[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50496-50509]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-21268]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

RIN 1018-AI32


Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; Regulations for Managing 
Resident Canada Goose Populations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or 
reside predominantly within the conterminous United States (resident 
Canada geese) have undergone dramatic population growth and have 
increased to levels that are increasingly coming into conflict with 
people and human activities and causing personal and public property 
damage, as well as public health concerns, in many parts of the 
country. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or ``we'') 
believes that resident Canada goose populations must be reduced, more 
effectively managed, and controlled to reduce goose related damages. 
This rule would authorize State wildlife agencies to conduct (or allow) 
indirect and/or direct population control management activities, 
including the take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. The 
intent of this rule is to allow State wildlife management agencies 
sufficient flexibility to deal with problems caused by resident Canada 
geese and guide and direct resident Canada goose population growth and 
management activities in the conterminous United States.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by October 20, 
2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to Chief, Division of Migratory 
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the 
Interior, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 
22203. We will not consider anonymous comments. All comments received, 
including names and addresses, will become part of the public record. 
Alternatively, comments may be submitted electronically to the 
following address: [email protected]. The public may inspect 
comments during normal business hours in Room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax 
Drive, Arlington, Virginia. You may obtain copies of the draft 
environmental impact statement from the above address or from the 
Division of Migratory Bird Management Web site at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Millsap, Chief, Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, or Ron Kokel (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Migratory birds are protected under four 
bilateral migratory bird treaties the United States entered into with 
Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and Russia. Regulations 
allowing the take of migratory birds are authorized by the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711), and the Fish and Wildlife 
Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 
(Act) provides that, subject to and to carry out the purposes of the 
treaties, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to 
determine when, to what extent, and by what means it is compatible with 
the conventions to allow hunting, killing, and other forms of taking of 
migratory birds, their nests, and eggs. The Act requires the Secretary 
to implement a determination by adopting regulations permitting and 
governing those activities.
    Canada geese are Federally protected by the Act by reason of the 
fact that they are listed as migratory birds in all four treaties. 
These regulations must meet the requirements of the most restrictive of 
the four, which for Canada geese is the treaty with Canada. We have 
prepared these regulations compatible with its terms, with particular 
reference to Articles VII, V, and II.
    Regulations governing the issuance of permits to take, capture, 
kill, possess, and transport migratory birds are promulgated in Title 
50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 13 and 21, and issued by the 
Service. Regulations governing the take, possession, and transportation 
of migratory birds under sport hunting seasons are annually promulgated 
in 50 CFR part 20 by the Service.
    In recent years, numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or reside 
predominantly within the conterminous United States (resident Canada 
geese) have undergone dramatic population growth and have increased to 
levels that are increasingly coming into conflict with people and 
causing personal and public property damage. We believe that resident 
Canada goose populations must be reduced, more effectively managed, and 
controlled to reduce goose related damages. This rule would establish a 
new regulation authorizing State wildlife agencies to conduct (or 
allow) indirect and/or direct population control management activities, 
including the take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. The 
intent of this rule is to allow State wildlife management agencies 
sufficient flexibility to deal with problems caused by resident Canada 
geese and guide and direct resident Canada goose population growth and 
management activities in the conterminous United States.

Population Delineation and Status

    Waterfowl management activities frequently are based on the 
delineation of populations that are the target of management. Some 
goose populations are delineated according to where they winter, 
whereas others are delineated based on the location of their breeding 
grounds. For management purposes, populations can comprise one or more 
species of geese.
    Canada geese (Branta canadensis) nesting within the conterminous 
United States are considered subspecies or hybrids of the various 
subspecies originating in captivity and artificially introduced into 
numerous areas throughout the conterminous United States. Canada geese 
are highly philopatric to natal areas, and no evidence presently exists 
documenting breeding between Canada geese nesting within the 
conterminous United States and those subspecies nesting in northern 
Canada and Alaska. Canada geese nesting within the conterminous United 
States in the months of March, April, May, or June, or residing within 
the conterminous United States in the months of April, May, June, July, 
and August will be collectively referred to in this proposed rule as 
``resident'' Canada geese.
    The recognized subspecies of Canada geese are distributed 
throughout the northern temperate and sub-arctic regions of North 
America (Delacour 1954; Bellrose 1976; Palmer 1976). Historically, 
breeding Canada geese are

[[Page 50497]]

believed to have been restricted to areas north of 35 degrees and south 
of about 70 degrees latitude (Bent 1925; Delacour 1954; Bellrose 1976; 
Palmer 1976). Today, in the conterminous United States, Canada geese 
can be found nesting in every State, primarily due to translocations 
and introductions since the 1940s.
    The majority of Canada geese still nest in localized aggregations 
throughout Canada and Alaska and migrate annually to the conterminous 
United States to winter, with a few reaching as far south as northern 
Mexico. However, the distribution of Canada geese has expanded 
southward and numbers have increased appreciably throughout the 
southern portions of the range during the past several decades (Rusch 
et al. 1995). The following is a brief description of the status and 
distribution of the major management populations of Canada geese 
covered by this proposed rule:
    In the Atlantic Flyway, the resident population of Canada geese 
nests from Southern Quebec and the Maritime Provinces of Canada 
southward throughout the States of the Atlantic Flyway (Sheaffer and 
Malecki 1998; Johnson and Castelli 1998; Nelson and Oetting 1998). This 
population is believed to be of mixed racial origin (B. c. canadensis, 
B. c. interior, B. c. moffitti, and B. c. maxima) and is the result of 
purposeful introductions by management agencies, coupled with released 
birds from private aviculturists and releases from captive decoy flocks 
after live decoys were outlawed for hunting in the 1930s. Following the 
Federal prohibition on the use of live decoys in 1935, Dill and Lee 
(1970) cited an estimate of more than 15,000 domesticated and semi-
domesticated geese that were released from captive flocks. With the 
active restoration programs that occurred from the 1950s through the 
1980s, the population has grown to over 1 million birds in the 
northeastern United States and has increased an average of 5 percent 
per year since 1993 (Sheaffer and Malecki 1998; Atlantic Flyway Council 
1999; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002).
    In the Mississippi Flyway, most resident Canada geese are giant 
Canada geese (B. c. maxima). Once believed to be extinct (Delacour 
1954), Hanson (1965) rediscovered them in the early 1960s, and 
estimated the giant Canada goose population at about 63,000 birds in 
both Canada and the United States. In the nearly 40 years since their 
rediscovery, the breeding population of giant Canada geese in the 
Mississippi Flyway now exceeds 1.4 million individuals and has been 
growing at a rate of about 6 percent per year since 1993 (Rusch et al. 
1996; Wood et al. 1996; Nelson and Oetting 1998; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2002).
    In the Central Flyway, Canada geese that nest and/or reside in the 
States of the Flyway consist mainly of two populations, the Great 
Plains and Hi-Line. The Great Plains Population (Nelson 1962; Vaught 
and Kirsch 1966; Williams 1967) consists of geese (B. c. maxima/B. c. 
moffiti) that have been restored to previously occupied areas in 
Saskatchewan, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and 
Texas. For management purposes, this population is often combined with 
the Western Prairie Population (composed of geese (B. c. maxima/B. c. 
moffiti/B. c. interior) that nest throughout the prairie regions of 
Manitoba and Saskatchewan) and winter together from the Missouri River 
in South Dakota southward to Texas. The Hi-Line Population (Rutherford 
1965; Grieb 1968, 1970) (B. c. moffitti) nests in southeastern Alberta, 
southwestern Saskatchewan and eastern Montana, Wyoming, and 
northcentral Colorado. The population winters from Wyoming to central 
New Mexico. Overall, these three populations of large subspecies of 
Canada geese have increased tremendously over the last 30 years as the 
result of active restoration and management by Central Flyway States 
and Provinces. In 1999, the index for these three populations was over 
900,000 birds, 95 percent higher than 1990, and 687 percent higher than 
1980 (Gabig 2000). More recently, the 2002 mid-winter survey estimate 
of the Great Plains Population (surveyed together with the Western 
Prairie Population) was 710,300 geese and has increased an average of 
10 percent per year since 1993. For the Hi-Line Population, both the 
mid-winter survey and the spring survey estimates have increased an 
average of 6 percent per year since 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2002).
    In the Pacific Flyway, two populations of the western Canada goose, 
the Rocky Mountain Population and the Pacific Population, are 
predominantly composed of Canada geese that nest and/or reside in the 
States of the Flyway. The Rocky Mountain Population (B. c. moffitti) 
nests from southwestern Alberta southward through the intermountain 
regions of western Montana, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming. 
They winter southward from Montana to southern California, Nevada, and 
Arizona. Highly migratory, they have grown from a breeding population 
of about 14,000 in 1970 (Krohn and Bizeau 1980) to over 130,000 
(Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Canada Geese 2000; U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, 2002). Mid-winter survey estimates of Rocky Mountain 
Population Canada geese have increased an average of 4 percent per year 
since 1993, while spring populations have increased 6 percent per year 
over the last 10 years (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002). The 
Pacific Population (Krohn and Bizeau 1980; Ball et al. 1981) (B. c. 
moffitti) nests from southern British Columbia southward and west of 
the Rockies in the States of Idaho, western Montana, Washington, 
Oregon, northern California, and northwestern Nevada. They are 
essentially nonmigratory and winter primarily in these same areas.

Flyway Management Plans and Population Goals

    The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils are 
administrative bodies established to cooperatively deliver migratory 
bird management under the flyway system. The Councils, which are 
comprised of representatives from each member State and Province, make 
recommendations to the Service on matters regarding migratory game 
birds. The Flyway Councils work with the Service and the Canadian 
Wildlife Service to manage populations of Canada geese that occur in 
their geographic areas. Since there are large numbers of resident 
Canada geese in each Flyway, the Councils developed and prepared 
cooperative Flyway management plans to address these populations and 
establish overall population goals and associated objectives/
strategies. A common goal among the plans is the need to balance the 
positive aspects of resident Canada geese with the conflicts they can 
cause. While the Service does not formally adopt Flyway management 
plans, because of the cooperative nature of migratory bird management 
under the Flyway Council system, and the fact that the Flyway Councils 
and States are the most knowledgeable sources of information regarding 
the establishment of goose population goals and objectives under their 
purview, we believe incorporation of these management plans into the 
formulation of our overall resident Canada goose management help define 
the objectives for acceptable resident Canada goose population 
reduction and management. Thus, we have attempted to incorporate the 
goals and objectives of the Flyways' resident Canada goose management 
plans and their associated population objectives into the formulation 
of this proposed rule. A more detailed discussion of the Flyway 
management plans, their specific goals and objectives, is

[[Page 50498]]

contained in the draft EIS described in the ADDRESSES section of this 
document.
    The objective of this proposed rule is to allow State wildlife 
management agencies sufficient flexibility to deal with problems, 
conflicts, and damages caused by resident Canada geese and guide and 
direct resident Canada goose population growth and management 
activities in the conterminous United States. The program established 
by this rule should contribute to human health and safety, protect 
personal property and agricultural crops, protect other interests from 
injury, and allow resolution or prevention of injury to people, 
property, agricultural crops, or other interests from resident Canada 
geese. Further, the means must be effective, environmentally sound, 
cost-effective, flexible enough to meet the variety of management needs 
found throughout the flyways, should not threaten viable resident 
Canada goose populations as determined by each Flyway Council, and in 
accordance with the mission of the Service. Formulating such a national 
management strategy to reduce, manage, and control resident Canada 
goose populations in the continental United States and to reduce 
related damages, safety, and public health concerns was a complex 
problem, and Flyway input was essential for incorporating regional 
differences and solutions.
    As such, we note that the overall population objectives established 
by the Flyways were derived independently based on the States' 
respective management needs and capabilities, and in some cases, these 
objectives were an approximation of population levels from an earlier 
time when problems were less severe. In other cases, population 
objective levels were calculated from what was professionally judged to 
be a more desirable or acceptable density of geese with respect to 
conflicts and concerns. We further note that these population sizes are 
only optimal in the sense that it was each Flyway's best attempt to 
balance the many competing considerations of both consumptive and 
nonconsumptive users. As with any goal or objective, we believe that 
these population objectives should be periodically reviewed and/or 
revised in response to changes in resident Canada goose populations, 
damage levels, public input, or other factors. Current resident Canada 
goose population estimates and population objectives for each Flyway 
are shown in Table 1. We note that over the last three years (2001-03), 
the total number of temperate-nesting Canada geese, or resident Canada 
geese, has averaged approximately 3.2 million in the U.S. and 1.1 in 
Canada for a total spring population of 4.3 million (Moser and Caswell, 
in press).

  Table 1.--Recent Resident Canada Goose Population Estimates (2001-03 Average) and Population Objectives on a
                                                  Flyway Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current resident Canada goose                           Mississippi
           population \a\              Atlantic flyway         flyway         Central flyway     Pacific flyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.................................          1,148,536          1,292,298            528,948            218,311
Canada..............................            269,439            152,434            343,286            372,686
                                     --------------------
Total...............................          1,417,975          1,444,732            872,234            590,996


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Resident Canada goose population     Atlantic flyway      Mississippi       Central flyway
              objective                      \b\             flyway \c\            \d\           Pacific flyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S.................................            620,000            989,000    368,833-448,833  \e\ 54,840-90,900
Canada..............................             30,000            180,000                     \e\ 35,750-56,250
                                     --------------------
Total...............................            650,000          1,169,000                           \e\ 90,590-
                                                                                                        147,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Moser and Caswell, in press.
\b\ Atlantic Flyway Council Section 1999.
\c\ Population objective numbers are draft and are not final at this time (Giant Canada Goose Committee 2000).
\d\ Only U.S. States provided population objectives (Gabig 2000).
\e\ Lower end of the Pacific Flyway population objective for the Pacific Population of Western Canada geese
  derived from ``Restriction Level'' and upper end derived from ``Liberalization Level'' as shown in Management
  Plan for the Pacific Population of Western Canada Geese (Subcommittee on Pacific Population of Western Canada
  Geese 2000). While the cited report refers to numbers of pairs, nests, and individual geese, the numbers shown
  here have been converted to numbers of individual geese.

Potential Causes of Population Growth and Past Attempts to Slow Growth

    The rapid rise of resident Canada goose populations has been 
attributed to a number of factors. Most resident Canada geese live in 
temperate climates with relatively stable breeding habitat conditions 
and low numbers of predators, tolerate human and other disturbances, 
have a relative abundance of preferred habitat (especially those 
located in urban/suburban areas with current landscaping techniques), 
and fly relatively short distances to winter compared with other Canada 
goose populations. This combination of factors contributes to 
consistently high annual production and survival. Further, the virtual 
absence of waterfowl hunting in urban areas provides additional 
protection to those urban portions of the resident Canada goose 
population. Given these characteristics, most resident Canada goose 
populations are continuing to increase in both rural and urban areas.
    We have attempted to curb the growth of resident Canada goose 
populations by several means. Expansion of existing annual hunting 
season frameworks (special and regular seasons), the issuance of 
control permits on a case-by-case basis, and a Special Canada goose 
permit have all been used with varying degrees of success. While these 
approaches have provided relief in some areas, they have not completely 
addressed the problem.
    Normally, complex Federal and State responsibilities are involved 
with Canada goose control activities. All control activities, except 
those intended to either scare geese out of, or preclude them from 
using, a specific area, such as harassment, habitat management, or 
repellants, require a Federal permit issued by the Service. 
Additionally, permits to alleviate migratory bird depredations are 
issued by the Service in coordination with the Wildlife Services 
program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (Wildlife Services). Wildlife Services is the 
Federal agency with lead responsibility for dealing with wildlife

[[Page 50499]]

damage complaints. In most instances, State permits are required as 
well.

Conflicts and Impacts

    Conflicts between geese and people affect or damage several types 
of resources, including property, human health and safety, agriculture, 
and natural resources. Common problem areas include public parks, 
airports, public beaches and swimming facilities, water-treatment 
reservoirs, corporate business areas, golf courses, schools, college 
campuses, private lawns, athletic fields, amusement parks, cemeteries, 
hospitals, residential subdivisions, and along or between highways.
    Property damage usually involves landscaping and walkways, most 
commonly on golf courses, parks, and waterfront property. In parks and 
other open areas near water, large goose flocks create local problems 
with their droppings and feather litter (Conover and Chasko, 1985). 
Surveys have found that, while most landowners like seeing some geese 
on their property, eventually, increasing numbers of geese and the 
associated accumulation of goose droppings on lawns, which results in a 
reduction of both the aesthetic value and recreational use of these 
areas, cause many landowners to view geese as a nuisance (Conover and 
Chasko, 1985).
    Negative impacts on human health and safety occur in several ways. 
At airports, large numbers of geese can create a very serious threat to 
aviation. Resident Canada geese have been involved in a large number of 
aircraft strikes resulting in dangerous landing/take-off conditions, 
costly repairs, and loss of human life. As a result, many airports have 
active goose control programs. Excessive goose droppings are a disease 
concern for many people. Public beaches in several States have been 
closed by local health departments due to excessive fecal coliform 
levels that in some cases have been traced back to geese and other 
waterfowl. Additionally, during nesting and brood-rearing, aggressive 
geese have bitten and chased people and injuries have occurred due to 
people falling or being struck by wings.
    Agricultural and natural resource impacts include losses to grain 
crops, overgrazing of pastures, and degrading water quality. In heavy 
concentrations, goose droppings can overfertilize lawns and degrade 
water quality, resulting in eutrophication of lakes and excessive algae 
growth (Manny et al., 1994). Overall, complaints related to personal 
and public property damage, agricultural damage, public safety 
concerns, and other public conflicts have increased as resident Canada 
goose populations increased.
    We have further described the various impacts of resident Canada 
geese on natural resources, public and private property, and health and 
human safety in our draft EIS on resident Canada goose management. Due 
to the volume of technical information, we refer the reader to the 
draft EIS for specific details. Procedures for obtaining a copy of the 
draft EIS are described in the ADDRESSES section of this document.

Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action

    We fully analyzed the No Action alternative with regard to resident 
Canada goose management in our draft EIS, to which we refer the reader 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). In summary, we expect that 
resident Canada goose populations will continue to grow. Within 10 
years, populations could approach 1.6 million in the Atlantic Flyway, 
2.0 million in the Mississippi Flyway, 1.3 million in the Central 
Flyway, and 450,000 in the Pacific Flyway. Additionally, resident 
Canada goose problems and conflicts related to goose distribution are 
likely to continue and expand. Resident Canada geese will continue to 
impact public and private property, safety, and health, and impacts are 
likely to grow as goose populations increase. Lastly, both Federal and 
State workloads related to dealing with these increasing conflicts and 
populations will also increase.

Environmental Consequences of Proposed Action

    We fully analyzed our proposed action in the draft EIS on resident 
Canada goose management, to which we refer the reader for specific 
details (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). In summary, under our 
proposed action, entitled ``State Empowerment,'' we expect a reduction 
in resident Canada goose populations, especially in problem areas. We 
also expect significant reductions in conflicts caused by resident 
Canada geese; decreased impacts to property, safety, and health; and 
increased hunting opportunities. We expect some initial State and 
Federal workload increases associated with implementation of the 
management strategies; however, over the long term, we expect that 
workloads would decrease. Lastly, we expect our proposed action to 
maintain viable resident Canada goose populations.

Proposed Resident Canada Goose Regulations

    Recently completed resident Canada goose modeling in Missouri 
(Coluccy 2000; Coluccy and Graber 2000), when extrapolated to the 
entire Mississippi Flyway, indicates that reduction of the Mississippi 
Flyway's resident population from the current 1,335,683 geese to the 
Flyway Council's goal of 989,000 geese would require one of several 
management actions: (1) The harvest of an additional 240,000 geese 
annually over that already occurring; (2) the take of an additional 
426,000 goslings per year; (3) a Flyway-wide nest removal of 264,000 
nests annually; or (4) a combination of harvesting an additional 
120,000 geese annually and the take of an additional 160,000 goslings 
per year. Each of these management alternatives would be required 
annually for 10 years to reach the Flyway's population management goal. 
In the Atlantic Flyway, where the resident Canada goose population is 
even further above established Flyway goals, these numbers would be 
even greater. Similar numbers would be expected in the Central Flyway, 
while numbers would be correspondingly smaller in the Pacific Flyway.
    Thus, to reduce the four Flyways' resident populations from the 
current level of approximately 3.5 million to the Flyway Councils' 
goals of approximately 2.1 million geese would require, at a minimum 
for the next 10 years, either the harvest of an additional 480,000 
geese annually, the take of an additional 852,000 goslings per year, a 
Flyway-wide nest removal of 528,000 nests annually, or a combination of 
the harvest of an additional 240,000 geese annually and the take of an 
additional 320,000 goslings per year. We believe the only way possibly 
to attain these numbers is to give the States the flexibility to 
address the problems caused by resident Canada goose populations within 
their respective States. By addressing population reductions on a wide 
number of available fronts, we believe the combination of various 
damage management strategies and population control strategies would 
successfully reduce numbers of resident Canada geese in those priority 
areas identified by the States. Since the States are the most informed 
and knowledgeable local authorities on wildlife conflicts in their 
respective States, we believe it is logical to authorize them to take 
the necessary actions within specified parameters.
    To give States the needed flexibility to address the problems 
caused by resident Canada geese, this proposed rule would

[[Page 50500]]

establish a regulation authorizing State wildlife agencies (or their 
authorized agents) to conduct (or allow) management activities, 
including the take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. This 
proposed rule would authorize indirect and/or direct population control 
strategies such as aggressive harassment, nest and egg destruction, 
gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, expanded methods of 
take to increase hunter harvest, or other general population reduction 
strategies. The intent of this proposed rule is to allow State wildlife 
management agencies sufficient flexibility, within predefined 
guidelines, to deal with problems caused by resident Canada geese 
within their respective States. Other guidelines would include criteria 
for such activities as special take authorization during a portion of 
the Treaty closed period (August 1-31); control for the protection of 
airport safety, agriculture, and public health; and the take of nests 
and eggs without permits.
    States could choose to implement specific strategies, such as 
specific depredation orders that address goose control at airports, 
agricultural sites, public health sites, and the non-permitted take of 
nests and eggs, identified under the regulation conditions and 
guidelines. The Orders would be for resident Canada goose populations 
only and, as such, in order to ensure protection of migrant Canada 
goose populations, could only be implemented between April 1 and August 
31, except for the take of nests and eggs which could be additionally 
implemented in March.
    Special Canada goose hunting seasons within the existing Treaty 
frameworks (i.e., September 1 to March 10) would continue to be handled 
within the existing migratory bird hunting season regulation 
development process. This proposed rule would also provide new 
regulatory options to State wildlife management agencies to potentially 
increase the harvest of resident Canada geese above that which results 
from existing special Canada goose seasons that target resident Canada 
geese. This proposed rule would authorize the use of additional hunting 
methods such as electronic calls, unplugged shotguns, and expanded 
shooting hours (one-half hour after sunset). During existing, 
operational, special September Canada goose seasons (i.e., September 1-
15), these additional hunting methods would be available for use on an 
operational basis. Utilization of these additional hunting methods 
during any new special seasons or other existing, operational special 
seasons (i.e., September 15-30) could be approved as experimental and 
would require demonstration of a minimal impact to migrant Canada goose 
populations. These experimental seasons would be authorized on a case-
by-case basis through the normal migratory bird hunting regulatory 
process. All of these expanded hunting methods and opportunities under 
Special Canada goose hunting seasons would be in accordance with the 
existing Migratory Bird Treaty frameworks for sport hunting seasons 
(i.e., 107-day limit from September 1 to March 10) and would be 
conducted outside of any other open waterfowl season (i.e., when all 
other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons were closed).
    Take of resident Canada geese outside the existing Migratory Bird 
Treaty frameworks for sport hunting seasons (i.e., 107-day limit from 
September 1 to March 10) would also be available under this proposed 
rule by creation of a new subpart to 50 CFR part 21 specifically for 
the management of overabundant resident Canada goose populations. Under 
this new subpart, we would establish a regulation under the authority 
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with the intent to reduce and/or 
stabilize resident Canada goose population levels. The ``managed take'' 
regulation would authorize each State in eligible areas to initiate 
aggressive resident Canada goose take strategies, within the conditions 
that we provide, with the intent to reduce the populations. The 
regulation will enable States to use the general public acting under 
strict program controls to kill resident Canada geese, by way of 
shooting in a hunting manner, during the August 1 through September 15 
period when all waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding 
falconry, are closed, inside or outside the migratory bird hunting 
season frameworks. The regulation would also authorize the use of 
additional methods of take to kill resident Canada geese during that 
period. The regulation would authorize the use of electronic calls and 
unplugged shotguns, liberalize daily bag limits on resident Canada 
geese, and allow shooting hours to continue until one-half hour after 
sunset. The Service would annually assess the overall impact and 
effectiveness of the ``managed take'' regulation to ensure 
compatibility with long-term conservation of this resource. If at any 
time evidence is presented that clearly demonstrates that there no 
longer exists a serious threat of injury to the area or areas involved 
for a particular resident Canada goose population, we will initiate 
action to suspend the regulation, and/or regular-season regulation 
changes, for that population. Suspension of regulations for a 
particular population would be made following a public review process.
    Under this proposed rule, the Service would maintain primary 
authority for the management of resident Canada geese, but the 
individual States would be authorized to implement the provisions of 
this regulation within the guidelines established by the Service. In 
addition to specific strategies, we would continue the use of special 
and regular hunting seasons, issued under 50 CFR 20, and the issuance 
of depredation permits and special Canada goose permits, issued under 
50 CFR 21.41 and 21.26, respectively. Participating States would be 
required to annually monitor the spring breeding population to assess 
population status and provide for the long-term conservation of the 
resource. Additionally, States or other applicable parties (such as 
airports or public health officials) would be required to annually 
report all take of geese under authorized management activities.

References Cited

Atlantic Flyway Council. 1999. Atlantic Flyway resident Canada goose 
management plan. Canada Goose Committee, Atlantic Flyway Technical 
Section. 42 pp.
Ball, I. J., E. L. Bowhay and C. F. Yocom. 1981. Ecology and 
management of the western Canada goose in Washington. Washington 
Department of Game, Biological Bulletin No. 17.
Bellrose, F. C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. 
Stackpole, Harrisburg, PA. 543 pp.
Bent, A. C. 1925. Life histories of North American wild fowl. Order 
Anseres (Part II). U.S. National Museum Bulletin 130. Washington, 
D.C. 396 pp.
Conover, M. R., and G. G. Chasko. 1985. Nuisance Canada goose 
problems in the eastern United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 
13(3):228-233.
Delacour, J. T. 1954. The waterfowl of the world. Volume 1 (Swans 
and geese). Country Life Ltd., London. 284 pp.
Dill, H. H., and F. B. Lee, eds. 1970. Home Grown Honkers. U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 154 pp.
Gabig, P. J. 2000. Large Canada geese in the Central Flyway: 
management of depredation, nuisance and human health and safety 
issues. Central Flyway Council. 53 pp.
Giant Canada Goose Committee. 1996. Mississippi Flyway giant Canada 
goose management plan. [c/o USFWS, MBMO] Twin Cities, MN. 
Unpublished report. 61 pp.
--------. 2000. Unpublished notes from the February 25, 2000 meeting 
of the Giant Canada Goose Committee of the Mississippi Flyway 
Council Technical Section in Little Rock, AR. 8 pp.

[[Page 50501]]

Grieb, J. R. 1968. Canada goose populations in the Central Flyway--
their status and future. Pages 31-41 in R. L. Hine and C. 
Schoenfeld, eds. Canada goose management: Current continental 
problems and programs. Dembar Education Research Service, Madison, 
WI. 195 pp.
--------. 1970. The Shortgrass Prairie Canada goose population. 
Wildlife Monograph 22. 49 pp.
Hanson, H. C. 1965. The giant Canada goose. Southern Illinois 
University Press. Carbondale, IL. 252 pp.
Johnson, F.A. and P. M. Castelli. 1998. Demographics of ``resident'' 
Canada geese in the Atlantic Flyway. Pages 127-133 in D. H. Rusch, 
M. D. Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and 
management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the International Canada 
Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.
Krohn, W. B., and E. G. Bizeau. 1980. The Rocky Mountain population 
of western Canada goose: Its distribution, habitats and management. 
Special Scientific Report Wildlife 229. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Washington, D.C. 93 pp.
Manny, B. A., W. C. Johnson, and R. G. Wetzel. 1994. Nutrient 
additives by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs: predicting their 
effects on productivity and water quality. Hydrobiologia 279:121-
132.
Mississippi Flyway Council. 1996. Giant Canada Goose Management 
Plan. Unpublished report.
Moser, T. J., and F. D. Caswell. In press. Long-term indices of 
Canada goose status and management. Pages xx-xx in T. J. Moser, K C. 
Vercauteren, R. D. Lien, K. F. Abraham, D. E. Andersen, J. G. 
Bruggink, J. M. Coluccy, D. A. Graber, J. O. Leafloor, D. R. 
Luukkonen, and R. E. Trost, editors. Proceedings of the 2003 
International Canada Goose Symposium, Madison, WI.
Nelson, H. K. 1962. Recent approaches to Canada goose management. 
U.S. Department of the Interior. Special Scientific Report Wildlife 
66. 21 pp.
------, and R. B. Oetting. 1998. Giant Canada goose flocks in the 
United States. Pages 483-495 in D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D. 
Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and management of Canada 
geese. Proceedings of the International Canada Goose Symposium, 
Milwaukee, WI.
Palmer, R.S., ed. 1976. Handbook of North American birds. Volume 2. 
Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 521 pp.
Rusch, D. H., R. E. Malecki, and R. E. Trost. 1995. Canada geese in 
North America. Pages 26-28 in E. T. LaRoe, G. S. Farris, C. E. 
Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac. Editors. OUR LIVING RESOURCES: 
A report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of 
U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the 
Interior, National Biological Service. Washington, D.C. 530 pp.
------, J. C. Wood, G. G. Zenner. 1996. The dilemma of giant Canada 
goose management. Pages 72-78 in Ratti, J. T. ed. 7th International 
Waterfowl Symposium. Ducks Unlimited, Inc., Memphis, TN.
Rutherford, W. H., ed. 1965. Description of Canada goose populations 
common to the Central Flyway. Central Flyway Waterfowl Council 
Technical Committee. 20 pp.
Sheaffer, S. E. and R. A. Malecki. 1998. Status of Atlantic Flyway 
resident nesting Canada geese. Pages 29-34 in D. H. Rusch, M. D. 
Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and 
management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the International Canada 
Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.
Subcommittee on Pacific Population of Western Canada Geese. 2000. 
Pacific Flyway Management Plan for the Pacific Population of Western 
Canada Geese. Pacific Flyway Study Committee. (c/o USFWS) Portland, 
OR. Unpublished report. XX pp.
Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Canada Geese. 2000. Pacific Flyway 
management plan for the Rocky Mountain Population of Canada Geese. 
Pacific Flyway Study Committee [c/o USFWS], Portland, OR. 
Unpublished report. 28 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Waterfowl population status, 
2002. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 37 pp. + 
appendices.
Vaught, R. W. and L. M. Kirsch. 1966. Canada geese of the Eastern 
Prairie Population with special reference to the Swan Lake flock. 
Missouri Department of Conservation Technical Bulletin 3. Jefferson 
City, MO. 91 pp.
Williams, C. S. 1967. Honker: a discussion of the habits and needs 
of the largest of our Canada geese. D. Van Nostrand Co., Princeton, 
NJ. 179 pp.
Wood, J. C., D. H. Rusch, and M. Samuel. 1996. Results of the 1996 
spring survey of giant Canada goose survey in the Mississippi 
Flyway. University of Wisconsin Co-op Unit. 9 pp. (mimeo).

NEPA Considerations

    In compliance with the requirements of section 102(2)(C) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), and the 
Council on Environmental Quality's regulation for implementing NEPA (40 
CFR 1500-1508), we prepared a draft EIS in February 2002. The draft EIS 
is available to the public at the location indicated under the 
ADDRESSES caption.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884) provides that ``Each Federal agency 
shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, 
insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species 
or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of [critical] habitat * * *.'' We have initiated Section 7 
consultation under the ESA for this proposed rule. The result of our 
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA will be available to the public 
at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for actions that will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, which includes small businesses, organizations, or 
governmental jurisdictions. The economic impacts of this proposed rule 
will fall primarily on State and local governments and Wildlife 
Services because of the structure of wildlife damage management. Data 
are not available to estimate the exact number of governments affected, 
but it is unlikely to be a substantial number on a national scale. We 
estimate that implementation of new resident Canada goose management 
regulations would help alleviate local public health and safety 
concerns, decrease economic damage caused by excessive numbers of 
geese, and increase the quality of life for those people experiencing 
goose conflicts. Implementation of new resident Canada goose 
regulations would also help reduce agricultural losses caused by these 
geese. Our proposed rule would give State fish and wildlife agencies 
significantly more latitude to manage resident Canada goose 
populations. Goose populations would be reduced to levels that local 
communities can support, and agricultural damages from resident Canada 
geese would be reduced. We have determined that a Regulatory 
Flexibility Act analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this 
proposed action is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. This rule will not have 
an annual economic effect of $100 million or adversely affect any 
economic sector, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or 
other units of government. Therefore, a cost-benefit economic analysis 
is not required. This proposed action will not create inconsistencies 
with other agencies' actions or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency. The Federal agency most interested 
in this action is Wildlife Services. The action proposed is consistent 
with the policies and guidelines of other Department of the Interior 
bureaus. This proposed action will not materially affect entitlements, 
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
their recipients. This proposed action will not raise novel legal or 
policy issues because we

[[Page 50502]]

have previously managed resident Canada geese under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act.
    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations 
that are easy to understand. We invite comments on how to make this 
rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the 
following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) 
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with 
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of 
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided 
into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in 
understanding the rule? (6)What else could the Service do to make the 
rule easier to understand?

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. It will not have an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; nor will it cause 
a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic 
regions. It will not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

    We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Under the Act, information collections must 
be approved by OMB. Agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 
is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number. As required by the Act, 
we will submit the necessary paperwork to OMB for approval to collect 
this information. We will not collect any information until approved by 
OMB and a final regulation is published.

What Will the Required Information Be Used for?

    The proposed information collection, record-keeping, and reporting 
requirements imposed under proposed regulations in 50 CFR part 21, 
subpart E will be used to administer this program, and particularly in 
monitoring resident Canada goose population status and in the 
assessment of impacts that alternative regulatory strategies may have 
on resident Canada goose populations. The information collections will 
be required in order to authorize State governments responsible for 
migratory bird management to take (or allow the take of) resident 
Canada geese within the program guidelines.

What Are the Current Information Collection Burden Estimates Under the 
Existing Permit Process?

    Current total annual burden estimates for resident Canada goose 
depredation permits (those permits issued under 50 CFR 21.41), 
including the time for completing the application and filing annual 
reports, is 2,304 hours. The annual ``out-of-pocket'' cost to the 
applicants is approximately $12,225. Under the Special Canada Goose 
Permit program (50 CFR 21.26), the total annual burden, including 
application and reporting requirements, is 114 hours. There is no 
annual ``out-of-pocket'' cost to the respondents under the Special 
Canada Goose Permit program because State agencies are exempt from the 
$25 application processing fee (50 CFR 13.11).

How Many Agencies, Organizations, or People Would Potentially Be 
Affected Under the New Requirements of This Rule?

    Based on information in the DEIS, Wildlife Services annually 
receives approximately 2,000 requests for technical assistance for 
property damage caused by resident Canada geese. Further, in 2000, the 
Service issued about 1,600 depredation permits for resident Canada 
geese. We believe these numbers are fairly representative of the 
current needs status. However, we also recognize that some unknown 
number of needs for assistance go unreported due to either higher 
individual resident Canada goose damage tolerance levels or personal 
perceptions that the obtained assistance would not ``solve'' the 
problem. Additionally, we know that States operating under the Special 
Canada Goose Permit (50 CFR 21.26) have been issuing individual 
authorizations within their respective States. For example, in 2000, 
the States of Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio, operating under 
a Special Canada Goose Permit, issued 528 authorizations to individuals 
within their respective States. These authorizations enabled the named 
individual(s) to conduct control and management activities on resident 
Canada geese under the auspices of the State wildlife agency. Had these 
States not held the special permit, we believe some number of these 
individuals would have applied for depredation permits.

How Would This Rule Change the Estimated Burden Associated With the 
Current Permit Process?

    We expect that this proposed rule would alleviate approximately 
2,000 current or potential permit holders from the requirement of 
applying for a Federal depredation permit to control and manage 
resident Canada geese. Thus, under this proposed rule, paperwork burden 
would be eliminated in two main areas: Application submission and 
annual reporting requirements.
    Under the application-associated burden, using an average of 1.5 
hours to complete an application for a depredation permit, we estimate 
that approximately 3,500 hours (2,000 x 1.5 hours) of existing or 
potential burden would be eliminated with this proposed rule. 
Additionally, the associated annual ``out-of-pocket'' cost to the 
current and potential applicants that would be eliminated is 
approximately $50,000 (2,000 applicants multiplied by a $25 application 
processing fee).
    Under the burden associated with annual reporting requirements, a 
similar elimination of existing burden would occur. Normally, holders 
of depredation permits are required to submit an annual report 
detailing the number of birds, eggs, or nests actually taken under the 
permit. The Service uses this information to determine whether a permit 
holder is in compliance with the permit and to track the number of 
birds actually taken from the wild and monitor the impact on the 
resource. While most annual reporting requirements would be eliminated 
under the proposed rule, a few would remain (those required for the 
State wildlife agency summarizing activities under Sec.  21.61(d)(1) 
and (6)). Others would be replaced by the maintenance of a log 
recording activities. As with the normal permit application, the amount 
of time it takes to complete the annual report or log depends on the 
scope of the activities. We estimate it normally takes an average of 1 
hour to complete the annual report for a depredation permit. 
Maintenance of a log book would be significantly less burden than 
completion of an annual report. We estimate that maintenance of a log 
book would require approximately 10 minutes per logbook, or about 1 
minute per entry. Thus, we estimate that the proposed rule would result 
in a total annual burden of 333 hours (2,000 x 10

[[Page 50503]]

minutes) or less for the reporting requirements.

What About Those State Agencies Currently Operating Under the Special 
Canada Goose Permit? How Would They Be Affected?

    States currently operating under the existing Special Canada Goose 
Permit would experience some changes in burden if they opt to operate 
under the proposed rule. Currently each permittee (i.e., State wildlife 
agency) is required to submit not only an application for the permit, 
but an annual report detailing the number of birds, eggs, or nests 
actually taken under the permit. Burden requirements for the 
application would be eliminated for those States that opt to 
participate in the new management program. However, under the proposed 
rule, annual reports would continue to be required for State wildlife 
agencies summarizing management activities under Sec.  21.61(d)(1) and 
(6), similar to that required under the Special Canada Goose Permit 
program. We estimate it would take an average of 2 hours to complete 
this annual report (the same as that estimated under the Special Canada 
Goose Permit program). We estimate that the proposed rule would not 
significantly affect the overall burden associated under both programs 
of approximately 90 hours (45 States x 2 hours) or less.

How Do the Conservation Order Provisions Affect the Estimated Burden? 
Are There Not Additional Reporting Requirements Associated With the 
Special Management Actions Authorized Under the Conservation Order?

    Yes. Under Sec.  21.61(d)(6)(iii)(H), States must keep detailed 
records of activities carried out under the Conservation Order and must 
submit an annual report summarizing such activities. We expect a 
maximum of 45 State wildlife agencies will participate under the 
authority of the Conservation Order, requiring an average of 24 hours 
to collect the information from program participants. Thus, the burden 
assumed by State participants would be 1,080 hours or less.

What Is the Total Estimated Burden of This New Program?

    We estimate the maximum total annual burden would be about 1,503 
hours (333 + 90 + 1,080).

How Can I Comment on This Estimate?

    Comments are invited from the public on: (1) Whether the collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function 
of the Service, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (2) the accuracy of the Service's burden of the collection of 
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions 
used; (3) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (4) how to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on those who are to respond, including the use of 
electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology. Send 
your comments on this information collection to the Desk Officer for 
the Department of the Interior at OMB-OIRA via facsimile or e-mail 
using the following fax number or e-mail address: (202) 395-6566 (fax); 
[email protected] (e-mail); and a copy of the comments should be 
sent to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, ms 222-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20204.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to 
assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and 
tribal governments and the private sector. The purpose of the act is to 
strengthen the partnership between the Federal Government and State, 
local, and tribal governments and to end the imposition, in the absence 
of full consideration by Congress, of Federal mandates on these 
governments without adequate Federal funding, in a manner that may 
displace other essential governmental priorities. We have determined, 
in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that the proposed action would not 
``significantly or uniquely'' affect small governments, and will not 
produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or more in any given year on 
local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this action 
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    We, in promulgating this rule, have determined that these 
regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule has been 
reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity, has been written to 
minimize litigation, provides a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct, and specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal 
law or regulation. It is not anticipated that this rule will require 
any additional involvement of the justice system beyond enforcement of 
provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 that have already 
been implemented through previous rulemakings.

Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed action, 
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant 
takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected 
property rights. This action will not result in the physical occupancy 
of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory 
taking of any property. In fact, this proposed action will help 
alleviate private and public property damage and concerns related to 
public health and safety and allow the exercise of otherwise 
unavailable privileges.

Federalism Effects

    Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the 
Federal Government has been given statutory responsibility over these 
species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. While legally this 
responsibility rests solely with the Federal Government, it is in the 
best interest of the migratory bird resource for us to work 
cooperatively with the Flyway Councils and States to develop and 
implement the various migratory bird management plans and strategies.
    For example, in the establishment of migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we annually prescribe frameworks from which the States 
make selections and employ guidelines to establish special regulations 
on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves 
the ability of the States and Tribes to determine which seasons meet 
their individual needs. Frameworks are developed in a cooperative 
process with the States and the Flyway Councils and any State or Tribe 
may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks. This allows States 
to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will 
make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations.
    The proposed rulemaking was developed following extensive input 
from the Flyway Councils, States, and Wildlife Services. Individual 
Flyway management plans were developed and approved by the four Flyway 
Councils, and States actively participated in the scoping process for 
the DEIS. This proposed rule does not have a substantial direct effect 
on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or 
State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. The 
proposed rule

[[Page 50504]]

allows States the latitude to develop and implement their own resident 
Canada goose management action plan within the frameworks of the 
proposed alternative. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 
13132, this proposed rule does not have significant federalism effects 
and does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we 
have determined that this rule has no effects on Federally-recognized 
Indian tribes. Specifically, Tribes were sent copies of our August 19, 
1999, Notice of Intent (64 FR 45269) that outlined the proposed action 
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Resident Canada Goose 
Management. In addition, Tribes were sent our December 30, 1999, Notice 
of Meetings (64 FR 73570), which provided the public additional 
opportunity to comment on the DEIS process. No known Native American 
tribes depend on this resource for sustenance or religious purposes.

Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This rule is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and is not 
expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

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

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby propose to amend 
parts 20 and 21, of subchapter B, chapter I, title 50 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 20--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 20 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755, 16 U.S.C. 
703-712; Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 742a-j; Pub. L. 
106-108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.

    2. Amend Sec.  20.11 by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.11  What terms do I need to understand?

* * * * *
    (n) Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the 
lower 48 States in the months of March, April, May, or June, or reside 
within the lower 48 States in the months of April, May, June, July, or 
August.
    3. Revise paragraphs (b) and (g) of Sec.  20.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  20.21  What hunting methods are illegal?

* * * * *
    (b) With a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than 
three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler, incapable 
of removal without disassembling the gun, so its total capacity does 
not exceed three shells. However, this restriction does not apply 
during:
    (1) A light-goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and 
Ross' geese) when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, 
excluding falconry, are closed while hunting light geese in Atlantic, 
Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 
Wyoming.
    (2) A season only for resident Canada geese during the period of 
September 1 to September 15 when all other waterfowl and crane hunting 
seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.
* * * * *
    (g) By the use or aid of recorded or electrically amplified bird 
calls or sounds, or recorded or electrically amplified imitations of 
bird calls or sounds. However, this restriction does not apply during:
    (1) A light-goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and 
Ross' geese) when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, 
excluding falconry, are closed while hunting light geese in Atlantic, 
Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of Alabama, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 
Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 
Wyoming.
    (2) A season only for resident Canada geese during the period of 
September 1 to September 15 when all other waterfowl and crane hunting 
seasons, excluding falconry, are closed.

PART 21--[AMENDED]

    4. The authority citation for part 21 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 40 Stat. 755 (16 U.S.C. 
703); Pub. L. 95-616, 92 Stat. 3112 (16 U.S.C. 712(2)); Pub. L. 106-
108, 113 Stat. 1491, Note Following 16 U.S.C. 703.

    5. Amend Sec.  21.3 by revising the definition for ``Resident 
Canada geese'' to read as follows:


Sec.  21.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the lower 
48 States in the months of March, April, May, or June, or reside within 
the lower 48 States in the months of April, May, June, July, or August.
* * * * *
    6. Add Sec.  21.61 to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  21.61  Control and management of resident Canada geese.

    (a) Which Canada geese are covered by this regulation? This 
regulation addresses the control and management of resident Canada 
geese, as described in Sec.  21.3.
    (b) What is the resident Canada goose control and management 
program, and what is its purpose? The resident Canada goose control and 
management program authorizes State wildlife agencies to conduct (or 
allow) indirect and/or direct population control management activities, 
including the take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. The 
intent of the program is to allow State wildlife management agencies 
sufficient flexibility to deal with problems, conflicts, and damages 
caused by resident Canada geese and guide and direct resident Canada 
goose population growth and management activities in the conterminous 
United States. The program contributes to human health and safety, 
protects personal property and agricultural crops, protects other 
interests from injury, and allows resolution or

[[Page 50505]]

prevention of injury to people, property, agricultural crops, or other 
interests from resident Canada geese. The management and control 
activities allowed or conducted under the program are intended to 
relieve or prevent damage and injurious situations. No person should 
construe this program as opening, reopening, or extending any hunting 
season contrary to any regulations established under Section 3 of the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    (c) Who may participate in the program? Only State wildlife 
agencies (State) in the lower 48 States are eligible to conduct (or 
allow) and implement the various resident Canada goose control and 
management program components.
    (d) What are the various components of the resident Canada goose 
control and management program? The resident Canada goose control and 
management program has six components. Any State identified in 
paragraph (c) of this section, may implement all, part, or none of the 
following program components:
    (1) State control and management activities for resident Canada 
geese. State wildlife agencies (or their authorized agents) may conduct 
(or allow) control and management activities, including the take of 
birds, on resident Canada goose populations when necessary to protect 
human health and safety; protect personal property, agricultural crops, 
and other interests from injury; and allow resolution or prevention of 
injury to people, property, agricultural crops, or other interests from 
resident Canada geese; and to reduce resident Canada goose populations 
within Flyway management objectives. Control and management activities 
include indirect and/or direct population control strategies such as 
aggressive harassment, trapping and relocation, nest and egg 
manipulation and destruction, gosling and adult trapping and culling 
programs, or other general population reduction strategies. The program 
is subject to the following restrictions:
    (i) States should encourage and utilize nonlethal goose management 
tools to the extent they deem appropriate in an effort to minimize 
lethal take.
    (ii) Methods of take for the control and management of resident 
Canada geese are at the State's discretion from among the following: 
Firearms, alpha-chloralose, traps, egg and nest manipulation and 
destruction, euthanization, and other damage control techniques 
consistent with accepted wildlife damage-management programs as may be 
approved by the Director.
    (iii) States and their employees and agents may conduct (or allow) 
management and control activities, including the take of resident 
Canada geese, under this section between April 1 and August 31. The 
manipulation and destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs 
may take place between March 1 and June 30.
    (iv) States and their employees and agents may possess, transport, 
and otherwise dispose of resident Canada geese taken under this 
section. States must dispose of birds taken under this program by 
donation to public museums or public institutions for scientific or 
educational purposes, by processing them for human consumption and 
distributing them free of charge to charitable organizations, or by 
burying or incinerating them. States, their employees, and designated 
agents may not sell, offer for sale, barter, or ship for the purpose of 
sale or barter any resident Canada geese taken under this section, nor 
their plumage or eggs. Persons authorized to operate under the program 
may not possess or transport resident Canada goose nests and eggs taken 
under this section. Any specimens needed for scientific purposes as 
determined by the Director must not be destroyed, and information on 
birds carrying metal leg bands must be submitted to the Bird Banding 
Laboratory by means of a toll-free telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND 
(or 2263).
    (v) No person conducting resident Canada goose control and 
management activities under this section should construe the program as 
authorizing the killing of resident Canada geese or destruction of 
their nests and eggs contrary to any State law or regulation, nor may 
any control or management activities be conducted on any Federal land 
without specific authorization by the responsible management agency. No 
person may exercise the privileges granted under this section unless 
they possess any permits required for such activities by any State or 
Federal land manager.
    (vi) States and their employees and agents operating under the 
provisions of this section may not use decoys, calls, or other devices 
to lure birds within gun range.
    (vii) Persons using shotguns are required to use nontoxic shot.
    (viii) Any State, its employees, and agents exercising the 
privileges of this section must keep and maintain a log recording the 
date and number of birds killed each month under this authorization. 
The log and any related records must be made available to Federal or 
State wildlife enforcement officers upon request during normal business 
hours.
    (ix) Any State employee or designated agent authorized to carry out 
management and control activities must have a copy of the State's 
authorization and designation in their possession when carrying out any 
activities. If the State is conducting operations on private property 
at the request of the property owner or occupant, the State must also 
require the property owner or occupant on whose premises resident 
Canada goose control and management activities are being conducted to 
allow, at all reasonable times, including during actual operations, 
free and unrestricted access to any Service special agent or refuge 
officer, State wildlife or deputy wildlife agent, warden, protector, or 
other wildlife law enforcement officer (wildlife officer) on the 
premises where they are, or were, conducting activities. Furthermore, 
any State employee or designated agent conducting such activities must 
promptly furnish whatever information is required concerning such 
activities to any such wildlife officer.
    (x) States exercising the privileges granted by this section must 
submit an annual report summarizing activities, including the date, 
numbers, and location of birds taken by December 31 of each year. The 
State should submit the annual report to the Assistant Director for 
Migratory Birds and State Programs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
(Attention: Division of Migratory Bird Management), 4401 North Fairfax 
Drive, MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
    (2) Airport safety. States may authorize commercial, public, and 
private airports (Airports) (and their employees or their agents) to 
establish and implement a resident Canada goose control and management 
program when necessary to protect public safety and allow resolution or 
prevention of airport safety threats from resident Canada geese. 
Control and management activities include indirect and/or direct 
population control strategies such as aggressive harassment, trapping 
and relocation, nest and egg manipulation and destruction, gosling and 
adult trapping and culling programs, or other general population 
reduction strategies. This program is subject to the following 
restrictions:
    (i) Authorized airports should utilize nonlethal goose management 
tools to the extent they deem appropriate. To minimize lethal take, 
Airports should follow the following procedure:
    (A) Assess the problem to determine its extent or magnitude, its 
impact on

[[Page 50506]]

current operations, and the appropriate control method to be used.
    (B) Base control methods on sound biological, environmental, 
social, and cultural factors.
    (C) Formulate appropriate methods into a control strategy that 
utilizes the approach or concept that encourages the use of several 
control techniques rather than relying on a single method.
    (D) Always first consider nonlethal harassment methods in any 
control strategy.
    (ii) Methods of take for the control of resident Canada geese are 
at the State's discretion from among the following: Firearms, alpha-
chloralose, traps, egg and nest manipulation and destruction, 
euthanization, and other damage control techniques consistent with 
accepted wildlife damage-management programs as may be approved by the 
Director.
    (iii) Authorized airports may conduct management and control 
activities, including the take of resident Canada geese, under this 
section between April 1 and August 31. The manipulation and destruction 
of resident Canada goose nests and eggs may take place between March 1 
and June 30.
    (iv) Authorized airports and their employees and agents may 
possess, transport, and otherwise dispose of resident Canada geese 
taken under this section. They must dispose of birds taken under this 
order by donation to public museums or public institutions for 
scientific or educational purposes, by processing them for human 
consumption and distributing them free of charge to charitable 
organizations, or by burying or incinerating them. Airports, their 
employees, and designated agents may not sell, offer for sale, barter, 
or ship for the purpose of sale or barter any resident Canada geese 
taken under this section, nor their plumage or eggs. Persons authorized 
to operate under the program may not possess or transport resident 
Canada goose nests and eggs taken under this section. Any specimens 
needed for scientific purposes as determined by the Director must not 
be destroyed, and information on birds carrying metal leg bands must be 
submitted to the Bird Banding Laboratory by means of a toll-free 
telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND (or 2263).
    (v) Resident Canada geese may be taken only within a 3-mile radius 
of the Airport.
    (vi) Persons using shotguns are required to use nontoxic shot as 
identified in Sec.  20.22(j).
    (vii) Authorized airports, and their employees and agents operating 
a program authorized under the provisions of this section may not use 
decoys, calls, or other devices to lure birds within gun range.
    (viii) Any Airport exercising the privileges of a program 
authorized under this section must keep and maintain a log recording 
the date and number of birds killed, and the number of nests and eggs 
taken under this authorization. The log must be maintained for a period 
of 3 years (and records of 3 previous years of takings must be 
maintained at all times thereafter). The log and any related records 
must be made available to Federal or State wildlife enforcement 
officers upon request during normal business hours.
    (ix) Nothing in this section authorizes the killing of resident 
Canada geese or destruction of their nests and eggs contrary to the 
laws or regulations of any State, and none of the privileges of this 
section may be exercised unless the Airport possesses the appropriate 
State authorization or other permits required by the State, when 
required; nor does it authorize the killing of any migratory bird 
species or destruction of their nest or eggs other than resident Canada 
geese.
    (3) Nest and eggs. States may authorize the manipulation and 
destruction of resident Canada goose nests and the take of resident 
Canada goose eggs when necessary to allow resolution or prevention of 
injury to people, property, agricultural crops, or other interests from 
resident Canada geese, and to reduce resident Canada goose populations 
within Flyway management objectives. An authorized program is subject 
to the following restrictions:
    (i) Persons authorized to operate under the program should utilize 
nonlethal goose management tools to the extent they deem appropriate in 
an effort to minimize lethal take.
    (ii) Methods of take are at the State's discretion from among the 
following: egg and nest manipulation and destruction, and other damage 
control techniques consistent with accepted wildlife damage-management 
programs as may be approved by the Director.
    (iii) Persons authorized to operate under the program may conduct 
resident Canada goose nest and egg manipulation and destruction 
activities between March 1 and June 30.
    (iv) Persons authorized to operate under the program may not 
possess or transport resident Canada goose nest and eggs taken under 
this section. Persons authorized to operate under the program may not 
sell, offer for sale, barter, or ship for the purpose of sale or barter 
any resident Canada goose nest or egg taken under this section.
    (v) Any person exercising the privileges of this section under a 
State authorization must keep and maintain a log recording the date and 
number of resident Canada goose nests and eggs taken under this 
authorization. The log must be maintained for a period of 3 years (and 
records of 3 previous years of takings must be maintained at all times 
thereafter). The log and any related records must be made available to 
Federal or State wildlife enforcement officers upon request during 
normal business hours.
    (vi) Nothing in this section authorizes the destruction of resident 
Canada goose nests or the take of resident Canada goose eggs contrary 
to the laws or regulations of any State, and none of the privileges of 
this section may be exercised unless the persons authorized to operate 
under the program possess the appropriate State permits, when required; 
nor does it authorize the killing of any migratory bird species or 
destruction of their nest or eggs other than resident Canada geese.
    (4) Agricultural depredation. States may authorize landowners, 
operators, and tenants actively engaged in the production of commercial 
agriculture (agricultural producers) (or their employees or agents) to 
conduct indirect and/or direct population control strategies such as 
aggressive harassment, nest and egg manipulation and destruction, 
gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, or other general 
population reduction strategies on resident Canada goose populations 
when the geese are committing or about to commit depredations to 
agricultural crops and when necessary to allow resolution or prevention 
of injury to agricultural crops or other agricultural interests from 
resident Canada geese. The program is subject to the following 
restrictions:
    (i) Authorized agricultural producers should utilize nonlethal 
goose management tools to the extent they deem appropriate. To minimize 
lethal take, agricultural producers should follow the following 
procedure:
    (A) Assess the problem to determine its extent or magnitude, its 
impact to current operations, and the appropriate control method to be 
used.
    (B) Base control methods on sound biological, environmental, 
social, and cultural factors.
    (C) Formulate appropriate methods into a control strategy that 
utilizes the approach/concept that encourages the use of several 
control techniques rather than relying on a single method.
    (D) Always first consider nonlethal harassment methods in any 
control strategy.

[[Page 50507]]

    (ii) Methods of take for the control of resident Canada geese are 
at the State's discretion among the following: firearms, alpha-
chloralose, traps, egg and nest manipulation and destruction, 
euthanization, and other damage control techniques consistent with 
accepted wildlife damage-management programs as may be approved by the 
Director.
    (iii) Authorized agricultural producers and their employees and 
agents may conduct management and control activities, including the 
take of resident Canada geese, under this section between April 1 and 
August 31. The manipulation and destruction of resident Canada goose 
nests and eggs may take place between March 1 and June 30.
    (iv) Authorized agricultural producers and their employees and 
agents may possess, transport, and otherwise dispose of resident Canada 
geese taken under this section. Agricultural producers must dispose of 
birds taken under this order by donation to public museums or public 
institutions for scientific or educational purposes, by processing them 
for human consumption and distributing them free of charge to 
charitable organizations, or by burying or incinerating them. 
Agricultural producers, their employees, and designated agents may not 
sell, offer for sale, barter, or ship for the purpose of sale or barter 
any resident Canada geese taken under this section, nor their plumage 
or eggs. Persons authorized to operate under the program may not 
possess or transport resident Canada goose nests and eggs taken under 
this section. Any specimens needed for scientific purposes as 
determined by the Director must not be destroyed, and information on 
birds carrying metal leg bands must be submitted to the Bird Banding 
Laboratory by means of a toll-free telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND 
(or 2263).
    (v) Resident Canada geese may be taken on land an authorized 
agricultural producer personally controls and where damage is either 
occurring or where geese are committing or about to commit depredations 
to agricultural crops.
    (vi) Persons using shotguns are required to use nontoxic shot as 
identified in Sec.  20.22(j).
    (vii) Authorized agricultural producers, and their employees and 
agents, operating under the provisions of this section may not use 
decoys, calls, or other devices to lure birds within gun range.
    (viii) Any authorized agricultural producer exercising the 
privileges of this section must keep and maintain a log that indicates 
the date and number of birds killed and the date and number of nests 
and eggs taken under this authorization. The log must be maintained for 
a period of 3 years (and records for 3 previous years of takings must 
be maintained at all times thereafter). The log and any related records 
must be made available to Federal or State wildlife enforcement 
officers upon request during normal business hours.
    (ix) Nothing in this section authorizes the killing of resident 
Canada geese or the destruction of their nests and eggs contrary to the 
laws or regulations of any State, and none of the privileges of this 
section may be exercised unless the agricultural producer possesses the 
appropriate State permits, when required; nor does its authorize the 
killing of any migratory bird species or destruction of their nest or 
eggs other than resident Canada geese.
    (5) Public health. States may authorize State, county, municipal, 
or local public health officials (public health agencies) (or their 
employees or their agents) to establish and implement a resident Canada 
goose control and management program when necessary to protect public 
health and allow resolution or prevention of public health threats from 
resident Canada geese. Control and management activities include 
indirect and/or direct population control strategies such as aggressive 
harassment, trapping and relocation, nest and egg manipulation and 
destruction, gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, or other 
general population reduction strategies. The program is subject to the 
following restrictions:
    (i) Authorized public health agencies should utilize nonlethal 
goose management tools to the extent they deem appropriate. To minimize 
lethal take, public health agencies should follow the following 
procedure:
    (A) Assess the problem to determine its extent or magnitude, its 
impact to public health, and the appropriate control methods to be 
used.
    (B) Base control methods on sound biological, environmental, 
social, and cultural factors.
    (C) Formulate appropriate methods into a control strategy that 
utilizes the approach or concept that encourages the use of several 
control techniques rather than relying on a single method.
    (D) Always first consider nonlethal harassment methods in any 
control strategy.
    (ii) Methods of take for the control of resident Canada geese are 
at the State's discretion from among the following: Firearms, alpha-
chloralose, traps, egg and nest manipulation and destruction, 
euthanization, and other damage control techniques consistent with 
accepted wildlife damage-management programs as may be approved by the 
Director.
    (iii) Authorized public health agencies and their employees and 
agents may conduct management and control activities, including the 
take of resident Canada geese, under this section between April 1 and 
August 31. The manipulation and destruction of resident Canada goose 
nests and eggs may take place between March 1 and June 30.
    (iv) Authorized public health agencies and their employees and 
agents may possess, transport, and otherwise dispose of resident Canada 
geese taken under this section. Public health agencies must dispose of 
birds taken under this order by donation to public museums or public 
institutions for scientific or educational purposes, by processing them 
for human consumption and distributing them free of charge to 
charitable organizations, or by burying or incinerating them. Public 
health agencies, their employees, and designated agents may not sell, 
offer for sale, barter, or ship for the purpose of sale or barter any 
resident Canada geese taken under this section, nor their plumage or 
eggs. Persons authorized to operate under the program may not possess 
or transport resident Canada goose nests and eggs taken under this 
section. Any specimens needed for scientific purposes as determined by 
the Director must not be destroyed, and information on birds carrying 
metal leg bands must be submitted to the Bird Banding Laboratory by 
means of a toll-free telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND (or 2263).
    (v) Resident Canada geese may be taken only within the area of 
potential health threat.
    (vi) Persons using shotguns are required to use nontoxic shot as 
identified in Sec.  20.22(j).
    (vii) Authorized public health agencies, and their employees and 
agents operating under the provisions of this section may not use 
decoys, calls, or other devices to lure birds within gun range.
    (viii) Any authorized public health agencies exercising the 
privileges of this section must keep and maintain a log which indicates 
the date and number of birds killed and the date and number of nests 
and eggs taken under this authorization. The log must be maintained for 
a period of 3 years (and records for the 3 previous years of takings 
must be maintained at all times thereafter). The log and any related 
records must be made available to Federal or State wildlife enforcement

[[Page 50508]]

officers upon request during normal business hours.
    (ix) Nothing in this section authorizes the killing of resident 
Canada geese or destruction of their nests and eggs contrary to the 
laws or regulations of any State, and none of the privileges of this 
section may be exercised unless the public health agency possesses the 
appropriate State permits, when required; nor does it authorize the 
killing of any migratory bird species or destruction of their nest and 
eggs other than resident Canada geese.
    (6) Managed take of resident Canada geese. (i) What is managed 
take? Managed take is a special management action that is needed to 
control certain wildlife populations when traditional management 
programs are unsuccessful in preventing overabundance of the 
population. We are implementing a managed take program under the 
authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to reduce and stabilize 
resident Canada goose populations. Managed take allows additional 
methods of taking resident Canada geese, allows shooting hours for 
resident Canada geese to extend to one-half hour after sunset, and 
removes daily bag limits for resident Canada geese inside or outside 
the migratory bird hunting season frameworks as described below.
    (ii) In what areas can a managed take program be implemented? All 
States except Alaska and Hawaii.
    (iii) What is required in order for State governments to 
participate in a managed take program? Any State government responsible 
for the management of wildlife and migratory birds may, without permit, 
kill or cause to be killed under its general supervision, resident 
Canada geese under the following conditions:
    (A) Activities conducted under the managed take program may not 
affect endangered or threatened species as designated under the 
Endangered Species Act.
    (B) Control activities must be conducted clearly as such and are 
not to be construed as opening, reopening, or extending any open 
hunting season contrary to any regulations promulgated under Section 3 
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    (C) Control activities may only be conducted under this section 
between August 1 and September 15.
    (D) Control activities may be conducted only when all waterfowl 
(including resident Canada goose) and crane hunting seasons, excluding 
falconry, are closed.
    (E) Control measures employed through this section may be 
implemented only between the hours of one-half hour before sunrise to 
one-half hour after sunset.
    (F) Nothing in the program may limit or initiate management actions 
on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal agency with 
jurisdiction.
    (G) States must designate participants who must operate under the 
conditions of the managed take program.
    (H) States must inform participants of the requirements/conditions 
of the program that apply.
    (I) States must keep annual records of activities carried out under 
the authority of the program. Specifically, information must be 
collected on:
    (1) The number of individuals participating in the program;
    (2) The number of days individuals participated in the program;
    (3) The total number of resident Canada geese shot and retrieved 
during the program; and
    (4) The number of resident Canada geese shot but not retrieved. The 
States must submit an annual report summarizing activities conducted 
under the program on or before June 1 of each year, to the Chief, 
Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Suite 634, 
Arlington, Virginia 22203.
    (iv) What is required for individuals to participate in the 
program? Individual participants in State programs covered by the 
managed take program must comply with the following requirements:
    (A) Participants must comply with all applicable State laws or 
regulations including possession of whatever permit(s) or other 
authorization(s) may be required by the State government concerned.
    (B) Participants who take resident Canada geese under the program 
may not sell or offer for sale those birds or their plumage, but may 
possess, transport, and otherwise properly use them.
    (C) Participants must permit at all reasonable times, including 
during actual operations, any Federal or State game or deputy game 
agent, warden, protector, or other game law enforcement officer free 
and unrestricted access over the premises on which such operations have 
been or are being conducted and must promptly furnish whatever 
information an officer requires concerning the operation.
    (D) Participants may take resident Canada geese by any method 
except those prohibited as follows:
    (1) With a trap, snare, net, rifle, pistol, swivel gun, shotgun 
larger than 10 gauge, punt gun, battery gun, machine gun, fish hook, 
poison, drug, explosive, or stupefying substance.
    (2) From or by means, aid, or use of a sinkbox or any other type of 
low-floating device, having a depression affording the person a means 
of concealment beneath the surface of the water.
    (3) From or by means, aid, or use of any motor vehicle, motor-
driven land conveyance, or aircraft of any kind, except that 
paraplegics and persons missing one or both legs may take from any 
stationary motor vehicle or stationary motor-driven land conveyance.
    (4) From or by means of any motorboat or other craft having a motor 
attached, or any sailboat, unless the motor has been completely shut 
off and the sails furled, and its progress has ceased. A craft under 
power may be used only to retrieve dead or crippled birds; however, the 
craft may not be used under power to shoot any crippled birds.
    (5) By the use or aid of live birds as decoys. No person may take 
resident Canada geese on an area where tame or captive live geese are 
present unless such birds are, and have been for a period of 10 
consecutive days before the taking, confined within an enclosure that 
substantially reduces the audibility of their calls and totally 
conceals the birds from the sight of resident Canada geese.
    (6) By means or aid of any motor-driven land, water, or air 
conveyance, or any sailboat used for the purpose of or resulting in the 
concentrating, driving, rallying, or stirring up of resident Canada 
geese.
    (7) By the aid of baiting, or on or over any baited area, where a 
person knows or reasonably should know that the area is or has been 
baited as described in Sec.  20.11(j) and (k). Resident Canada geese 
may not be taken on or over lands or areas that are baited areas, and 
where grain or other feed has been distributed or scattered solely as 
the result of manipulation of an agricultural crop or other feed on the 
land where grown, or solely as the result of a normal agricultural 
operation as described in Sec.  20.11(h) and (l) . However, nothing in 
this paragraph prohibits the taking of resident Canada geese on or over 
the following lands or areas that are not otherwise baited areas:
    (i) Standing crops or flooded standing crops (including aquatics); 
standing, flooded, or manipulated natural vegetation; flooded harvested 
croplands; or lands or areas where seeds or grains have been scattered 
solely as the result of a normal agricultural planting, harvesting, 
post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice as 
described in Sec.  20.11(g), (i), (l), and (m);

[[Page 50509]]

    (ii) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with 
natural vegetation;
    (iii) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with 
vegetation from agricultural crops, as long as such camouflaging does 
not result in the exposing, depositing, distributing, or scattering of 
grain or other feed; or
    (iv) Standing or flooded standing agricultural crops where grain is 
inadvertently scattered solely as a result of a hunter entering or 
exiting a hunting area, placing decoys, or retrieving downed birds.
    (8) Participants may not possess shot (either in shotshells or as 
loose shot for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, bismuth-tin, 
tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, tungsten-nickel-iron, 
or other shots that are authorized in Sec.  20.21(j).
    (v) Under what conditions would the managed take program be 
suspended? We will annually assess the overall impact and effectiveness 
of the program on each resident Canada goose population to ensure 
compatibility with long-term conservation of this resource. If at any 
time evidence is presented that clearly demonstrates that a resident 
Canada goose population no longer presents a serious threat of injury 
to the area or areas involved, we will initiate action to suspend the 
program for the specific resident Canada goose population in question. 
However, resumption of growth by the resident Canada goose population 
in question may warrant reinstatement of such regulations to control 
the population. Depending on the status of resident Canada goose 
populations, it is possible that a managed take program may be in 
effect for one or more resident Canada goose populations, but not 
others.
    (e) What are the general program conditions and restrictions? The 
program is subject to the conditions elsewhere in this section, and, 
unless otherwise specifically authorized, the conditions outlined 
below:
    (1) Nothing in this section applies to any Federal land within a 
State's boundaries without written permission of the Federal agency 
with jurisdiction.
    (2) States may not undertake any actions under this section if the 
activities adversely affect other migratory birds or species designated 
as endangered or threatened under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act.
    (f) Can the program be suspended? We reserve the right to suspend 
or revoke an Agency's authority under this program if we find that the 
terms and conditions specified in the program have not been adhered to 
by that Agency. The criteria for suspension and revocation are outlined 
in Sec.  13.27 and Sec.  13.28 of this subchapter. Upon appeal, final 
decisions to revoke authority will be made by the Director. 
Additionally, at such time that we determine that a specific population 
of resident Canada geese no longer poses a threat to human health or 
safety, personal property, agricultural crops, or injury to other 
interests; or no longer needs to be reduced in order to allow 
resolution or prevention of injury to people, property, agricultural 
crops, or other interests, or is within Flyway management objectives, 
we may choose to terminate part or all of the program. In all cases, we 
will annually review the effectiveness of the program.
    (g) What population information is the State required to collect 
concerning the resident Canada goose control and management program? 
Participating States must provide an annual estimate of the breeding 
population and distribution of resident Canada geese in their State. 
The States must submit this estimate on or before August 1 of each 
year, to the Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 N. 
Fairfax Dr., MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
    (h) Has OMB approved the information collection requirements of the 
program? The information collection requirements of the program will be 
submitted to OMB for approval. Agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The proposed 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed under Sec.  21.61 will 
be used to administer this program, particularly in the assessment of 
impacts that alternative regulatory strategies may have on resident 
Canada geese and other migratory bird populations, and to monitor the 
program effectiveness and the population status of resident Canada 
geese. We will require the information from State wildlife agencies 
responsible for migratory bird management in order to continue 
participation in the program and to protect the resident Canada goose 
population. We estimate the public reporting burden for this collection 
of information to be 1503 hours, including the time for gathering and 
maintaining data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of 
information. States may send comments regarding this burden estimate or 
any other aspect of this collection of information, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Service Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, ms 224-ARLSQ, 
1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, or the Office of Management 
and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 1018-0099, Washington, DC 
20503.
* * * * *

    Dated: July 9, 2003.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-21268 Filed 8-20-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P