with harvest rising from 
about 2,300 in 1988 to almost 124,000 in 1995 (MBMO, 1997). In the 
Mississippi Flyway, 10 of 14 States hold special Canada goose seasons, 
and harvest has increased from less than 10,000 birds in 1986 to almost 
150,000 in 1995. Michigan currently harvests in excess of 50,000 
locally-breeding Canada geese per year. While the opportunities are not 
as significant in the Central and Pacific Flyways, as areas and seasons 
have expanded, harvest has increased from approximately 1,300 in 1989 
to over 20,000 in 1995.
    Creation of these special harvest opportunities has helped to limit 
the problems and conflicts between geese and people in some areas. 
However, many resident Canada geese remain in urban and suburban areas 
throughout the fall and winter where these areas afford them almost 
complete protection from sport harvest. Thus, while the creation of 
these special hunting seasons is our first and preferred alternative 
for dealing with most conflicts, we realize that harvest management 
will never completely address this growing problem and permits to 
conduct otherwise prohibited control activities will continue to be 
necessary to balance human needs with expanding resident Canada goose 
populations.

Have Control Measures Under the Existing Permit System Been 
Adequate?

    Complex Federal and State responsibilities are involved with all 
migratory bird control activities, including the control of resident 
Canada geese. All State and private control activities, except 
techniques intended to either scare geese out of or preclude them from 
a specific area, such as harassment, habitat management, or repellents, 
require us to issue a Federal permit. Additionally, we issue permits to 
alleviate migratory bird depredations in coordination with the Wildlife 
Services program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS/WS). APHIS/WS is the Federal Agency with lead responsibility for 
dealing with wildlife damage complaints. In most instances, State 
permits are required as well.
    However, APHIS/WS has limited personnel and resources to respond to 
requests for assistance. Likewise, as the number of complaints and 
conflicts continue to increase, the public will place greater demand on 
us and the States to assist in goose damage-management programs. This 
increased need for assistance places greater demand on the current 
permit-issuance system. Unfortunately, administrative

[[Page 32768]]

procedures involved in the issuance of permits many times cause a lag 
time of several weeks between our receipt of a permit request, our 
evaluation and decision on issuing the permit, and the ultimate 
issuance of a site-specific permit authorizing a control action. In the 
interim, even small numbers of geese can cause significant damage to 
personal property and result in economic, recreational, and aesthetic 
losses. Thus, with the increase in complaints, the current permit 
issuance system has become time-consuming, cumbersome and inefficient 
for us and the States.

How Have the Number of Complaints and Requests for Assistance and 
Permits Increased?

    A brief summary of the complaints/requests for control permits 
placed with APHIS/WS indicates the increasing number of public 
conflicts. In 1997, APHIS/WS received 3,295 complaints of injurious 
Canada goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1997). In response to those 
complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 354 permits. The vast 
majority of these complaints concerned agricultural, human health and 
safety, and property issues and came primarily from the Northeastern/
New England area (50%) and the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area (29%). In 
1996 and 1995, APHIS/WS received 3,265 and 2,884 complaints, 
respectively, of injurious goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1996; APHIS/WS, 
1995 ). In response to those complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 
321 permits in 1996 and 250 permits in 1995.
    Comparing these figures with previous years' data shows a steady 
increase in complaints since 1991. For example, in 1993 and 1991 APHIS/
WS received 2,802 and 1,698 complaints, respectively, of injurious 
Canada goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1993; APHIS/WS, 1991). In response to 
those complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 192 and 92 permits, 
respectively.

Has the Number of Permits Issued Increased Correspondingly?

    Yes. Our permit issuance has also increased tremendously in recent 
years. For example, Region 5 (the Northeastern/New England area) issued 
26 site-specific permits to kill resident Canada geese and 54 permits 
to addle eggs in 1994. Two years later in 1996, Region 5 issued 70 
site-specific permits to kill resident Canada geese, 1 permit to 
relocate geese, and 151 permits to addle eggs. In addition, the Region 
issued Statewide permits to relocate birds and addle eggs to agencies 
in certain States. Over 3 years, these permits resulted in the 
relocation of over 2,600 geese, the addling of eggs in over 2,300 
nests, and the take of over 1,000 birds.
    In Region 3, the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area, the number and 
extent of permits issued to manage and control resident Canada geese 
has also increased significantly in the past few years. In 1994, the 
Region issued 149 permits authorizing resident Canada goose control 
activities, including trapping and relocation, destruction of nests/
eggs, and take of adults. In 1998, Region 3 issued 225 permits 
authorizing resident Canada goose control activities. In total, permit 
holders, including APHIS/WS, airports, and state wildlife agencies, 
reported taking in excess of 27,000 eggs and 6,800 geese, and trapped 
and relocated over 70,000 resident Canada geese (complete reports 
through 1997, partial reports for 1998). States in which control 
activities were conducted included Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
    Since 1995, Region 3 has also issued permits to the Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Department of Natural 
Resources authorizing the capture and processing of resident Canada 
geese as food for local food-shelf programs. Minnesota's permit was a 
part of the their Urban Goose Management Program for the Minneapolis-
St. Paul Metropolitan Area (initiated in 1982). In 1995, the first year 
under these permits, Michigan and Minnesota were authorized to take up 
to 2,000 and 325 geese, respectively. Michigan reported taking 24 birds 
with Minnesota taking its full allotment of 325 birds. Since then, 
Minnesota has been authorized to annually take up to 2,500 resident 
Canada geese for its food-shelf program. In the three years under the 
program since 1995, Minnesota has reported taking 5,399 birds. 
Likewise, Michigan was also issued permits for 1996-1998 authorizing 
the take up to 1,000 resident Canada geese for its food-shelf programs. 
Michigan subsequently reported taking 490 birds in 1996 and 952 birds 
in 1997. Michigan vacated their 1998 permit.
    In Region 1, the Pacific Northwest/West Coast area, we have 
primarily limited permits for the control of resident Canada geese to 
the addling of eggs. In 1995, the Region issued permits authorizing the 
take of 900 eggs in the Puget Sound Area of Washington. In 1996, this 
number was increased to 2,000 eggs and 200 adult birds. APHIS/WS 
subsequently reported taking 911 and 1,570 eggs in 1995 and 1996, 
respectively, and 6 geese in 1996. For 1997, the Region authorized the 
take of 2,000 eggs in the Puget Sound Area and another 500 eggs in the 
City of Fremont, California.

What Exactly Are the New Permits Authorized By This Rule and How 
Will They Work?

    We, with our State and other Federal partners, believe development 
of an alternative method of issuing permits to control problem resident 
Canada geese, beyond those presently employed, is needed so that 
agencies can provide responsible, cost-effective, and efficient 
assistance. The special Canada goose permit authorized by this rule 
provide the States that opportunity while maintaining protection of our 
migratory bird resources. The new special Canada goose permits will 
allow States and their designated agents to conduct management 
activities as soon as it becomes apparent that resident Canada geese 
are a problem. The new permits would also rely on a greater application 
of community standards and preferences by allowing judgments 
determining appropriate levels of control to be made at a more local 
level.
    The new permits are specifically for the management and control of 
resident Canada geese (as defined in the rule). We will issue permits 
to State conservation or wildlife management agencies on a State-
specific basis, so States and their designated agents can initiate 
resident goose damage management and control injury problems within the 
conditions/restrictions of the permit program. The permits will be 
restricted to the period between March 11 and August 31. This new 
special permit will increase the use and availability of control 
measures, decrease the number of injurious resident Canada geese in 
localized areas, have little impact on hunting or other recreation 
dependent on the availability of resident Canada geese, and allow 
injury/damage problems to be dealt with on the State/local level, 
thereby resulting in more responsive and timely control activities. The 
new special permits will further result in biologically sound and more 
cost-effective and efficient resident Canada goose damage management. 
Those States not wishing to obtain these new permits would continue to 
operate under the current permitting process.

What Do States Need To Do To Apply for the New Permits?

    Applications for the new special permit would require several items 
from the State:
    1. A detailed statement estimating the size of the resident Canada 
goose breeding population in the State;

[[Page 32769]]

    2. A request for the number of resident Canada geese, including 
eggs and nests, to be taken;
    3. A statement showing that such damage-control actions will either 
provide for human health and safety or protect personal property, or 
compelling justification that the permit is needed to allow resolution 
of other conflicts between people and resident Canada geese; and
    4. A statement indicating that the State will inform all designated 
agents of the permit conditions applying to the implementation of 
resident Canada goose damage management activities.

What Are the Conditions and Restrictions of the New Permit Program?

    The special resident Canada goose damage-management permits are 
subject to the following conditions and restrictions:
    1. State wildlife agencies (States) may take injurious resident 
Canada geese as a management tool. States should utilize non-lethal 
management tools to the extent they consider appropriate in an effort 
to minimize lethal take.
    2. Control activities should not adversely affect other migratory 
birds or any species designated under the Endangered Species Act as 
threatened or endangered.
    3. States may conduct control activities March 11 through August 
31. States should make a concerted effort to limit the take of adult 
birds to June, July, and August in order to minimize the potential 
impact on other migrant populations. In areas where the threatened 
Aleutian Canada goose (B. c. leucoperia) has been present during the 
previous 10 years in California, Oregon and Washington, lethal control 
activities are restricted to May 1 through August 31. If this 
subspecies is delisted, we will review this provision.
    4. States must conduct control activities clearly as such (e.g., 
they cannot be set up to provide a hunting opportunity).
    5. States cannot use the permits to limit or initiate management 
actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal Agency with 
jurisdiction.
    6. States must properly dispose of or utilize Canada geese killed 
in control programs. States may donate Canada geese killed under these 
permits to public museums or public scientific and educational 
institutions for exhibition, scientific, or educational purposes, or 
charities for human consumption. States may also bury or incinerate 
geese. States may not allow for Canada geese taken under these permits, 
nor their plumage, to be sold, offered for sale, bartered, or shipped 
for purpose of sale or barter.
    7. States may use their own discretion for methods of take but 
utilized methods should be consistent with accepted wildlife-damage 
management programs.
    8. States may designate agents who must operate under the 
conditions of the State's permit.
    9. Any employee/designated agent authorized by the State to carry 
out control measures under a special permit must have in their 
possession a copy of the State's permit, and designation, in the case 
of an agent, while carrying out any control activity.
    10. States must keep records of all activities, including those of 
designated agents, carried out under the special permits. We will 
require an annual report detailing activities conducted under a permit.
    11. We will annually review States' reports and will periodically 
assess the overall impact of this program to ensure compatibility with 
the long-term conservation of this resource.
    12. States should not construe anything in the permits to authorize 
the killing of Canada geese contrary to any State law or regulation or 
on any Federal land without written authorization by the appropriate 
management authority. Further, States are not authorized to conduct 
control activities authorized by the permits without any required State 
permit.
    13. We reserve the authority to immediately suspend or revoke any 
permit if we find that the State has not adhered to the terms and 
conditions specified in 50 CFR 13.27 and 13.28 or if we determine that 
the State's population of resident Canada geese no longer poses a 
threat to human health or safety, to personal property, or of injury to 
other interests.

How Will This New Permit Actually Affect ``On-the-Ground'' Resident 
Canada Goose Control and Management Activities? Will We See a 
Dramatic Increase In The Use of Control Activities?

    Under the new permits, we expect that the use of resident Canada 
goose control and management activities, particularly lethal control 
methods such as egg and nest destruction, will increase. We also expect 
an initial increase in the lethal control methods associated with 
hazing techniques of adult birds. However, following this initial 
increase in control activities, we expect the hazing methods to become 
more effective and probably result in fewer overall lethal control 
activities.

Won't This Large-Scale Increased Use of Control Activities Result 
in Harm to the Population?

    No. We expect these lethal and non-lethal activities to decrease 
the number of injurious resident Canada geese in localized areas, 
especially urban and suburban areas. Regionally, we expect little 
overall impact on the resident Canada goose population because many 
goose populations have demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest 
rates in excess of 20 percent. We anticipate the magnitude of any 
lethal control activities will be well below 20 percent of any State's 
resident Canada goose breeding population.

Will These New Permits Impact Existing Sport Hunting Opportunities?

    We expect little impact on sport hunting under the new special 
permits. Resident Canada goose populations in areas targeted for 
management/control activities are generally those that provide little 
or no sport hunting opportunities due to restricted access within urban 
and suburban areas. As such, hunting in these areas is either precluded 
or severely restricted. We would expect areas and resident Canada goose 
populations already open to sport hunting to remain open, as special 
Canada goose season frameworks and guidelines would not change.

What Are Some of the Other Benefits of These New Permits?

    By allowing States and local jurisdictions to deal with injurious 
resident Canada goose problems, instead of having the Service do so at 
a regional level, we expect control activities will be more responsive 
and timely to the problem(s) than is currently the case. Consequently, 
we expect that with reduced injurious populations and more effective 
hazing programs, fewer complaints are likely to occur and less resident 
Canada goose damage is likely.
    With State fish and wildlife agencies responding to individual 
resident Canada goose problems within their respective jurisdictions, 
our administrative responsibilities for each individual control 
activity that currently necessitate the determination or issuance of a 
permit is expected to decrease significantly. Currently, in most 
instances, we must decide on a case-by-case basis whether a permit 
should be issued. This new permit would greatly lessen the number of 
these permits and the associated administrative procedures.

Public Comment

    On September 3, 1996, we issued in the Federal Register (61 FR 
46431) a

[[Page 32770]]

notice of availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on 
Permits for Control of Injurious Canada Geese and Request for Comments 
on Potential Regulations. The notice advised the public that we had 
prepared a DEA. The notice also announced our intent to consider 
regulatory changes to the process for issuance of permits to control 
injurious resident Canada geese. We subsequently extended the public 
comment period on November 12, 1996 (61 FR 58084).
    As a result of this invitation for public comment, we received 101 
comments including two from Federal agencies, 28 from State wildlife 
agencies, 24 from private organizations and 47 from private citizens. 
After consideration of the comments, we revised our DEA.
    On March 31, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (63 FR 
15698) a proposal to establish a Canada goose damage management program 
(i.e., Special Canada Goose Permit). In response to our proposed rule, 
we received 465 comments from Federal, State and local agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and individuals. In addition, we received 
several petitions containing 1,674 signatures. We summarize the issues 
and provide our responses below. We also believe it is important to 
note that some of the comments we received on the proposed rule were 
very similar to comments received on the DEA. While we previously 
responded to these issues in our March 31, 1998 proposed rule, we 
respond here again as a convenience to the reader.
    Issue: Many private individuals and several private organizations 
commented that our Environmental Assessment was insufficient to comply 
with NEPA requirements, and that we should prepare a full Environmental 
Impact Statement before taking any action on the program.
    Service Response: We conducted an Environmental Assessment of 
alternative regulatory strategies to control and manage resident Canada 
geese that either pose a threat to health and human safety or cause 
damage to personal and public property. We considered four alternatives 
to the way permits for control and management of injurious resident 
Canada geese are issued:
    Alternative 1. Continue current permitting procedures as described 
in 50 CFR part 21. This would be the No Action Alternative.
    Alternative 2. Add a new permit option specifically for the 
management of injurious resident Canada geese. The permits would be 
available to State conservation or wildlife management agencies on a 
State-specific basis. Under the permits, States and their designated 
agents could initiate resident goose damage management and control 
injury problems within the conditions/restrictions of the program. Such 
permits would be restricted to the period between March 11 and August 
31.
    Alternative 3. Issue a depredation order allowing State 
conservation agencies to control resident Canada goose damage. The 
depredation order would allow States to control injury from resident 
Canada geese within the conditions/restrictions of the depredation 
order. Such a depredation order would be restricted to the period 
between March 11 and August 31.
    Alternative 4. More restrictive use of permits to control resident 
Canada goose damage, limited to situations where geese pose a direct 
threat to human life or safety.
    We selected Alternative 2, the addition of a new permit option 
specifically for resident Canada goose control and management available 
to State conservation agencies on a State-specific basis. This 
alternative would increase the use and availability of control 
measures, decrease the number of injurious resident Canada geese in 
localized areas, have little impact on hunting or other recreation 
dependent on the availability of resident Canada geese, and allow 
injury and damage problems to be dealt with on the State or local 
level, thereby resulting in more responsive and timely control 
activities. This alternative would further result in biologically sound 
and more cost-effective and efficient resident Canada goose damage 
management.
    Based on review and evaluation of comments by the public and 
information contained in the EA, we determined that the action to amend 
50 CFR Part 21 to establish a special Canada goose permit program for 
the control and management of resident Canada geese would not be 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 and determined that 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. This 
determination was based on consideration of the following factors which 
were addressed in the Finding of No Significant Impact and provided 
below:
    1. While the program is State-wide in application, resident Canada 
goose damage management activities conducted under the program will 
likely occur in localized areas only. The control activities resulting 
from this program would likely occur under individual special permits 
issued under the current permit regulations contained in 50 CFR part 
21.
    2. On balance, the impact of the new program will be beneficial in 
that reducing the number and frequency of injury to human interests 
will be beneficial to the human environment. However, because of the 
limited numbers of geese likely to be taken under the program, the 
benefits will not be significant. Likewise, due to the large and 
expanding population of resident Canada geese, adverse impacts (taking 
of individual geese) will not be significant in the context of the 
human environment.
    3. The activities conducted under the program will not 
significantly affect public health and safety. While we believe that 
any impacts to public health and safety will be beneficial, impacts 
will not be significantly beneficial. The program will likely have a 
beneficial impact on human health and safety through a reduction in the 
likelihood of bird aircraft strikes, conflicts with people and 
property, and potential concerns over the transmission of disease to 
humans.
    4. Although there is controversy over the program, it primarily has 
to do with objections by some groups opposed to any take of Canada 
geese rather than over the analysis or scientific basis for determining 
the impacts of our action. While some of these groups are opposed to 
all goose or other wildlife damage management activities and dispute 
the actual context of damage, the methods and impacts are generally not 
controversial among wildlife managers and wildlife damage management 
experts, nor the general public. All relevant concerns have been 
addressed in the Environmental Consequences chapter in the 
Environmental Assessment.
    5. The possible effects of the program on the quality of the human 
environment are not highly uncertain and do not involve unique or 
unknown risks. The effects and potential risks were determined in the 
process of development of the Environmental Assessment.
    6. The program does not establish a precedent for actions with 
future significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a 
future consideration. We have issued similar permits for goose control 
activities on a case-by-case or State-wide basis and States are 
currently conducting Canada goose damage management activities

[[Page 32771]]

under these permits. Likewise, we have issued similar regulations, in 
the form of depredation orders, for other species, such as the double-
crested cormorant, blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and magpies. 
Any future similar actions, either for Canada geese, or any other 
migratory bird species, would be analyzed under NEPA, with public 
involvement, on their own merits.
    7. There are no significant cumulative effects identified by this 
assessment. Under this program, we expect that the use of resident 
Canada goose control and management activities, particularly lethal 
control methods such as egg and nest destruction, would increase. 
Lethal control methods associated with hazing techniques of adult birds 
would also be expected to initially increase. However, following this 
initial increase, continual use of hazing methods should become more 
effective and may result in fewer overall lethal control activities. 
Such lethal and nonlethal activities would be expected to decrease the 
number of injurious resident Canada geese in specific localized areas, 
especially urban and suburban areas. Regionally and nationally, we 
expect little overall population impact because many Canada goose 
populations have demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest rates in 
excess of 20 percent. We anticipate that the magnitude of any lethal 
control activities will be well below 20 percent of any State's 
resident Canada goose breeding population. As discussed in the 
Environmental Assessment, we expect the program to slow the overall 
population growth rate and address specific localized injurious 
population, but not significantly impact the overall population.
    8. The program will fully comply with the Endangered Species Act of 
1973, as amended. The Service determined that the program is not likely 
to adversely affect the Aleutian Canada goose, a Federally listed 
threatened species.
    9. The program will not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or 
local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the 
environment.
    The EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are available to the 
public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
    Issue: Some commenters expressed concern that we did not have the 
authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and subsequent 
regulations to allow non-Service entities (i.e., States) to issue 
permits. Many saw this as an attempt to abrogate our goose-management 
responsibility.
    Service Response: As we indicated in the proposed rule, we will 
utilize a process whereby permits are only issued to State conservation 
or wildlife management agencies responsible for migratory bird 
management. State conservation agency employees or their designated 
agents could then carry out resident Canada goose damage management and 
control injurious problems within the conditions/restrictions of the 
permit program. This process is essentially no different than the 
current permitting process contained in 50 CFR part 21.
    Issue: A large number of comments challenged the notion that there 
are in fact ``injurious'' Canada geese and that the entire concept and 
definition of ``resident'' Canada geese is invalid. Some commenters saw 
the new permit program as a mechanism to remove Canada geese from the 
protection afforded them under the Migratory Bird Treaty (Treaty).
    Service Response: We strongly disagree with these assertions and 
have included data in the EA that demonstrate the impact of resident 
Canada goose populations on personal property, agricultural 
commodities, and health and human safety. In addition, data is 
presented that clearly points out that Canada goose populations do nest 
in parts of the conterminous United States during the spring and summer 
and that these birds are increasingly causing injury to people and 
property. Furthermore, we are not redefining what is or is not a 
migratory bird under the Treaty. Canada geese are clearly protected by 
the Treaty and will continue to be. We are using the term ``resident'' 
to identify those commonly injurious Canada geese that will be the 
subject of permitted control activities within the scope of the Treaty. 
Additionally, in response to comments, we have clarified the definition 
of ``resident geese'' to read: Resident Canada geese means Canada geese 
that nest within the conterminous United States and/or Canada geese 
which reside within the conterminous United States during the months of 
June, July, or August.
    Issue: Several commenters believed the Treaty only authorizes the 
killing of migratory birds if they are seriously injurious to 
commercial interests, not personal property.
    Service Response: Article VII of the Treaty states, ``Permits to 
kill any of the above named birds, which under extraordinary conditions 
may become seriously injurious to the agricultural or other interests 
in any particular community (emphasis added), may be issued by the 
proper authorities * * *''. We believe that resident Canada goose 
populations have reached this level. The information available to us as 
discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and in the Environmental 
Assessment accompanying this action, demonstrates that the current 
population levels are causing serious injury to increasing numbers of 
people and property. The Treaty does not limit the ``interests'' to be 
protected to those that are commercial. Rather, it provides the High 
Contracting Parties broad authority to address any affected interests. 
Therefore, we believe that establishment and implementation of this 
permit program is in accordance with the terms of the Treaty.
    Issue: Some commenters questioned the actual risks posed by Canada 
geese on human health and safety.
    Service Response: Although the human health and safety risks 
associated with resident Canada geese are difficult to quantify, we 
believe that the available data clearly indicate the potential negative 
impacts on health and safety issues (APHIS/WS, 1999). While we agree 
that the risk to human health from pathogens originating from geese is 
currently believed to be low, we are only beginning to understand these 
risks. Additional research is needed to assist in the quantification 
and understanding of these processes. Further, it is clear from bird-
aircraft strike data that resident Canada geese can cause significant 
aircraft safety concerns. We believe that increasingly large 
populations of geese, especially in localized areas, only serve to 
increase the uncertainty associated with these risks.
    Issue: A large number of commenters questioned the validity of 
resident Canada goose damage estimates supplied by APHIS/WS.
    Service Response: According to APHIS/WS (1999), each damage report 
received is questioned for both scope and magnitude in order to 
determine reasonable and practical solutions to reduce damage. 
Preference is given to non-lethal alternatives. However, if capture and 
euthanasia are ultimately requested or recommended, APHIS/WS makes a 
site visit to verify damage and ensure some non-lethal methods have 
been tried and were ineffective to adequately reduce the damage. We 
believe APHIS/WS's approach is appropriate.
    Issue: Several commenters believed the permit process does not 
allow adequate Federal oversight.
    Service Response: We disagree. State applications for the special 
permits require several detailed statements regarding the size of the 
resident Canada goose breeding population in the State and the number 
of resident Canada geese, including eggs and nests, to be

[[Page 32772]]

taken. In addition, the State must show that such damage-control 
actions will either provide for human health and safety or protect 
personal property, or compelling justification that the permit is 
needed to allow resolution of other conflicts between people and 
resident Canada geese. Any failure to follow these application 
procedures results in a rejected application. Further, after issuance 
of a permit, the State and its designated agents must follow the permit 
restrictions and report all activities conducted under the permit. As 
always, we retain the right to immediately revoke any permit violated. 
This process is essentially no different than the current permit-
issuance system contained in 50 CFR part 21.
    Issue: Some commenters stated that the time period associated with 
damage management control is too restrictive.
    Service Response: We acknowledge that complaints about injurious 
geese are increasing outside the time frame covered by the special 
permit. The permit program is designed to specifically address problems 
caused by resident geese during the time period when hunting seasons 
cannot be opened. We will continue to address injurious goose problems 
not covered within the permit time frame on a case-by-case basis.
    Issue: Several commenters recommended the issuance of permits for a 
period of 5 years rather than 3 years.
    Service Response: We concur that permits could reasonably be issued 
for a period of 5 years given timely submission of annual reports 
documenting the actions taken under authority of the permit. However, 
failure to submit complete annual reports may result in suspension or 
revocation of the permit.
    Issue: Several commenters recommended elimination of the paperwork 
and reporting requirements.
    Service Response: Information specific to the applicant State's 
population of resident Canada geese and the take requested is vital to 
the application and ultimate decision on a permit. The reporting 
requirement is essential for us to be able to monitor the action and 
assess possible impacts to the population. Additionally, we will 
utilize this information and other pertinent biological and population-
specific data as the basis for determining the permitted take.
    Issue: Several commenters stated that the special permit was 
unacceptable because it merely shifts costs and workload from the 
Federal level to the State level without providing additional funds to 
the States.
    Service Response: We are not obligating States to apply for this 
new permit. States may continue to handle injurious goose situations 
with the current permitting system on a case-by-case basis.
    Issue: Several commenters suggested that conditioning the permit 
whereby taking Canada geese could occur ``. . . only after applicable 
non-lethal alternatives means . . . have proven to be unsuccessful or 
not feasible'' is too restrictive.
    Service Response: We never intended that a State would need to 
prove the need for lethal control at each site before implementation of 
lethal control techniques. We believe this decision should be based on 
the experience and judgement of professional wildlife managers on-site. 
Thus, we have amended the wording of 21.26(c)(1)(I) to read as follows: 
``Take of resident Canada geese as a management tool pursuant to this 
section may not exceed the number authorized by the permit. States 
should utilize non-lethal goose management tools to the extent they 
deem appropriate in an effort to minimize lethal take.''
    Issue: Several commenters requested clarification that research 
activities are not included as a part of the proposed permit program.
    Service Response: Because the permit program is for the purpose of 
resolving injurious behavior of resident Canada geese, it is clear that 
scientific research is not covered. All researchers who are not Federal 
employees must have a scientific collecting permit to take any 
migratory birds. We believe additional wording to clarify this point is 
unnecessary.
    Issue: Several commenters requested clarification of designated 
agents and use of APHIS/WS as designated agents.
    Service Response: ``Designated agents'' means individuals or 
organizations and their employees who have written authority from the 
State wildlife management agency (permit holder) to implement State-
approved resident Canada goose control measures. Thus, States could 
utilize APHIS/WS as a designated agent.
    Issue: Some commenters were concerned that the new permit process 
does not allow more hunting opportunity.
    Service Response: The purpose of the new special permit program is 
to resolve injurious resident Canada goose problems, not create more 
hunting opportunity. More specifically, the permit program is designed 
to address problems caused by resident geese during the time period 
when hunting seasons cannot be opened. For those States wishing to 
primarily handle injurious resident populations through sport hunting, 
sufficient hunting opportunities designed to target resident Canada 
goose populations, while protecting migrant populations, exist in the 
current hunting season frameworks.
    Issue: Several commenters believed that the size of the resident 
goose population in the State has little to do with the population 
causing a problem in a localized area.
    Service Response: We designed the new special permit program to 
allow those States with widespread injurious goose problems the 
latitude to deal with those problems on a broader management basis than 
the current case-by-case basis. We believe the State wildlife agency is 
the logical authority, within the context of the new special permit's 
guidelines, to determine the proper goose management control activities 
for the State's resident Canada goose population, including those 
smaller, more localized populations. However, the new permit program 
does not preclude a State from applying for a depredation permit under 
the current permit regulations to deal with a specific localized 
injurious goose problem. In fact, we realize that injurious situations 
will continue to occur outside of the March 11 to August 31 time period 
allowed under the new permit program. We will continue to deal with 
these situations on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, as we stated 
earlier, information on the State's goose population is an essential 
part of the basis for our permit decisions and our long-term monitoring 
of the population.
    Issue: Several commenters were concerned that this action 
establishes a precedent for future actions.
    Service Response: We reiterate that this program does not establish 
a precedent for actions with future significant effects or represent a 
decision in principle about a future consideration. As we stated 
earlier, in the past, we have issued similar permits for goose control 
activities on a case-by-case or State-wide basis. States are currently 
conducting Canada goose damage management activities under these 
permits. Likewise, we have issued similar regulations, in the form of 
either depredation orders or permits, for other species, such as the 
double-crested cormorant, blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and 
magpies. Any future similar actions, either for Canada geese, or any 
other migratory bird species, would be analyzed under NEPA, with public 
involvement, on their own merits.
    Issue: A large number of commenters indicated that they are 
philosophically

[[Page 32773]]

opposed to the killing of Canada geese and any other ``inhumane'' 
treatments of these birds. They expressed preferences for non-lethal 
solutions to all resident Canada goose/human conflicts and pointed out 
that people need to be more tolerant of wildlife. Some commenters also 
opposed the removal of geese on the grounds that these management 
actions were only short-term solutions.
    Service Response: We are also opposed to the inhumane treatment of 
any birds, but do not believe the capture and relocation, or processing 
for human consumption, of resident Canada geese from human conflict 
areas is by definition ``inhumane.'' Over the past few years, States 
have rounded up thousands of problem resident Canada geese and 
relocated them to unoccupied sites. However, few such unoccupied sites 
remain. Therefore, we believe that humane lethal control of some geese 
is an appropriate part of an integrated resident Canada goose damage 
and control management program.
    We also prefer non-lethal control activities, such as habitat 
modification, as the first means of eliminating resident Canada goose 
conflict and damage problems and have specified language to this effect 
in the final regulations. However, habitat modification and other 
harassment tactics do not always work satisfactorily and lethal methods 
are sometimes necessary to increase the effectiveness of non-lethal 
management methods.
    There are many situations where resident Canada geese have created 
injurious situations and damage problems that few people would accept 
if they had to deal directly with the problem situation. We continue to 
encourage state wildlife management agencies to work with not only the 
local citizens impacted by the management actions but all citizens. 
While it is unlikely that all resident Canada goose/human conflicts can 
be eliminated in all urban settings, implementation of broad-scale 
resident Canada goose management activities may result in an overall 
reduced need for other management actions, such as large-scale goose 
round-ups and lethal control.
    Issue: Some commenters indicated that they were concerned about the 
potential loss of aesthetic value if Canada geese were removed from 
areas.
    Service Response: While we attempted to consider the views of all 
those concerned, we admit that this was difficult given the highly 
variable values people place on geese and other wildlife. Some 
commenters conveyed their pleasure and appreciation for being able to 
see geese locally in their neighborhood. However, we must weigh these 
benefits with the views of other commenters who wanted to see fewer 
geese because of the damage, including loss in the aesthetic value, 
being caused by excessive numbers of geese on personal and public 
property .
    Issue: Several commenters believed that the special permit fell far 
short of providing the States with more authority and less burdensome 
regulations. Further, it does not provide States with enough management 
flexibility. They believed a depredation order approach would be a more 
cost-effective/efficient means to manage injurious resident Canada 
Geese.
    Service Response: As we indicated in the proposed rule, we included 
the depredation order alternative in the EA. However, while we agree 
that depredation orders in other circumstances have proven to be 
valuable tools in wildlife damage management, we believe that 
management of resident Canada geese deserves special attention and 
consideration which, at this time, is best provided by the special 
Canada goose permit program. We believe that the special Canada goose 
permit program will provide the management flexibility needed to 
address this serious problem and at the same time simplify the 
procedures needed to administer this program. The special Canada goose 
permit program will satisfy the need for an efficient and cost-
effective program while allowing us to maintain management control.
    However, in the long-term, we realize that more management 
flexibility will likely be necessary. Because of the unique locations 
where large numbers of these geese nest, feed, and reside, we believe 
that new and innovative approaches to dealing with bird/human conflicts 
will be needed. In order to best deal with this problem, we have begun 
to develop a short-term and long-term strategy. In the short-term, 
these regulations to create and issue a new special permit specifically 
for resident Canada goose control and damage management will 
significantly reduce Service administrative costs for this activity, 
provide quicker response to injurious situation and more effectively 
control resident Canada goose populations throughout the conterminous 
United States. In the long-term, we have recently begun the initial 
groundwork, with the full assistance and cooperation of the Flyway 
Councils and APHIS/WS, to integrate our management of these birds into 
a larger Flyway management plan system. We believe the end result of 
this approach should provide States with more management flexibility 
and authority to deal with resident Canada geese within their State 
while increasing the commitment to establish population goals and 
objectives, management planning, and population monitoring.

References

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services (Formerly 
Animal Damage Control). 1992. 1991 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, 
D.C.

________. 1994. 1993 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.
________. 1996. 1995 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.
________. 1997. 1996 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.
________. 1998. 1997 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.
________. 1999. Environmental assessment for the management of 
conflicts with non-migratory (resident) Canada geese, migratory 
Canada geese, and urban/suburban ducks in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia. APHIS/WS, Moseley, VA. 65 pp. + app.
Ankney, C. D. 1996. An embarrassment of riches: Too many geese. J. 
Wildl. Manage. 60(2): 217-223.
Conover, M. R., and G. G. Chasko. 1985. Nuisance Canada goose 
problems in the eastern United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13(3):228-
233.
Gosser, A. L., and M. R. Conover. 1999. Will the availability of 
insular nesting sites limit reproduction in urban Canada goose 
populations? J. Wildl. Manage. 63(1):369-373.
Kelley, J. R., D. F. Caithamer, and K. A. Wilkins. 1998. Waterfowl 
population status, 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department 
of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 31 pp. + appendices.
Lack, D. 1974. Evolution Illustrated by Waterfowl. Blackwell 
Scientific Publications. Oxford, London. 96 pp.
Manny, B. A., W. C. Johnson, and R. G. Wetzel. 1994. Nutrient 
additives by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs: predicting their 
effects on productivity and water quality. Hydrobiologia 279:121-
132.
Nelson, H. K. and R. B. Oetting. 1998. Giant Canada goose flocks in 
the United States. Pages 483-495 in D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D. 
Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and management of Canada 
geese. Proceedings of the International Canada Goose Symposium, 
Milwaukee, WI.
Rusch, D. H., R. E. Malecki, and R. E. Trost. 1995. Canada geese in 
North America. Pages 26-28 in LaRoe, E. T., G. S. Farris, C. E. 
Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac. Editors. OUR LIVING RESOURCES: 
A report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of 
U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the 
Interior, National Biological Service. Washington, D.C. 530 pp.
Sheaffer, S. E. and R. A. Malecki. 1998. Status of Atlantic Flyway 
resident nesting Canada geese. Pages 29-34 in D. H. Rusch, M. D. 
Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and 
management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the

[[Page 32774]]

International Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.
Wood, J. C., D. H. Rusch, and M. Samuel. 1994. Results of the 1994 
spring survey of giant Canada goose survey in the Mississippi 
Flyway. U.W. Co-op Unit. 9 pp. (mimeo).
Zenner, G. G., and T. G. LaGrange. 1998. Densities and fates of 
Canada goose nests on islands in north-central Iowa. Pages 53-60 in 
D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. 
Biology and management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the 
International Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.

Effective Date

    Under the Administrative Procedures Act (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 so this rule will take effect immediately upon publication. It 
is not in the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. 
In many parts of the country, especially the northeastern and mid-
western States, locally-breeding Canada geese have already nested and 
produced broods. Molting will soon take place (typically mid-June to 
mid-July) and any delay in the effective date of this rule could reduce 
the effectiveness of potential damage management actions for this year. 
It is in the best interest of the public to establish this new special 
permit program to allow State wildlife agencies the ability to reduce 
the number and frequency of injurious resident Canada geese. It is also 
in the best interest of the public to provide alternative regulatory 
options to address the problem of overabundant resident Canada geese 
that may affect the public's health and safety.

NEPA Considerations

    We prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), as defined under the 
authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in 
connection with this regulation. Based on review and evaluation of the 
information contained in the EA, we determined that the proposed action 
to amend 50 CFR Part 21 to establish a special Canada goose permit for 
the control and management of resident Canada geese would not be 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 and determined that 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. The 
EA is available to the public at the location indicated under the 
ADDRESSES caption.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that, ``The Secretary shall 
review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in 
furtherance of the purposes of this Act'' (and) shall ``ensure that any 
action authorized, funded or carried out * * * is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of (critical) habitat * * *'' Consequently, we initiated Section 7 
consultation under the ESA for this rulemaking. You may inspect 
completed results of our consultation under Section 7 of the ESA at the 
location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d)), we submitted the necessary paperwork to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for approval to collect the information 
required by the applicant and permittee. Under the Act, OMB must 
approve information collections. After review, OMB approved the 
information collection requirements of the Special Canada Goose Permit 
and assigned clearance number 1018-0099. We will use the information 
collection requirement to administer this program and in the issuance 
and monitoring of these special permits. Federal agencies may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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. We 
determined that this rulemaking would not have a significant effect on 
a substantial number of small entities, which include small businesses, 
organizations and small governmental jurisdiction. This rule will only 
effect State wildlife agencies responsible for migratory bird 
management that wish to initiate a resident Canada goose control and 
damage management program within our guidelines. We anticipate that 
less than 45 applicants will annually apply. Therefore, this rule will 
have minimal effect on small entities.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

Executive Order 12866

    We determined that this rule is not significant under the 
definition in Executive Order 12866, and therefore, not subject to OMB 
review.

Unfunded Mandates

    We 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.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    The Department, in promulgating this rule, determined that these 
regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
    Accordingly, we hereby amend part 21 of subchapter B, chapter I, 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 21--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Amend Sec. 21.3 by adding alphabetically definitions for 
``Resident Canada geese'' and ``Service.''


Sec. 21.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the 
conterminous United States and/or Canada geese which reside within the 
conterminous United States during the months of June, July, or August.
    Service or we means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department 
of the Interior.
    3. Add a new Sec. 21.26 to read as follows:


Sec. 21.26.  Special Canada goose permit.

    (a) What is the special Canada goose permit and what is its 
purpose? The special Canada goose permit is a permit issued by us to a 
State wildlife agency authorizing certain resident Canada goose 
management and control activities

[[Page 32775]]

that are normally prohibited. We will only issue such a permit when it 
will contribute to human health and safety, protect personal property, 
or allow resolution or prevention of injury to people or property. The 
management and control activities conducted under the permit are 
intended to relieve or prevent injurious situations only. No person 
should construe the permit as opening, reopening, or extending any 
hunting season contrary to any regulations established under Section 3 
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    (b) Who may receive a permit? Only State wildlife agencies (State) 
are eligible to receive a permit to undertake the various goose 
management and control activities. Additionally, only employees or 
designated agents of a permitted State wildlife agency may undertake 
activities for injurious resident Canada geese in accordance with the 
conditions specified in the permit, conditions contained in 50 CFR part 
13, and conditions specified in paragraph (d) of this section.
    (c) How does a State apply for a permit? Any State wildlife agency 
wishing to obtain a permit must submit an application to the 
appropriate Regional Director (see Sec. 13.11(b) of this subchapter) 
containing the general information and certification required by 
Sec. 13.12(a) of this subchapter plus the following information:
    (1) A detailed statement showing that the goose management and 
control activities will either provide for human health and safety, 
protect personal property, or allow resolution of other injury to 
people or property;
    (2) An estimate of the size of the resident Canada goose breeding 
population in the State;
    (3) The requested annual take of resident Canada geese, including 
eggs and nests;
    (4) A statement indicating that the State will inform and brief all 
employees and designated agents of the requirements of these 
regulations and permit conditions.
    (d) What are the conditions of the permit? The special Canada goose 
permits are subject to the general conditions in 50 CFR part 13, the 
conditions elsewhere in this section, and, unless otherwise 
specifically authorized on the permit, the conditions outlined below:
    (1) What are the limitations on management and control activities? 
(i) Take of resident Canada geese as a management tool under this 
section may not exceed the number authorized by the permit. States 
should utilize non-lethal goose management tools to the extent they 
deem appropriate in an effort to minimize lethal take.
    (ii) Methods of take for the control of injurious resident Canada 
geese are at the State's discretion. Methods include, but are not 
limited to, firearms, alpha-chloralose, traps, egg and nest 
manipulation and other damage control techniques consistent with 
accepted wildlife damage-management programs.
    (2) When may a State conduct management and control activities? 
States and their employees and agents may conduct management and 
control activities, including the take of resident Canada geese, under 
this section between March 11 and August 31. In California, Oregon and 
Washington, in areas where the threatened Aleutian Canada goose (B. c. 
leucoperia) has been present during the previous 10 years, lethal 
control activities are restricted to May 1 through August 31, 
inclusive.
    (3) How must the States dispose or utilize geese taken under this 
permit? States and their employees and agents may possess, transport, 
and otherwise dispose of Canada geese taken under this section. States 
must utilize such birds by donation to public museums or public 
institutions for scientific or educational purposes, by processing them 
for human consumption and distributing them free of charge to 
charitable organizations, or by burying or incinerating them. States, 
their employees, and designated agents may not sell, offer for sale, 
barter, or ship for the purpose of sale or barter any Canada geese 
taken under this section, nor their plumage or eggs.
    (4) How does the permit relate to existing State law? No person 
conducting management and control activities under this section should 
construe the permit to authorize the killing of injurious resident 
Canada geese contrary to any State law or regulation, nor on any 
Federal land without specific authorization by the responsible 
management agency. No person may exercise the privileges granted under 
this section unless they possess any permits required for such 
activities by any State or Federal land manager.
    (5) When conducting management and control activities, are there 
any special inspection requirements? Any State employee or designated 
agent authorized to carry out management and control activities must 
have a copy of the permit and designation in their possession when 
carrying out any activities. The State must also require the property 
owner or occupant on whose premises the State is conducting activities 
to allow, at all reasonable times, including during actual operations, 
free and unrestricted access to any Service special agent or refuge 
officer, State wildlife or deputy wildlife agent, warden, protector, or 
other wildlife law enforcement officer (wildlife officer) on the 
premises where they are, or were, conducting activities. Furthermore, 
any State employee or designated agent conducting such activities must 
promptly furnish whatever information is required concerning such 
activities to any such wildlife officer.
    (6) What are the reporting requirements of the permit? Any State 
employee or designated agent exercising the privileges granted by this 
section must keep records of all activities carried out under the 
authority of this permit, including the number of Canada geese killed 
and their disposition. The State must submit an annual report detailing 
activities, including the time, numbers and location of birds, eggs, 
and nests taken and non-lethal techniques utilized, before December 31 
of each year. The State should submit the annual report to the 
appropriate Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and Wildlife (see 
Sec. 10.22 of this subchapter).
    (7) What are the limitations of the special permit? The following 
limitations apply:
    (i) Nothing in this section applies to any Federal land within a 
State's boundaries without written permission of the Federal Agency 
with jurisdiction.
    (ii) States may not undertake any actions under any permit issued 
under this section if the activities adversely affect other migratory 
birds or species designated as endangered or threatened under the 
authority of the Endangered Species Act.
    (iii) We will only issue permits to State wildlife agencies in the 
conterminous United States.
    (iv) States may designate agents who must operate under the 
conditions of the permit.
    (v) How long is the special permit valid? A special Canada goose 
permit issued or renewed under this section expires on the date 
designated on the face of the permit unless it is amended or revoked or 
such time that we determine that the State's population of resident 
Canada geese no longer poses a threat to human health or safety, 
personal property, or injury to other interests. In all cases, the term 
of the permit may not exceed five (5) years from the date of issuance 
or renewal.
    (vi) Can we revoke the special permit? We reserve the right to 
suspend or revoke any permit, as specified in Sec. 13.27 and Sec. 13.28 
of this subchapter.

[[Page 32776]]

    (e) What are the OMB information collection requirements of the 
permit program? OMB has approved the information collection 
requirements of the permit and assigned clearance number 1018-0099. 
Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. We will use the information 
collection requirements to administer this program and in the issuance 
and monitoring of these special permits. We will require the 
information from State wildlife agencies responsible for migratory bird 
management in order to obtain a special Canada goose permit, and to 
determine if the applicant meets all the permit issuance criteria, and 
to protect migratory birds. We estimate the public reporting burden for 
this collection of information to average 8 hours per response for 45 
respondents (States), including the time for reviewing instructions, 
gathering and maintaining data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. Thus, we estimate the total annual reporting 
and record-keeping for this collection to be 360 hours. States may send 
comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 
burden, to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish 
and Wildlife Service, ms 224-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, DC 
20240, or the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction 
Project 1018-0099, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: June 9, 1999
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 99-15408 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P