[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15643-15656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-6894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AF42


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To 
Remove the Aleutian Canada Goose From the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have determined that 
the Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) is no longer 
an endangered or threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973 (Act), as amended. This determination is based on available 
data indicating that the population of Aleutian Canada goose in North 
America has recovered, primarily as a result of four activities: the 
removal of introduced arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus) and red foxes 
(Vulpes vulpes) from some of its nesting islands; the release of 
captive-reared and wild, translocated family groups of geese to fox-
free islands to establish new breeding colonies; protection of the 
Aleutian Canada goose throughout its range from mortality due to 
hunting and disease; and protection and management of migration and 
wintering habitat. This action removes the Aleutian Canada goose from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, thereby eliminating the 
regulatory protection offered by the Act, but would not affect 
protection provided to the subspecies by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 
Fauna and Flora (CITES), or State laws and regulations. Section 4(g) of 
the Act requires us to implement a system in cooperation with the 
States to monitor a recovered species for at least 5 years following 
delisting. This rule includes the outline of a monitoring plan for the 
Aleutian Canada goose.

DATES: This rule is effective March 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: The administrative file for this rule is available for 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office--Anchorage, 
605 West 4th Avenue, Room G-61, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 (telephone 
(907) 271-2888).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Rappoport or Greg Balogh at (907) 
271-2888 or the above address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Aleutian Canada goose is a small, island nesting subspecies of 
Canada goose. Morphologically (in form), it resembles other small 
Canada goose subspecies, but nearly all Aleutian Canada geese surviving 
past their first winter have a distinct white neck ring at the base of 
a black neck. Other distinguishing characteristics include an abrupt 
forehead, separation of the white cheek patches by black feathering 
along the throat in most individuals, and a narrow border of dark 
feathering at the base of the white neck ring. The Aleutian Canada 
goose is the only subspecies of Canada goose whose range once included 
both North America and Asia (Amaral 1985). It formerly nested in the 
northern Kuril and Commander islands, in the Aleutian Archipelago and 
on islands south of the Alaska Peninsula east to near Kodiak Island. 
The species formerly wintered in Japan, and in the coastal western 
United States south to Mexico. Delacour (1954) considered coastal 
British Columbia within the former wintering range of this subspecies; 
however, there are no bona fide records of Aleutian Canada geese from 
this area (P. Springer, pers. comm. 1999).
    The decline of the Aleutian Canada goose was primarily the result 
of the introduction of Arctic foxes (Alopex lagopus) and, to a lesser 
extent, red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) to its breeding islands for the 
purpose of developing a fur industry. Between 1750 and 1936, Arctic and 
red foxes were introduced to more than 190 islands within the breeding 
range of the Aleutian Canada goose in Alaska (Bailey 1993). Several 
life-cycle stages of the goose, including eggs, goslings, and 
flightless, molting geese are vulnerable to predation by foxes. The 
decrease of Aleutian Canada geese on Agattu Island between 1906, when 
they were termed the most abundant bird (Clark 1910), and 1937, when 
only a few pairs were observed (Murie 1959), attests to the precipitous 
nature of their decline. At the time of its listing as endangered in 
1967, its known breeding range was limited to Buldir Island, a small, 
isolated island in the western Aleutian Islands (Jones 1963). A 
historical record indicates that Arctic foxes were introduced to Buldir 
Island in 1924, but this is either incorrect or the introduction failed 
to establish a population (Bailey 1993).
    Hunting throughout its range in the Pacific Flyway, especially on 
the migration and wintering range in California, and loss and 
alteration of habitat on its migration and wintering range also 
contributed to the subspecies' decline. Hunting was likely a limiting 
factor when populations were low.
    In response to reduced population levels, we classified the 
Aleutian Canada goose as endangered on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001). 
Congress afforded additional protection with passage of the Endangered 
Species Act of 1973. We approved a recovery plan for the Aleutian 
Canada goose in 1979 and revised it in 1982 and 1991 (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1991). We began recovery activities in 1974. Important 
features of the recovery program in Alaska and the western United 
States included: banding of birds on the breeding grounds to identify 
important wintering and migration areas; closure of principal wintering 
and migration areas to hunting of all Canada geese; acquisition, 
protection, and management of important wintering and migration 
habitat; removal of foxes from potential nesting islands; propagation 
and release of captive Aleutian Canada geese on fox-free nesting 
islands in the Aleutians; and translocation of molting family groups of 
wild geese from Buldir Island to other fox-free islands in the 
Aleutians.
    At the time of its listing, data on which to base a population 
estimate of Aleutian Canada geese were limited. Boeker (in Kenyon 1963) 
speculated during a 1963 expedition that only 200-300 birds were on 
Buldir Island. We believed breeding birds to be confined to that one 
island, and the migration routes and wintering range were unknown. A 
spring count at a principal migration stopover near Crescent City, 
California, in 1975 revealed 790 individuals (Springer et al. 1978).
    We subsequently found small breeding groups of Aleutian Canada 
geese on Kiliktagik Island in the Semidi Islands south of the Alaska 
Peninsula in 1979 (Hatch and Hatch 1983), and on Chagulak Island in the 
central Aleutians in 1982 (Bailey and Trapp 1984). Geese from Chagulak 
Island are morphologically identical to those from the western 
Aleutians. Semidi Islands geese are morphologically similar to geese 
from the Aleutian Islands but tend to have darker breasts, more 
variable

[[Page 15644]]

neck rings and a less distinct subtending line below the neck ring (D. 
Pitkin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1999). Genetic 
studies indicate that geese from both Chagulak Island and the Semidi 
Islands are more closely related to Aleutian Canada geese than other 
Canada goose subspecies (Shields and Wilson 1987; Pierson et al. 2000). 
We consider the Chagulak Island and Semidi Islands geese to be remnant 
populations of the previously more continuously distributed Aleutian 
Canada goose.
    Marking of Aleutian Canada geese on Buldir Island beginning in 
1974, and later on Chagulak Island and Kiliktagik Island, helped reveal 
their wintering range and migration routes. These marking studies 
indicate that there are two, relatively discrete breeding segments of 
Aleutian Canada geese--the Aleutian Islands segment, including birds 
from Chagulak Island and the western Aleutian Islands, and the Semidi 
Islands segment. A recent genetic study found that geese from the 
Semidi Islands are genetically distinct from geese from the western 
Aleutian Islands, indicating limited contemporary gene flow and/or 
major shifts in gene frequency through genetic drift (the random change 
in gene frequencies in small populations due to chance) (Pierson et al. 
2000).
    Most Aleutian Canada geese that nest in the Aleutian Islands winter 
in California, primarily on agricultural lands where they feed on 
grass, waste beans, and grain, including corn and sprouting winter 
wheat (Woolington et al. 1979, Dahl 1995, Springer and Lowe 1998). They 
arrive on the wintering grounds in mid-October. Some geese stop in the 
Crescent City area in coastal northwest California, but most continue 
on to the vicinities of Colusa in the Sacramento Valley and Modesto in 
the northern San Joaquin Valley. The lands used by Aleutian Canada 
geese near Colusa, California, are primarily privately owned farms and 
Reclamation District (local government) land. The 733-acre Butte Sink 
National Wildlife Refuge in the Colusa area is actively managed to 
attract geese and other waterfowl.
    By mid-December, nearly all Aleutian Canada geese are near Modesto, 
where they winter primarily on two privately owned ranches and on the 
adjacent San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge. In previous years, 
a large proportion of geese from the Modesto area would periodically 
shift southward to the nearby Grassland Ecological Area near Los Banos 
and Gustine. The lands in the Grassland Ecological Area are owned by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service, State of California, and private duck 
hunting clubs. Recently, up to several thousand geese have been using 
night roosts on private duck hunting clubs in this area.
    Small numbers of Aleutian Canada geese from the Aleutian Islands 
stop near El Sobrante on lands owned by a public utility in north San 
Francisco Bay in late fall and early winter before continuing on to 
Modesto. The number of birds observed at El Sobrante has steadily 
declined in recent years from a high of 140 geese in 1985 to a low of 8 
birds in 1997. Twenty-one Aleutian Canada geese were observed there in 
early 1998 (Dunne 1998). Small numbers of wintering Aleutian Canada 
geese have been occasionally observed in northwestern California near 
Crescent City, on the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, and on the 
Eel River bottoms (P. Springer, pers. comm. 1999). Six hundred Aleutian 
Canada geese wintered in the Crescent City area in 1997-1998 (Fisher 
1998).
    Small numbers of Aleutian Canada geese also occasionally appear in 
other areas, especially during migration. The most frequent of these 
areas include Willapa Bay in south coastal Washington, the Willamette 
Valley in Oregon, Humboldt Bay and vicinity in northern California, and 
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in San Francisco Bay, California. See 
Springer and Lowe (1998) for a more thorough discussion of the 
distribution of Aleutian Canada geese and factors affecting their 
distribution.
    On the northward migration in spring, most Aleutian Canada geese 
stage near Crescent City, where the birds roost nightly on Castle Rock, 
an offshore island protected as a National Wildlife Refuge. Some geese 
also roost on nearby Prince Island, which is owned by the Tolowa 
Indians, and on Goat Rock, a unit of the Oregon Islands National 
Wildlife Refuge, just north of the California/Oregon border. During the 
day birds graze on privately owned farms in the Smith River bottoms and 
on lands owned and managed by the State of California. In recent years, 
Aleutian Canada geese have been departing the Crescent City area 
increasingly early in spring and spending several weeks feeding in 
privately owned pastures in the New River area in south coastal Oregon 
near the town of Langlois. These birds roost at night on offshore 
islands that are part of the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge. 
In the spring of 1998, about 10,000 Aleutian Canada geese were observed 
in the Langlois area (Fisher 1998).
    The small numbers of geese that breed in the Semidi Islands winter 
exclusively in coastal Oregon near Pacific City. These birds forage 
during the day on pastures at two privately owned dairies and roost at 
night on Haystack Rock in the Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge 
or on the ocean. Since fall 1996, small numbers of geese that nest in 
the Aleutian Islands have wintered with the Semidi Islands geese in 
Oregon. In winter 1997-1998, about 20 geese from the Aleutians wintered 
with the Semidi Islands geese (D. Pitkin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, pers. comm. 1999).
    An important component of the Recovery Plan, establishment of 
closed areas for hunting Canada geese, has contributed to the recovery 
of the Aleutian Canada goose. Six closed areas for Aleutian Canada 
geese currently exist, including: islands in Alaska west of Unimak 
Island, beginning in 1973; northwestern California, the Modesto area, 
and the Colusa area, beginning in 1975; and the Pacific City area and 
central and south coastal Oregon, beginning in 1982. In addition, 
closures of Canada goose hunting in northwestern Oregon and 
southwestern Washington beginning in 1985 to protect dusky Canada geese 
(B. c. occidentalis) have provided protection for Aleutian Canada 
geese. Occasionally, hunters kill a few Aleutian Canada geese that are 
using habitats outside of the closed hunting areas.
    Initial population increases of Aleutian Canada geese were likely 
in response to hunting closures in California and Oregon to protect the 
geese during migration and during winter. However, a substantial 
increase in numbers was dependent on reestablishing geese on former 
nesting islands. Release of captive-reared birds on fox-free islands in 
the Aleutians was largely unsuccessful due to low survival rates. Once 
the number of geese on Buldir Island was large enough, we initiated 
translocation of wild geese from Buldir Island to other fox-free 
islands. This approach was much more successful, and the release of 
captive-reared birds was phased out.
    As new breeding colonies became established in the Aleutian 
Islands, the number of Aleutian Canada geese increased rapidly. Annual 
rates of increase between 1975 and 1989 ranged from 6 to 35 percent, 
and by winter 1989-1990, the peak winter count reached 6,300 geese. We 
reclassified the Aleutian Canada goose from endangered to threatened in 
1990 (55 FR 51106, December 12, 1990).

Summary of Federal Actions

    We first designated the Aleutian Canada goose as an endangered 
species in the United States on March 11, 1967

[[Page 15645]]

(32 FR 4001), under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966 
(Public Law 89-669, 80 Stat. 926). The Endangered Species Conservation 
Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-135, 83 Stat. 275), which replaced the 1967 
law, authorized the listing of foreign species; the Aleutian Canada 
goose was included on the foreign species list (proposed April 14, 1970 
(36 FR 6069); final June 2, 1970 (35 FR 8495)). We proposed the 
reclassification of the species from endangered to threatened status on 
September 29, 1989 (54 FR 40142), and finalized the reclassification on 
December 12, 1990 (55 FR 51106). On April 9, 1998 (63 FR 17350), we 
published a Notice of Status Review on the Aleutian Canada goose and 
notified the public of our intent to propose the removal of the 
subspecies from the threatened species list. Our proposed rule to 
delist the Aleutian Canada goose was published August 3, 1999 (64 FR 
42058).

Summary of Current Status

    Since the subspecies was reclassified from endangered to threatened 
in 1990, the overall population of Aleutian Canada geese has sustained 
a strong increase in numbers. Table 1 summarizes peak counts and 
indirect population estimates of Aleutian Canada geese on the wintering 
grounds since the subspecies was reclassified as threatened in 1990. 
Peak counts are counts of the geese on the wintering grounds near 
Modesto, California, and during early spring as they arrive at and 
leave their primary roosts at Castle Rock and Prince Island in 
northwestern California, and Goat Island in southwestern Washington. 
Indirect counts are based on a ratio of marked to unmarked birds. (See 
Other Factors in Support of Delisting for a more detailed discussion of 
survey techniques). The most recent and highest population estimate of 
Aleutian Canada geese from the Aleutian Islands is of birds from their 
staging area near Crescent City in spring 2000. This preliminary 
estimate suggests that the Aleutian Canada goose population is now 
about 37,000 individuals (Table 1). Since 1990, the annual rate of 
growth of the population, based on peak counts of birds in California, 
has averaged about 20 percent. The overall annual growth rate of the 
population since recovery activities began in the 1970s has been about 
14 percent (M. Fisher, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 
1999).

   Table 1.--Peak Count and Indirect Estimates of Aleutian Canada Geese in California (Aleutian Island Nesting
                       Geese) and Near Pacific City, Oregon (Semidi Islands Nesting Geese)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            California
                              Year                               --------------------------------  Pacific City,
                                                                    Peak count    Indirect count      OR \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989-1990.......................................................           6,300  ..............             115
1990-1991.......................................................           7,000  ..............             128
1991-1992.......................................................           7,800  ..............             126
1992-1993.......................................................          11,680  ..............             132
1993-1994.......................................................          15,700  ..............             105
1994-1995.......................................................          19,150          21,769              97
1995-1996.......................................................          21,421          24,643             105
1996-1997.......................................................          22,815          23,977             114
1997-1998.......................................................          27,700          28,984             118
1998-1999.......................................................          32,281          28,628             122
1999-2000.......................................................          36,978          33,496            129
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dave Pitkin, (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2000). These estimates have been modified since
  the Federal Register publication of the proposal to delist this subspecies (64 FR 42058).

    Despite protection on both the breeding and wintering grounds, the 
Semidi Islands geese have sustained slower growth than the remainder of 
the population since 1993 (Table 1). The reasons for this are not 
clear, although counts from the wintering range in Oregon indicate poor 
recruitment in recent years.
    Predictably, marked increases of geese on the wintering grounds are 
mirrored by similar increases on most breeding islands, although 
nesting geese are far more difficult to enumerate than those on 
wintering and migration habitat. At the time of their listing, we 
believed Aleutian Canada geese to be nesting only on Buldir Island, but 
based on later discoveries, they also probably nested on Chagulak 
Island and in the Semidi Islands. Our earliest estimate of the number 
of geese on Buldir Island was 200-300 birds in 1963 (see Kenyon 1963). 
By 1995, the last year we surveyed the breeding islands, we estimated 
the number of breeding geese on Buldir Island was 7,000. Assuming 40% 
of the population are breeders (Byrd 1995), and the population on 
Buldir Island grew at the same rate as that of the entire subspecies, 
then by 1995 the number of birds on Buldir Island was probably about 
17,500. We released geese on Agattu Island periodically from 1974 to 
1984 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). By 1990, 100 birds were 
nesting there, and in 1995, we estimated 700 birds were nesting there 
(total 1,750 geese; Byrd 1995). We found similar increases at Alaid-
Nizki. We first released geese on Alaid-Nizki in 1981, and, by 1987, 
they were nesting there. We estimated the number of breeding geese on 
Alaid-Nizki in 1995 at 248 (or 620 total geese). Byrd (1995) states 
that the number of geese breeding at Agattu could approach 2,000 in the 
future and 500 at Alaid-Nizki. It is unknown how numerous geese on 
Buldir Island will become. Elsewhere in the Aleutian Islands, we 
estimate that in 1995 about 10 birds nested in the Rat Islands and 
about 40 birds nested at Chagulak Island (Byrd 1995).
    We have also documented recent breeding of Aleutian Canada geese at 
Amchitka, Amukta, and Little Kiska Islands. Although the current status 
of Aleutian Canada geese on these islands is unknown, we believe 
reestablishment of breeding populations via translocations to Amchitka 
and Little Kiska Islands and natural recolonization of Amukta Island to 
have a low probability of success. We believe the presence of bald 
eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), a major predator of geese, on 
islands east of Buldir Island to be a factor that has limited the 
success of translocations to Amchitka, Little Kiska, and Kiska Islands. 
We are encouraged, however, by recent reports of several nests and 
numerous mated pairs sighted on Amchitka Island from

[[Page 15646]]

11-21 June, 2000 (M. Murray, Department of Energy, pers. comm. 2000).
    We believe the small group of geese nesting on Chagulak Island to 
be stable in number, but the terrain is steep and nesting habitat is 
limited. We have removed foxes from most of the islands near Chagulak, 
and to bolster the population of geese in this portion of the 
Aleutians, we translocated geese from Buldir Island to Yunaska Island 
in 1994 and 1995. We also translocated geese from Buldir Island to 
Skagul Island in the Rat Island group in 1994 and 1995. We have not 
conducted subsequent surveys on these islands to determine if the 
translocations have resulted in establishment of breeding populations 
there. However, in winter 1997-1998, we observed 15 marked, female 
geese translocated to Yunaska Island and 13 marked, female geese 
translocated to Skagul Island in California. These sightings indicate 
that translocated female geese now of reproductive age still survive 
and may already be breeding on these islands.
    In the Semidi Islands, investigators studying Aleutian Canada geese 
found 14 nests on Kiliktagik Island and 3 nests on Anowik Island in 
1995, which is 11 nests (39 percent) fewer than were found on the same 
islands in 1992 (Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995). Hatching success and 
overall nesting success of geese in the Semidi Islands in 1995 were 
lower than their counterparts in the western Aleutian Islands. In 
addition, recruitment rates for Semidi Islands geese were low compared 
with rates we observed among Aleutian Island birds based on censuses of 
hatching-year birds on the wintering grounds each fall in coastal 
Oregon (D. Pitkin and R. Lowe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. 
comm. 1999). The reason for lower productivity of Aleutian Canada geese 
in the Semidi Islands is unknown.

Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery

    In accordance with the Act, we appointed a team of experts to write 
a plan for recovery of the Aleutian Canada goose. The original recovery 
plan was approved on August 7, 1979, and later revised on September 8, 
1982, and September 30, 1991 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1991). The 
most recent version of the recovery plan was written after the Aleutian 
Canada goose was reclassified as threatened in 1990, and established 
objectives for measuring recovery and indicating when delisting was 
appropriate. Recovery plans and objectives are intended to guide and 
measure recovery, but are supposed to be flexible enough to adjust to 
new information.
    The Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1991) identified the following recovery objectives: (1) The 
overall population of Aleutian Canada geese includes at least 7,500 
geese, and the long-term trend appears upwards; (2) at least 50 pairs 
of geese are nesting in each of three geographic parts of the historic 
range--western Aleutians (other than Buldir Island), central Aleutians, 
and Semidi Islands, for 3 or more consecutive years; and (3) a total of 
25,000-35,000 acres (ac) (10,125-14,175 hectares (ha)) of specific land 
parcels identified by the recovery team as feeding and roosting habitat 
needed for migration and wintering are secured and are being managed 
for Aleutian Canada geese. The recovery plan states that failure to 
achieve a specific acreage target of migration and wintering habitat 
would not preclude delisting of the Aleutian Canada goose if otherwise 
warranted. A discussion of the status of the Aleutian Canada goose 
relative to the recovery objectives follows:
    (1) The most recent estimate of the overall population of Aleutian 
Canada geese is approximately 37,000 birds (December 1999 peak spring 
count), nearly 5-times the population objective for delisting. The 
population trend of Aleutian Canada geese continues upward, and has 
averaged about 20 percent annual growth since the subspecies was 
reclassified as threatened in 1990. We believe that the subspecies is 
no longer threatened or endangered and its population is likely to 
continue to grow in size in the future.
    (2) The objective of 50 or more pairs of Aleutian Canada geese 
nesting in each of 3 geographic parts of the historic range--western 
Aleutians (other than Buldir Island), central Aleutians, and Semidi 
Islands, has not been met. The population of Aleutian Canada geese 
nesting in the western Aleutians far exceeds the delisting objective, 
with self-sustaining breeding populations established on three 
islands--Buldir, Agattu, and Alaid-Nizki. In addition, we have received 
a recent report of numerous breeding birds on Amchitka Island (M. 
Murray, Department of Energy, pers. comm. 2000). Primarily on the 
strength of recovery in the western Aleutian Islands, the Recovery Team 
recommended delisting the subspecies (Byrd 1995).
    We have not surveyed geese nesting in the central Aleutians since 
1993, but existing data suggest the size of the breeding group at 
Chagulak Island has been stable at about 20-25 pairs since the time of 
their discovery in 1982. Chagulak Island is very steep and has limited 
nesting habitat. A substantial increase in the number of birds in the 
central Aleutian Islands likely will require colonization of new 
islands. Although we discovered nesting by Aleutian Canada geese on 
nearby Amukta Island, we do not know if they are currently nesting 
there or if breeding occurs on Yunaska Island as a result of the 
translocation of geese there in 1994 and 1995. We have also removed 
foxes from several other nearby islands, including Carlisle, Herbert, 
Kagamil, Uliaga, and Seguam, and these islands could be colonized by 
Aleutian Canada geese in the future. We believe that increasing numbers 
of Aleutian Canada geese in the central Aleutians is desirable. 
However, we do not view the lack of evidence that there are at least 50 
pairs of geese breeding in the central Aleutians as a barrier to 
delisting because they appear to be from the same breeding segment as 
the western Aleutian geese. We came to this conclusion based on their 
similar physical characteristics, some preliminary data on 
mitochondrial DNA (Shields and Wilson 1987), and their use of the same 
wintering area. However, limited sightings of birds color-banded at 
Chagulak Island suggest they follow a northward migration route that is 
slightly more easterly. This has been most evident in the spring when 
several birds were seen in the Willamette Valley of Oregon (Springer 
and Lowe 1998).
    The Semidi Islands breeding segment more than doubled in size 
following closure of the wintering area to hunting in 1982. Since 1990, 
it has fluctuated moderately in size on its wintering area, averaging 
about 120 geese. However, the lack of an increase in these birds since 
1993, given protection of the birds on the breeding and wintering 
grounds, and the availability of unexploited breeding and wintering 
habitat, cannot be fully explained with existing information. Local 
farmers in Oregon maintain that these geese have used the same local 
farms for at least 65 years and have never been numerous (R. Lowe, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1999). Despite lack of a 
persistent and positive population response of Semidi Islands geese in 
recent years, we believe this is not a barrier to delisting the 
Aleutian Canada goose subspecies because of the health and vigor of the 
subspecies as a whole. Furthermore, we can continue to protect this 
breeding segment from various forms of take under provisions of the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see Summary of Factors Affecting the Species 
below).

[[Page 15647]]

We will continue to monitor the status of the Semidi Islands breeding 
segment of Aleutian Canada geese on its wintering grounds.
    Although the criteria of 50 or more pairs nesting in each of 3 
geographic parts of their historic range has not been fully met, the 
Recovery Team in 1995 considered the following factors overriding: the 
population is approximately three times higher (now nearly five times 
higher) than the minimum suggested for delisting; the population is 
continuing to increase at a high rate; self-sustaining breeding 
populations now occur in the western Aleutians on Buldir, Agattu, and 
Alaid-Nizki Islands and perhaps on Amchitka as well (M. Murray, 
Department of Energy, pers. comm. 2000); and we have removed foxes from 
islands in the central Aleutians, and translocations of birds there 
have bolstered goose numbers.
    (3) We have not fully met the recovery objective of conserving and 
managing 25,000-35,000 ac (10,125-14,175 ha) of migration and wintering 
habitat; however, the recovery team allowed that not attaining this 
acreage target would not preclude delisting if this action was 
otherwise warranted. The original target of greater than 25,000 ac 
(10,125 ha) was derived by summing the acreage of most parcels of land 
that have been used by Aleutian Canada geese on their wintering grounds 
and on principal migration stopovers outside of Alaska since their 
recovery began. At the time the recovery plan was finalized and the 
target migration and wintering habitat was identified, much of the 
information that we know now about the distribution of the bird was 
unknown. The acreage target reflects inclusion of parcels that are no 
longer used by Aleutian Canada geese (e.g., in Del Norte County: 
McLaughlin, Log Pond, Southern Ferguson, Bliss, and Bennett Tracts). 
The distribution of geese across the landscape shifts somewhat each 
year depending on weather patterns, the availability of food, and other 
factors not fully understood by scientists. Detailed maps of lands 
currently used by this subspecies have been developed by Lyon (2000). 
It should also be recognized that private landowners have throughout 
the last 3 decades contributed to the recovery of the Aleutian Canada 
goose by managing their lands to accommodate the needs of the geese. 
Thus, we do not believe that all the lands utilized by the Aleutian 
Canada goose must be held in the public trust to ensure the long-term 
survival of the species.
    Aleutian Canada geese have responded very favorably to management 
actions taken on the species' behalf by the Service, States, and 
private landowners throughout the birds' migration and wintering areas. 
About 7,500 ac (3,038 ha) of currently used winter and migration 
habitat are secure (Table 2), and we have an active acquisition program 
for both fee title and perpetual conservation easements in the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. This total secure acreage does not 
include 33,108 ac (13,409 ha) of National Wildlife Refuge land and 
67,000 ac (27,136 ha) of private land protected under perpetual 
conservation easements within the Grassland Ecological Area located 
approximately 40 miles south of the main use area for Aleutian Canada 
geese. Aleutian Canada geese have discovered this vast area of suitable 
habitat just south of their normal wintering range (D. Woolington, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2000), and we anticipate their 
use of this area to increase. We expect that hazing of geese off 
private lands to the north will hasten the use of this area. To this 
end, delisting, with its associated easing of restrictions on hazing of 
birds, may actually result in relief of some of the winter habitat 
crowding currently experienced by this rapidly growing population.
    We believe that, currently, enough feeding and roosting habitat for 
both migrating and overwintering geese is publicly held to ensure the 
continued viability of the subspecies at or near current population 
levels. If habitat availability were in any way limiting population 
growth of this subspecies, we would expect to see a leveling off in the 
population, not the steady high rate of growth that the subspecies has 
exhibited for many years now.
    We acknowledge the existence of one bottleneck in publicly held 
land that is suitable as goose habitat: spring migration feeding 
habitat in Northwestern California, particularly in the Smith River 
bottoms, near Crescent City (P. Springer, pers. comm. 2000). The 
concentration of relatively large numbers of Aleutian Canada geese on 
this small area of migration habitat, most of which is in private 
ownership, has created conflicts between landowners and geese. Such 
conflicts also occur elsewhere in the subspecies' wintering and 
migration habitats, but the problem is most acute here. Typically the 
conflicts occur over sprouting grain or pasture grass that is used by 
both geese and livestock. This remains an increasingly controversial 
area for Aleutian Canada geese because only about 750 ac (304 ha) of 
State land are now actively managed as foraging habitat for geese in 
this area. Most other public land in that area is not particularly 
suitable as pasture land.
    Many geese forage on intensively managed, privately owned pastures 
in this area during their brief fall stopover and more extensive spring 
stopover. Most owners of these pastures are currently willing to 
support some of the burden resulting from foraging geese, although most 
of these landowners would like to see more goose management taking 
place on nearby publicly held lands. However, because the urgency of 
this situation (geese grazing on private lands) will only increase with 
increasing goose numbers, we do not see this as a threat to the 
subspecies. That is, the problem of goose grazing on private lands 
becomes more acute because there are more geese. If there are more 
geese, the threat that the subspecies will eventually become extinct is 
further diminished. But because the burden upon these landowners is 
rapidly increasing due to the rapid growth of the Aleutian Canada goose 
population, it is incumbent upon us to continue efforts to secure 
additional public lands in this area. Such efforts are under way. In 
addition, the Service in the Modesto area and the State of California 
in northwestern California are more actively managing their lands to 
attract geese away from private parcels. We, along with the State of 
California, also provide technical assistance to willing landowners to 
help them manage their lands for geese. Given the success of efforts by 
us, the State of California, and some private landowners to address 
crop depredation, and the size and growth rate of the Aleutian Canada 
goose population, we do not believe that the current shortage of 
publicly held spring migration habitat in this area places this 
subspecies in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future.
    A less intense, but increasingly serious problem is developing on 
private pastures in the Langlois area of southern coastal Oregon where 
10,000-20,000 geese concentrate for a week or longer in the spring 
after leaving the Smith River bottoms. Specifically, the geese are 
using about 150 acres (61 ha) within the New River Area of Critical 
Environmental Concern (ACEC) designated by the Bureau of Land 
Management. This habitat is suitable for resting and roosting, but not 
for feeding. Most suitable goose habitat in the area (about 2,000 acres 
(810 ha)) occurs on adjacent private lands (S. Richardson, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2000). The ACEC 1995 Management Plan 
provides direction in land management for enhancing goose population 
recovery. The easing of

[[Page 15648]]

restrictions on hazing that will come with the delisting of this 
subspecies will allow those landowners that do not welcome these geese 
to keep them off their land. Again, we view this as a problem that is 
only manifesting itself due to the large population size of this goose. 
Therefore, the fact that the problem even exists attests to the fact 
that this species is no longer in danger of extinction now or in the 
foreseeable future.
    We acknowledge the important role that private landowners have 
played in the recovery of the Aleutian Canada goose. Aleutian Canada 
geese have used and continue to heavily use private lands for feeding, 
loafing, and roosting. Some landowners actively manage their lands for 
geese with technical assistance from State and Service wildlife 
biologists. Other landowners have shown considerable patience as goose 
numbers have increased and geese have impacted their crops and competed 
with their livestock for grass. The crop depredation problem will 
almost certainly intensify as Aleutian Canada goose numbers continue to 
increase.

 Table 2.--Secure Lands in Migration or Wintering Areas Under Federal, State, or Private Ownership and Currently
                                     Being Managed for Aleutian Canada Geese
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Location                       Owner/manager         Acreage                Goose use
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Castle Rock 1.........................  FWS.....................           13  Roosting.
Prince Island 1.......................  Tribal..................            6  Roosting.
Lake Earl Wildlife Area 1.............  State of CA.............          470  Feeding.
Lake Earl Project 1...................  State of CA.............          230  Feeding.
833 Reclamation District 2............  Local Govt..............        2,000  Feeding/roosting.
Butte Sink NWR 2......................  FWS.....................          733  Feeding/roosting.
East Bay Utility District 3...........  Local Govt..............               Feeding/roosting.
San Joaquin River NWR 4...............  FWS.....................      5 1,607  Feeding/roosting.
Faith Ranch 4.........................  Gallo Family............        1,964  Feeding/roosting.
Oregon Islands NWR 6..................  FWS.....................           45  Roosting.
Nestucca Bay NWR 6....................  FWS.....................          120  Feeding.
Floras Lake Park 6....................  Curry County............          300  Roosting.
                                                                 -------------
    Total.............................  ........................       7,488
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Northwestern California area.
2 Colusa, California area.
3 El Sobrante area.
4 Modesto area.
5 The refuge has 6,108 acres, but only 1,607 acres are suitable for Aleutian Canada geese.
6 Oregon.

    In order to facilitate the expected future population growth, we 
plan to secure additional parcels of migration and wintering habitat. 
Acquisition of additional goose habitat remains a top priority for the 
San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge for geese that nest in the 
Aleutian Islands, and for the Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge in 
coastal Oregon for geese that nest in the Semidi Islands. We intend 
that acquisition of refuge lands will be accompanied by appropriate 
increases in refuge operating budgets to facilitate effective 
management of these new parcels for this subspecies.
    Although we describe above future land acquisition activities with 
regard to Aleutian Canada goose management, we have not based our 
decision to delist this subspecies based on the anticipated outcome of 
any of these negotiations. The sustained growth in the population of 
the Aleutian Canada goose over the last 3 decades has occurred despite 
a mosaic of landownership patterns within its migratory and wintering 
habitat. We have no reason to suspect that this population increase 
will not continue once the species is delisted. Future planned Federal 
and State acquisition and management activities will likely further 
enhance future population growth. Land acquisition or conservation 
activities within and near the San Joaquin River National Wildlife 
Refuge that are under way are as follows:
    (1) We are in the process of acquiring 3,100 ac (1,256 ha) south of 
Highway 132 and along the San Joaquin River. About a quarter of this 
parcel is considered to be suitable winter range for Aleutian Canada 
geese, mostly as roost pond habitat, with some foraging opportunities 
as well.
    (2) We are negotiating a perpetual conservation easement with the 
owner of a 2,147 ac (870 ha) ranch, 1,548 acres (627 ha) of which is 
suitable habitat for Aleutian Canada geese. The landowner is currently 
working with the Service to manage this land for geese. This ranch is 
included within the authorized boundary of the San Joaquin River 
National Wildlife Refuge. The negotiations for this parcel are in their 
final stages.
    (3) We are negotiating for fee title acquisition of 423 acres (171 
ha) of ranch land, 413 acres (167 ha) of which has a high potential for 
use by geese. However, whether this parcel will be managed for use by 
geese, or will be converted to riparian forest, is currently unclear. 
On a different portion of the same ranch, we are negotiating a 
perpetual conservation easement on 3,907 acres (1,582 ha), 3,880 acres 
(1,571 ha) of which is suitable for use by Aleutian Canada geese for 
feeding, loafing, and roosting. Agricultural practices used on these 
parcels favor Aleutian Canada geese, although conflicts between the 
geese and the landowner are intensifying as goose numbers increase. 
This ranch is also included within the authorized boundary of the San 
Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge.
    Activities to acquire or conserve other lands within the wintering 
and migration range of the Aleutian Canada geese include:
    (1) Negotiation for purchase of the two dairies on which Aleutian 
Canada geese from the Semidi Islands winter. These dairies are within 
the authorized boundary of the Nestucca Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 
The Service has made offers on both pieces of property, but the owner 
has declined the offers; and
    (2) Evaluation by the State of California of acquisition proposals 
for additions to the Lake Earl Wildlife Area in northwestern California 
as suitable goose foraging habitat.

[[Page 15649]]

Other Factors in Support of Delisting

    The Aleutian Canada Goose Recovery Team lists three additional 
factors in support of removing the Aleutian Canada goose from the list 
of threatened and endangered species (Byrd 1995). First, a program 
designed to reestablish Aleutian Canada geese in the Asian portion of 
their range is under way through our cooperation with Japanese and 
Russian wildlife agencies. Lee (1998) provides a chronological history 
of this effort, which began in the 1970s through contact between the 
recovery team and the Japanese Association for Wild Geese Protection. 
In 1983, we provided 15 captive Aleutian Canada geese for captive 
breeding in Japan, but subsequent attempts to reintroduce these geese 
to the wild were largely unsuccessful.
    Russian biologists entered the cooperative program in the late 
1980s. In 1992, we transported 19 captive Aleutian Canada geese to 
Petropavlovsk, Kamchatka, Russia to establish a captive population of 
geese as a nucleus for reintroduction of Aleutian Canada geese in 
Russia. In 1993, a Japanese/Russian team identified Ekarma Island in 
the northwest Kuril Islands as a suitable fox-free island for future 
releases of Aleutian Canada geese. A total of 86 captive-reared geese 
were released in 1995, 1996, and 1997. In winter 1997-1998, Japanese 
scientists observed at least 15 Aleutian Canada geese on the wintering 
grounds in Japan, including 4 marked birds from the 1997 release of 33 
geese. Seven of the birds appeared to be a family group, and Gerasimov 
(1998) speculated that the unmarked Aleutian Canada geese may have been 
progeny of birds from the earlier releases on Ekarma Island. We are 
very encouraged by the early successes of the goose restoration efforts 
in Russia and Japan, and will continue to support and participate in 
this international phase of the overall restoration program.
    The State of California and some cooperating local landowners have 
implemented a plan to reduce depredation by geese on privately owned 
pastures in the Smith River bottoms in northwestern California. This 
plan focuses on providing high-quality forage for geese on about 200 ac 
(81 ha) of managed pastures owned by the State of California and hazing 
birds off private pastures. In addition, a multi-agency ``Lake Earl 
Working Group'' was formed to address the depredation problem in the 
vicinity of Lake Earl in northwestern California, and local farmers are 
working with the State of California to help manage State lands for 
geese through fertilization of pastures and grazing by livestock. 
Results are encouraging thus far. In 1995 almost no use by geese 
occurred on State lands. The amount of time geese spent on State land 
increased to 12 percent in 1996, 20 percent in 1997, and 44 percent in 
1998, but decreased to 37 percent in 1999.
    Although intensive management of State lands in northwestern 
California has provided considerable relief to landowners, a finite 
amount of forage is available there and these lands must also be 
managed for other wildlife species and habitat values. Furthermore, 
most State lands consist of poor soils, which are not as amenable to 
intensive management for geese as nearby privately owned parcels.
    We have developed a new procedure to monitor the population of 
Aleutian Canada geese wintering in California, enabling us to detect 
and respond early to any future reversal in population growth. We 
currently use two procedures to measure population size. The first 
involves coordinated peak counts of Aleutian Canada geese on the 
wintering grounds near Modesto, and during early spring as they arrive 
at and leave their primary roosts at Castle Rock and Prince Island in 
northwestern California, and Goat Island in southwestern Oregon. This 
technique has proved extremely reliable in the past; however, because 
numbers of Aleutian Canada geese are now large, obtaining complete 
counts is difficult. In addition, Aleutian Canada geese now often 
winter in mixed flocks with the similar-looking cackling Canada goose 
(Branta canadensis minima). As a result, we recently developed an 
indirect survey technique that is based on a ratio of marked to 
unmarked birds. Comparisons of surveys using the indirect method with 
``complete'' counts of geese suggest a high degree of concordance 
between the methods. We anticipate that the indirect count method will 
become more reliable and widely used if the Aleutian Canada goose 
population continues to grow.
    In summary, the Recovery Plan for the Aleutian Canada goose 
identified three criteria to use for evaluating when recovery had 
occurred and when delisting was appropriate. To date, only one recovery 
objective, attainment of a total population of the subspecies of at 
least 7,500, has been completely achieved, but we believe that the 
population is of sufficient size, and threats to the subspecies have 
been sufficiently reduced, to warrant delisting.
    Contrary to our expectations, the Aleutian Canada geese in the 
central Aleutians have not recovered despite protection of these birds 
both on the breeding and wintering grounds. Similarly, the segment of 
birds breeding in the Semidi Islands has not increased in number as 
much as we had hoped, although it is not known how large this group of 
birds was historically. Nevertheless, the explosive growth of the 
western Aleutian breeding segment assures the future viability of the 
Aleutian Canada goose subspecies for the foreseeable future.
    We remain concerned about the lack of growth of the Semidi Islands 
breeding segment. However, in recent history this small group of birds 
has been relatively stable, and obvious threats have been removed. We 
believe we can effectively protect this breeding segment from various 
forms of take under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (see 
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species below). With regard to 
conservation and management of migration and wintering habitat, we 
believe enough habitat is currently held in public ownership and 
conservation easements to ensure the continued viability of the 
subspecies at or near the current population level. However, we 
encourage additional acquisition and management of appropriate parcels 
of land, both to secure wintering and migration habitat and to reduce 
future conflicts between geese and farmers.

Summary of Issues and Recommendations

    In the August 3, 1999, proposed rule (64 FR 42058) and associated 
notifications, we invited all interested parties to submit comments or 
information that might contribute to the final delisting determination 
for this subspecies. The public comment period ended November 1, 1999. 
We contacted and sent more than 180 announcements of the proposed rule 
to appropriate Federal and State agencies, borough and county 
governments, scientific organizations, recovery team members, and other 
interested parties. We also published announcements of the proposed 
rule in Alaska in ``The Anchorage Daily News'' on August 9, 16, and 22, 
1999, and in Crescent City, California, in ``The Daily Triplicate'' on 
September 9, 1999. We received responses to requests for peer review of 
the proposed rule to delist the Aleutian Canada goose from three 
individuals who are experts in Aleutian Canada goose biology.
    Including our peer reviewers, we received a total of 11 written 
comments from individuals and organizations. Three organizations and 
two individuals supported the delisting proposal. One individual (not a 
peer reviewer) did not

[[Page 15650]]

support delisting. Three organizations and two individuals did not 
clearly state a position.
    We grouped and discussed comments of a similar nature under the 
following issue headings. In addition, we considered and incorporated, 
as appropriate, into the final rule all biological and commercial 
information obtained through the public comment period.
    Issue 1: Three commenters were concerned about the lack of public 
lands managed for Aleutian Canada geese on the migration and wintering 
grounds, and of the potential conflicts with private land owners as the 
Aleutian goose population continues to increase.
    Our response: Although it is not feasible to secure as public land 
all the migration and wintering habitat used by this growing 
population, we are continuing a program of habitat protection through a 
variety of activities as described in the section titled ``Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species,'' including: (1) fee title land 
acquisition, (2) establishment of conservation easements, (3) habitat 
management, and (4) implementation of a Disease and Contaminants Hazard 
Contingency Plan. We intend to continue our work with State agencies, 
private landowners, and other partners to help alleviate current and 
future problems associated with Aleutian Canada goose-induced crop 
depredation. The protection and management of migration and wintering 
habitat is a high priority in the recently developed Pacific Flyway 
Management Plan for Aleutian Canada geese (Pacific Flyway Council 
1999). However, we believe that enough habitat is currently held in 
public ownership (mostly Federal and State) and in perpetual 
conservation easements to ensure the continued viability of the 
subspecies at or near current population levels. Future habitat 
acquisition and management efforts will facilitate future growth of 
this population.
    Issue 2: Three commenters were concerned about the status of the 
geese that nest in the Semidi Islands, and recommended additional study 
of the factors limiting the growth of this breeding population.
    Our response: We believe that the Semidi Islands breeding segment 
is an important component of the Aleutian Canada goose population, and 
agree that additional research is necessary to determine what factors 
have prevented these geese from experiencing the same population growth 
as their western counterparts. The Pacific Flyway Council (1999) has 
recommended additional study of the Semidi Islands nesting geese as a 
high priority. With regard to protection of the existing Semidi 
Islands-nesting geese, we believe that the protective measures 
available under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (i.e., continued hunting 
closures, and regulation of various forms of take) will provide 
adequate protection.
    We rejected the notion of retaining threatened species status for 
the Semidi Islands subpopulation of Aleutian Canada geese while 
delisting the remainder of the subspecies. For this particular listing 
action, the listed entity in question is the entire Aleutian Canada 
goose subspecies. We have not recognized any distinct vertebrate 
population segments within this subspecies. Our decision to delist is 
based upon our analysis of the status of the listed entity: the entire 
subspecies. Although recent genetic analysis found that geese from the 
Semidi Islands and the western Aleutian Islands could be considered 
separate management units (Pierson et al. 2000), we consider the 
Chagulak Island and Semidi Islands geese remnant populations of the 
previously more continuously distributed Aleutian Canada goose.
    Issue 3: One commenter was concerned that our motivation to delist 
the Aleutian Canada goose is influenced more by political pressures 
than biological considerations, as evidenced by the fact that only one 
of three recovery goals has been completely achieved. The commenter 
stated that this approach could set a bad precedent for other decisions 
affecting the status of listed species.
    Our response: We are required to base listing decisions on the best 
available scientific and commercial information. Biological information 
collected throughout the recovery program, and resulting from our 
recent public status review, clearly indicate that the Aleutian Canada 
goose population has reached a sufficient size (nearly five times the 
delisting threshold set by the recovery team), and that the threats to 
its continued existence have been eliminated or reduced enough to 
warrant delisting. Goals identified during the recovery planning 
process provide a guide for measuring the success of recovery, but are 
not intended to be absolute prerequisites, and should not preclude a 
reclassification or delisting action if such action is otherwise 
warranted.
    Issue 4: One commenter recommended that additional genetic analyses 
of the three breeding segments be conducted to fully identify their 
relationships within the subspecies, and among other Canada goose 
subspecies. In particular, the existing evidence is not adequate to 
fully associate the central Aleutian (Chagulak Island) breeding segment 
with the western Aleutian geese.
    Our response: Our Ecological Services, Anchorage Field Office 
recently contracted for more extensive genetic analysis of recently 
rediscovered archived tissue samples of Aleutian Canada geese, 
including samples of geese that bred on the Semidi Islands. We expect 
the results of this study to increase our understanding of the genetic 
relationships within this subspecies.
    While we agree that additional genetic analyses could provide 
information that would help reduce uncertainty regarding the 
relationships of the three breeding segments of Aleutian Canada geese, 
we do not believe the information that could be gained would suggest a 
change in our management strategies for the subspecies. Based on 
available biological and historical information, we consider the 
Chagulak Island and Semidi Islands geese to be remnant populations of 
the previously more continuously distributed Aleutian Canada goose. 
Accordingly, we determined that the central and western breeding 
segments were similar enough to warrant translocating western Aleutian 
geese into the central Aleutians at Yunaska Island in 1994 and 1995 for 
the purpose of supplementing the existing breeding population.
    Issue 5: A cooperator from Russia indicated that the delisting 
action was premature, apparently because the goal of establishing a 
breeding population of Aleutian Canada geese in Asia has not been 
reached.
    Our response: Recovery activities in Asia, including captive 
breeding and reintroduction of geese to the wild, are under way, but it 
is difficult to predict when a self-sustaining wild population will 
become established. We intend to continue cooperating with our Asian 
counterparts as they endeavor to return the Aleutian geese to their 
historic range in Russia and Japan. In any event, we believe that the 
North American population alone has progressed to a point where the 
subspecies no longer requires protection under the Endangered Species 
Act. Furthermore, because this subspecies had become extirpated from 
Russia prior to its initial listing, birds breeding in Russia were not 
considered to be part of the listed entity. Aleutian Canada geese were 
listed only in the United States and Japan (50 CFR 17.11).

[[Page 15651]]

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    In accordance with the Act and implementing regulations at 50 CFR 
part 424, a species shall be listed if the Secretary of the Interior 
determines that one or more of five factors listed in section 4(a)(1) 
of the Act threatens the continued existence of the species. A species 
may be delisted according to Sec. 424.11(d) if the best available 
scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither 
endangered nor threatened for one of the following reasons:
    1. Extinction;
    2. Recovery; or
    3. Original data for classification of the species were in error.
    After a thorough review of all available information, we have 
determined that Aleutian Canada geese are no longer in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and 
are not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. A 
substantial recovery has taken place since the mid-1970s, and none of 
the five factors addressed in section 4(a)(1) of the Act places this 
subspecies of Canada goose in danger of extinction now or in the 
foreseeable future. These factors and their relevance to Aleutian 
Canada geese are discussed below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Threats to habitat of Aleutian Canada geese still exist in the form 
of development and modification of wintering and migration habitat, and 
the continued presence of foxes on former nesting islands in Alaska. 
Conversion of farmlands used by migrating and wintering geese to other 
human uses is always a threat, although it does not appear to have been 
a serious problem in recent years. On the breeding grounds, we have 
addressed the primary threat to goose habitat through fox trapping and 
continue with these efforts. On the migration and wintering grounds, we 
have addressed goose habitat issues through: (1) Fee title acquisition; 
(2) establishment of conservation easements to protect migration and 
wintering habitat, and (3) management of migration and wintering 
habitat for geese.
Breeding Areas
    Habitat improvement of Aleutian Canada goose breeding grounds 
through fox removal has been and continues to be a high-priority 
conservation effort. Since 1949, we have restored 33 islands, totaling 
more than 596,000 ac (241,393 ha), by removing arctic and red foxes. In 
1998, 2 additional islands were cleared of foxes, and 11 islands are 
scheduled for restoration between 1999 and 2004. Initial confirmation 
surveys indicate we successfully removed foxes from 223,000 ac (90,320 
ha) on Attu Island in 1999. Attu Island is close to Agattu Island and 
to the Alaid-Nizki Island group, all of which have rapidly growing 
reestablished populations of Aleutian Canada geese. Once colonized by 
geese, Attu will provide a substantial amount of available nesting 
habitat. If follow-up surveys confirm that Attu Island is fox-free, 
transplanting family groups of Aleutian Canada geese will be 
logistically feasible.
    Even if additional fox-free nesting islands are not colonized by 
Aleutian Canada geese, we believe that the availability of currently 
unoccupied, but fox-free nesting habitat in the Aleutian Islands is not 
likely to limit population growth. We do not consider reintroduction of 
foxes to goose nesting islands in the Aleutians to be a threat to the 
subspecies. Nearly all Aleutian Canada goose breeding habitat is within 
the boundaries of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Service 
policy prohibits introduction of exotic species unless the species 
would have value as a biological control agent and would be compatible 
with the objectives of the Refuge. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan 
(CCP) for the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge indicates that 
the Refuge will be managed to favor indigenous populations, restore 
endangered species and other species to natural levels, and monitor and 
eradicate introduced wildlife. The CCP further specifies that wildlife 
populations management will concentrate on increasing the number and 
range of the Aleutian Canada goose, and indicates that eradication of 
introduced arctic and red foxes on the refuge is essential to allow 
natural populations of birds to reestablish themselves. Accordingly, we 
cannot imagine a scenario in which the Refuge would permit the 
reintroduction of foxes. Doing so would be counter to nearly all of the 
Refuge's goals. Parties caught conducting such reintroductions without 
a permit would be acting illegally, and would likely be prosecuted.
    Despite the availability of suitable but unoccupied nesting 
habitat, natural expansion to unoccupied islands east of Buldir is not 
expected to occur rapidly. Bald eagles, a predator of Aleutian Canada 
geese, are common on these islands and may limit population expansion. 
However, based on our knowledge of the interactions between eagles and 
geese, we do not anticipate that eagles would ever cause population 
level effects on this subspecies.
Migration and Wintering Areas
    On the migration and wintering grounds, threats to goose habitat 
have been substantially reduced through: (1) Fee title acquisition; (2) 
establishment of conservation easements to protect migration and 
wintering habitat, and (3) management of migration and wintering 
habitat for geese. About 7,500 ac (3,038) of winter and migration 
habitat are now securely in the public ownership (Table 2) and are 
being used by Aleutian Canada geese. In addition, 33,108 ac (13,409 ha) 
of National Wildlife Refuge land and 67,000 ac (27,136 ha) of private 
land protected under perpetual conservation easements within the 
Grassland Ecological Area are located approximately 40 miles south of 
the main use area for Aleutian Canada geese and have recently been used 
by Aleutian Canada geese. Efforts to manage these lands and 
conservation easements for the benefit of Aleutian Canada geese and to 
assist willing private landowners in managing their land for geese, 
have been described above.
    We believe that enough migration and wintering habitat is currently 
held in public ownership or conservation easements to ensure the 
continued viability of the subspecies at or near current numbers. If 
habitat availability were in any way limiting population growth of this 
subspecies, we would expect to see a leveling off in the population. 
Instead, as described earlier in this rule, the subspecies annual 
population growth rate has averaged about 20% since 1990.
    We acknowledge that the amount of public land in the spring 
migration areas in the Smith River bottoms area is not currently 
sufficient to accommodate all the geese that stop there, forcing them 
to also graze on nearby private land for a short period of time each 
year. Private landowners have throughout the last 3 decades contributed 
to the recovery of the Aleutian Canada goose by managing their lands so 
as to accommodate the needs of the geese. We do not believe that the 
current shortage of publicly held spring migration habitat in this area 
places this subspecies in danger of extinction now or in the 
foreseeable future given the population size and growth rate of the 
Aleutian Canada goose population and the success of efforts to address 
crop depredation by us, the State of California, and some private 
landowners.

[[Page 15652]]

    The concentration of relatively large numbers of Aleutian Canada 
geese on small areas of wintering and migration habitat, most of which 
is in private ownership, has created conflicts between landowners and 
geese. Typically the conflicts occur over sprouting grain or pasture 
grass that is used by both geese and livestock. The problem is most 
acute in northwestern California, particularly in the Smith River 
bottoms, because only about 750 ac (304 ha) of State land are now 
actively managed as foraging habitat for geese in this area. An 
increasingly serious problem is developing on private pastures in the 
Langlois area of southern coastal Oregon where 10,000-20,000 geese 
concentrate for a week or longer in the spring after leaving the Smith 
River bottoms.
    The crop depredation problem will almost certainly intensify as 
Aleutian Canada goose numbers continue to increase. As goose numbers 
increase, goose use of private lands may also increase, and the 
resulting crop depredation is likely to increase. Consequently, 
requests for permits allowing for lethal hazing under the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act are likely to increase. We do not view this as a threat 
to the survival of the subspecies, because the problem (geese grazing 
on private lands) becomes more acute directly as a result of increasing 
goose populations. If the goose population increases, the threat that 
the subspecies will eventually become extinct is further diminished. 
Thus, we do not believe that crop depredation and subsequent lethal 
hazing will ever be a factor that affects this subspecies at the 
population scale. To the contrary, an increased need for lethal hazing 
will serve as an indicator of an increasing goose population. In the 
San Joaquin Valley and Modesto area of California, delisting, with its 
associated easing of restrictions on hazing of birds, may actually 
result in relief of some of the winter habitat crowding as hazing of 
geese off private lands will hasten use of nearby public lands within 
the Grasslands Ecological Area. Finally, as discussed further in the 
section on regulatory mechanisms, we can control the amount of lethal 
hazing because permits are required under the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act.
    The size of the current population and the management practices on 
currently used goose habitats also lead us to believe that potential 
threats such as development, variable market conditions, changing 
agricultural practices, and adverse climactic conditions do not 
currently threaten the continued survival of the Aleutian Canada goose 
now or in the foreseeable future. We believe that the size of the 
population is such that we would have time to intervene on behalf of 
the subspecies should any of these become threats to the continued 
survival of the subspecies.
    Further improvements to Aleutian Canada goose habitat are ongoing 
through fee title acquisition of land, and establishment of 
conservation easements. Efforts are also under way to increase the 
amount of public land that can be managed for feeding, loafing, and 
roosting by Aleutian Canada geese and to explore the possibilities of 
developing programs with private landowners that will provide 
additional foraging grounds for the geese in the Smith River bottoms 
area. These efforts were described earlier in this document. The intent 
is to provide attractive, high-quality habitat for geese on managed 
lands to reduce crop depredation on neighboring private farms and 
ranches. These future habitat acquisition and management efforts are 
not necessary to assure the viability of the subspecies, but rather to 
accommodate its future growth.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Historically, Aleuts residing in the Aleutian Islands harvested 
Aleutian Canada geese for food. In addition, market hunters on the 
wintering grounds, and more recently, sport hunters, harvested Aleutian 
Canada geese in the Pacific Flyway. After introduced foxes had reduced 
the breeding range and production of the Aleutian Canada goose and 
prior to the identification of the goose's wintering range, sport 
hunting also limited population growth. Therefore, establishment of 
areas closed to hunting was an effective conservation measure and was 
shown to be responsible for early increases in goose numbers.
    Delisting of the Aleutian Canada goose will not result in 
overutilization of the subspecies because take will still be governed 
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and corresponding regulations codified 
in 50 CFR part 20. After the Aleutian Canada goose is delisted, we must 
decide if, and when, they can be taken for recreational hunting and for 
other purposes. A regulatory framework already exists for managing 
migratory waterfowl in the United States (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1988). (See discussion of existing regulatory mechanisms under 
factor D.)
    Other than sport hunting, no appreciable demand for Aleutian Canada 
geese for commercial or recreational purposes is anticipated. There may 
be a small demand for birds for scientific purposes. As with hunting, 
we will regulate take for scientific purposes through the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act.

C. Disease or Predation

    Because many waterfowl species in the Pacific Flyway are now highly 
concentrated on the greatly reduced wetland acres of their wintering 
grounds, they are vulnerable to disease. Disease and other health 
factors accounted for 28 percent of the known mortality of Aleutian 
Canada geese on wintering and migration areas between 1975 and 1991 (n 
= 583 birds; Springer and Lowe 1998). Avian cholera, a highly 
infectious disease caused by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida, has 
been identified as the cause of mortality of most of the Aleutian 
Canada geese found dead on the wintering grounds near Modesto. From 
1983 to 1998, the number of Aleutian Canada geese that are known to 
have died annually from avian cholera has ranged from none to 155. 
However, an exceptional cold period during December 1998 in California 
set the stage for an extensive and intense avian cholera outbreak 
during January 1999. Approximately 809 Aleutian Canada geese died of 
avian cholera during that month. Additional birds probably died that 
are not included in this mortality count; coyotes (Canis latrans) 
likely carried off and scavenged some of the goose carcasses before we 
could find them. Although this avian cholera outbreak was the worst 
known for Aleutian Canada geese, it claimed only about 2.5 percent of 
the total population. Rapid response to the outbreak and effective 
management of afflicted wetlands minimized the disease toll on the 
subspecies.
    Based on these data, we conclude that disease is a chronic, low-
level problem on the wintering grounds, which may occasionally flare up 
into a severe outbreak. However, even the most severe outbreak did not 
result in population level impacts (i.e., during the year of the most 
severe avian cholera outbreak ever known, the Aleutian Canada goose 
population still increased substantially). In addition, effective land 
management should prevent future outbreaks from having serious 
consequences at the population level. The Aleutian Canada Goose 
Recovery Team has prepared and revised a Disease and Contamination 
Hazard Contingency Plan that provides information and direction to 
reduce the incidence and severity of both disease

[[Page 15653]]

and contamination hazards (Byrd et al. 1996). We implement this plan 
through an active program of collecting and disposing of dead and 
diseased waterfowl to reduce exposure of healthy geese.
    Currently, we employ seasonal biologists to monitor Aleutian Canada 
geese and other geese in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and in 
the Crescent City area. Much of this effort is focused on the San 
Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge and neighboring areas and 
includes monitoring for disease outbreaks. When a disease outbreak 
occurs, these employees and other Refuge staff begin an intensive 
effort of carcass retrieval and disposal to break the cycle of cholera 
infection. Refuge staff also have the ability to manage disease by 
managing water levels at roost sites and wetland basins to avoid 
concentrating bacteria in those waters. Such efforts will continue even 
with the delisting of the Aleutian Canada goose.
    Besides disease, other sources of mortality of Aleutian Canada 
geese include shooting (49 percent), drowning (see Factor E below), 
collisions and predation (12 percent), and trapping accidents (2 
percent) (Springer and Lowe 1998). Collectively, they account for only 
a small amount of annual mortality. Shooting of Aleutian Canada geese 
occurred prior to establishment of hunting closures, but declined after 
closures were established. Occasionally, Aleutian Canada geese are shot 
outside the closed areas (Springer and Lowe 1998).
    On the breeding grounds, predators still prevent breeding on many 
islands. As mentioned above, we continue to implement an aggressive 
program to eradicate introduced foxes from islands within the Alaska 
Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. However, on islands east of Buldir, 
predation by bald eagles, in concert with the high degree of site 
fidelity exhibited by geese, may limit colonization of new nesting 
islands. Nonnative rats, ground squirrels, and voles have also been 
introduced on a variety of islands within the nesting range of the 
Aleutian Canada goose and will be difficult, if not impossible, to 
eradicate. These species may prey on Aleutian Canada goose eggs, 
hatchlings, or goslings if they have the opportunity, although a study 
completed in the Semidi Islands suggests that ground squirrels were not 
a predator of goose eggs (Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995). Predation of 
goslings in the Semidi Islands by ground squirrels and Glaucous-winged 
gulls (Larus glaucescens) may be a factor limiting production of this 
breeding segment, although it has not been quantified (Beyersdorf and 
Pfaff 1995).

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Upon being delisted, the Aleutian Canada goose will also be taken 
off the State lists in Washington and Oregon (B. Bortner, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 2000). This species has never been listed 
on California's endangered species list, so no change in State status 
will result from this rule (D. Yparraguirre, California Department of 
Fish and Game, pers. comm. 2000). In Alaska, the Aleutian Canada goose 
is a species of special concern, and will likely remain so after 
Federal delisting (T. Rothe, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, pers. 
comm. 2000).
    Aleutian Canada geese will remain protected under the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act, which regulates taking of all migratory birds in the 
United States. Soon after delisting this subspecies, we will evaluate, 
with cooperation from the States through the Pacific Flyway Council, 
and with public comment, whether protections should be relaxed to allow 
some take through sport hunting and other means, and to manage current 
and future depredation problems on the wintering grounds and along 
migration routes. Thus this rulemaking may affect the status of 
waterfowl hunting seasons, which undergo annual formal section 7 
consultation. An effective regulatory framework is in place to manage 
waterfowl (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). This annual rulemaking 
process provides for participation by the States through the Flyway 
Councils and opportunity for public input.
    The Pacific Flyway Council, which is composed of wildlife agency 
directors from each of the western States and Canadian provinces in the 
Pacific Flyway, including Alaska, will participate in the formulation 
of any regulations regarding future hunting of Aleutian Canada geese. 
An Aleutian Canada Goose Subcommittee of the Pacific Flyway Study 
Committee (waterfowl experts from the Flyway States) has undertaken the 
drafting of a management plan for the Aleutian Canada goose that will 
ensure that overutilization does not occur (T. Rothe, Alaska Department 
of Fish and Game, pers. comm. 2000). Continued closure of Canada goose 
hunting in the wintering area of the Semidi Islands geese will be a 
part of any regulatory framework for Aleutian Canada geese.
    Two recent case histories provide good examples of the 
effectiveness of waterfowl management under the provisions of the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. By the mid-1980s, populations of the 
cackling Canada goose and Pacific white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons 
frontalis) had plummeted from 400,000 and 500,000 to 25,800 birds and 
91,700 birds, respectively. As a result of reductions in sport hunting 
bag limits, establishment of areas closed to hunting on the wintering 
grounds, and voluntary reductions in take by Alaska Natives on the 
breeding grounds, the population of cackling Canada geese has increased 
to more than 200,000 birds and, Pacific white-fronted geese, to more 
than 300,000 birds (R. Oates, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. 
comm. 2000).
    The Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not prevent habitat modification 
or destruction; however, we believe that sufficient habitat is 
currently held in public trust and conservation easements to allow for 
the continued existence of this subspecies at current population 
levels. We also believe the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
will allow sufficient protection of the Aleutian Canada goose, 
including the small group of birds that breeds in the Semidi Islands 
and winters near Pacific City, Oregon, to prevent the need to relist 
it.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Three incidences of drowning of Aleutian Canada geese in ocean surf 
have occurred in recent years (Springer et al. 1989, Pitkin and Lowe 
1994): 43 geese near Crescent City, California, in 1984; 23 geese near 
Pacific City, Oregon, in 1987; and 10 geese near Pacific City, Oregon, 
in 1993. All drowning incidents were related to storms. Because the 
number of birds in the Semidi Islands breeding segment is small, we are 
concerned about these drowning incidents, but little can be done to 
prevent their reoccurrence. Although these drowning incidents 
contributed to the decline of this breeding segment to just 97 birds in 
1995, the Semidi Islands breeding segment grew to about 129 birds by 
2000. As stated earlier, in making our decision of whether to delist 
this subspecies, we considered the status of the listed entity: the 
subspecies as a whole. We considered the status of the various breeding 
segments only to the extent that they affected the status of the 
subspecies. It is possible that future studies and analysis may cause 
us to consider a subpopulation of this subspecies to be a listable 
entity (e.g., a distinct vertebrate population segment). If this is the 
case, and if the status of any subpopulation of this subspecies 
warrants the protections afforded by the Act, then we will make efforts 
to provide these protections by listing the entity.

[[Page 15654]]

    At their lowest population level, Aleutian Canada geese may have 
numbered in the low hundreds (see Kenyon 1963) and were distributed on 
three widely separated remnant nesting islands. Populations that go 
through small population bottlenecks may exhibit reduced genetic 
variability and suffer from inbreeding depression. Such populations may 
not be able to successfully adapt to changes in the environment or to 
random events. The lack of recent growth of the Semidi Islands breeding 
segment of Aleutian Canada geese has led to speculation that this 
breeding segment was inbred and lacked genetic variability. A recent 
genetic study showed several potential indicators of a recent genetic 
bottleneck, including the fact that the Semidi Islands geese have fewer 
alleles per loci, as well as a lower haplotype and nucleotide diversity 
when compared to Buldir Island birds, indicating lower overall genetic 
diversity. However, statistical tests were inconclusive (Pierson et al. 
1998).
    In summary, we have carefully reviewed all available scientific and 
commercial data and conclude the threats that caused the population of 
Aleutian Canada geese to decline no longer pose a risk to the continued 
survival of the listed entity: the entire subspecies. This 
determination is based on available data indicating that the population 
of Aleutian Canada goose in North America has recovered, primarily as a 
result of four activities: the removal of introduced arctic fox and red 
fox from some of its nesting islands; the release of captive-reared and 
wild, translocated family groups of geese to fox-free islands to 
establish new breeding colonies; protection of the Aleutian Canada 
goose throughout its range from mortality due to hunting and disease; 
and protection and management of migration and wintering habitat. This 
recovery indicates that the subspecies as a whole is no longer 
endangered or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, the 
subspecies no longer meets the Act's definitions of endangered or 
threatened. Under these circumstances, removal from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife is appropriate.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), we have determined that this 
rule relieves an existing restriction and good cause exists to make the 
effective date of this rule immediate. Delay in implementation of this 
delisting would cost government agencies staff time and monies 
conducting formal section 7 consultation on actions that may affect a 
species no longer in need of the protections under the Act. Relieving 
the existing restriction associated with this listed species will 
enable Federal agencies to minimize any further delays in project 
planning and implementation for actions that may affect Aleutian Canada 
geese.

Effects of This Rule

    This final rule will remove the protections afforded to the 
Aleutian Canada goose in North America under the Act. Removal of 
protections for the Aleutian Canada goose in North America under the 
Act does not alter the protections provided to the Aleutian Canada 
goose under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act regulates the taking of migratory birds for educational, 
scientific, and recreational purposes. It also states that the 
Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to determine, if, 
and by what means, the take of migratory birds should be allowed, and 
to adopt suitable regulations permitting and governing the take. In 
adopting regulations, the Secretary is to consider such factors as 
distribution and abundance to ensure that take is compatible with the 
protection of the species.
    Some protections of the Act provided to the Aleutian Canada goose 
through incidental take permits associated with Habitat Conservation 
Plans (HCPs) issued under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act will continue 
by virtue of the Aleutian Canada goose remaining as a covered species 
in HCPs that continue to cover other listed species. Because many HCPs 
contain an implementing agreement (IA), and such agreements form a 
legally binding contract, all signatories must fulfill their 
responsibilities under the IA, even if the permittee chooses to 
surrender the permit. The term of the IA typically is the same as the 
term of the permit.
    Although the Aleutian Canada goose in North America will be 
delisted, it will still continue to be covered by existing HCPs. Eight 
multi-species HCPs include the Aleutian Canada goose. The Aleutian 
Canada goose will no longer be a covered listed species under these 
existing multi-species HCPs; instead the Aleutian Canada goose becomes 
a covered non-listed species under the same HCP as of the effective 
date of this final rule. In order to receive No Surprises assurances, 
as well as a promise that the Service will not pursue prosecution under 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the permit holder must continue to abide 
by all of the original conditions of the permit (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 
17.32(b)(5)) after the Aleutian Canada goose is delisted. If the 
permittee's actions violate the terms of the permit, then the permittee 
is outside the safety net of No Surprises and would therefore also be 
subject to permit revocation and possible prosecution for illegal take 
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    HCP regulations at 50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) state: ``The assurances in 
this paragraph (b)(5) apply only to incidental take permits issued in 
accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this section [issuance criteria for 
HCPs] where the conservation plan is being properly implemented, and 
apply only with respect to species adequately covered by the 
conservation plan.'' The definition of ``adequately covered'' can be 
found at 50 CFR 17.3, which states: ``* * * with respect to unlisted 
species, that a proposed conservation plan has satisfied the permit 
issuance criteria under 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA that would otherwise 
apply if the unlisted species covered by the plan were actually listed. 
For the Service to cover a species under a conservation plan, it must 
be listed on the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit.''
    After the effective date of this rule, Federal agencies will no 
longer be required to consult with the Service under section 7 of the 
ESA if activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the 
Aleutian Canada goose. For actions covered by completed consultations 
where incidental take was anticipated, we will not refer those actions 
for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, provided that the 
Federal agency and permittee/designee continue to comply with the 
Reasonable and Prudent Measures (50 CFR 402.02), and implementing Terms 
and Conditions (50 CFR 402.14(i)(1)(iv)), of our biological opinion. 
However, the Aleutian Canada goose will still be afforded protection 
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    This rule will not affect the Aleutian Canada goose's Appendix I 
status under CITES, and CITES permits will still be required to import 
and export Aleutian Canada geese to and from the United States. CITES 
permits will not be granted if the export will be detrimental to the 
survival of the subspecies or if a goose was not legally acquired.
    Delisting of the Aleutian Canada goose under the Act will not 
affect ongoing negotiations to secure habitat in the migration and 
wintering grounds (see discussion under factor A). We will continue to 
acquire or conserve additional lands for Aleutian Canada geese and 
other migratory waterfowl through fee title acquisition of land or 
establishment of conservation easements.

[[Page 15655]]

Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires that we monitor species for at 
least 5 years after delisting. If evidence acquired during this 
monitoring period shows that endangered or threatened status should be 
reinstated to prevent a significant risk to the subspecies, we may use 
the emergency listing authority provided by the Act to do so. At the 
end of the 5-year monitoring period, we will decide if relisting, 
continued monitoring, or an end to monitoring activities is 
appropriate. We have developed the following plan for monitoring 
Aleutian Canada geese following delisting.

Monitoring Plan

    This monitoring plan is designed to detect changes in the status of 
the Aleutian Canada goose primarily by: (1) monitoring population size 
on wintering and migration areas; (2) monitoring productivity of the 
Semidi Islands population segment on the wintering grounds; and (3) 
monitoring the status of breeding birds on nesting islands in Alaska.
    (1) Monitoring population size on wintering and migration areas: We 
plan to monitor the population of Aleutian Canada geese by using either 
or both the indirect population estimation procedure based on a marked 
to unmarked ratio of birds on their wintering grounds in the Modesto 
area, or direct counts of geese as they leave their roosts while 
staging in northwestern California in spring. Aleutian Canada geese 
nesting in the Semidi Islands will be most effectively monitored by 
conducting counts of foraging birds on their wintering grounds near 
Pacific City, Oregon.
    (2) Monitoring productivity of the Semidi Islands breeding segment 
on its wintering range: Lack of productivity on Kiliktagik and Anowik 
Islands appears to be the principal factor in the lack of growth in the 
Semidi Islands breeding segment. The reasons for this lack of 
productivity are not understood. Because it is possible to distinguish 
hatching year birds from older birds on their winter range, we plan to 
monitor production of the Semidi Islands geese by making direct counts 
of birds on their winter range in Oregon.
    (3) Monitoring the status of breeding birds on nesting islands in 
Alaska: The status of Aleutian Canada geese on their nesting islands 
was last summarized in 1995 (Beyersdorf and Pfaff 1995, Byrd 1995). At 
least once during the 5-year monitoring period we plan to determine the 
status of nesting Aleutian Canada geese on all the known nesting 
islands (Agattu, Alaid-Nizki, Buldir, Chagulak, Amukta, Kiliktagik, 
Anowik), and islands on which transplants of geese have occurred but 
for which the current breeding status is unknown (Little Kiska, 
Amchitka, Skagul, Yunaska). Although we have not recently surveyed 
Amchitka Island, we have reliable reports of breeding there (M. Murray, 
Department of Energy, pers. comm. 2000).
    In addition, monitoring on the migration and wintering areas will 
attempt to determine the survival of birds translocated to fox-free 
islands, the success of the program to reduce the number of geese 
grazing on private land, and the incidence of avian cholera and other 
sources of mortality.
    We will conduct a status review if during, or after, the 5-year 
monitoring period, it appears that a reversal of the recent recovery 
has taken place. We have not established any firm thresholds that if 
reached will trigger a status review, but the following factors will be 
considered:
    (1) The overall population of Aleutian Canada geese declines by 25 
percent below the current level, and there is a negative population 
trend for 2 or more years based on either direct or indirect population 
estimates of birds in migration and wintering areas; and if
    (2) Through disease or other random events, Aleutian Canada geese 
decline appreciably and may be extirpated from one or more of their 
principal nesting islands (Agattu, Alaid-Nizki, or Buldir Islands).
    We may determine that monitoring is no longer warranted if data 
indicate that the overall population of Aleutian Canada geese is stable 
at current levels or increasing and that no known factors threaten the 
subspecies. If we identify one or more factors that are believed to 
have the potential to cause a decline, monitoring will be continued 
beyond the 5-year period. Consistent with all other flyway management 
plans, the Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Aleutian Canada Goose 
(Pacific Flyway Council 1999) includes a population objective and 
monitoring activities to assess the effects of management activities.
    We remain committed to monitoring the status of the Aleutian Canada 
geese associated with the Semidi Islands as long as necessary. 
Consequently, we will continue to monitor this breeding segment beyond 
the 5-year period on an annual basis on the wintering grounds and 
occasionally on the breeding grounds. The Pacific Flyway Council (1999) 
recommends that additional research of the limiting factors affecting 
the Semidi Islands geese be initiated within the 5-year monitoring 
period.
    In addition to monitoring the status of the Aleutian goose in the 
United States, we also intend to actively support and participate in 
the ongoing efforts to restore Aleutian Canada geese in Russia and 
Japan.

Executive Order 12866

    This rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, require that Federal agencies obtain 
approval from OMB before collecting information from the public. The 
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.3(c) define a collection of information 
as the obtaining of information by or for an agency by means of 
identical questions posed to, or identical reporting, record keeping, 
or disclosure requirements imposed on ten or more persons. Furthermore, 
5 CFR 1320.3(c)(4) specifies that ``ten or more persons'' refers to the 
persons to whom a collection of information is addressed by the agency 
within any 12-month period. For purposes of this definition, employees 
of the Federal Government are not included.
    This rule does not include any collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The 
information needed to monitor the status of the Aleutian Canada goose 
following delisting will be collected primarily by our personnel. We do 
not anticipate a need to request data or other information from ten or 
more persons during any 12-month period to satisfy monitoring 
information needs. If it becomes necessary to collect information from 
10 or more non-Federal individuals, groups, or organizations per year, 
we will first obtain information collection approval from OMB.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations 
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon 
request from

[[Page 15656]]

the Ecological Services Field Office--Anchorage (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are Brian Anderson and Anthony 
DeGange (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulations Promulgation

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, we hereby amend part 17, 
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


Sec. 17.11  [Amended]

    2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by removing the entry for ``Goose, 
Aleutian Canada, Branta canadensis leucopareia'' under ``BIRDS'' from 
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.

    Dated: November 28, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 01-6894 Filed 3-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P