[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 160 (Thursday, August 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45269-45274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-21472]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Migratory Bird Permits; Notice of Intent To Prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement on Resident Canada 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) for resident Canada 
goose management under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 
The EIS will consider a range of management alternatives for addressing 
expanding populations of locally-breeding Canada geese that are 
increasingly posing threats to health and human safety and injuring 
personal and public property. This notice describes possible 
alternatives, invites public participation in the scoping process for 
preparing the EIS, and identifies the Service official to whom you may 
direct questions and comments. While we have yet to determine potential 
sites of public scoping meetings, we will publish a notice of any such 
public meetings with the locations, dates, and times in the Federal 
Register.

DATES: You must submit written comments regarding EIS scoping by 
October 18, 1999, to the address below.

ADDRESSES: You should send written comments 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. All comments received, including names and addresses, will 
become part of the public record. You may inspect comments during 
normal business hours in room 634--Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Andrew, Chief, or Ron W. 
Kokel, 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. These geese are usually referred to as ``resident'' Canada 
geese. Recent surveys in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways 
suggest that the resident breeding population now exceeds 1 million 
individuals in both the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways is increasing 
dramatically. Because resident Canada geese live in temperate climates 
with relatively stable breeding habitat conditions and low numbers of 
predators, tolerate human and other disturbances, have a relative 
abundance of preferred habitat provided by current urban/suburban 
landscaping techniques, and fly relatively short distances to winter 
compared with other Canada goose populations, they exhibit a 
consistently high annual production and survival. Given these 
characteristics, the absence of waterfowl hunting in many of these 
areas, and free food handouts by some people, these urban/suburban 
resident Canada goose populations are increasingly coming into conflict 
with human activities in many parts of the country.
    Conflicts between geese and people affect or damage several types 
of resources, including property, human health and safety, agriculture, 
and natural resources. Common problem areas include 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, 
residential subdivisions, and along or between highways.
    Property damage usually involves landscaping and walkways, most 
commonly on golf courses and waterfront property. In parks and other 
open areas near water, large goose flocks create local problems 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 both the 
aesthetic value and recreational use of these areas (Conover and 
Chasko, 1985).
    Negative impacts on human health and safety occur in several ways. 
At airports, large numbers of geese can create a very serious threat to 
aviation. Resident Canada geese have been involved in a large number of 
aircraft strikes resulting in dangerous landing/take-off conditions and 
costly repairs. As a result, many airports have active goose control 
programs. Excessive goose droppings are a disease concern for many 
people. Public beaches in several States have been closed due to 
excessive fecal coliform levels that in some cases have been traced 
back to geese and other waterfowl. Additionally, during nesting and 
brood rearing, aggressive geese have bitten and chased people.
    Agricultural and natural resource impacts include losses to grain 
crops, overgrazing of pastures, and degrading water quality. 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.
    Until recently, we 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 provided 
relief in some areas, it did not completely address the problem. On 
June 17, we published a final rule in the Federal Register (64 FR 
32766) establishing a new special Canada goose permit. The new permits 
are specifically for the management and control of resident Canada 
geese. 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 and restrictions of the 
permit program. The permits, while restricted to the period between 
March 11 and August 31, 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 and local level, 
thereby resulting in more responsive and timely control activities. The 
new special permits

[[Page 45270]]

further result in biologically sound and more cost-effective and 
efficient resident Canada goose damage management. Overall, the new 
permit will provide some additional management flexibility needed to 
address this serious problem and at the same time simplify the 
procedures needed to administer this program. In the short term, we 
believe this permit will satisfy the need for an efficient/cost-
effective program while allowing us to maintain management control.
    In the long-term, however, 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 continue 
to believe that new and innovative approaches and strategies for 
dealing with bird/human conflicts will be needed. We have recently 
begun the initial work, with the full assistance and cooperation of the 
Flyway Councils and the Wildlife Services program of the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS/WS), to develop a long-term 
strategy to integrate our management of these birds into a larger 
Flyway management plan system. In order to properly examine alternative 
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, the preparation of an EIS is necessary.

Resident Canada Goose Populations

    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 a higher reproductive and adult survival rate. 
While arctic and subarctic Canada goose survival and reproduction are 
greatly influenced by weather conditions, resident geese live in more 
temperate climates with relatively stable breeding habitat conditions 
and low numbers of predators. 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 offers resident geese a relative abundance of 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.
    In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest 
predominantly within the conterminous United States have increased 
tremendously. Recent surveys in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central 
Flyways (Wood et al., 1994; Kelley et al., 1998; Nelson and Oetting, 
1998; Sheaffer and Malecki, 1998; Wilkins and Cooch, 1999) suggest that 
the resident breeding population now exceeds 1 million individuals in 
both the Atlantic (17 States) and Mississippi (14 States) Flyways. 
Available information shows that in the Atlantic Flyway, the resident 
population has increased an average of 14 percent per year since 1989. 
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. In the Central and Pacific Flyways, populations of resident 
Canada geese have similarly increased over the last few years. For 
example, in the Puget Sound area of Washington, a 10-year trend shows 
an increase from 3,110 geese in 1988 to 13,512 geese in 1997, an 
increase of 434%. We remain concerned about the rapid growth rate 
exhibited by these already large populations.

Current Management Actions

    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, the 
issuance of depredation permits allowing specific control activities, 
and the creation of a new special Canada goose permit.

(1) Special Hunting Seasons

    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. The original intent of these special seasons 
was to provide additional harvest opportunities on resident Canada 
geese while minimizing impacts to migrant geese. Initially, we 
considered all such seasons experimental, pending a thorough review of 
the data gathered by the participating State. We presently offer 
special seasons targeting 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.
    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 over 272,000 in 1998. In the Mississippi Flyway, 
11 of 14 States hold special Canada goose seasons, and harvest has 
increased from slightly more than 1,000 in 1981 to over 275,000 in 
1998. Both Minnesota and Michigan currently harvest in excess of 70,000 
locally-breeding Canada geese per year. While the harvest 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 almost 40,000 in 1998. Putting these harvest numbers in 
perspective, Martin and Padding (1999) estimated that hunters harvested 
a total of 2,038,700 Canada geese last year in the U.S. Thus, 
conservatively, resident Canada geese now comprise roughly 30% of the 
total Canada goose harvest in the U.S. (587,000 of 2,038,700). However, 
despite these dramatic increases in harvest over the last 10 years, 
from less than 24,000 in 1988 to over 587,000 last year (a 24-fold 
increase), populations continue to increase in all Flyways.
    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 management tool of choice 
for dealing with most resident Canada goose conflicts, we realized 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.

(2) Depredation Permits

    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 require a 
Federal migratory bird permit. These permits are issued in coordination 
with APHIS/WS. APHIS/WS is the Federal Agency with lead responsibility 
for dealing with wildlife damage complaints. In some instances, APHIS/
WS may do the goose damage management work directly or they may

[[Page 45271]]

serve as agents working under authority of private and/or State 
permits.
    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 public-health and damage-
management programs. This increased need for assistance places greater 
demand on the current permit-issuance system. Unfortunately, 
administrative 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 case-by-case permit issuance system can be time-
consuming, cumbersome and inefficient for us and the States.
    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, 1998). 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%). 
Comparing these figures with previous years' data shows a steady 
increase in complaints since 1991. In 1991 APHIS/WS received 1,698 
complaints of injurious Canada goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1992). In 
response to those complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 92 permits.
    Thus, our permit issuance has 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, 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 over the 
last 5 years, Region 3 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, before vacating 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.

(3) Special Canada goose permits

    On June 17, we published in the Federal Register (64 FR 32766) a 
final rule establishing a new special Canada goose permit. Designed 
specifically for the management and control of resident Canada geese, 
the new permits are only available to State conservation or wildlife 
management agencies on a State-specific basis. Under the permits, 
States and their designated agents can initiate resident goose damage 
management and control injury problems within the conditions and 
restrictions of the permit program. The permits, while restricted to 
the period between March 11 and August 31, 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 
and local level, thereby resulting in more responsive and timely 
control activities. 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 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. Briefly, some of 
the more pertinent restrictions in the new permits are:

    1. State wildlife agencies (States) may take injurious resident 
Canada geese as a management tool but 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 and 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.
    4. States must conduct control activities clearly as such (e.g., 
they cannot be set up to provide a hunting opportunity).
    5. 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.
    6. States may use their own discretion for methods of take but 
utilized methods should

[[Page 45272]]

be consistent with accepted wildlife-damage management programs.
    7. States may designate agents who must operate under the 
conditions of the State's permit.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    Before establishing the special Canada goose permit, we conducted 
an analysis of the environmental effects and a lengthy public 
involvement process. The process began with a September 3, 1996, notice 
of availability of a ``Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on Permits 
for Control of Injurious Canada Geese and Request for Comments on 
Potential Regulations'', we published in the Federal Register (61 FR 
46431). The notice advised the public that we had prepared a DEA and 
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. Based on review and 
evaluation of comments by the public and information contained in the 
Environmental Assessment, we revised the final rule and determined that 
the action 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. The EA and Finding of 
No Significant Impact are available to the public at the location 
indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.
    We believe the new special permits established by the June 17 rule 
further results in biologically sound and more cost-effective and 
efficient resident Canada goose damage management. Overall, the new 
permit will provide some additional management flexibility needed to 
address this serious problem and at the same time simplify the 
procedures needed to administer this program. In the short term, we 
believe this permit will satisfy the need for an efficient/cost-
effective program while allowing us to maintain management control. To 
date, several States have applied for the new permits.

Alternatives

    We are considering the following alternatives. 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 strategies would be authorized. We would continue the use of special 
hunting seasons, the issuance of depredation permits, and the issuance 
of special Canada goose permits. These permits would continue to be 
issued under existing regulations.
    For each of the next 5 alternatives, as a baseline for comparison, 
we would continue the use of special hunting seasons, the issuance of 
depredation permits, and the issuance of special Canada goose permits. 
All of these permits would continue to be issued under existing 
regulations.

B. Increased Promotion of Non-Lethal Control and Management

    Under this alternative, we would actively promote the increased use 
of non-lethal management tools, such as habitat manipulation and 
management, harassment techniques, and trapping and relocation. While 
permits would continue to be issued under existing regulations, no 
additional regulatory methods or strategies would be introduced.

C. Nest and Egg Depredation Order

    This alternative would provide a direct population control strategy 
for resident Canada goose breeding areas in the U.S. This alternative 
would establish a depredation order authorizing States to implement a 
program allowing the take of nests and eggs to stabilize resident 
Canada goose populations without threatening their long-term health. 
Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place, or would be required, 
to estimate population sizes and prevent populations from falling below 
either the lower management thresholds established by Flyway Councils, 
or individual State population objectives. Since the goal of this 
alternative would be to stabilize breeding populations, not direct 
reduction, no appreciable reduction in the numbers of adult Canada 
geese would likely occur.

D. Depredation Order for Health and Human Safety

    This alternative would establish a depredation order authorizing 
States to establish and implement a program allowing the take of 
resident Canada goose adults, goslings, nests and eggs from populations 
posing threats to health and human safety. The intent of this 
alternative is to significantly reduce or stabilize resident Canada 
goose populations at areas such as airports, water supply reservoirs, 
and other such areas, where there is a demonstrated threat to health 
and human safety, without threatening the population's long-term 
health. Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place, or would be 
required, to estimate population sizes and prevent populations from 
falling below either the lower management thresholds established by 
Flyway Councils, or individual State population objectives. Under this 
alternative, some appreciable localized reductions in the numbers of 
adult geese could occur.

E. Conservation Order

    This alternative would authorize direct population control 
strategies such as nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping 
and culling programs, or other general population reduction strategies 
on resident Canada goose populations in the U.S. This alternative would 
establish a conservation order authorizing States to develop and 
implement a program allowing the take of geese posing threats to health 
and human safety and damaging personal and public property. The intent 
of this

[[Page 45273]]

alternative is to significantly reduce or stabilize resident Canada 
goose populations at areas where conflicts are occurring without 
threatening the long-term health of the overall population. Monitoring 
and evaluation programs are in place, or would be required, to estimate 
population sizes and prevent populations from falling below either the 
lower management thresholds established by Flyway Councils, or 
individual State population objectives. State breeding populations 
would be monitored annually each spring to determine the maximum 
allowable take under the conservation order. Under this alternative, 
some appreciable localized reductions in the numbers of adult geese 
would likely occur and lesser overall population reductions could 
occur.

F. General Depredation Order

    This alternative would authorize direct population control 
strategies such as nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping 
and culling programs, or other general population reduction strategies 
on resident Canada goose populations in the U.S. This alternative would 
establish a depredation order allowing any authorized person to take 
geese posing threats to health and human safety and damaging personal 
and public property. The intent of this alternative is to significantly 
reduce resident Canada goose populations at areas where conflicts are 
occurring. Monitoring and evaluation programs are in place, or would be 
required, to estimate population sizes and prevent populations from 
falling below either the lower management thresholds established by 
Flyway Councils, or individual State population objectives. Under this 
alternative, some appreciable localized reductions in the numbers of 
adult geese would likely occur and lesser overall population reductions 
could occur.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Increased promotion of   Nest and egg depredation   Health and human safety
                                          No action            non-lethal control               order               depredation order        Conservation order       General depredation order
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continued use of Special seasons  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
Continued use of Depredation      Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
 permits.
Continued use of Special Canada   Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
 goose permits.
Promotion of non-lethal control   Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
 and management.
Goal: Reduction or stabilization  Stabilization...........  Stabilization...........  Stabilization...........  Both....................  Both....................  Both.
 of population.
Additional take of nests and      No......................  No......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
 eggs.
Additional take of adults and     No......................  No......................  No......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
 goslings.
Additional population monitoring  No......................  No......................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.....................  Yes.
Implementation authority given    n/a.....................  n/a.....................  States..................  States..................  States..................  Affected parties.
 to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 resident Canada goose populations will be analyzed. We 
will prepare a discussion of the potential effect, by alternative, 
which will include the following areas:
    (1) Resident Canada goose populations and their habitats.
    (2) Human health and safety.
    (3) Public and private property damage and conflicts.
    (4) Sport hunting opportunities.
    (5) Socioeconomic effects.
    We will conduct the environmental review of the management action 
in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental 
Policy Act, as appropriate. We are furnishing this
Notice 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 spring of 2000.

Public Scoping Meetings

    A schedule of public scoping meeting dates, locations, and times is 
not available at this time. We will publish a notice of any such 
meetings in the Federal Register.

References Cited

Animal Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services (formerly 
Animal Damage Control). 1992. 1991 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, 
Washington, D.C.
------. 1998. 1997 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.
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.
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.
Martin, E. M., and P. I. Padding. 1999. Preliminary estimates of 
waterfowl harvest and hunter activity in the United States during 
the 1998 hunting season. Administrative report, July 1999. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 
34 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 International Canada 
Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.
Wilkins, K. A., and E. G. Cooch. 1999. Waterfowl population status, 
1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of

[[Page 45274]]

the Interior, Washington, D.C. 33 pp. + appendices.
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.

    Dated: August 11, 1999.
John G. Rogers,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 99-21472 Filed 8-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P