[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 5, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65926-65953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26171]



[[Page 65925]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



46 CFR Parts 20 and 21



Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; Regulations for Managing Harvest of 
Light Goose Populations; Final Rule and Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 5, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 65926]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

[FWS-R9-MB-2008-0113; 91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
RIN 1018-AI07


Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; Regulations for Managing 
Harvest of Light Goose Populations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule and Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: Various populations of light geese (greater and lesser snow 
geese and Ross's geese) have undergone rapid growth during the past 30 
years, and have become seriously injurious to their habitat, habitat 
important to other migratory birds, and agricultural interests. The 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes that several of these 
populations have exceeded the long-term carrying capacity of their 
breeding and/or migration habitats and must be reduced. This final rule 
sets forth regulations that authorize measures to increase harvest of 
certain populations of light geese. In addition, the rule revises the 
regulations for the management of overabundant light goose populations 
and modifies the conservation order that will increase take of birds 
from such populations. The Record of Decision is also published here.

DATES: This final rule will go into effect on December 5, 2008. The 
force and effect of the rules made applicable by the Arctic Tundra 
Habitat Emergency Conservation Act ceases upon the effective date of 
the final rules adopted here (Pub. L. 106-108, Sec. 3).

ADDRESSES: 1. Copies of the Final EIS are available by writing to the 
Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MBSP-4107, Arlington, VA 22203.
    2. The public may inspect comments during normal business hours in 
Room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.
    3. You may obtain copies of the Final EIS by downloading it from 
our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/snowgse/tblcont.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Blohm, Chief, Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714; or James Kelley (612) 713-
5409 (see ADDRESSES).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We regulate the taking of migratory birds 
under the 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 Acts authorize 
and direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow hunting, taking, 
killing, etc., of migratory birds subject to the provisions of, and in 
order to carry out the purposes of, the four migratory bird treaties.
    The 1916 treaty with Great Britain was amended in 1999 by the 
governments of Canada and the United States. Article II of the amended 
U.S.-Canada migratory bird treaty (Treaty) states that, in order to 
ensure the long-term conservation of migratory birds, migratory bird 
populations shall be managed in accord with conservation principles 
that include (among others): To manage migratory birds internationally; 
to sustain healthy migratory bird populations for harvesting needs; and 
to provide for and protect habitat necessary for the conservation of 
migratory birds. Article III of the Treaty states that the governments 
should meet regularly to review progress in implementing the Treaty. 
The review shall address issues important to the conservation of 
migratory birds, including the status of migratory bird populations, 
the status of important migratory bird habitats, and the effectiveness 
of management and regulatory systems. The governments agree to work 
cooperatively to resolve identified problems in a manner consistent 
with the principles of the Treaty and, if the need arises, to conclude 
special arrangements to conserve and protect species of concern. 
Article IV of the Treaty states that each government shall use its 
authority to take appropriate measures to preserve and enhance the 
environment of migratory birds. In particular, the governments shall, 
within their constitutional authority, seek means to prevent damage to 
such birds and their environments and pursue cooperative arrangements 
to conserve habitats essential to migratory bird populations. Article 
VII of the Treaty authorizes permitting the take, kill, etc., of 
migratory birds that, under extraordinary conditions, become seriously 
injurious to agricultural or other interests.

Population Delineation and Surveys

    Greater snow geese, lesser snow geese, and Ross's geese are 
referred to as ``light'' geese due to the light coloration of the 
white-phase plumage morph, as opposed to true ``dark'' geese such as 
the white-fronted or Canada goose. We include both plumage variations 
of lesser snow geese (white, or ``snow'' and dark, or ``blue'') under 
the designation light geese. Dark phase Ross's geese exist but are 
uncommon.
    Waterfowl managers frequently base management activities on the 
delineation of populations. In most instances, populations are 
delineated according to where they winter, whereas others are 
delineated based on location of their breeding grounds. For management 
purposes, populations can comprise one or more species of geese. 
Administrative flyway boundaries also are used to describe population 
ranges. In our October 12, 2001, proposed rule (66 FR 52077) and the 
Final EIS, we provided detailed descriptions of light goose species, 
delineation of various populations, and surveys that we use to monitor 
the status of the following populations: Greater snow geese, Mid-
Continent Population (MCP) of light geese, Western Central Flyway 
Population (WCFP) of light geese, Western Population of Ross's geese 
(WPRG), Pacific Flyway Population of lesser snow geese (PFSG), and 
Wrangel Island Population of lesser snow geese. We refer to the 
combination of MCP and WCFP birds in the mid-continent region as 
Central/Mississippi Flyway (CMF) light geese. Procedures for obtaining 
a copy of the EIS are described in the ADDRESSES section of this 
document.

Population Status and Goals

    Population goals for various light goose populations are outlined 
in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP; U.S. Department 
of the Interior et al. 1998). In addition, Flyway Councils have set 
population goals for light geese they manage within their geographic 
boundaries. We compare current population levels to NAWMP population 
goals to demonstrate that most light goose populations have increased 
substantially over what is considered to be a healthy population level. 
We are not suggesting that light goose populations be reduced for the 
sole purpose of meeting NAWMP population goals.
    Greater snow geese--The spring population estimate of greater snow 
geese increased from approximately 25,400 birds in 1965 to 1,019,000 
birds in 2007 (Reed et al. 1998, Reed et al. 2000; U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service

[[Page 65927]]

2007). The population growth rate during 1965-2007 was 8.0% per year, 
which if sustained will result in a population over 2 million by 2015, 
and nearly 3 million by 2020. The Atlantic Flyway Council population 
objective, as well as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 
(NAWMP) spring population goal for greater snow geese is 500,000 birds 
(U.S. Dept. of the Interior et al. 1998). Therefore, the population 
estimate of 1,019,000 birds in 2007 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2007) is 103% higher than the Atlantic Flyway Council and NAWMP goals.
    Lesser snow geese--Lesser snow geese are frequently encountered 
together with Ross's geese on breeding, migration and wintering areas, 
thus complicating survey efforts. Winter indices of MCP and WCFP light 
geese include both of these species. Field studies indicate that MCP 
light geese are composed of approximately 94% lesser snow geese and 6% 
Ross's geese (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). The WCFP of light 
geese is composed of approximately 79% lesser snow geese and 21% Ross's 
geese. The winter index of MCP light geese (lesser snow and Ross's 
geese, combined) increased at a rate of 3.5% per year from 
approximately 777,000 birds in 1970, to a peak of nearly 3 million 
birds in 1998. Following implementation of regulations to increase 
light goose harvest in 1999, the MCP winter index declined to 2.2 
million in 2006, but rebounded to 2.9 million in 2007 (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 2007). The NAWMP winter index goal for MCP lesser snow 
geese is 1 million birds. The Central and Mississippi Flyway Councils 
have set an upper management threshold (winter index) of 1.5 million 
for MCP lesser snow geese. The lesser snow goose portion of the peak 
MCP winter index in 1998 was 198% higher than the NAWMP goal, and 98% 
higher than the management threshold adopted by the Flyway Councils. 
Following implementation of regulations to increase harvest in 1999, 
the MCP winter index for lesser snow geese declined to approximately 
2.1 million birds in 2006, but rebounded to 2.7 million in 2007. The 
2007 index of lesser snow geese is still 80% higher than the Flyway 
Council management threshold and 70% higher than the NAWMP goal. The 
2000 winter index of WCFP lesser snow geese was 77% higher than the 
NAWMP winter index goal of 110,000 birds. Flyway Councils have not set 
a threshold for WCFP lesser snow geese. Following implementation of 
regulations to increase harvest in 1999, the winter index of the number 
of WCFP lesser winter geese declined to approximately 111,000 birds in 
2006 but rebounded to 135,000 in 2007; still 23% higher than the NAWMP 
goal.
    The NAWMP does not contain a winter index goal for lesser snow 
geese in the Pacific Flyway (PFSG), but does contain a goal of 200,000 
birds for breeding lesser snow geese in the western Arctic. 
Approximately 76% of lesser snow geese that nest in the western Arctic 
migrate to PFSG wintering areas (Hines et al. 1999). The number of 
breeding lesser snow geese on surveyed colonies in 1976 was 169,600 
birds (Kerbes et al. 1999). During the period 1976-2002, the number of 
breeding lesser snow geese increased at an annual rate of 5.2%, to the 
most recent estimate of 579,700 birds (Canadian Wildlife Service, 
unpublished data). This estimate is 190% higher than the NAWMP goal for 
breeding lesser snow geese in the western Arctic. Including additional 
non-breeding birds, the minimum total number of lesser snow geese in 
the western Arctic was approximately 753,700 birds in 2002. In 1999, 
Hines et al. suggested a proactive approach to management of western 
Arctic lesser snow geese by stabilizing the population at its (then) 
current level of approximately 500,000 birds, before it escapes control 
via normal harvest.
    Ross's geese--The NAWMP does not contain separate population goals 
for MCP and WCFP Ross's geese. However, the NAWMP and Pacific Flyway 
Council (Pacific Flyway Council 1992) utilize a total continental goal 
of 100,000 breeding Ross's geese. The estimate of 619,100 breeding 
Ross's geese in the central and eastern Arctic in 1998 was 519% higher 
than the NAWMP and Pacific Flyway goal. The Pacific Flyway Council also 
has adopted a continental winter index goal of 150,000 Ross's geese 
(Pacific Flyway Council 1992). In 2000, the combined winter index total 
of 408,750 Ross's geese in the MCP, WCFP, and WPRG geographic ranges 
was 172% higher than the Pacific Flyway Council goal (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 2007).

Goose Impacts on Habitats and Other Species

    We described the impact of light geese on natural and agricultural 
systems for various breeding, migration, and wintering areas in our 
DEIS and FEIS on light goose management and in the October 12, 2001, 
proposed rule (66 FR 52077). Also, we described the impacts of habitat 
damage on some local nesting populations of birds, as well as the 
potential role that light geese may play in outbreaks of avian 
botulism. Due to the volume of technical information on these issues, 
we refer the reader to the FEIS and proposed rule for specific details. 
Procedures for obtaining a copy of the FEIS are described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document.

Management Recommendations

    The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group of the Arctic Goose Joint 
Venture recommended a short-term management goal of stabilizing the 
greater snow goose population at between 800,000 to 1 million birds 
(Giroux et al. 1998a). However, a reduction of the population below 
this level was recommended if natural habitats continue to deteriorate, 
or if measures taken to reduce crop depredation do not achieve desired 
results (Giroux et al. 1998a). The Canadian Stakeholders Committee in 
Quebec adopted a population goal of 500,000 birds to address continued 
habitat degradation and agricultural depredations in the St. Lawrence 
valley (Arctic Goose Joint Venture Technical Committee 2001).
    In 1997, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended a 
management goal of reducing the number of light geese in the mid-
continent region (primarily MCP and WCFP lesser snow and Ross's geese) 
by 50% (Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group 1997). This suggests a 
reduction of the combined winter index of MCP and WCFP light geese from 
the winter 1996/1997 value of 3.1 million to approximately 1.6 million 
birds.

Light Goose Harvest

    Prior to 1999, we attempted to curb the growth of light goose 
populations by increasing bag and possession limits and extending the 
open hunting season length for light geese to 107 days, the maximum 
allowed by the Treaty. Despite liberalizations in regular-season 
regulations, the harvest rate (the percentage of the population that is 
harvested) for light goose populations traditionally had been low. Low 
hunting mortality has contributed to population growth, which further 
reduced the harvest rate. The decline in harvest rates prior to 1999 
indicated that traditional harvest management strategies were not 
sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth rates. On February 
16, 1999 (64 FR 7507; 64 FR 7517), we authorized new methods of take 
and a conservation order for light geese in the Central and Mississippi 
Flyways. These regulations were temporarily withdrawn (June 17, 1999; 
64 FR 32778) to prevent further litigation, but were soon reinstated by 
passage of the Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act (Pub. 
L. 106-108) in November

[[Page 65928]]

1999. During 1999-2006, the total harvest of light geese in the Central 
and Mississippi Flyways during the regular hunting season and 
conservation orders (combined) has ranged from 1.2 to 1.5 million 
birds. We believe this magnitude of harvest is sufficient to reduce 
light goose population levels to desired management levels.

Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action

    We fully analyzed the No Action alternative with regard to light 
goose management in our FEIS, to which we refer the reader (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 2007). Implementation of the No Action alternative 
would require that special light goose regulations authorized by the 
Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act be revoked. Therefore, 
light goose populations would resume growth under the No Action 
alternative. In summary, most light goose populations will continue to 
increase at rates anywhere from 5-15% per year, depending on the 
population. We expect breeding colonies to expand spatially as habitat 
becomes destroyed in core areas. Birds will begin to exploit new areas 
and repeat the pattern of habitat destruction and colony expansion. In 
the case of greater snow geese, we expect the population to exceed the 
ability of migration habitats to support them. Concurrently, we expect 
goose damage to agricultural crops to increase.
    Even if natural causes result in declines of goose populations, it 
will take habitats a prolonged time period to recover, especially in 
the Arctic. A variety of other bird species will be negatively impacted 
as the habitats they depend on become destroyed by light geese. As 
population densities increase, the incidence of avian cholera among 
light geese and other species is likely to increase. Significant losses 
of other species, such as pintails, white-fronted geese, sandhill 
cranes, and whooping cranes, from avian cholera may occur. This may 
result in reduced hunting, birdwatching, and other recreational 
opportunities.
    Habitat damage in the Arctic will eventually trigger density-
dependent regulation of the population, which likely will result in 
increased gosling mortality and may cause the population to decline 
precipitously. Impacts such as physiological stress, malnutrition, and 
disease in goslings have been documented, and observations of such 
impacts are increasing. However, it is not clear when natural 
population regulation will occur and what habitat, if any, will remain 
to support the survivors. Such a decline may result in a population too 
low to permit any hunting, effectively closing light goose hunting 
seasons. The length of the closures will largely depend on the recovery 
rate of the breeding habitat, which likely will take decades.
    In the near term, existing light goose hunting seasons would 
continue under the No Action Alternative. We have attempted to curb the 
growth of light goose populations by increasing bag and possession 
limits and extending the open hunting season length for light geese to 
107 days, the maximum allowed by the Migratory Bird Treaty. However, 
due to the rapid rise in light goose numbers, the harvest rate (the 
percentage of the population that is harvested) would decline even 
though the actual number of geese harvested has increased. The decline 
in harvest rate indicates that traditional harvest management 
strategies, which would continue under the No Action alternative, are 
not sufficient to reduce population growth rates.

Environmental Consequences of Preferred Action

    We fully analyzed our preferred action in the FEIS on light goose 
management, to which we refer the reader for specific details (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). In summary, implementation of 
regulations to increase harvest of light geese will reduce various 
light goose populations to levels we believe are more compatible with 
the ability of habitats to support them. Furthermore, habitats upon 
which other species depend will be preserved. Experts feel that 
nonlethal techniques would be ineffective at significantly reducing the 
populations within a reasonable timeframe to preserve and protect 
habitat (Batt 1997). We prefer to implement alternative regulatory 
strategies designed to increase light goose harvest afforded by the 
Migratory Bird Treaty and avoid the use of more drastic population 
control measures.
    Implementation of this rule will reduce the number of light geese 
in the Central and Mississippi Flyways (primarily MCP and WCFP light 
geese) by 50%. This suggests a reduction of the combined winter index 
of MCP and WCFP light geese from 3.1 million in 1997 (the year the 
management objective was established) to slightly less than 1.6 
million. During 1999-2002, we acquired experience with regulations 
similar to those contained in this rule. We determined that 
implementation of new light goose regulations increased harvest of 
light geese in the Central and Mississippi Flyways by 41% during 1999-
2002 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). We did not include harvest 
estimates after 2002 in this analysis due to changes in harvest survey 
procedures. Population modeling indicated that an annual harvest of 1.4 
million birds is required to reduce the number of CMF light geese by 
50% (Rockwell and Ankney 2000). The estimated harvest of CMF light 
geese in the U.S. during 1999-2002 ranged from 0.9 to 1.4 million 
birds. The estimated harvest of light geese in Ontario, Manitoba and 
Saskatchewan (combined) during 1999-2002 has ranged from 123,000 to 
152,000 birds. Therefore, the total harvest of CMF light geese during 
1999-2002 ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 million birds. Although a certain 
proportion of geese harvested in Saskatchewan would have migrated to 
the Pacific Flyway, the harvest of CMF light geese in North America 
during 1999-2002 approached, and sometimes exceeded, the annual harvest 
of 1.4 million birds that is required to reduce the population by 50%. 
Any harvest in excess of 1.4 million birds in a given year reduces the 
amount of time required to reach population reduction goals (Rockwell 
and Ankney 2000). Implementation of these regulations would maintain an 
annual continental harvest of approximately 1.4 million CMF light geese 
until management goals are achieved.
    Because the winter index of CMF light geese does not represent the 
entire population, the true population size will be much higher than 
1.6 million following a reduction program. Using an adjustment factor 
of 1.6 (Boyd et al. 1982), we estimate that a winter index of 1.6 
million would correspond to nearly 2.6 million breeding birds in 
spring. Adding 30% for nonbreeding birds brings the total population to 
a minimum of 3.3 million birds following a population reduction 
program. We believe a population level of 3.3 million birds is more 
than adequate to ensure the long-term health of MCP and WCFP light 
goose populations, while still providing for nonconsumptive and 
consumptive uses of the light goose resource by humans.
    The greater snow goose population will be reduced from its peak 
level of nearly 1,017,000 birds, to the management goal of 500,000 
birds. The harvest rate for greater snow geese in the Atlantic Flyway 
during 1999-2002 ranged from 17% to 24% (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2004). Based on information from the Central and Mississippi Flyways 
during 1999-2002 (see above), we estimate that authorization of new 
methods of take (regular season) and a conservation order in the U.S. 
portion of the Atlantic

[[Page 65929]]

Flyway would result in a 41% increase in U.S. harvest of greater snow 
geese. A 41% increase in U.S. harvest would result in only a 10-12% 
increase in the continental harvest rate, because the majority of the 
harvest occurs in Canada. We estimate that implementation of new 
regulations in the United States would result in a continental harvest 
rate of 26% for greater snow geese (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2007). Starting with the spring population of 1,016,900 birds in 2006 
and applying a harvest rate of 27%, we estimate that the greater snow 
goose population would be reduced to the goal of 500,000 birds by 
approximately 2013 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). The magnitude 
of the impact of this rule is subject to change, depending on the 
actual population size immediately prior to implementation of any new 
regulations, size of regular season harvest, and the magnitude of 
special spring harvest measures in Quebec.
    At this time, we do not anticipate population reduction actions for 
either Pacific Flyway lesser snow geese, or the Western Population of 
Ross's geese. However, Hines et al. (1999) suggested a proactive 
approach to management of lesser snow geese that breed in the western 
Arctic that would stabilize the population at its (then) current level 
before it escapes control via normal harvest. We will implement special 
regulations to increase take of light geese in the Pacific Flyway if it 
becomes evident that damage to habitats in the western Arctic 
necessitates control of light geese that breed there. Any population 
control actions for light geese in the Pacific Flyway should be 
designed to minimize negative impacts to Wrangel Island lesser snow 
geese, which historically have not fared as well as other light goose 
populations.
    Although our intention is to significantly reduce some light goose 
populations in order to relieve pressures on breeding and/or migration 
habitats, we have designed it so that these efforts will not threaten 
the long-term status of these populations. We will carefully analyze 
and assess the status of light goose populations on an annual basis, 
using the winter index, periodic photo surveys in the Arctic, banding 
data, and other surveys, to ensure that the populations are not over-
harvested.
    We believe that a reduction of certain light goose populations will 
relieve negative habitat pressures on other migratory bird populations 
that occur on light goose breeding and wintering grounds and other 
areas along migration routes. By arresting habitat damage by light 
geese, other species will not be forced to seek habitats elsewhere, 
thus avoiding potential decreases in their reproductive success. 
Further, we expect that, by decreasing the numbers of light geese on 
wintering and migration stopover areas, the risk of transmission of 
avian cholera to other species will be reduced.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is contained in our Final EIS 
document, and is also available upon request from the Division of 
Migratory Bird Management (see ADDRESSES).

Public Comments and Responses to Significant Comments

    We received public comments from 414 private individuals, 24 
Federal, State or Provincial agencies, 1 State Representative, 6 Tribal 
groups, 4 Flyway Councils, and 8 nongovernmental organizations. The 
majority of comments submitted did not stipulate whether the comments 
pertained to our proposed rule or the DEIS. Instead, comments tended to 
focus on certain aspects of our light goose management program in 
general. Therefore, we have treated comments to both documents 
together. Below, we provide our responses to comments on the DEIS and 
proposed rule. Because of the highly interrelated public processes with 
the proposed rule, DEIS, and FEIS, as an aid to the reader, we have in 
large part replicated comments we received on the DEIS and our 
responses contained in the June 2007 FEIS. Due to space considerations, 
we have provided responses here only to major comments received and 
refer the reader to the FEIS for responses to all public comments we 
received. Copies of the public comments are available upon request from 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 
Management. Where appropriate, we summarized comments that revolved 
around a central theme and itemized them as single comments. For some 
technical or lengthy comments, we have included direct quotes from the 
comment in order to avoid mischaracterization of the comment.
    We received public comments from 414 private individuals. Forty of 
the individuals made comments during public hearings. A majority (57%) 
of individuals supported some method of control of light goose 
populations. Of the 238 individuals that supported population 
reduction, very few advocated direct agency control. Approximately one-
half of those individuals supporting population reduction submitted a 
form letter containing the following statements: They are concerned 
hunters and conservationists who care about the burgeoning population 
of snow geese, which are in need of help to save them from massive 
population decline; the population has exploded to alarmingly high 
levels due to changes in agricultural practices and the birds are now a 
menace to farmers; the population is destroying fragile arctic tundra 
habitat beyond repair; the management option of letting nature run its 
course is a no-win situation because the population will crash and 
millions of farming dollars will be lost and hundreds of thousands of 
acres of irreplaceable tundra will be destroyed; direct agency control 
would be costly and inefficient; and, finally, the conservation order 
approach (including legalization of electronic calls, unplugged 
shotguns, and extended shooting hours) should be used as a cost-
effective way to reduce the population. Another 43 individuals 
submitted comments simply stating that they supported Alternative B for 
managing light geese. The remaining comments that indicated support for 
population reduction centered primarily on making recommendations for 
changes in methods of take allowed for harvesting light geese, 
liberalization of regulations during the regular goose season, and 
expansion of hunting opportunity on government lands.
    Most individuals that advocated the No Action alternative opposed 
any liberalization in regulations that would result in increased 
harvest of light geese. Many of the comments from individuals opposing 
management action consisted of a form letter, or portion of the same 
form letter, containing the following statements: They are strongly 
opposed to liberalized regulations for snow geese and Ross's geese, 
which include extending the hunting season, opening wildlife refuges to 
increased hunting opportunities, and permitting normally illegal 
hunting methods such as electronic calls and unplugged shotguns; the 
geese are being blamed for ``damaging'' their ``winter breeding 
grounds'' (sic), when in reality the geese continue to play a normal 
role in their ecosystems, modifying vegetation as they normally would; 
goose reproduction in many areas of the Arctic has already declined in 
response to reduced food as part of natural population regulation; and 
finally, that only non-lethal methods of population control should be 
implemented.
    (1) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the DEIS and 
stated that they did not identify any environmental concerns with our 
preferred alternative (Alternative B),

[[Page 65930]]

and that the document provides adequate documentation of the potential 
environmental impacts. The EPA recommended that, following selection of 
a management approach, the Service should carefully monitor its 
implementation and remain open to exploring other options as necessary 
and appropriate. The EPA assigned a rating of Lack of Objection to the 
DEIS.
    We will carefully monitor light goose populations and their 
habitats following implementation of new management approaches.
    (2) The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) commented that they, and a 
clear majority of scientists and managers who have provided information 
to them, feel that intervention is required to reduce overabundant 
populations of greater and lesser snow geese. CWS stated that non-
intervention would not be a responsible choice. CWS acknowledges that 
Ross's geese are numerous in comparison to historical numbers and 
contribute proportionately to the habitat damage observed in 
conjunction with snow geese. CWS stated that, although Canada has not 
included Ross's geese in special conservation measures at this time, 
they would consider regulations to include this species if further 
experience shows that it is necessary.
    We agree that intervention is required and will consult with Canada 
upon implementation of our management actions. We also agree that 
Ross's geese are at record high levels and that they are contributing 
to habitat damage. Consequently, we have chosen to include Ross's geese 
in our current proposal for management action.
    (3) CWS stated that Alternative B is consistent with actions 
currently being taken in Canada and should be pursued first in order to 
increase harvest rates in the United States before looking at options 
involving direct population control. However, CWS indicated that, if 
Alternative B did not prove successful, direct control may be necessary 
at some time in the future. Furthermore, assuming success in our 
approach, the two Federal agencies need to jointly consider approaches 
for backing away from extraordinary special methods of control as soon 
as possible.
    We have chosen Alternative B as our preferred alternative. If this 
alternative proves to be unsuccessful at reducing light goose 
populations, we will consult with Canada to evaluate other management 
options. We agree that, once population goals are achieved, an exit 
strategy should be implemented. As we have indicated in Section 4.2.2, 
certain maintenance regulations may need to remain in place in order to 
prevent populations from rebounding after population goals are 
achieved. For example, the conservation order may be suspended once the 
goal for a particular population is reached. However, additional 
harvest beyond what would normally be expected with regular goose 
seasons may be required to prevent the population from rebounding. In 
such a case, special regulations (e.g., use of unplugged shotguns, 
electronic calls) can be implemented during the regular season to 
increase harvest. However, use of such regulations would still require 
that other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, be 
closed.
    (4) The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) commented that the weight of 
scientific evidence indicates that several populations of lesser snow 
geese have increased to such an extent that they present a threat to 
Arctic breeding habitats. In addition to lesser snow geese, other light 
goose species (greater snow and Ross's geese) have exhibited similar 
trends in exponential growth. Some of their populations may currently 
be contributing to the degradation of Arctic habitats. Scientific 
evidence indicates that several populations of light geese should be 
considered overabundant and management actions are required to reduce 
these populations. The USGS recommends adoption of Alternative B as the 
most appropriate for short-term management. The available scientific 
evidence indicates that Alternative A would be ineffective and the 
other alternatives would be extremely costly and logistically 
difficult.
    Thank you for your comments.
    (5) The USGS commented that current science is insufficient to 
support the statement that lesser snow and Ross's geese are ``known 
carriers'' of the bacterium that causes avian cholera (DEIS page 64). 
Preliminary scientific evidence supports this conclusion, but further 
research is required.
    We have modified our characterization of the status of lesser snow 
and Ross's geese from ``known carriers'' of the bacterium to suspected 
carriers. As the USGS states, preliminary scientific evidence supports 
the theory that these species are indeed carriers of the bacterium. We 
continue to believe that growing populations of light geese increase 
the likelihood of cholera outbreaks.
    (6) The USGS commented that additional scientific information is 
needed to determine the migration and wintering carrying capacity and 
habitat degradation impacts of greater snow geese on habitats described 
in section 3.2.2 of the DEIS.
    We agree that additional research will improve our knowledge of the 
carrying capacity of such habitats. The information provided by Giroux 
et al. (1998) suggests that the carrying capacity of such habitat 
(whatever it is) has been exceeded.
    (7) The USGS commented that preliminary scientific evidence 
suggests that harvesting greater snow geese during spring in Quebec may 
negatively affect their body condition and thus reproduction. This 
raises the question of whether similar patterns may occur in nontarget 
species that are subjected to this disturbance. Further research may be 
required to address this concern in all the alternatives.
    Conducting further scientific research to obtain information not 
currently available is beyond the scope of this EIS process. In the 
Final EIS we have incorporated the findings of recent research on the 
effects of the spring conservation harvest on greater snow geese. We 
note that the observed decline in body reserves of greater snow geese 
on spring staging areas in Quebec was thought to be a result of 
increased disturbance and reduced access to agricultural foods due to 
the spring harvest. This supports our contention that light goose 
populations have increased due to an agricultural food subsidy, which 
has caused increases in winter/spring survival and reproductive success 
in light goose populations. We do not view reductions in spring body 
condition or reproduction of light geese as undesirable. If such 
factors can help to reduce the population, they should be encouraged 
until population goals are achieved. Feret et al. (2003) indicated that 
greater snow geese sometimes form mixed feeding flocks (e.g., with 
Canada geese), and hypothesized that the negative impact of the spring 
harvest could also potentially affect other species. The number of 
breeding pairs in the Atlantic Population of Canada geese has increased 
14% per year during 1997-2006 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006), 
including years in which the spring harvest of greater snow geese has 
occurred. We note that Canada geese would be the species most likely to 
be affected by light goose hunting activities, and there is no evidence 
that this nontarget species has been affected by spring harvest of snow 
geese. Changes in habitat management and hunting programs on Service 
refuges take into account the potential effects on nontarget species. 
Some refuges have chosen not to implement changes in light goose 
hunting because the refuge manager believed that disturbance to 
nontarget species possibly would occur. Because hunting for light geese 
usually takes place in field situations, we

[[Page 65931]]

believe that nontarget waterbirds would be unaffected by such 
activities.
    (8) The Central Flyway Council (CFC) expressed opposition to the 
original four alternatives as written because they are mutually 
exclusive. The CFC supported Alternative B with modifications through 
2005, but felt that Alternatives C and D should be implemented in an 
additive fashion if progress was not made towards habitat recovery and 
reducing Central/Mississippi Flyway light goose populations. The CFC 
stated that a new alternative should be developed if Alternative B 
cannot be modified to include additional control strategies. The 
Atlantic (AFC), Mississippi (MFC) and Pacific Flyway Councils (PFC) 
supported implementation of Alternative B. However, the AFC and MFC 
urged the Service to plan on implementing Alternatives C and D if 
management goals are not achieved.
    We have retained Alternative B as our preferred alternative. 
However, we have developed and analyzed Alternative E, which is a new 
alternative that contains aspects of Alternatives B, C, and D, as 
suggested by the CFC. This two-phased approach would implement aspects 
of Alternative B first. Phase two of Alternative E contains aspects of 
Alternatives C and D and would be implemented if deemed necessary. 
Under this alternative, actions implemented during phase one would 
continue if phase two is implemented.
    (9) The CFC recommended that decision criteria and a timetable for 
implementing Alternatives C and D should be developed in advance. These 
criteria should include habitat trends, light goose population trends, 
and the effects of overabundant light geese on other species of 
wildlife.
    In developing each of the analyzed alternatives, we wrote them as 
if they would be implemented immediately upon completion of the EIS 
process, if chosen as the preferred alternative. Alternative E was 
written such that phase one would be in place for at least a 5-year 
period before an evaluation would be made about the necessity of 
implementing phase two. That evaluation would consider the trajectory 
of the light goose populations being targeted for reduction. 
Unfortunately, there are insufficient data available at this time to 
allow development of specific decision criteria with regard to habitat 
trends. Habitat studies specified in the Science Needs Documents of the 
Arctic Goose Joint Venture must be implemented in order to generate 
data that can be used in developing decision criteria.
    (10) The CFC commented that the EIS should be clarified to provide 
for implementation of actions to resolve geographic or site-specific 
problems with light goose populations. Potentially, Central/Mississippi 
Flyway populations may be reduced to overall goals, yet specific 
populations may remain above desired levels in certain areas of their 
range.
    Our preferred alternative advocates reduction of the number of 
Central/Mississippi Flyway light geese by 50%. It is clear that in some 
breeding areas such as La Perouse Bay the ability of the habitat to 
support geese has been exceeded. However, geese from northern breeding 
colonies utilize such sites on their northward migration and, 
therefore, add to habitat damage caused by geese that breed at the 
site. A general reduction of the number of Central/Mississippi Flyway 
light geese will help alleviate damage to sites being impacted most 
severely. The only method of further reducing the number of birds that 
use such sites is to implement direct control on the breeding grounds 
in Canada (Alternatives D or E). However, direct control in Canada 
would have to be implemented by the Canadian Government.
    (11) The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources commented that 
adoption of the no action alternative is not a responsible approach to 
the management of these species and habitats. The Ministry also stated 
that alternatives involving direct agency control are not viewed as the 
most effective approach at this juncture. With respect to Alternative 
D, there is significant concern regarding the capacity of the 
appropriate agencies to deliver a management program that is of 
sufficient scope and intensity to achieve the desired results.
    We agree that the no action alternative is not a responsible 
approach to light goose management. Alternatives involving direct 
control will be costly, and it is not likely that agencies can acquire 
sufficient resources to implement such programs in sufficient scope or 
intensity.
    (12) Many State agencies suggested that methods of take for light 
geese should be expanded to include a variety of methods, such as use 
of live decoys, rallying, herding, hazing, model airplanes, rifles, and 
pistols.
    Authorization of new methods of take for light geese in 1999 (i.e., 
electronic calls, unplugged shotguns, shooting hours one-half hour 
after sunset) represented a radical departure from decades of strict 
regulation of waterfowl harvest. Substantial support was expressed 
during our public scoping process for use of these methods to reduce 
light goose populations. However, such authorizations were also met 
with substantial negative public sentiment as well. Arguments for and 
against various methods often include one's personal view of ethical 
and non-ethical methods of take, which is not amenable to objective 
analysis. We believe that our proposed balance of authorizing new, and 
continued prohibition of other, methods of take is a reasonable 
compromise. Although authorization of additional methods of take may 
increase the harvest of light geese somewhat, we believe that such an 
expansion would be outweighed by erosion of public support for our 
light goose management program. Furthermore, temporary authorization of 
numerous methods of take will make it more difficult to enforce 
prohibition of such methods when they are no longer needed.
    (13) The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) commented that 
the Service must be prepared to justify impacts on nontarget species 
if/when direct control management actions are implemented. They 
supported the use of those direct control measures that minimize the 
impact to other species, but believe that collateral damage is 
unavoidable in actual operations. The NGPC also commented on this issue 
and stated that the Service should be prepared to accept significant 
loss of other wildlife species during control operations in order to 
reduce light goose numbers. Where possible, attempts should be made to 
minimize impacts to other species.
    In our description of alternatives, we stated that direct control 
activities should be undertaken such that they do not adversely affect 
other migratory birds or any species designated under the Endangered 
Species Act as threatened or endangered. Doing so will require 
inspection of control activity sites for the presence of nontarget 
species to determine whether activities should proceed. In situations 
where live-trapping is used, nontarget species can be released 
unharmed. If sharpshooters are employed, we believe that impacts on 
nontarget species will be avoided. At this time we do not believe it is 
acceptable to undertake control activities that would also result in 
significant loss of other wildlife species.
    (14) A State representative from Delaware commented that snow geese 
have caused serious damage to crops on his farm and those in the 
surrounding area. The representative also expressed concern for damage 
that snow geese are causing to local salt marshes, and the

[[Page 65932]]

effects of overabundant geese on the well-being of many other plants, 
animals, and fish. A concern was also expressed for the possibility of 
the spread of avian cholera from geese to the chicken industry. The 
representative fully supports Alternative B and called on the Service 
to open more of Prime Hook NWR and Bombay Hook NWR to snow goose 
hunting.
    We believe that implementation of Alternative B will reduce the 
greater snow goose population to desired levels and alleviate damage to 
agricultural crops and reduce the likelihood of a cholera outbreak. 
Prime Hook NWR allows ample opportunities to hunt snow geese in 26 
marsh blinds during the waterfowl season. Also, field hunting is 
allowed on 5 different zones on the refuge during the late goose 
season. The refuge feels they are providing hunting opportunity in 
areas where it is feasible to hunt snow geese, and in a fashion that is 
compatible with other hunting programs on the refuge. Bombay Hook NWR 
staff report that they have provided snow goose hunting opportunity 
that far exceeds demand at this time. The refuge is close to the 
maximum of acreage that can be opened to hunting while still providing 
for the needs of other migratory bird species.
    (15) The Assembly of First Nations, representing 633 First Nations 
across Canada, supported Alternative B as the most humane and least 
wasteful option, and expressed their concern for light goose threats to 
other animals and plants, as well as light geese themselves, owing to 
the destruction of their habitat and food sources in the north. The AFN 
also commented that the options of allowing for a commercial hunt by 
Aboriginal people and altering U.S. farm practices (e.g., reducing 
waste grain) and policies should not be dismissed from consideration. 
The AFN believes that a commercial hunt by Aboriginal people would 
support economic development, encourage young people to stay on the 
land and would support their traditional lifestyle.
    With regard to a commercial hunt by Aboriginal people, we point out 
that the Canadian Wildlife Service does not support development of 
general commercial activities and take for the purpose of light goose 
control. They do not wish to establish a short-lived commercial 
opportunity that could have serious long-term effects on community 
support for and compliance with regulations. We support the position of 
CWS and also do not support establishment of commercial activities for 
light goose control in the United States. With regard to U.S. farm 
practices and policy, we reiterate that we have no control over U.S. 
farm policy and believe that attempts to consult with the Department of 
Agriculture to effect changes solely for the purpose of addressing the 
light goose issue would have such a minimal chance of success that it 
is precluded from being a viable management alternative.
    (16) The Wampanoag Tribe of Gayhead (WTG) suggested that other 
indigenous nations of Canada should be contacted to enlist their 
assistance in the population control program.
    We have no authority to enlist the help of indigenous nations of 
Canada in a light goose population control program. Only the Canadian 
Wildlife Service, or other Canadian government entity, can undertake 
such action. The CWS has encouraged native groups, such as the Arviat 
Hunters and Trappers Organization, to increase their harvest of light 
geese.
    (17) The WTG commented that the number of allowable days for 
hunting light geese should be expanded to the fullest extent allowed 
under the MBTA. Splits between other waterfowl hunting seasons should 
be utilized as light goose only seasons.
    Current light goose hunting frameworks already provide the maximum 
number of days for light goose hunting allowed by the MBTA. 
Furthermore, light goose only seasons between other season splits are 
allowed, providing that all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, 
excluding falconry, are closed.
    (18) The WTG commented that the requirement to close all other 
waterfowl and crane hunting seasons when new methods of take are 
authorized for light geese is disruptive to sportsmen and subsistence 
users of waterfowl species.
    We believe that a closure of all other waterfowl and crane hunting 
seasons, excluding falconry, is necessary to minimize the take of 
nontarget species when light goose regulations are implemented.
    (19) The WTG commented that, under the USFWS Native American Policy 
and Executive Orders of the President of the United States, the Service 
is compelled to consult with Tribal governments on a government-to-
government basis. How has the Service complied with these directives in 
this process?
    The Service has a long history of working with Native American 
governments in managing fish and wildlife resources (USFWS 1994). A 
list of Native American tribal governments was obtained through our 
Tribal liaison and was used to distribute the DEIS to tribal 
governments for formal review and comment.
    (20) The hunting season on light geese should not be extended.
    The Service is not proposing to extend the light goose hunting 
season. We do not have the authority to extend the normal hunting 
season beyond the March 10 season ending date stipulated by the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We are proposing implementation of a 
conservation order for the control of overabundant light geese in 
accordance with Article VII of the Migratory Bird Treaty.
    (21) Several individuals expressed opposition to new regulations 
that allow taking of light geese on wildlife refuges, which they feel 
should be a safe haven for all wildlife.
    The proposed regulations do not open refuges or new areas on 
refuges to hunting. That type of action would be proposed on a specific 
refuge by refuge basis. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 
Act of 1997 amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 
Act of 1966 to establish that compatible wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
photography, and environmental education and interpretation are the 
priority public uses of the Refuge System. The National Wildlife Refuge 
System Administration Act of 1966 stipulates that up to 40% of the area 
of refuges acquired, reserved, or set apart as inviolate sanctuaries 
may be opened to migratory bird hunting. The Fish and Wildlife 
Improvement Act of 1978 amended the 1966 Act to permit the opening of 
greater than 40% of the area of these refuges to migratory gamebird 
hunting when it is determined to be beneficial to the species hunted. 
Therefore, the portion of our light goose management proposal that 
encourages, where appropriate, increased hunt programs on National 
Wildlife Refuges is consistent with the purposes of the refuge system.
    (22) One citizen commented that public hearings held during the EIS 
process were held only in rural areas, thus preventing any 
metropolitan, city, or suburban dwellers from ever commenting on any 
plans. Therefore, the Service is engaging in biased hearings, 
soliciting comments only from hunters and farmers.
    We held a number of public scoping meetings throughout the United 
States prior to publication of the DEIS (see Federal Register Notice of 
Meetings in Appendix 2). In addition to Washington, DC, the majority of 
these meetings were held in large metropolitan areas and often were 
held in State capitals: Sacramento, CA, Bismarck, ND, Baton Rouge, LA, 
Dover, DE, Bloomington,

[[Page 65933]]

MN (suburb of Minneapolis/St. Paul), and Kansas City, MO. Only 2 of the 
9 meeting locations were held outside of large metropolitan areas 
(Pomona, NJ, and Rosenberg, TX); however they were easily accessible to 
large population centers. Therefore, we do not believe that meeting 
locations produced any type of bias in comments submitted by citizens. 
Another series of public meetings on the DEIS were held in most of the 
same locations as the scoping meetings. We provided an extensive public 
comment period during the EIS process that provided all citizens a 
means to submit written comments on our proposals, either through the 
mail or electronically to our e-mail address, regardless of the 
citizen's geographic location.
    (23) Several individuals commented that the Service proposal 
appears to be the result of lobbying by the gun, hunting, and guide/
tourist industries.
    No lobbyist from any gun, hunting, or guide/tourist industry 
contacted the Service to urge development of our proposal. Our 
management plan was based on results from work conducted by research 
scientists, population and habitat surveys, and on recommendations by 
scientists from the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group of the Arctic 
Goose Joint Venture.
    (24) The Service reports that six times as many people participate 
in nonhunting activities related to migratory birds as compared to 
hunting them. Times have changed and so must the Service and wildlife 
agencies.
    We examined socioeconomic considerations in section 3.5 of the EIS 
and reported that more citizens participate in non-hunting than hunting 
activities related to migratory birds. However, the impacts of 
overabundant light goose populations will negatively affect a variety 
of bird species that non-hunters as well as hunters enjoy viewing. 
Furthermore, revenues generated by Duck Stamp sales go towards 
acquisition of habitats that support many non-game and game species. 
The fact that many citizens do not hunt does not negate the fact that 
increasing harvest is a legitimate wildlife management tool. 
Furthermore, this issue does not pertain to hunting seasons; the 
proposed program is designed to protect nesting, migration, and/or 
wintering areas.
    (25) Claims of habitat destruction are based on habitats where no 
systematic scientific data had been gathered. There were small fenced 
areas to document effects of heavy goose grazing on plants, but that is 
not representative of normal ecosystems.
    In section 3.2.1 we cited the study by Jano et al. (1998) that 
systematically documented the loss of vegetation at La Perouse Bay 
using satellite imagery. We also cited the study conducted by Kotanen 
and Jefferies (1997), who utilized fenced vegetation sampling plots, as 
well as adjacent un-fenced plots, along a transect at La Perouse Bay to 
document habitat damage. Fenced and un-fenced plots were sampled during 
1986, 1989, and 1995 to systematically document vegetation changes in 
response to goose grazing. The un-fenced plots were indeed 
representative of the ``normal ecosystem,'' which in reality was being 
degraded by geese. We also cited the study conducted by Kerbes et al. 
(1990) that systematically sampled vegetation along the west coast of 
Hudson Bay during 1993-95 to demonstrate the impact of geese on plant 
communities. Intensive studies by Iacobelli and Jefferies (1991) and 
Srvivastava and Jefferies (1996) were cited as they described the 
effects of goose grubbing on soil salinity and degradation of 
vegetation stands. Therefore, the comment that claims of habitat 
destruction are not based on systematically collected scientific data 
is unwarranted.
    (26) The use of a generalized management strategy for all snow 
geese ignores scientific distinctions and is contrary to historical 
tradition of managing snow geese.
    We have developed population goals for several populations of light 
geese that incorporate geographic and biological characteristics of 
each population. Most of these goals have been developed independently 
through either interactions with Flyway Councils or through the North 
American Waterfowl Management Plan. Both of these avenues have 
continued to recognize historical designations of populations and taxa. 
Light goose regulations will be flyway-specific, and thus have the 
ability to manage light goose populations with due regard to their 
status.
    (27) The current population goal of 500,000 greater snow geese is 
much lower than the competing goal set by the Arctic Study Group of 
800,000 to 1 million birds, and is based on incomplete information.
    Our population goal of 500,000 birds is in agreement with the 
Atlantic Flyway Council and North American Waterfowl Management Plan 
population objectives. In 1997, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group 
recommended a short-term management goal of stabilizing the greater 
snow goose population at between 800,000 to 1 million birds. However, 
the Working Group recommended a reduction of the population below this 
level if natural habitats continue to deteriorate, or if measures taken 
to reduce crop depredation do not achieve desired results. Recently, 
the Canadian Stakeholders Committee in Quebec adopted a population goal 
of 500,000 birds to address continued habitat degradation and 
agricultural depredations in the St. Lawrence valley. The Arctic Goose 
Joint Venture Technical Committee has adopted the lower population 
goal. Managers believe the population must be reduced to reduce 
agricultural depredations, prevent further degradation of migration 
habitats, and prevent potential degradation of breeding habitats that 
could occur under high population levels.
    (28) Dispersing and fragmenting the flocks can result in a 
reduction of nonconsumptive use and cause economic loss. Diminishing 
the flock may incite political action/complaints by millions of bird 
watchers who journey to see geese. Nonconsumptive users may demand a 
revision of how the United States treats wildlife.
    We examined the socioeconomic impacts of our preferred alternative 
in section 4.6.2. Implementation of this alternative would preserve the 
long-term health of light goose populations by slowing the rate of 
habitat degradation and avoiding a potential population crash, 
especially in the mid-continent region. Damage to agricultural crops 
would also be reduced. Nonconsumptive users of light geese may be 
slightly affected by lower overall populations. However, light geese 
would continue to migrate in relatively large flocks and visit 
traditional migration and wintering areas. Therefore, we believe the 
short-term economic impact of this alternative on nonconsumptive users 
would be minimal, and the long-term economic impact would be positively 
enhanced due to maintenance of healthy populations. By maintaining 
healthy populations we are fulfilling our trust responsibility to U.S. 
citizens, rather than allowing populations to further damage habitats, 
cause agricultural depredations, and potentially crash.
    (29) The concern about marsh eat-outs by greater snow geese is 
based on incomplete and incorrect information about historical 
processes. Kortright gave accounts of eat-outs during the 1930s and 
1940s.
    Although we stated that the impact of greater snow geese on coastal 
marshes of the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast appeared to be relatively small 
prior to the 1960s,

[[Page 65934]]

we did not state that eat-outs were nonexistent during that time. 
Clearly the occurrence and impacts of eat-outs have increased as the 
population has increased.
    (30) The Service is using scare tactics with regard to the issue of 
avian cholera, as if we are all going to die because of avian cholera. 
How many people have died of avian cholera?
    Avian cholera is a disease that does not affect humans. Our concern 
with avian cholera is the potential for outbreak of the disease, which 
could kill thousands of light geese as well as many individuals of 
other bird species.
    (31) One individual commented that the revised treaties relied upon 
in this EIS are in violation of the existing treaties in force with 
Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union and in violation of the 1918 treaty 
negotiated with Canada.
    The comment is confusing and unclear, as revised treaties are the 
treaties in force. Regardless, this is a very important comment as it 
gives us a chance to explain in more detail why this action is in 
accordance with the authority provided to the Secretary by law. It 
raises the issue of compatibility with the migratory bird conventions 
applicable to the birds (light geese) that are the subject of this 
regulation. The Secretary of the Interior (having due regard for a 
number of factors that are addressed in this EIS) is authorized and 
directed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to determine when it is 
compatible with the conventions to issue regulations to allow the take 
of these birds and their nests and eggs. Of the four migratory bird 
conventions, three are applicable to the adoption of these regulations: 
the Convention Between the United States and the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics (now Russia) Concerning the Conservation of 
Migratory Birds and Their Environment (1978), the Convention for the 
Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals with Mexico (1937), and 
the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds with Canada 
(1916). With respect to the fourth, the Convention Between the 
Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan 
for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of 
Extinction, and Their Environment (1974), there is no positive evidence 
that the birds that are the subject of these regulations migrate 
between Japan and the United States (see Article I, Section 1.).
    When two or more conventions are applicable to our adoption of 
regulations, we must ensure the action is compatible with each or, 
where conventions have provisions on the same specific issue, the more 
stringent of the provisions. Each of the conventions, negotiated at 
different times with four different countries, address particular 
issues important to each country and, because of differing perspectives 
and needs, contain agreements on similar actions that are presented in 
uniquely different ways.
    The convention with Canada, in addition to including requirements 
regarding the authorization of the hunting of migratory game birds, the 
taking of migratory birds for scientific, educational, propagative, and 
other purposes, and the harvesting of migratory birds and eggs by 
indigenous inhabitants of Alaska, allows for permitting the killing of 
migratory birds that are seriously injurious to agricultural or other 
interests in any particular community (see Article VII). It is our 
conclusion from all of the information available to us, and which is 
summarized and referenced in this Environmental Impact Statement, that 
several light goose populations have exhibited extraordinary growth. 
Due to their feeding actions, overabundant light geese have become 
seriously injurious to habitats on various breeding, migration, and 
wintering areas and in some situations have also caused damage to 
agricultural crops. Consistent with the same article of the convention, 
the regulations also provide for the suspension of the permission 
granted by the regulations to take these birds when such permission is 
no longer needed to prevent the injuries to the habitat. In furtherance 
of the overall objectives of the convention, these regulations will 
help ensure the preservation of these and other migratory birds covered 
by this convention.
    The convention with Mexico provides that for migratory game birds 
the parties agree to establish ``close seasons'' (unspecified periods 
or lengths) during which migratory game birds may not be taken (see 
Article II). We read this to relate only to hunting because of the 
specific reference to ``seasons.'' As such, the agreement to establish 
close seasons does not apply to the adoption of these regulations 
because this is not a hunting program. It is a management action that 
is taken in order to reduce the severe habitat damage that light geese 
are causing on their nesting, migration, or wintering grounds. There 
are no other applicable provisions in this convention except the 
overall purpose to protect these birds ``(i)n order that they may not 
be exterminated.'' The specificity of the regulations with regard to 
implementation, monitoring, and reporting, coupled with the revocation 
and suspension provisions, ensure that this requirement will be met.
    The convention with Russia, with a somewhat different approach, 
contains an agreement that the parties will prohibit the taking of 
migratory birds generally. It then provides for exceptions, one of 
which is ``(f)or scientific, educational, propagative, or other special 
purposes not inconsistent with the principles of'' the convention (see 
Article II). Another is for the purpose of protecting against injury to 
persons or property (see also Article II). These regulations fall 
within both of these exceptions. The action not only recognizes that 
birds of common interest to Russia and the United States ``have common 
flyways, breeding, wintering, feeding, and moulting habitat which 
should be protected,'' but the action is designed to protect that 
habitat. We are ``implementing measures for the conservation of 
migratory birds and their environment and other birds of mutual 
interest'' by taking actions available to us to prevent further 
destruction of breeding and feeding habitat by the unusually abundant 
light geese. (See provisions of the convention introductory to the 
Articles and see Light Goose Management Final EIS for additional 
authority discussion).
    (32) An individual stated that there are violations of the Ramsar 
Convention and other conventions to which Canada is a party and, 
therefore, no action should be taken for depredation of any of these 
geese, because it is an attempt to violate the hunting limitations of 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. It presents a major federal 
action to which Canada is in violation of her treaty obligations and 
deprives other countries of their food supplies and treaty protections.
    Our proposed management action is compatible with the relevant 
conventions. As we described in Chapter 2 of the EIS, implementation of 
a conservation order is not in violation of any treaty. This is a 
management action taken under the authority of the MBTA and is 
compatible with the relevant conventions. Clearly, no country is being 
deprived of their food supplies or treaty protections.
    (33) Calls for massive goose kills are based on the heretofore 
unchallenged opinion that just one vegetative community is correct for 
this ecosystem and that this successional stage should be maintained 
forever. This view is biologically n[iuml]ave and ecologically narrow-
minded.
    We have not stated that a single successional stage should be 
maintained forever. In fact, in section 3.2.1 of the EIS we document 
the succession of

[[Page 65935]]

habitat change in response to isostatic uplift and goose grazing. 
However, goose damage has proceeded to such an extent in some areas 
that no vegetative community exists whatsoever. We do not believe that 
this can be characterized as a normal state of the ecosystem.
    (34) Many commentors submitted identical comments to the effect 
that, ``light geese have been irrationally condemned for sabotaging 
their winter breeding habitat.''
    There is no such thing as a ``winter breeding habitat.'' We have 
documented habitat destruction for a variety of breeding, migration, 
and wintering habitats, depending on the light goose population being 
examined.
    (35) Clearly the best option is to have the sportsmen and women of 
this country and Canada harvest the surplus of snow geese. This method 
will come at no cost to the tax payers, is extremely effective, and 
will help lower the population of lesser snow geese to levels that are 
safe for both the birds and the environment.
    Our preferred alternative advocates continuation of regulations 
that have allowed citizens to increase their harvest of light geese.
    (36) Once the snow goose population is controlled, a spring harvest 
should still be allowed but the number harvested should be limited.
    Once our management goals are achieved it is possible that some 
form of maintenance regulations will need to remain in place to prevent 
goose population growth from rebounding. This can be done through 
continuation of special light goose regulations during the regular 
hunting season or periodic re-implementation of conservation orders if 
deemed necessary.
    (37) Letting geese and other animals starve to death until the 
population returns to normal is much crueler than increasing harvest.
    We believe that taking no action would ultimately be a waste of the 
goose resource due to population decline and potential collapse, and 
would also allow much more habitat to be destroyed before the 
population is reduced.
    (38) Direct control options would incur expenses that would be paid 
out of tax dollars.
    We have presented various expected costs to agencies for 
alternatives that involve direct control. Our preferred alternative 
will increase harvest through authorization of new methods of take and 
a conservation order. This management approach will present minimal 
costs to agencies versus direct control.
    (39) An individual asked if the reason the Service required that 
other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons be closed is because the 
Service does not trust the average duck or goose hunter to know what 
they are shooting at.
    Our decision to be cautious in the authorization of a conservation 
order and new methods of take is based on our desire to eliminate or 
minimize any potential impacts to nontarget species. We believe that 
closure of other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons will heighten 
awareness of this concern and cause all hunters to be judicious in bird 
identification while pursuing light geese.
    (40) Throughout much of its 50-page public comment, the Animal 
Protection Institute (API) contended that the Service has tried to 
``demonize'' light geese. The API states that the species is now 
thought of as a ``flying rat'' or ``tundra maggot''.
    The Service believes that this characterization of our treatment of 
this issue is unfounded and unfortunate. We believe that we have 
objectively described light goose populations and their impact on the 
environment. The Service has a mandate to conserve migratory birds, and 
we believe that our proposed management action is in the best interest 
of the long-term health of light goose populations and their habitats.
    (41) The API commented that the premise that, under no action, 
light goose populations would be allowed to increase in size is 
ultimately untenable. No wildlife population has ever increased 
indefinitely in size, and there is much annual variation in recruitment 
rates.
    Nowhere in the document do we state that light goose populations 
would increase in size indefinitely. In fact, in our discussion of 
impacts of the No Action alternative on light goose populations we 
state the possibility that density-dependent regulation of the 
population would occur. In section 3.1.9 of the EIS we reviewed 
documented population responses to habitat degradation. Because light 
geese can cheat density-dependence by exploiting new habitats, it is 
not known how long it will take before a particular population will 
actually decline. The occurrence of annual variation in recruitment 
rates, which would affect growth of the overall population from year to 
year, is clearly indicated in the numerous graphs of population size 
(or indices) we present in sections 3.1.6 and 3.1.7 of the EIS.
    (42) The API commented that the Service rejects those historical 
data that indicate current light goose population sizes are not 
unprecedented. While the rejection is based on the fact that the early 
indicators are anecdotal, and thus cannot be compared to current 
statistics obtained from more objectively employed techniques, there is 
no logical reason to assume that early estimates must be hugely in 
error. While we cannot know that light goose numbers were never as high 
as they currently are, we cannot know that they were not.
    We contend that ``historical data'' (i.e., anecdotal accounts, 
often of only individual flocks of birds) or ``early estimates'' cited 
do not constitute estimates of the size of light goose populations 
prior to the implementation of systematic surveys. Accounts of 
individual flocks, or counts in a very limited geographic area, do not 
even remotely approach a population estimate. Therefore, a discussion 
of whether or not such supposed estimates are hugely in error is 
pointless. In the absence of reliable data and population estimates 
from pre-survey periods, we must base our management program on 
information from our systematic surveys that indicate population levels 
are at historic highs.
    (43) The Humane Society of the United States and the Animal 
Protection Institute submitted lengthy comments that, in part, 
questioned whether light goose population levels documented in the DEIS 
are unprecedented. For example, they cited Lynch's (1975) account of 
approximately 185,000 geese in a single flock at Oyster Bayou 
(Louisiana) in the late 1930s, but that only 368,000 birds were counted 
in the entire winter survey of the Mississippi Flyway during 1954/55. 
They also cited Lynch's (1975) account of apparent declines in light 
geese using the Mississippi Delta as support for the hypothesis that 
the number of light geese in the mid-continent region had been at high 
levels prior to implementation of systematic surveys and that current 
high levels are not unprecedented.
    Lynch's (1975) account of a single flock of 185,000 birds at Oyster 
Bayou in the late 1930s coupled with the entire flyway count of 368,000 
in 1954/55 does not lend support to the hypothesis that goose 
populations existed at previously high numbers. Geese did not exhibit 
drastic changes from their tradition of utilizing a narrow band of 
saltmarsh habitat along the Louisiana coast until the 1940s (Bateman et 
al. 1988). Therefore, the count of 185,000 birds in a single flock 
during the late 1930s may have represented a large percentage of the 
entire wintering population. In the 1955 winter count of geese in the 
entire Mississippi Flyway, 98% of the 368,000

[[Page 65936]]

birds were counted in Louisiana (Fronczak 2003). As in 1955, we believe 
it is highly likely that Louisiana harbored the majority of light geese 
wintering in the Mississippi Flyway during the late 1930s when Lynch 
made his observations at Oyster Bayou. Therefore, it is not surprising 
that he was able to count a large number of birds in a single flock. 
However, such observations do not support the hypothesis that numbers 
of light geese previously existed at levels comparable to today.
    In his discussion of goose population declines, Lynch (1975) 
clearly was documenting a decline in the number of birds using the 
Mississippi Delta region of Louisiana. Lynch cited counts of ``about 
300,000'' birds wintering on the Active Delta of the Mississippi during 
the late 1930s and early 1940s, but aerial surveys of the same region 
in the 1970s produced estimates of only 50,000 birds. Lynch stated 
that, ``Obviously the Snows and Blues formerly using this region have 
dropped greatly in numbers.'' We see no information in these accounts 
that support the hypothesis that the number of mid-continent light 
geese previously existed at levels that were as high as, or higher, 
than those that exist today. Lynch was simply stating that the number 
of birds using a specific geographic area had declined, and that 
``perhaps they moved westward to the Vermillion Bay marshes and other 
portions of southwest Louisiana'' (Lynch 1975: 15). Furthermore, Lynch 
(1975:24) stated that some declines of geese at specific geographic 
areas ``undoubtedly reflects geese that now were lingering in inland 
States for longer periods during fall migration, and making some 
attempts to overwinter at such places.'' Lynch also cited decreases in 
reproductive success in the arctic as a potential factor, or that some 
birds may have shifted their nesting grounds westward, which would 
cause them to migrate to wintering areas west of the Mississippi Delta 
(i.e., southwest Louisiana and east Texas). We conclude that any 
perceived decline in goose numbers in a particular region was primarily 
a redistribution of goose wintering grounds and not an actual decline 
in numbers. We reiterate that comparison of anecdotal accounts of light 
goose population size with data derived from systematic surveys cannot 
be used to prove one way or another whether populations previously 
existed at levels comparable to today. However, we must base our 
management decisions on reliable survey data that indicate steady 
population growth.
    (44) The HSUS claims that some researchers, in particular R. 
Alison, have suggested that separating the Mid-Continent Population of 
light geese into Central Flyway and Mississippi Flyway components will 
show that, while light goose populations in the Central Flyway have 
increased, those in the Mississippi Flyway have declined in the past 
decade.
    We disagree that the data from the two flyways indicate that the 
number of MCP light geese in the Mississippi Flyway has declined. Prior 
to the implementation of the conservation order in the 2 Flyways 
(1999), the number of MCP light geese in the Mississippi Flyway 
increased from 1.0 million in 1988 to over 1.9 million in 1998. During 
the same time period, the number of MCP light geese in the Central 
Flyway portion of the range increased from 736,000 birds in 1988 to 
over 1.0 million birds in 1998. Clearly, the number of MCP light geese 
in each Flyway has been increasing.
    (45) The API referred to work conducted by J.F. Scarry and C.M. 
Scarry that documented the occurrence of snow geese (presumably 
greater) in archaeological sites in North Carolina. From the frequency 
with which these bones occur in some coastal regions, and given the 
lack of pump-action shotguns available to early native people, it seems 
prudent to at least acknowledge the likelihood that abundant 
populations of greater snow geese occurred before, leaving no lasting 
``damage''.
    Presence of greater snow goose remains in archaeological sites 
merely points to the existence of the species prior to European 
settlement. We do not believe the presence of such findings can 
indicate a likelihood that the population once existed at a level as 
high as, or higher, than that which exists today.
    (46) The API questioned our use of information regarding changes in 
the winter distribution of light geese as it relates to habitat 
carrying capacity and population growth (DEIS Figure 3.13). They stated 
that it is contentious to assume that the carrying capacity of the 
``original coastal marsh wintering range'' is somehow equal to what 
existed prior to the 20th century. A wintering range expansion does not 
equal an increase in bird numbers.
    We do not understand the concern that prompted the comment. In our 
review of migration and wintering ecology of CMF light geese, we merely 
reviewed the available information concerning goose distribution and 
habitat use on the Gulf Coast. We did not state that range expansion 
equates to population growth. However, the available information 
suggests that geese formerly restricted their activity to a narrow band 
of brackish salt marsh. This pattern was exhibited until the 1920s in 
Texas, and the 1940s in Louisiana (Bateman et al. 1988). We have no way 
of documenting the carrying capacity of the coastal marshes prior to 
the 20th century, or even during the 1920s and 1940s. As the comment 
acknowledges, the original coastal marsh range has undergone enormous 
change in the last century. However, much of that change has 
undoubtedly occurred after the 1920s and 1940s. Therefore, it is not 
inconceivable that the carrying capacity of the marshes immediately 
prior to the 1920s was still fairly high. Our review focused on the 
increased use of agricultural land by geese once such land came into 
closer proximity to the wintering marshes. We believe that use of this 
new habitat allowed geese to increase the amount of food available to 
them, which likely led to increased survival rates and contributed to 
population growth.
    (47) The API commented that the Service has failed to adequately 
demonstrate a need to reduce light goose populations within the context 
of Article VII of the U.S.-Canada Migratory Bird Treaty. The 
``extraordinary conditions'' mentioned in Article VII have not been 
identified. If alleged habitat damage is the result of extraordinary 
conditions, then what are those conditions? Does extraordinary refer to 
phenomena such as global warming or grain subsidies?
    We have already documented how light geese have become seriously 
injurious to arctic breeding habitats. Furthermore, we believe that 
high population levels documented through extensive survey methodology, 
combined with habitat damage, represents an extraordinary condition. In 
addition, we have not relied solely on Article VII of the Treaty to 
support our call for reduction of light goose populations. As we 
outlined in section 1.6 of the FEIS, Article II of the amended Treaty 
states that migratory bird populations shall be managed in accord with 
conservation principles that include (among others) provision for and 
protection of habitat necessary for the conservation of migratory 
birds. We have concluded that reduction of light geese will result in a 
protection of habitat essential to light geese, as well as other 
migratory birds. Article IV of the Treaty states that each government 
shall use its authority to take appropriate measures to preserve and 
enhance the environment of migratory birds. We contend that our 
proposal will

[[Page 65937]]

help preserve those portions of the arctic environment inhabited by 
light geese. Article VII authorizes take of migratory birds that, under 
extraordinary conditions, become seriously injurious to agricultural or 
other interests. Therefore, our proposal to increase take of light 
geese to alleviate this situation is warranted.
    (48) The HSUS cited Robertson and Slack's (1995) caution that 
recent and projected future declines in rice acreage, and increases in 
urbanization in Texas coastal areas, may result in sudden lesser snow 
goose declines. The HSUS urged the Service to consider trends in 
agricultural production and further wetland losses in the Final EIS.
    We have reviewed the paper cited by the HSUS, which we were not 
aware of during preparation of the DEIS. We note that Robertson and 
Slack (1995) presented a variety of potential scenarios, or combination 
of scenarios, for future lesser snow goose populations wintering on the 
Texas coast in response to changes in agriculture and urbanization. One 
scenario involves snow geese simply expanding their winter range in 
search of suitable feeding habitat. Alternately, geese may continue to 
winter in the same region and use remaining agricultural and/or natural 
marsh habitats. If birds are unable to find suitable habitats, winter 
mortality may increase through starvation and disease. In addition, 
productivity may decline if birds begin spring migration in poor 
condition and they are unable to obtain nutrient reserves necessary for 
reproduction. Despite changes in Texas agriculture and urbanization 
cited by Robertson and Slack, the number of light geese in the mid-
continent region has continued to increase. Given the ability of light 
geese to adapt to new food supplies on the wintering grounds, we 
believe it is more likely that geese will expand their wintering range 
in search of suitable feeding habitats, rather than experience a sudden 
decline. Finally, we note Robertson and Slack (1995) indicated that 
empirical data do not exist to allow predictive modeling of the snow 
goose population wintering on the upper Texas coast. Examination of 
trends in agricultural production and wetland losses is beyond the 
scope of this document. Considering all of the above, if light goose 
populations declined to levels consistent with our management goal we 
would take action to suspend a conservation order.
    (49) The HSUS commented that the DEIS considers all mid-continent 
light geese--and in some cases all North American light geese--as if 
they constituted a single population, regardless of the location of 
their Arctic breeding grounds.
    In section 3.1.1 of the EIS, we clearly defined three different 
taxa of light geese in North America: Greater snow geese, lesser snow 
geese, and Ross's geese. Furthermore, in section 3.1.3, we clearly 
defined the various populations of light geese found in North America 
and described their breeding, migration, and wintering ranges. We noted 
in the DEIS that the term mid-continent light geese is used simply to 
refer collectively to the Western Central Flyway Population (WCFP) and 
Mid-Continent Population (MCP) of light geese that migrate through and 
winter in the mid-continent region. Our analysis of Alternatives A-E 
clearly presented the anticipated impacts on several distinct 
populations of light geese.
    (50) The HSUS commented that some breeding colonies have 
experienced recent sharp declines even as others are increasing in 
size. Therefore, hunting pressure distributed widely throughout the 
United States (even if primarily concentrated within a particular 
flyway) will not necessarily result in targeted decreases of goose 
populations in those Arctic breeding areas that are being impacted most 
severely.
    Breeding areas that are presently being impacted most severely by 
mid-continent light geese are located on the western Hudson Bay 
coastline. These sites are impacted the most because geese from a 
variety of breeding colonies migrate through and utilize the region on 
their way to more northern breeding sites. This feeding pressure is in 
addition to that resulting from birds that normally breed on such 
sites. Therefore, if population reduction is targeted only at sites 
where habitat degradation is most severe, it will necessitate removal 
of birds that would normally breed at a variety of colony sites; some 
of which are far removed from the site of habitat damage. Consequently, 
we believe that reduction of goose numbers in the United States will 
alleviate pressure on breeding habitats in a manner very similar to 
that which would occur if population reduction occurred only at damaged 
breeding sites. The HSUS did not specify which breeding colonies they 
believed to have experienced sharp declines. It is true that the number 
of geese nesting at traditional colony sites at La Perouse Bay has 
declined due to habitat degradation; however, the number of geese in 
the overall population nesting at La Perouse Bay and surrounding Cape 
Churchill area has increased (Cooch et al. 2001).
    (51) The HSUS commented that the proposed increase in hunter-
induced mortality will most likely lead to compensatory population 
growth. Decreased local competition for food and increased reproductive 
output and survival will likely bring these populations quickly back up 
to levels perceived to be too high. Thus the plan may either result in 
no change in foraging pressure on breeding grounds or will allow only 
brief respites from high-intensity goose foraging. In contrast, 
allowing a natural crash in the goose population, or, in the short 
term, dispersal away from heavily grazed areas via the No Action 
Alternative may be more likely to allow for long-term habitat recovery.
    Our preferred alternative calls for retention of maintenance 
regulations that would ensure that harvest remains at a magnitude 
sufficient to prevent populations from rebounding once they were 
lowered to desired levels. We believe that allowing further habitat 
damage to occur while waiting for a population crash to occur at some 
time in the potentially distant future would be irresponsible. The 
benefit of immediately reducing the population to management goal 
levels, which still provide for the existence of numerous birds, would 
far outweigh the negative impacts associated with cumulative habitat 
destruction that would occur prior to any population crash that would 
occur in the distant future.
    (52) The HSUS commented that the Service implies that the plant 
community inside the fenced goose exclosure areas represents a natural 
plant community and, therefore, is a picture of what the breeding 
grounds should resemble. However, the exclosed area lacks a dominant 
herbivore and increased plant biomass within exclosures does not 
indicate the ecosystem contains a destructively high density of geese. 
Exclosure studies are generally useful in determining the relative 
effects of herbivore populations on the composition of the local plant 
community and should not lead one to believe that the exclosed area 
represents what is ``normal''.
    We presented results of exclosure studies to illustrate two points. 
The first point being that sites that receive goose exclosures after 
being destroyed by the feeding action of geese do not experience re-
vegetation even after 15 years. The second point is that experiments 
where goose exclosures are placed on intact stands of vegetation show 
that geese remove nearly all vegetation on sites where they can feed 
outside of the exclosure. Obviously, the purpose of such experiments is 
to remove (via exclusion) a dominant herbivore from a site; however, we 
did not state that vegetative stands within

[[Page 65938]]

fenced areas represented a ``normal'' situation. We agree with the 
comment that exclosure studies are generally useful in determining the 
relative effects of herbivore populations on the composition of the 
local plant community. The results of the studies we cited show that 
geese can reduce the composition of the local plant community to zero 
or near-zero species.
    (53) The API commented that the Service states there may be little 
or no chance of plant recovery within 25-50 years after geese remove 
vegetation. However, due to isostatic uplift such areas will be much 
further inland after that amount of time. Newly emerging sea floor 
begins innocent of marsh vegetation, but the Service would have us 
believe that it will forever remain that way.
    Studies indicate that, once vegetation is removed by geese, soil 
chemistry changes such that revegetation is affected. In some cases the 
soil on such areas is eroded away completely. Therefore, it does not 
matter where on the coastal marsh/upland habitat continuum the land 
resides in 50 years. Conditions likely will not be favorable for any 
type of plant establishment. Thus, if the land was further inland it 
would seem that upland species would be affected. We have never stated, 
or tried to have the reader believe, that newly exposed sediments would 
not be colonized by marsh plants. However, in the DEIS (page 52) we did 
state that, ``although isostatic uplift creates new salt marsh habitat 
as new land is exposed, the rate of increase of new habitat is too slow 
to keep up with the rate of habitat destruction caused by the 
increasing light goose population.''
    (54) The HSUS commented that a normal process of plant community 
succession in the salt-marsh habitats tends to produce a shift in plant 
types, from the preferred goose food plants, Puccinellia and Carex 
species, to Calamagrostis and Festuca species. Foraging activities of 
lesser snow geese and Ross's geese at low to moderate densities delay 
this succession but do not prevent it. Isostatic uplift and frost heave 
development both gradually reduce salinity over time, further favoring 
the switch to plants that are salt-intolerant and not preferred by 
geese. Tidal action also deposits dicotyledon seeds in goose foraging 
areas (Hik et al. 1992). According to Hik et al. (1992) this 
successional change has the result that ``swards dominated by 
Puccinellia * * * are irreversibly lost from the system,'' however, the 
authors define the length of this irreversible loss as 10-50 years. 
This is a long time from the perspective of a human but is not a 
considerable amount of time for an Arctic salt marsh ecosystem as a 
whole. Overgrazing of some types of preferred food plants due to a high 
goose population may actually speed up a shift in plant community 
composition. Regardless of the rate, this represents a normal 
ecological process that eventually results in a much more diverse 
secondary plant community. When grazing is accompanied by intensive 
grubbing, the grubbing and erosion may expose bare sediment and may 
require a longer period of time (probably on the order of 50-150 years) 
for the aforementioned assemblages of plants to reestablish (Hik et al. 
1992, Srivastava and Jefferies 1996).
    We note that Hik et al. (1992) utilize the term ``destruction'' 
when describing the impact of high numbers of geese on the vegetation 
communities they studied. With regard to the statement that isostatic 
uplift and frost heave development gradually reduces salinity over time 
(Hik et al. 1992), we note that this passage comes from Hik et al.'s 
paragraph describing plant community change in the absence of goose 
grazing (Hik et al. 1992:403). In our reading of Hik et al. (1992), 
nowhere do we see that they define the length of ``irreversible loss'' 
as 10-50 years. Instead, Hik et al. (1992:404) state that, ``As time 
proceeds * * *, the swards dominated by Puccinellia (A) are 
irreversibly lost from the system (10-50 years), due to the effects of 
isostatic uplift.'' We interpret this statement to mean that, as 
isostatic uplift acts on the system, it will take 10-50 years for the 
Puccinellia swards to be converted to other plant communities. However, 
once the Puccinellia sward is lost it will not come back in 10-50 years 
(as suggested by the commentor)--it is ``irreversibly lost from the 
system'' (Hik et al. 1992). We sincerely doubt that Hik et al. would 
use the term ``irreversible'' if the Puccinellia sward could re-
establish in as little as 10 years. Hik et al. (1992) further state 
that, ``Where extensive grubbing and grazing have occurred in recent 
years on the La Perouse Bay salt-marsh, the plant assemblages 
characteristic of the states we have described become extinct * * * 
across the entire salt-marsh an estimated 50% of the vegetation has 
disappeared between 1985 and 1991 as a result of grubbing and 
subsequent erosion. Erosion of organic layers and sediments makes it 
unlikely that the assemblages of plants will re-establish within 50 
years. These changes coupled with those associated with the progressive 
effects of isostatic uplift indicate that when such areas are 
recolonized the species will be different from the former assemblages. 
Hence, on a longer time scale (c. 100-150 years) non-equilibrium 
conditions prevail.'' This statement does not mean that those plant 
assemblages necessarily will re-establish after 50 years. We 
acknowledge that some type of plant community may eventually (whether 
it be 50, 100, or 150+ years) establish itself on sites formerly 
destroyed by geese. However, information available to us suggests that 
such communities will have diminished value to wildlife.
    (55) The API commented that, to the lay public, ``desertification'' 
conjures images of the Saharan sand dunes, or perhaps Catalina Island 
once the goats got through with it, but that is, emphatically, not what 
is happening even with regard to the most extreme and extensive removal 
of vegetation by ``light'' geese anywhere on their breeding grounds.
    The end point of a desert is not intended by the term 
desertification (Jefferies et al. 1995:204). We are using the term as 
applied by Jefferies et al. (1995).
    (56) The HSUS has produced video documentation during a flyover of 
the coastal regions from La Perouse Bay west and then north. The video 
shows vast areas of intact vegetational communities. On-the-ground 
still photos taken by the Animal Protection Institute show areas of 
mudflat interspersed with green vegetation taken within view of the 
fence of the research encampment. On the other hand, the Service 
document shows dramatic pictures of desert-like barrens and a satellite 
image of cumulative damage at La Perouse Bay ``caused by light geese'' 
over a ten-year period. The red areas in the satellite photo are not 
desert; they are areas either bare of above-ground vegetation or are 
incomplete vegetation where complete means vegetation not significantly 
acted upon by light geese and/or other herbivores.
    We have viewed the HSUS video and believe that videos taken at the 
altitudes flown would not be able to demonstrate a difference between 
an ``intact vegetational community'' and a damaged or overgrazed area. 
It is believed that 65% of the 135,000 acres of coastal salt marsh 
habitat is damaged or overgrazed, however from the video this impact 
may not be detected. For example, an overgrazed area may have been 
converted to a moss carpet after removal of sedges by geese; however 
such an area would look green from the air. Only 35% of the marsh 
habitat is considered destroyed. Therefore, the video would potentially 
show a large amount of habitat mistakenly identified

[[Page 65939]]

as an intact vegetation community. With regard to the satellite photo, 
the Animal Protection Institute failed to mention that the caption of 
this photo stated that in 1973 the areas in red had complete vegetation 
cover. In 1993 such areas were either bare soil or incomplete plant 
cover. Figure 3.20 of the DEIS also shows green vegetation interspersed 
in mudflats. These vegetation patches tend to be willow stands that 
eventually will die as soil salinity increases, as illustrated on page 
35 of Abraham and Jefferies (1998). Furthermore, the satellite photo 
study documented a 20-year change in vegetation, not 10 years as the 
comment stated.
    (57) The HSUS commented that the reason for increased grubbing by 
resident and migrant geese at La Perouse Bay appears to be a 
combination of cooling trend in northern breeding habitats and 
increased temperatures at more southerly sites. If the increase in the 
size of the staging population in the southern areas is responsible for 
alleged habitat damage, then it would appear that increasingly late 
snowmelt in northern areas and global environment change is causally 
related to damage in at least some areas. The Service argument that 
agricultural subsidies are causally related to arctic damage by snow 
geese is, therefore, flawed.
    We have stated that increased numbers of light geese, not climate 
change or agricultural subsidies, are responsible for habitat damage in 
arctic and sub-arctic nesting areas. We believe that agricultural 
subsidies and climate change are plausible causative factors in the 
growth of light goose populations. Abraham and Jefferies (1997) 
reviewed the occurrence of climate changes in northern and southern 
goose nesting areas, and we have incorporated this discussion in the 
Final EIS. Abraham and Jefferies (1997) reported that the center of the 
lesser snow goose breeding range has shifted south to areas with a less 
severe climate (i.e., rather than climate change in situ), which would 
allow for earlier nesting dates. With earlier nest initiation dates and 
longer growing seasons, higher average annual production would result 
in population growth of southern colonies such as Cape Henrietta Maria 
or La Perouse Bay. However, the slow growth of each of these colonies 
in the first two decades following their establishment argues against 
this phenomenon as being the sole mechanism to account for population 
growth. Jefferies et al. (1995) also reported on the occurrence of 
increased number of migrants staging at southern sites in some years 
due to colder temperature in more northern areas. Regardless of factors 
that impact the distribution of birds, it is the overall increase in 
the number of birds that has resulted in habitat damage. Not only has 
damage been documented on southern sites, but damage has also been 
documented in northern areas of the central Arctic. Abraham and 
Jefferies (1997) stated that agricultural subsidies have been the major 
influence enabling geese to increase in recent decades, whereas climate 
warming and expanded breeding range were cited as likely secondary 
causes.
    (58) The HSUS commented that, with regard to greater snow geese, 
damage to freshwater breeding habitats has not been documented and 
goose numbers appear to be below the estimated carrying capacity of the 
habitat. Also, greater snow goose colonies do not experience waves of 
migrant flocks traveling to more northerly colony sites, as happens 
with habitats in La Perouse Bay. The ecosystems used by greater snow 
geese may be quite different from saltwater habitats and birds may not 
be able to expand their breeding range. These differences suggest that 
greater snow geese may not be capable of creating a large impact on 
vegetation. There is no justification in terms of breeding habitat 
vegetation for reducing the greater snow goose population. Despite 
these differences, compared to the situation in the mid-continent 
region, the Service concludes that the greater snow goose population 
will increase as rapidly as birds in the mid-content region. Thus, 
liberalization of regulations in the Atlantic Flyway would constitute a 
large-scale preemptive strike that is unfounded.
    In section 3.2.1 of the EIS, we described the interaction of 
greater snow geese and their breeding habitats. At the population 
levels observed during the mid-1990s, geese maintained the vegetation 
in a low-level steady state. Unlike the situation where moderate 
grazing by lesser snow geese on salt-marsh plants can increase plant 
quality and quantity, grazing by greater snow geese has not shown such 
an ``overcompensation'' effect. In addition, fecal matter deposited by 
greater snow geese in freshwater habitat does not appear to have the 
same fertilization effect that occurs with lesser snow geese in salt-
marsh habitats. We do not view the differences in relationships with 
plants between the greater and lesser snow goose as a valid argument 
that greater snow geese are not capable of creating a large impact on 
vegetation. In fact, given the differences cited, it is possible that 
greater snow geese may have an even greater potential to damage 
habitat. They simply have not reached the population size where such 
damage is likely. We forthrightly cited the study by Masse et al. 
(2001) that indicated greater snow geese were below the carrying 
capacity of habitat on Bylot Island. We note that Bylot Island hosts 
only about 15% of the total breeding population. In section 3.1.6 of 
the EIS, we documented that the greater snow goose population was 
indeed growing faster than light goose populations in the mid-continent 
region. Given the rapid growth rate in the absence of increased 
harvest, it is clear that the carrying capacity will eventually be 
reached and likely exceeded if management actions are not implemented. 
Justification for population management does not need to be restricted 
to impacts on breeding habitats. We also believe the population needs 
to be reduced in order to prevent further damage to natural marsh 
habitats on migration and wintering areas and to reduce agricultural 
depredations by geese. Therefore, we do not believe the preemptive 
reduction and stabilization of the population is unfounded
    (59) The document does not represent a fair economic assessment 
with regard to greater snow geese because only data pertaining to 
agricultural crop depredations are included. Economic impacts from 
other activities, such as people viewing geese or hunting them, should 
be included. Omission of such information reflects an inherent bias of 
the document in favor of further demonizing light geese in support of 
the Alternative B.
    In section 3.5.1 of the EIS, we clearly outline economic impacts 
associated with snow goose hunting in the U.S. portion of the Atlantic 
Flyway. Furthermore, in section 3.5.2, we addressed the reasons why it 
is not possible to determine the economic impacts associated strictly 
with nonconsumptive uses of light geese in the United States. In the 
FEIS we have included information from a recent CWS report that 
examined the economic impact of waterfowl migration through Quebec 
(Canadian Wildlife Service 2005). The report provided insight to the 
economic impact of nonconsumptive uses, especially with regard to 
greater snow geese and Canada geese. The total annual economic benefit 
of nonconsumptive use of waterfowl migration through Quebec was 
estimated to be over $24 million (Canadian $$). Of this total, more 
than $19 million can be attributed to birdwatching activities at four 
main migration sites in Quebec. Additionally, $5 million annually was 
generated by two greater snow goose festivals, one Canada goose 
festival, and operation of associated educational centers

[[Page 65940]]

(Canadian Wildlife Service 2005). We also included data on compensation 
paid to farmers in Quebec merely to point out the increase in 
depredations that have occurred with increasing numbers of geese. A 
reduction in the goose population should alleviate such damage while 
still providing ample opportunity for nonconsumptive users to enjoy 
views of staging geese.
    (60) The API commented that the Service's language with regard to 
the issue of avian cholera is disingenuous and is designed to mislead 
the reader into assuming that light geese are exceptionally a causative 
factor, perhaps ``the'' causative factor, in the occurrence of serious 
outbreaks of cholera. The Institute questioned why the Service is 
concerned that whooping cranes are a species ``potentially affected'' 
by cholera, but that the Service is not concerned about whooping cranes 
being a ``potentially shot'' species as a result of ``encouraging kill-
oriented hunters to shoot long-necked white waterbirds with black wing 
tips.''
    Our language with regard to the issue of avian cholera is the 
result of examining several scientific publications that point to 
lesser snow and Ross's geese as being reservoirs for the bacterium that 
causes the disease. Nowhere in our document do we state that light 
geese are the only reservoir for the bacterium. We focus on light geese 
as being a reservoir because (1) the EIS is a document dealing with 
light goose management and (2) the available scientific papers dealing 
with this disease continually cite light geese as being prominent 
carriers. We have included the discussion of whooping cranes as being 
potentially affected by cholera because we are required to address how 
special status species may be affected by light geese. Furthermore, the 
statement that we are not concerned that whooping cranes are a 
``potentially shot'' species is unfounded because we specifically deal 
with that issue in sections 3.3.3 and 4.5.2 of the EIS, with regard to 
the Whooping Crane Contingency Plan.
    (61) The HSUS commented that the link between light geese and avian 
cholera outbreaks is ``shaky at best''. Samuel et al. (1999) cite 
previous unpublished work suggesting that 50% of adult snow geese 
infected with Pasteurella multocida may survive the infection ``and 
thus a portion of these birds may be carriers of the bacteria.'' The 
HSUS stated that ``it is a leap to then assume that the presence of 
antibodies after an infection necessarily means that an individual is 
capable of acting as a carrier.'' Even if 5% of the population were 
carriers of the disease, it is highly unlikely that hunter-induced 
mortality would significantly reduce the number of carrier birds from 
the population.
    The above comment refers to a statistic about the percentage of 
infected snow geese following cholera outbreaks on Banks Island in the 
western Arctic (Samuel et al. 1999). In the same paragraph in which the 
statistic was included, Samuel et al. (1999) stated that: (1) Three 
major outbreaks of cholera occurred at Banks Island between 1991 and 
1996; (2) 50% of the birds infected during cholera outbreak survived 
and thus a portion of these birds may be carriers of the bacteria; (3) 
there is evidence that cholera has become endemic in Banks Island snow 
geese; (4) the Banks Island population ``may play an important role in 
transmitting this disease to other waterbirds, especially to wintering 
areas where many species are concentrated.'' Also in the same 
paragraph, Samuel et al. (1999) cite other studies indicating that 
``snow geese have been suspected of playing an important role in 
distributing avian cholera because mortality patterns have coincided 
with snow goose migration in the Central and Mississippi flyways (Brand 
1984) and with the arrival of snow geese in California (J.G. Mensik, 
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication). In 
addition, regular mortality has been observed in northward migrating 
lesser snow and Ross's geese in Saskatchewan (Wobeser et al. 1979, 
1983) and snow geese have frequently been involved in larger cholera 
outbreaks.'' In light of the above studies, the Service does not 
believe it is unrealistic to assume that light geese exposed to the 
disease can act as carriers. We do believe that reducing the number, 
and thus density, of light geese will reduce the likelihood of disease 
outbreaks.
    (62) The HSUS commented that the Service may argue that the main 
concern regarding cholera is with the density of snow geese and the 
fast rate of disease transmission that may result. Information provided 
in Friend (1999) states that attempts to reduce populations of 
migratory birds that may speed disease transmission can be justified 
only under special circumstances and conditions, including complete 
eradication and prevention of dispersal of potentially infected birds. 
Therefore, increased hunting pressure would not likely decrease cholera 
transmission among snow geese or other birds and may, in fact, speed up 
the spread of the disease to new sites.
    The information cited in Friend (1999:88-91) deals specifically 
with control of avian cholera outbreaks once they have already 
occurred. We agree that the outbreak control methods recommended by 
Friend (1999) are valid once an outbreak has occurred. However, the 
point of discussion is that the reduction of light geese, beyond the 
immediate need to prevent further habitat destruction, may reduce the 
likelihood of cholera outbreaks occurring in the first place.
    (63) The API commented that the Service has created a National 
Wildlife Refuge system that forces light geese to concentrate on areas 
not open to hunting, which exacerbates the spread of disease. If the 
Service's concern about cholera were not merely another scare tactic 
designed to ``demonize'' light geese, but was genuine, at the very 
least the Service should review its own policies that lead to denser 
concentrations of light geese and other waterfowl.
    The mission of the Service's 100-year-old National Wildlife Refuge 
System goes far beyond management of light goose populations. 
Nevertheless, our proposed management alternative calls for some 
refuges to decrease the amount of sanctuary and food available to 
migrating and wintering light geese. Proposed management practices may 
also include altering or eliminating water areas that serve as roost 
sites. Therefore, we have reviewed our management policies that lead to 
denser concentrations of light geese.
    (64) The API commented that the document exhibits a double standard 
of conservation concern by discussing the loss of a few nests of semi-
palmated sandpipers or red-necked phalaropes from a large population, 
but a greater concern is not expressed for the potential of whooping 
cranes, which actually are endangered, to be shot.
    Our discussion with regard to nest losses of sandpipers and 
phalaropes was used to illustrate the fact that light goose habitat 
destruction can affect other bird species utilizing the same area. With 
regard to whooping cranes, we addressed the potential impact of the 
light goose management program on cranes by describing how migration 
behavior of light geese and cranes differed in a way that would not 
favor illegal take. Furthermore, we described the Aransas-Wood Buffalo 
Population Whooping Crane Contingency Plan, which provides a specific 
mechanism for protecting cranes when they enter a situation where they 
face hazards such as hunting activities, contaminants, or disease 
situations. The discussion of protection of endangered cranes is 
totally unrelated to our discussion of the impacts of habitat 
degradation on other

[[Page 65941]]

species. We have not equated the status of sandpipers or phalaropes 
with that of whooping cranes, and, therefore, we do not believe that we 
have exhibited a double standard of conservation concern.
    (65) The HSUS commented that, considering the relative lack of 
interest on the part of sportsmen in hunting snow geese, they question 
the lumping together of all goose hunting expenditures rather than 
separately examining light goose hunting in the socioeconomic analysis.
    We disagree that there is a lack of interest in hunting snow geese. 
Prior to implementation of special light goose regulations, light goose 
harvest represented approximately 24% of the total annual goose harvest 
in the United States. Because light geese are generally considered more 
difficult to hunt due to their flocking behavior, we believe the fact 
that they comprise nearly one quarter of the goose harvest indicates 
there is no lack of interest in pursuing them. Furthermore, we have not 
lumped together all goose hunting expenditures in our economic 
analysis. In section 3.5.1 of the EIS we specifically addressed the 
economic impact of light goose hunting and estimated a total economic 
impact of approximately $146 million in the United States. We further 
divided this economic impact of light goose hunting by flyway, based on 
the percent distribution of harvest among flyways.
    (66) The API commented that, while the document acknowledges the 
far greater nonconsumptive use and economic activity, versus 
consumptive use, of waterfowl, we disagree with the statement, 
``Information on the percentage usage that can be attributed to duck or 
goose species is not available.'' Such information could have been 
obtained by ``monitoring birding e-mail lists (such as BirdChat or 
OntBirds)'' or by collecting information from snow goose festivals held 
in various locations in the United States and Canada.
    Our statement regarding the lack of information on the percent of 
nonconsumptive usage of duck versus goose species relates directly to 
the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated 
Recreation conducted by the Service and the Bureau of Census, as well 
as the study conducted by Teisl and Southwick (1995). Neither source 
broke down economic activity into duck and goose components. These 
were, and still remain, the only available studies we are aware of that 
are conducted on a national scope that provide the socioeconomic data 
we needed to conduct our analysis for the United States. We have 
included recent results of an economic impact study conducted in Quebec 
that gave estimates of the economic benefits of birdwatching and goose 
festivals (see EIS section 3.5.2). Conducting a separate study of the 
economic impacts of snow goose festivals (if they exist) in the United 
States is beyond the scope and capability of the EIS, even if a 
comprehensive listing of such festivals was available.
    (67) The HSUS commented that in the Service's proposed rule (FR 66, 
pp. 52077-52090) there is a discussion of how habitat damage in the 
Arctic will eventually trigger a density-dependent regulation of the 
population and cause a decline in the population to a level that is too 
low to permit any hunting, thus closing light goose hunting seasons. 
This passage comes from the subsection ``Environmental Consequences of 
Taking No Action'' despite the fact that the statement regarding 
hunting seasons is clearly a socioeconomic impact and not an 
environmental one. The Service also points out that maintaining 
populations at usable levels will benefit hunters and birdwatchers and 
will ensure the future of a $146 million industry associated with light 
goose hunting in the United States. This reveals something about the 
single-game-species management philosophy that the HSUS can only guess 
underlies the reasoning behind the management plan.
    The EIS Chapter 3 dealing with the Affected Environment includes 
not only a discussion of light goose populations, other bird species, 
and habitat, but also the socioeconomic impacts of light goose hunting, 
nonconsumptive use of light geese, and subsistence uses of light geese. 
Thus, the ``affected environment'' is not strictly related to birds or 
habitat. Consequently, it was appropriate to discuss the economic 
impacts of a population crash in the section of the proposed rule 
labeled, ``Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action''. This is 
analogous to the analysis of socioeconomic impacts of the No Action 
alternative (EIS section 4.6.1) in Chapter 4--Environmental 
Consequences. We clearly state that prevention of a population crash 
will benefit both hunters and birdwatchers. We cited the potential loss 
of $146 million associated with light goose hunting only because a 
similar cost estimate is not available for losses associated with 
nonconsumptive uses in the United States. However, in section 4.6.1 we 
point out that such losses will be lower than those associated with 
consumptive uses because birdwatching and related activities can 
continue at lower goose population levels, whereas goose hunting may be 
closed completely at the same low population level. Given the available 
data, we believe our analysis of impacts was balanced, and does not 
represent a single-game-species management philosophy.
    (68) The HSUS commented that evidence cited by the Arctic Goose 
Habitat Working Group indicates that density-dependent processes are 
already affecting goose reproduction and survival and should eventually 
result in a population decline. For example, reduced food availability 
has been linked with decreases in clutch size, gosling size, and adult 
body mass in lesser snow geese. These proximate physiological effects 
on individuals are reflected in population decreases. Instead of 
allowing normal density-dependent processes to regulate goose 
populations, the Service proposes to increase hunting mortality, which 
will likely have only a short-term effect on light goose populations.
    We reviewed light goose responses to habitat degradation in section 
3.1.9. The number of geese nesting at traditional colony sites at La 
Perouse Bay has declined; however, the number of geese in the overall 
population nesting at La Perouse Bay and surrounding Cape Churchill 
area has increased (Cooch et al. 2001). This is explained by the fact 
that older female snow geese tend to return to their natal colony 
areas, which have been degraded, and have lower reproductive output. 
Younger females have recently tended to nest outside the traditional 
areas at La Perouse Bay and may be using more distant brood-rearing 
sites (Rockwell et al. 1993, Cooch et al. 2001). Individuals that 
disperse to new areas experience higher reproductive success (Cooch et 
al. 2001), and thus ``cheat'' density-dependent regulation of the 
population (Abraham and Jefferies 1997). The ability of the light goose 
population to partially escape density-dependence means that habitat 
degradation will continue as the population increases. As stated in our 
previous response, we believe that population reduction may eventually 
occur. However, we believe that the amount of habitat destruction that 
will occur in the interim must be avoided.
    (69) The HSUS commented that density-dependent effects on greater 
snow geese appear to have begun via decreases in gosling mass, size, 
and condition, apparently due to decreases in food availability during 
summer. It is clear that growth rates vary with annual variation in 
food availability, which may be affected in part by density-

[[Page 65942]]

independent factors such as variation in the onset of spring.
    We reviewed the studies by Reed and Plante (1997) and Giroux et al. 
(1998) as they relate to variation in gosling growth rates. The study 
conducted by Reed and Plante (1997) indicated long-term declines in 
gosling mass, size, and condition. They attributed this decline to 
decreased food availability on the breeding grounds. However, declines 
in reproduction were not documented, likely due to agricultural 
subsidies on migration and wintering grounds, and the population 
continued to increase up until implementation of a conservation harvest 
in Quebec. Although the carrying capacity of breeding habitats such as 
Bylot Island has not been exceeded as of yet (Masse et al. 2001), the 
agricultural subsidy available to geese makes it possible that they 
will exceed the carrying capacity and cause habitat damage similar to 
that caused by lesser snow geese in the eastern and central Arctic. 
Density-independent effects on the population, such as timing of 
snowmelt in spring, will continue to impact goose populations, 
regardless of population size. Therefore, we do not believe that 
mention of these factors is germane to the overabundance issue.
    (70) Both the HSUS and API commented that the Service has 
misrepresented the conclusions of Thomas and MacKay (1998) when it 
attributes to these authors the suggestion that ``isostatic uplift, not 
the feeding actions of geese, is responsible for habitat damage at 
breeding colony sites.''
    The reference to Thomas and MacKay (1998) with regard to isostatic 
uplift and vegetation damage has been removed.
    (71) The HSUS and API objected to our use of results from studies 
conducted by Gratto-Trevor (1994) and Rockwell et al. (1997b) to 
suggest that light geese are impacting other bird species. The 
commentors questioned the validity of the methodology used by Rockwell 
et al., and used statements by Gratto-Trevor concerning the variety of 
factors that affect shorebird census to argue against using such 
studies. Furthermore, they argued that none of the species mentioned in 
these studies are threatened, endangered, or declining globally.
    The fact that none of the species cited in the above studies are 
threatened, endangered, or declining locally is not germane to the 
issue of whether habitat degradation caused by light geese can impact 
other species. In our DEIS we specifically stated that results from 
these studies indicate local declines in areas damaged by light geese, 
and that the results were not presented to suggest continental declines 
of a particular species. Gratto-Trevor discussed several factors that 
affect shorebird censuses in the arctic, including breeding site 
fidelity. Buff-breasted sandpipers and Pectoral sandpipers were cited 
as species that do not exhibit site fidelity. However, Gratto-Trevor 
presented census results indicating declines in semi-palmated 
sandpipers and red-necked phalaropes, which were not included in her 
list of species that do not exhibit site fidelity. Therefore, we can 
only assume that these two species do indeed show site fidelity and 
that censuses repeated annually would be adequate to document declines. 
Gratto-Trevor stated that semi-palmated sandpipers and red-necked 
phalaropes in her study were individually recognizable (via unique 
color-band combinations) which, when combined with intensive nest 
searches, made it ``possible to obtain an accurate estimate of the 
local breeding populations.'' Environmental factors such as weather and 
food availability were cited as factors that appeared to be related to 
the decrease in semi-palmated sandpipers, but foraging by snow geese 
``in the ever increasing local colony'' was also cited as potentially 
having an impact on habitat quality for shorebirds. We believe that 
habitat destruction by the ``ever increasing'' goose colony in the 16 
years between censuses conducted in 1983 and 1999 undoubtedly played a 
major role in the decline of these shorebird species in the area.
    The study by Rockwell et al. (1997b) was criticized by the 
commentor as being conducted on only one site and, therefore, the 
results may not be applicable to birds in other regions. Furthermore, 
the data were criticized as apparently not being collected by way of a 
systematic census, but ``almost as an afterthought during the course of 
other research.'' In the description of study methods, Rockwell et al. 
(1997b:2-3) indicated that analyses were restricted to a time period 
when there was always a large number of individual observers in the 
field each day and that individuals were assigned specific, relatively 
small, study areas in which they spent the day collecting data on snow 
geese, vegetation in the marsh, and bird species encountered. 
Furthermore, Rockwell stated that in some years systematic data were 
also collected for semi-palmated sandpipers and red-necked phalaropes 
(among other species); which happen to be the 2 species for which we 
presented data in section 3.3.2 of the EIS. Therefore, we believe 
Rockwell's study, as well as Gratto-Trevor's, are valid sources of 
information on the impacts of light geese on other species. In the 
Final EIS we have added results from the recent study by Sherfy and 
Kirkpatrick (2003) that indicated that snow geese may negatively 
influence the availability of invertebrates for other waterbirds in 
some managed wetland impoundments in the mid-Atlantic region.
    (72) The API commented that the EIS discussion of greater snow 
geese traditionally staging during October almost exclusively on the 
St. Lawrence within a relatively small area of bulrush marshes before 
leaving appears to come only from anecdotal sources, which apparently 
are acceptable to the Service under certain circumstances. It is not 
clear from the text how a non-stop flight from Ungava in late August 
led to birds staging during October almost exclusively on the St. 
Lawrence. After four weeks of nonstop flying, they made it to the St. 
Lawrence. How slowly did they fly?
    We cited Reed et al. (1998) as the source of the discussion of 
greater snow goose use of bulrush marshes on the St. Lawrence. The 
observations of goose habitat use come from aerial surveys conducted on 
the staging areas since the mid-1950s (Reed et al. 1998). Reed et al. 
also cite the studies conducted by Heyland (1972), Bourget 1974, and 
Gauvin and Reed (1987) in this discussion. Therefore, we believe that 
use of such information is more reliable than relying on anecdotal 
information. The comment with regard to our description of the 
migration from Ungava to the St. Lawrence apparently has been made as a 
result of misinterpretation of the document text. We did not state that 
the migration was completed by flying nonstop for 4 weeks. We stated 
that birds leave breeding areas in mid-August and then make an initial 
flight to the Ungava Peninsula. Geese stage there for several days 
before they undertake another long migration to the St. Lawrence. We 
made no mention of the length of time required for this second leg of 
migration. Mention of the month of October was not connected with the 
description of migration, and was made only with regard to changes in 
habitat use by geese that use the St. Lawrence staging area.
    (73) The API commented that the Document speculates (top of page 
56) that, ``although marshes that have experienced `eat outs' may 
recover `relatively quickly * * * areas that are grazed by geese year 
after year may be maintained as mudflats.' This is a non-sequitor, as a 
pure mudflat, devoid of plant biomass at or below ground level, 
obviously cannot be `grazed by geese

[[Page 65943]]

year after year' or for even one year. Geese don't graze on mud in the 
absence of vegetation, and such mud would not sustain geese. If the 
mudflat is not devoid of vegetation above, at, or below surface level 
then obviously there is reason to believe that it is a viable zone for 
feeding by mudflat-dependent species such as the Red Knot.'' As the Red 
Knot is in decline it would be helpful to know if it, or any of many 
other shorebird species, would benefit from maintenance of mudflats 
along the U.S. Atlantic coast. The API stated, ``that is the kind of 
`assessment' we were hoping for and believe the American people 
deserve.''
    We do not believe that reference to recovery of eat-outs and 
maintenance of mudflats on mid-Atlantic marshes was speculation on our 
part. In the DEIS discussion (page 56) we were citing results of 
studies by Giroux et al. (1998), Widjeskog (1977), Smith and Odum 
(1981), and Young (1985). The comment fails to mention our citation of 
these studies. Young (1985) used the term ``graze'' in describing all 
modes of feeding by snow geese. For example, Young stated that geese 
have been reported to ``graze'' to a soil depth of approximately 25 cm. 
Mudflat conditions appear after an eat-out, but that does not mean that 
all belowground plant biomass has been removed by geese. Therefore, a 
mudflat condition does not require, as the commentor states, complete 
removal of vegetation below surface level. Marsh vegetation can re-
establish if belowground biomass is available (Smith and Odum 1981); 
and, therefore, geese can graze in a marsh year after year even if 
mudflat conditions appear during a portion of the year. However, if 
geese continue to remove belowground biomass year after year from a 
particular marsh, there may be insufficient ``reserve biomass'' 
available to provide for re-growth (Smith and Odum 1981). A 
comprehensive review of the importance of mudflat maintenance to 
shorebirds along the U.S. Atlantic coast is beyond the scope of this 
document.
    (74) The HSUS commented that populations of lesser snow geese and 
Ross' geese in the western Arctic are given short shrift in the DEIS, 
probably because of the lack of evidence of ``damage'' to vegetation on 
the breeding grounds in that region. In addition, the Service expresses 
concern over the dangerously low reproductive output and small 
population of Wrangel Island lesser snow geese. Wrangel Island birds 
migrate and winter in areas that overlap with those from birds of the 
western and central Arctic. However, the concern for Wrangel Island 
birds does not stop the Service from including the option of 
implementing special regulations in the Pacific Flyway if damage to 
western Arctic habitats becomes evident. If the known impacts of 
western Arctic light geese on breeding grounds is accurate, then there 
is no scientific basis for including the Pacific Flyway in the 
preferred alternative. A separate EIS for the Pacific Flyway should be 
conducted prior to any actions being taken there.
    In response to this comment, we have included additional 
information on the status of western Arctic light geese in the Final 
EIS. Because this EIS is a comprehensive treatment of light goose 
management, we do not believe it would be appropriate to omit the 
Pacific Flyway from our analysis. We clearly state in the preferred 
alternative that the Pacific Flyway will be eligible to implement 
special light goose regulations only if damage to breeding habitats in 
the western Arctic becomes evident. At this time, we are not 
recommending that the Pacific Flyway should implement such regulations. 
However, we point out that the number of light geese in the western 
Arctic is increasing, and biologists have already broached the subject 
of the need to monitor the situation and possibly take actions to 
stabilize the number of birds in the western Arctic before they escape 
control via normal harvest and become overabundant (Hines et al. 1999, 
Canadian Wildlife Service Waterfowl Committee 2000). In the analysis of 
our preferred alternative we clearly stipulate that any regulations 
implemented in the Pacific Flyway to reduce western Arctic birds should 
be designed to avoid increased harvest of Wrangel Islands birds. 
Inclusion of the Pacific Flyway in the current EIS does not preclude us 
from conducting additional NEPA analyses in the future, if we decide to 
implement regulations in the Pacific Flyway.
    (75) The API commented that there appears to be a self-perpetuating 
juggernaut driving a fear of ``light'' goose population size. API 
stated that they met a student who was working hard to prove how much 
``damage'' was being done by Ross's geese, because that is what her 
professor wanted, and not simply allowing her research to lead her 
where it would, without a political goal in sight. API is concerned 
about ``behind-the-back pressures taken against informed individuals 
who have dared to question the Service's position on `light' geese.'' 
API gave an account of their discussion with an ornithologist who has 
spent many summers in the arctic and is convinced there is no light 
goose problem, but has asked not to be quoted by name because much of 
his funding comes from Ducks Unlimited. API reported that they have 
been told off the record by ``some CWS biologists that essentially the 
need to lethally cull light geese is driven by DU's agenda,'' and that 
there is little to distinguish DU's need to encourage waterfowl 
hunting, its connections to hunting to support industry, and its need 
to be seen as an active participant in ``conservation''--from the 
supportive agenda of many waterfowl management staff of the Service.
    Mention of unsubstantiated hearsay of real, imagined, or implied 
pressure to suppress views of scientists, biologists, ornithologists, 
or anyone else that does not support the Service's management 
philosophy is unfortunate. Our light goose management program is driven 
by our responsibility to conserve light geese, light goose habitat, and 
habitats important to other wildlife species. Dedicated Service staff 
work in the public's trust to conserve a valuable wildlife resource.
    (76) The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau commented that increasing numbers 
of their membership are reporting damage to crops and property by snow 
geese. The Bureau supports proactive steps to reduce population levels 
of snow geese and associated agricultural damage. They further support 
a depredation program for snow geese on farms suffering damage from 
geese.
    We believe that a reduction of the greater snow goose population 
will help to alleviate damage to agricultural crops in Pennsylvania and 
other Atlantic Flyway States. We issue depredation orders to permit the 
killing of migratory game birds that ``* * * have accumulated in such 
numbers in a particular area as to cause or about to cause serious 
damage to agricultural, horticultural, and fish cultural interests * * 
*'' (50 CFR 21.42). Light goose damage to natural marsh and tundra 
habitats is not covered by depredation order regulations. However, 
light geese also cause damage to crops such as hay and cereal grains. 
In such cases, farmers would be eligible to apply for a depredation 
permit (50 CFR 21.41).
    (77) The National Rifle Association (NRA) supported changes in 
regulations that would increase the harvest of light geese. With regard 
to changes in refuge habitat management, they suggested that natural 
food habitats may be severely impacted if agricultural crops are 
removed from refuges. They urged retention of some agricultural areas 
in certain situations to serve as buffers for natural habitats against 
light goose foraging.
    Each refuge will make changes to their agricultural crop programs 
that are

[[Page 65944]]

compatible with their biological program.
    (78) The Policy Council of the American Bird Conservancy, Wildlife 
Management Institute, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, 
New Jersey Waterfowl Association, and the United Kennel Club supported 
Alternative B for reducing light goose populations. Several of these 
groups also urged close monitoring of the goose populations and habitat 
to determine when the threat to habitats has ended and control 
activities were no longer needed.
    Thank you for your comment.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    Several comments we received on the Draft EIS addressed the issue 
of the timetable when certain management actions would occur. In our 
responses contained in the FEIS, we stressed that timetables with 
regard to habitat restoration are difficult to quantify due to the 
prolonged recovery period we expect to occur, which may take decades or 
more. However, it became evident that the proposed rule was not 
explicit with regard to the population levels at which management 
actions would be taken. Accordingly, in the final rule we have added 
language to Sec.  21.60 that specifies:
     The population levels at which management actions will 
occur in each flyway (paragraph (d)),
     The mechanism by which we will announce such actions 
(paragraph (e)), and
     The mechanism by which we will terminate population 
control activities (paragraph (h)).
    The proposed rule outlined the conditions under which the 
conservation order would be suspended, and we have retained that 
language in the final rule (Sec.  21.60(i)).
    In the proposed rule we restricted the scope of initial 
implementation of new light goose regulations to the Atlantic, 
Mississippi, and Central Flyways. However, we also indicated that the 
Pacific Flyway would be eligible to implement special light goose 
regulations in the future if controlling light goose populations that 
migrate to that flyway becomes necessary. By creating new paragraph (d) 
in Sec.  21.60 as discussed above, it became necessary for us to 
further amend Sec.  21.60 to include:
     A description of the Pacific Flyway States (paragraph 
(c)(3)), and
     The conditions under which the Pacific Flyway would be 
eligible for future implementation (paragraph (d)(3)).

Special Light Goose Regulations

    This rule makes permanent regulations that are very similar to 
those in effect by reason of the Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency 
Conservation Act. The differences are that we now would include the 
Atlantic Flyway States as being eligible to implement special light 
goose regulations to manage the population of greater snow geese. In 
addition, Pacific Flyway States will be eligible in the future if 
habitat damage becomes evident on goose breeding areas in the western 
Arctic. We also have provided further guidance to States as to what 
type of information should be collected and reported with regard to 
harvest resulting from implementation of the conservation order. Such 
information will further refine our ability to evaluate the impacts of 
such regulations on light goose populations. Finally, we have revised 
terminology with regard to baiting that incorporates changes we made to 
baiting regulations on June 3, 1999 (64 FR 29799).
    These regulations address two areas. The first authorizes the use 
of new hunting methods (i.e., electronic calls and unplugged shotguns) 
to harvest light geese during normal hunting season frameworks. New 
methods of take are allowed during a light-goose-only hunting season 
when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, 
are closed. Authorization of new methods of take during light-goose-
only seasons are allowed only during normal hunting season framework 
dates (September 1 to March 10), except as provided in 50 CFR part 21 
described below. Individual States are authorized to determine the 
exact dates. Persons utilizing new methods of take during light goose 
hunting seasons are required to possess a Federal migratory bird 
hunting stamp, to be registered under the Harvest Information Program, 
and to be in compliance with any additional State license and stamp 
requirements pertaining to hunting waterfowl.
    The second revises subpart E of 50 CFR part 21 for the management 
of overabundant light goose populations. Under this subpart, we 
establish a conservation order specifically for the control and 
management of light geese. Under the authority of this rule, States 
could initiate aggressive harvest management strategies with the intent 
to increase light goose harvest without having to obtain an individual 
permit, which will significantly reduce the administrative burden on 
State and Federal governments. This rule enables States, as a 
management tool, to use hunters to harvest light geese, by shooting in 
a hunting manner, inside or outside of the regular migratory bird 
hunting season framework dates of September 1 and March 10. Although a 
conservation order could be implemented at any time, we believe the 
greatest value of this rule is the provision of a mechanism to increase 
harvest of light geese beyond March 10, the latest possible closing 
date for traditional migratory bird hunting seasons. This provision 
would be especially effective in increasing harvest in mid-latitude and 
northern States during spring migration. The conservation order is not 
a hunting season, and implementation of such regulations should not be 
construed as opening, re-opening, or extending any open hunting season 
contrary to any regulations promulgated under Section 3 of the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    Conditions under the conservation order require that participating 
States inform participants acting under the authority of the 
conservation order of the conditions that apply to the amendment. In 
order to minimize or avoid take of nontarget species, States may 
implement this action only when all waterfowl (including light goose) 
and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are closed. In addition 
to authorizing new methods of take (i.e., electronic calls and 
unplugged shotguns), the conservation order does not impose daily bag 
limits for light geese and allows shooting hours for light geese to end 
one-half hour after sunset. Because it is not a hunting season, 
conservation order participants are not required by Federal law to 
possess a valid migratory bird hunting stamp or required to be 
registered in the Harvest Information Program, unless otherwise 
required by an individual State. States may impose additional 
requirements on participants.
    We will annually monitor the status of light goose populations in 
North America. We will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
whenever States in a particular Flyway are eligible to implement 
special light goose regulations for the purposes of population 
reduction. Similarly, we will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
to suspend such regulations in a particular Flyway when population 
goals are met for light goose populations that utilize the Flyway. 
However, in the event that any light goose population resumes 
population growth above management goals, it may become necessary to 
re-implement additional methods of take (Part 20) and/or the 
conservation order (Part 21) in an attempt to return the population to 
the desired level.

[[Page 65945]]

Notice

    Upon the effective date of this final rule, we hereby provide 
notice per 50 CFR 21.60(e) that the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central 
Flyways are eligible to implement the special light goose regulations 
contained in Parts 20 and 21. A separate Notice relating to the 
authorization of regulations for managing harvest of light goose 
populations is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register.

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 published the availability of a DEIS on October 5, 
2001 (66 FR 51274). This followed a September 28, 2001, Environmental 
Protection Agency notice of availability of our DEIS (66 FR 49668). In 
addition, on October 12, 2001 (66 FR 52077), we published a proposed 
rule to establish regulations to implement the DEIS proposed action, 
Alternative B. On July 13, 2007 (72 FR 38577) and July 18, 2007 (72 FR 
39439), notices of availability of our FEIS were published, followed by 
a 30-day public review period. The Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) reviewed the Final EIS (FEIS) and stated that they did not 
identify any environmental concerns with our preferred alternative, and 
that the document provided adequate documentation of the potential 
environmental impacts. The EPA assigned a rating of Lack of Objection 
to the FEIS. The FEIS 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 completed Section 7 
consultation under the ESA for this rule. The result of our 
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is available to the public at 
the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) (5 
U.S.C. 601, et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish 
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
the agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a 
regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a 
threshold for ``significant impact'' and a threshold for a 
``substantial number of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA 
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    Many small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as 
hotels, gas stations, sporting good stores, etc.) may benefit from this 
rule. The economic impacts of this rulemaking will fall primarily on 
small businesses because of the structure of the industries related to 
waterfowl hunting. The rule benefits small businesses by avoiding 
failure of an ecosystem that produces migratory bird resources 
important to American citizens.
    Closure of light goose hunting in a particular flyway would 
influence trip-related expenses rather than equipment purchases that 
could be used to hunt other waterfowl species. Thus, this analysis 
focuses on trip-related expenditures associated with light goose 
hunting. Hunting seasons for all goose species resulted in trip-related 
expenditures of $207.4 million in 2006 (U.S. Department of the Interior 
2007). Light geese represent approximately 24% of all geese taken in 
the United States, thus accounting for an annual economic impact of 
$49.8 million.
    By having ripple effects throughout the economy, these direct 
expenditures are only part of the impact of goose hunting. Using a 
national impact multiplier for waterfowl hunting (2.49) derived from 
the report ``Economic Impact of Waterfowl Hunting in the United 
States'' yields a total economic impact of approximately $123.9 million 
(2006 dollars) (U.S. Department of the Interior 2005). (Using a local 
impact multiplier would yield more accurate and smaller results. 
However, we employed the national impact multiplier due to the 
difficulty in developing local multipliers for each specific region.) 
The distribution of light goose harvest among flyways is as follows: 
Atlantic Flyway 5%; Mississippi Flyway 35%; Central Flyway 50%; Pacific 
Flyway 10%. Allocating the economic impact of light goose hunting in 
expenditures in each Flyway by these proportions, the economic impact 
of light goose hunting is $6.2 million in the Atlantic Flyway, $43.7 
million in the Mississippi Flyway, $61.6 million in the Central Flyway, 
and $12.4 million in the Pacific Flyway.
    The rule is expected to preserve this economic impact and generate 
additional output by providing opportunity to increase take of light 
geese beyond March 10 in the three easternmost flyways. Data are not 
available to estimate the number of small entities affected, but it is 
unlikely to be a substantial number on a national scale. In 1999, we 
estimated that implementation of new light goose regulations would 
avert a population crash, thus avoiding the closure of normal light 
goose hunting seasons due to low populations in the Central and 
Mississippi Flyways, and avoiding a $105.3 million loss in economic 
output associated with such seasons. Implementation of light goose 
regulations would also help reduce agricultural losses caused by geese. 
Our intent is to implement special regulations to increase harvest of 
light geese and reduce populations to levels that habitats can support 
and also to reduce agricultural damages.
    We expect that the incremental increases in economic impact will be 
scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a 
significant economic effect (benefit) on a substantial number of small 
entities. It is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities 
will have more than a small benefit from the increased spending due to 
a longer light goose hunting season. Therefore, we certify that this 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Thus, we have determined that a Regulatory 
Flexibility Act analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule 
is not significant and has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 
12866. OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on

[[Page 65946]]

the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, 
the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

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

    This final rule contains information collections for which OMB 
approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We 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. OMB has approved the information 
collection requirements associated with this rule and assigned OMB 
Control Number 1018-0103.
    We expect a maximum of 39 states to participate under the authority 
of the conservation order each year it is available. States and tribes 
must keep records of activities carried out under the authority of the 
conservation order. This includes the number of mid-continent light 
geese taken under the regulation, the methods by which they are taken 
(e.g., unplugged shotgun, electronic call), and the dates they were 
taken. We believe that this recordkeeping requirement is necessary to 
ensure that those individuals carrying out control activities are 
authorized to do so. The States must submit an annual report 
summarizing the activities conducted under the conservation order. 
Reported information helps us to assess the effectiveness of light 
geese population control methods and strategies and assess whether or 
not additional population control methods are needed.
    We estimate the annual burden associated with this information 
collection to be 74 hours. This estimate includes time for reviewing 
instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and 
reviewing the reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Completion
                    Activity                         Number of       Number of       time per      Total annual
                                                    respondents      responses       response      burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Designation of Participants--50 CFR 21.60f(6)...              39              39             7.4           288.6
Inform Participants of Requirements--50 CFR                   39              39             7.4           288.6
 21.60f(7)......................................
Recordkeeping--50 CFR 21.60f(8).................              39              39            44.4         1,731.6
Reporting--50 CFR 21.60f(9).....................              39              39            14.8           577.2
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................              39              39            74.0         2,886.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the proposed rule stage, we solicited comments for a period 
of 60 days. While we did not receive any comments specifically 
addressing the information collection requirements, we did receive 
several comments pertaining to other aspects of the rule, which we 
summarize and discuss in this preamble. We did not make any changes to 
our burden estimates as a result of these comments.
    At any time, interested members of the public and affected agencies 
may comment on the information collection requirements contained in 
this rule. Please send such comments to Hope Grey, Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 (mail); (703) 358-2269 
(fax); or [email protected] (e-mail).
    We particularly invite your comments on: (1) Whether or not the 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Service, including whether or not the information 
will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of our estimate of the 
burden for this collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, 
and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on applicants.

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 this action will 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

    In promulgating this rule, we 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. We do not anticipate 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 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

[[Page 65947]]

invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In 
fact, the rule would allow hunters to exercise privileges that would be 
otherwise unavailable; and, therefore, reduces restrictions on the use 
of private and public property.

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. These rules do 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. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 
13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and 
do 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), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 
determined that this rule has no effects on Federally-recognized Indian 
tribes. Specifically, we sent Tribes copies of our May 13, 1999, Notice 
of Intent (64 FR 26268) that outlined the proposed action in the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement on Light Goose Management. In addition, 
we sent Tribes our August 30, 1999, Notice of Meetings (64 FR 47332), 
which provided the public additional opportunity to comment on the DEIS 
process. Finally, Tribes were sent copies of our DEIS for their review 
and input.

Energy Effects--E.O. 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations 
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when 
undertaking certain actions. This rule is not a significant regulatory 
action under E.O. 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.

Record of Decision

    The Record of Decision for management of light geese, prepared 
pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations at 40 
CFR 1505.2, is herein published in its entirety.
    This Record of Decision (ROD) has been developed by the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (Service) in compliance with the agency decision-
making requirements of NEPA. The purpose of this ROD is to document the 
Service's decision for the selection of an alternative for strategies 
to reduce certain populations of light geese that have become 
overabundant and are being injurious to various breeding, migration, 
and wintering habitats. Alternatives have been fully described and 
evaluated in the June 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 
on light goose management.
    This ROD is intended to: (a) State the Service's decision, present 
the rationale for its selection, and describe its implementation; (b) 
identify the alternatives considered in reaching the decision; and (c) 
state whether all means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from 
implementation of the selected alternative have been adopted (40 CFR 
1505.2).

Project Description

    Various light goose populations in North America have experienced 
rapid population growth, and have reached levels such that they are 
damaging habitats on their Arctic and subarctic breeding areas (Abraham 
and Jefferies 1997, Alisauskas 1998, Jano et al. 1998, Didiuk et al. 
2001). Habitat degradation in arctic and subarctic areas may be 
irreversible, and has negatively impacted light goose populations and 
other bird populations dependent on such habitats (Gratto-Trevor 1994, 
Rockwell 1999, Rockwell et al. 1997). Natural marsh habitats on some 
migration and wintering areas have been impacted by light geese (Giroux 
and Bedard 1987, Giroux et al. 1998, Widjeskog 1977, Smith and Odum 
1981, Young 1985). In addition, goose damage to agricultural crops has 
become a problem (Bedard and Lapointe 1991, Filion et al. 1998, Giroux 
et al. 1998, Delaware Div. of Fish and Wildlife 2000).
    There is increasing evidence that lesser snow and Ross's geese act 
as prominent reservoirs for the bacterium that causes avian cholera 
(Friend 1999, Samuel et al. 1997, Samuel et al. 1999a). Over 100 
species of waterbirds and raptors are susceptible to avian cholera 
(Botzler 1991). The threat of avian cholera to endangered and 
threatened bird species is continually increasing because of increasing 
numbers of outbreaks and the expanding geographic distribution of the 
disease (Friend 1999). This threat likely will increase as light goose 
populations expand (Samuel et al. 2001).
    The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended that light goose 
numbers in the mid-continent region should be reduced by 50% (Arctic 
Goose Habitat Working Group 1997). The Working Group outlined a 
strategy that advocated monitoring the number of mid-continent light 
geese to see that appropriate population reductions are achieved, and 
to simultaneously monitor habitats in the Arctic coastal ecosystem. 
They further recommended that when the population size reached a level 
that is causing no further habitat damage, the management program 
should be changed to stabilize light goose numbers at that threshold 
(Rockwell et al. 1997:96). In 1998, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working 
Group recommended a short-term management goal of stabilizing the 
greater snow goose population at between 800,000 to 1 million birds 
(Giroux et al. 1998). However, a reduction of the population below that 
level was recommended if natural habitats continue to deteriorate, or 
if measures taken to reduce crop depredation do not achieve desired 
results (Giroux et al. 1998).
    The Canadian Stakeholders Committee in Quebec adopted a population 
goal of 500,000 birds to address continued habitat degradation and 
agricultural depredations in the St. Lawrence Valley (Arctic Goose 
Joint Venture Technical Committee 2001). The population goal of 500,000 
birds is in agreement with both the Atlantic Flyway Council goal and 
North American Waterfowl Management Plan goal for greater snow geese 
(U.S. Dept. of the Interior et al. 1998).
    Although the number of light geese breeding in the western Arctic 
is increasing, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group has not 
identified an immediate management concern for habitat in that region. 
The number of lesser snow geese in the western Arctic is expected to 
grow from the current level of approximately 579,000 birds to 1 million 
by the year 2010. Some researchers have suggested a proactive approach 
to management of western Arctic lesser snow geese by stabilizing the 
population at its current level before it escapes control via normal 
harvest (Hines et al. 1999).

Key Issues

    Public involvement occurred throughout the EIS and rulemaking 
process. From 1999 to 2001, we held 17 public meetings over the course 
of more than 8 months of total public comment. Through public scoping 
(the first stage

[[Page 65948]]

of public comment) and agency discussions, key issues emerged. In the 
EIS environmental analysis, we analyzed alternatives with regard to 
their potential impacts on light geese, other wildlife species, natural 
resources, special status species, socioeconomics, historical 
resources, and cultural resources. We also considered the alternatives 
in terms of their ability to fulfill the purpose and objective of the 
proposed action: to reduce, manage, and control certain light goose 
populations that have become seriously injurious to various breeding, 
migration, and wintering habitats in North America.

Alternatives

    Since the FEIS is a programmatic document, the alternatives reflect 
general management strategies to reduce, manage, and control light 
goose populations. The EIS examined five alternatives:

Alternative A

    Under the No Action alternative, light goose populations would be 
allowed to increase in size. This alternative would continue to manage 
light geese through existing wildlife management policies and 
practices, with the exception of temporary light goose regulations 
implemented under the Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act. 
Traditional harvest of light geese will continue during the regular 
season and will be managed using existing administrative procedures. 
Light goose hunting regulations adopted by States will be confined to 
Federal frameworks that provide for a maximum season length of 107 
days, occurring during the period September 1 to March 10 as prescribed 
by the Treaty (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1988). Existing hunt 
programs and existing administrative procedures for establishing new 
hunt programs on national wildlife refuges administered by the Service 
will remain in place. Habitat management programs on refuges would 
continue as normal with regard to the purposes for which each refuge 
was established.

Alternative B

    This alternative would modify title 50 Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) part 20 to allow the use of additional hunting methods to hunt 
light geese within current migratory bird hunting-season frameworks. We 
would authorize the use of electronic calls and unplugged shotguns to 
harvest light geese during normal light-goose hunting seasons when all 
other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are 
closed.
    This alternative would also create a new subpart to 50 CFR part 21 
specifically for the management of overabundant light goose 
populations. Under this new subpart, we would establish a conservation 
order under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with the 
intent to reduce and stabilize light goose population levels. The 
conservation order would authorize each State/Tribe in eligible areas 
to initiate aggressive light goose harvest strategies, within the 
conditions that we provide, with the intent to reduce the populations. 
The order will enable States/Tribes to use hunters to harvest light 
geese, by way of shooting in a hunting manner, during a period when all 
waterfowl (including light geese) and crane hunting seasons, excluding 
falconry, are closed, inside or outside the migratory bird hunting 
season frameworks. The order would also authorize the use of electronic 
calls and unplugged shotguns, eliminate daily bag limits on light 
geese, and allow shooting hours to continue until one-half hour after 
sunset.
    The Service will annually monitor and assess the overall impact and 
effectiveness of the conservation order to ensure compatibility with 
long-term conservation of this resource. Reduction of light goose 
populations to management goals will result in numeric levels that 
still provide abundant opportunities for nonconsumptive uses of the 
resource (e.g., wildlife viewing). 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 light goose 
population, we will initiate action to suspend the conservation order, 
and/or regular-season regulation changes, for that population. 
Suspension of regulations for a particular population would be made 
following a public review process.
    Finally, this alternative would alter management practices on some 
Service national wildlife refuges to decrease the amount of sanctuary 
and food available to migrating and wintering light geese. The most 
likely action that a refuge would implement is creating new areas open 
to light goose hunting, or enlarging areas that currently are open. 
While some refuges may be opened for migratory bird hunting without 
area limitation, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
of 1966 stipulates that only 40% of certain refuges may be opened to 
migratory bird hunting. The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 
(Pub. L. 95-616) amended the 1966 Act to permit the opening of greater 
than 40% of certain refuges to hunting when it is determined to be 
beneficial to the species hunted. Following Executive Order 12996 
issued on March 25, 1996, Congress enacted the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act of 1997, amending the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Administration Act of 1966 to establish that compatible 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, 
wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 
interpretation are the priority public uses of the Refuge System. In 
order to establish a refuge hunt program, a determination must be made 
that the program is compatible with the major purposes for which the 
refuge was established (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). 
Establishment of a hunt program includes preparation of the plan 
itself, an environmental assessment, consultation in accordance with 
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and proposed and final rules 
in the Federal Register (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). Each 
year, we make new proposals for amendments to refuge-specific hunting 
regulations available for public review and comment in the Federal 
Register.
    Due to the dynamic nature of annual migration and wintering 
patterns of light geese, as well as changing habitat conditions, we 
cannot provide a definitive listing of annual management actions that 
some refuges may implement. Changes to refuge management may also 
include alteration of habitat programs to reduce food availability for, 
and make habitats less attractive to, light geese. For example, many 
refuges have been undertaking reforestation programs. While such 
programs were not initiated in response to the light goose issue, they 
will have the added effect of reducing food available to light geese. 
Some refuges that harbor significant numbers of light geese may choose 
to alter impoundment water levels in order to create roosting areas and 
attract birds near hunted sites, or eliminate roosting areas to 
encourage birds to move to areas where hunting does occur. Reduction of 
areas planted to agricultural crops on some refuges will also decrease 
food available to light geese. Modification of prescribed burn programs 
may also be used to make certain areas on refuges more or less 
attractive to light geese depending on the size of the burn area. Any 
uses included with changes in management practices on a particular 
refuge will be permitted only after they have been determined to be 
compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was

[[Page 65949]]

established and due regard to potential impacts to special status 
(threatened or endangered) species has been made.

Alternative C

    Under this alternative we would implement direct population control 
to achieve desired light goose population levels. We define direct 
control as the purposeful removal of large numbers of birds from a 
population using lethal means. Control efforts would be undertaken by 
wildlife agencies (Federal and/or State) on light goose migration and 
wintering areas in the United States. Under this alternative we would 
create a special light goose permit within 50 CFR part 21 specifically 
for the reduction of light goose populations. Regulations governing the 
issuance of permits to take, capture, kill, possess, and transport 
migratory birds are authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and are 
promulgated in 50 CFR parts 13 and 21. Federal courts have affirmed 
that all Federal agencies are subject to prohibitions in the Migratory 
Bird Treaty Act, including the restrictions on take of migratory birds. 
Executive Order 13186 states that all Federal agencies are subject to 
the provisions of the MBTA. Director's Order 131 clarifies Service 
policy regarding applicability of the MBTA to Federal agencies and the 
issuance of permits to agencies, including the Service. Any Federal 
personnel who undertake light goose management activities that will 
result in take of light geese must apply for and receive a permit from 
the appropriate Regional Office of the Service to do so. The permit 
would allow Federal and State agencies involved in migratory bird 
management, and/or their authorized designated agents, to initiate 
light goose population reduction actions within the conditions/
restrictions of the program. Permits will be issued to the appropriate 
Regional Director of the Service that oversees the geographic area in 
question. The permit will delegate authority to Federal personnel and/
or cooperating State wildlife agency personnel that will be involved in 
control activities.
    Applications for the special light goose permit would require a 
statement from the agency that provides a general description of the 
action area, an estimate of the approximate number of light geese 
expected to be found in the action area and the approximate number of 
light geese that are to be taken. Permit holders would be required to 
properly dispose of or utilize light geese killed under the program. 
Light geese killed under this permit could be donated for scientific 
and educational purposes, or be donated to charities for human 
consumption. In the absence of such disposal options, geese may be 
buried or incinerated. Light geese, and their plumage, taken under 
these permits may not be sold, offered for sale, bartered, or shipped 
for purpose of sale or barter. Control activities would be undertaken 
such that they do not adversely affect other migratory bird populations 
or any species designated under the Endangered Species Act as 
threatened or endangered.
    Agencies may use their own discretion for methods of take. Methods 
may include, but are not limited to, firearms, traps, chemicals or 
other control techniques that are consistent with accepted wildlife-
damage management programs. The advantage of live-trapping is that 
nontarget species would be released unharmed. Chemical control would be 
achieved by treating corn or other food with chemicals (e.g., DRC-1339, 
Avitrol, or alpha chloralose) and broadcasting the treated bait in 
areas where light geese are feeding. Currently, these chemicals are not 
registered for use on light geese. Under this alternative, agencies 
would apply to the Environmental Protection Agency for use of these 
chemicals on light geese under a Section 18 Specific Exemption, or a 
Section 24C registration, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act. All chemical control efforts would take place only in 
areas used by large flocks of light geese. This approach will increase 
efficiency of the control effort and minimize the take of nontarget 
species, which tend to avoid sites used by large flocks of light geese 
(J. Cummings, U.S. Dept. Agriculture, personal communication).
    Due to the dynamic nature of annual migration and wintering 
patterns of light geese, we cannot provide a definitive listing of 
sites where geese would be taken. However, examination of recent 
patterns in snow and Ross's goose harvest by county provides a general 
overview of where goose concentrations, and thus control efforts, would 
likely occur in the future (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). By 
necessity, control efforts will have to be opportunistic with regard to 
daily and seasonal movements of geese. Sites likely would include 
agricultural fields and roosting areas near wetlands, preferably on 
Federal or State wildlife areas where access would not be an issue. 
Control activities would be undertaken such that they do not adversely 
affect other migratory bird populations or any species designated under 
the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered.
    Permit holders will be required to keep records of all activities 
performed under the permit and submit annual reports to the Service 
office that granted the permit. We will annually review such reports 
and assess the overall impact of this program to ensure compatibility 
with the 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 light goose population, we will initiate action to suspend 
the special permits for that population.

Alternative D

    This alternative would achieve light goose population reduction 
through direct control on the breeding grounds in Canada. We do not 
have the authority to unilaterally implement direct population control 
measures in Canada. However, we have discussed the issue of direct 
population control with the Canadian Wildlife Service during meetings 
of the Arctic Goose Joint Venture. The Joint Venture has formed a 
working group to outline potential methods of direct control if such 
measures are ever deemed necessary. The working group report by 
Alisauskas and Malecki (2003) outlined costs of conducting direct 
control on the breeding grounds. This alternative may or may not 
involve U.S. wildlife agency participation, depending on the 
availability of funding and manpower in Canada. Regardless, the 
Canadian Government would be the lead authority under this alternative.
    Methods of control would include shooting, trapping, or chemical 
control. Shooting of birds by sharpshooters would most likely be 
conducted during the nest incubation period when birds are attentive to 
nests, and their movements are limited. Personnel would be flown into 
nesting colonies and would conduct control efforts during the short 
nest incubation period. Sharpshooters would easily be able to identify 
bird species before shooting, and thus avoid take of nontarget bird 
species. Capture methods would be employed during the brood-rearing 
period when young birds have not yet attained flight stage and adult 
birds are undergoing feather molt. In most instances, capturing of 
birds would be accomplished by driving birds into capture pens with the 
aid of helicopters. Birds would be euthanized after being captured. Any 
nontarget bird species caught incidental to light goose trapping would 
be released. The agency costs of implementing this alternative depend 
on the distance of the specific breeding

[[Page 65950]]

colony to the nearest human settlement, the timing of when direct 
control would occur (nest incubation period or post-hatch), and the 
fate of birds that are killed (unretrieved or retrieved for 
processing).
    Chemical control may also be employed during the flightless period 
when treated baits could be broadcast on sites used by large flocks of 
birds. Chemical types and methods of application would be similar to 
those outlined in Alternative C. The cost of conducting fieldwork in 
the Arctic under this alternative is much higher than control efforts 
in the United States. To reduce costs, leaving goose carcasses in the 
field would be an option for consideration. Although we would consider 
this a waste of the goose resource, the nutrients contained in goose 
carcasses would be returned to the environment. Alternatively, 
carcasses could be collected and air-lifted to the nearest available 
facility for processing.

Alternative E

    This alternative would achieve light goose population control using 
an integrated, two-phased approach involving increased harvest 
resulting from new regulatory tools (e.g., conservation order), changes 
in refuge management, and direct agency control. Phase one of this 
alternative is identical to Alternative B, whereas phase two includes 
elements of Alternatives C and D. In phase one, we would modify title 
50 CFR part 20 to allow the use of additional hunting methods to hunt 
light geese within current migratory bird hunting-season frameworks. We 
would authorize the use of electronic calls and unplugged shotguns to 
harvest light geese during normal light-goose hunting seasons when all 
other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are 
closed. In addition, we would create a new subpart to 50 CFR part 21 
specifically for the management of overabundant light goose 
populations. Under this new subpart, we would establish a conservation 
order under the authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act with the 
intent to reduce and stabilize light goose population levels.
    During phase one, we would also alter management practices on some 
Service national wildlife refuges to decrease the amount of sanctuary 
and food available to migrating and wintering light geese. The most 
likely action that a refuge would implement is creating new areas open 
to light goose hunting, or enlarging areas that currently are open. 
Changes to refuge management may also include alteration of habitat 
programs to reduce food availability for, and make habitats less 
attractive to, light geese.
    Although annual monitoring of our program will be conducted, we 
envision that no more than 5 years would elapse in phase one before we 
evaluate the effectiveness of the light goose management program and 
assess the potential need for proceeding to phase two. Phase two of 
this alternative incorporates direct agency control of light goose 
populations as described previously in Alternatives C and D. Direct 
population control would be implemented for a particular population 
after we determined that reduction of the population cannot be achieved 
solely through implementation of regulations, such as a conservation 
order, and changes in refuge management. Management actions initiated 
during phase one would be continued in order to complement population 
reductions achieved in phase two.
    Because we have no jurisdiction over management actions in Canada 
(Alternative D), we would begin phase two with the actions outlined in 
Alternative C. If additional population control actions are required to 
achieve management goals, we would approach the Canadian Wildlife 
Service and urge implementation of actions outlined in Alternative D. 
Initial direct control efforts would be undertaken by wildlife agencies 
(Federal and/or State) on light goose migration and wintering areas in 
the United States. Under this alternative we would create a special 
light goose permit within 50 CFR part 21 specifically for the reduction 
of light goose populations. Permits will be issued to the appropriate 
Regional Director of the Service who oversees the geographic area in 
question. The permit will delegate authority to personnel of the 
Service, other Federal personnel, and/or cooperating State wildlife 
agency personnel, to initiate light goose population reduction actions 
within the conditions/restrictions of the program. Control activities 
would be undertaken such that they do not adversely affect other 
migratory birds or any species designated under the Endangered Species 
Act as threatened or endangered. 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 light goose 
population, we will initiate action to suspend the special permits for 
that population.
    Agencies may use their own discretion for methods of take. Methods 
may include, but are not limited to, firearms, traps, chemicals, or 
other control techniques that are consistent with accepted wildlife-
damage management programs. The advantage of live-trapping is that 
nontarget species would be released unharmed. Chemical control would be 
achieved by treating corn or other food with chemicals (e.g., DRC-1339, 
Avitrol, or alpha chloralose) and broadcasting the treated bait in 
areas where light geese are feeding. Currently, these chemicals are not 
registered for use on light geese. Under this alternative, agencies 
would apply to the Environmental Protection Agency for use of these 
chemicals on light geese under a Section 18 Specific Exemption, or a 
Section 24C registration, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act. All chemical control efforts would take place only in 
areas used by large flocks of light geese. This will increase 
efficiency of the control effort and minimize the take of nontarget 
species, which tend to avoid sites used by large flocks of light geese 
(J. Cummings, U.S. Dept. Agriculture, personal communication).
    If the combination of phases one and two of this alternative 
implemented in the United States is not successful in achieving desired 
population reduction goals, further management actions in Canada will 
be needed. These actions are identical to those outlined in Alternative 
D. Methods of control would include shooting, chemicals, or capturing. 
Shooting of birds by sharpshooters would most likely be conducted 
during the nest incubation period when birds are attentive to nests, 
and their movements are limited. Personnel would be flown into nesting 
colonies and would conduct control efforts during the short nest 
incubation period. Sharpshooters would easily be able to identify bird 
species before shooting, and thus avoid take of nontarget bird species. 
Capture methods would be employed during the birds' flightless period 
in summer when they are undergoing feather molt. Capturing of birds 
would be accomplished by driving birds into capture pens with the aid 
of helicopters or float planes. Birds would be euthanized after being 
captured. Any nontarget bird species caught incidental to light goose 
trapping would be released. The agency costs of implementing this 
alternative depend on the distance of the breeding colony to the 
nearest human settlement, the timing of when direct control would occur 
(nest incubation period or post-hatch), and the fate of birds that are 
killed. Chemical control may also be employed during the flightless 
period when treated baits could be broadcast on sites used by large 
flocks of molting birds. Chemical types and methods of

[[Page 65951]]

application would be similar to those outlined in Alternative C. Once 
the desired reduction of a particular light goose population is 
achieved, management actions can be curtailed. However, to prevent a 
rebound of the population, certain maintenance-level actions should 
remain in place. For example, retention of the use of additional 
hunting methods (electronic calls, unplugged shotguns) to hunt light 
geese within current migratory bird hunting-season frameworks would 
maintain harvest pressure. Temporary reinstatement of a conservation 
order may be needed in some years to achieve the level of harvest 
necessary to maintain a population at the desired level.

Decision

    The Service's decision is to implement the preferred alternative, 
Alternative B, as it is presented in the final rule. This decision is 
based on a thorough review of the alternatives and their environmental 
consequences.

Rationale for Decision

    As stated in the CEQ regulations, ``the agency's preferred 
alternative is the alternative which the agency believes would fulfill 
its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to 
economic, environmental, technical and other factors.'' The preferred 
alternative has been selected for implementation based on consideration 
of a number of environmental, regulatory, and social factors. Based on 
our analysis, the preferred alternative would be more effective than 
the current program; is environmentally sound, cost effective, and 
flexible enough to meet different management needs around the country; 
and does not threaten the long-term sustainability of light goose 
populations or populations of any other natural resource.
    Alternative B (Modify harvest regulation options and refuge 
management) was selected because it is the most cost-efficient method 
of reducing light goose populations to levels that are more compatible 
with the ability of their habitat to support them. We did not select 
the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) because it is clear that 
continued growth of some light goose populations will foster additional 
habitat degradation and loss on various breeding, migration, and 
wintering areas. Furthermore, as light goose populations increase, the 
potential for outbreaks of avian cholera associated with light geese 
will also likely increase. Degradation and loss of habitat will not 
only affect light goose populations, but will also affect other bird 
populations that rely on the same habitats. Similarly, disease 
outbreaks associated with overabundant light goose populations has the 
potential to affect other bird species.
    We did not select Alternatives C-E due to the prohibitive agency 
costs associated with direct population control. Furthermore, we 
believe the direct population control aspects of these alternatives 
have the potential to result in waste of the light goose resource.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

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

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, we hereby 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]

0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 703-712; and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.

0
2. 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. This restriction does not apply during a 
light-goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and Ross's 
geese) 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. This restriction does not apply during a light-
goose-only season (greater and lesser snow geese and Ross's geese) when 
all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, are 
closed.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  20.22 to read as follows:


Sec.  20.22  Closed seasons.

    No person shall take migratory game birds during the closed season 
except as provided in part 21 of this chapter.

0
4. Revise Sec.  20.23 to read as follows:


Sec.  20.23  Shooting hours.

    No person shall take migratory game birds except during the hours 
open to shooting as prescribed in subpart K of this part and subpart E 
of part 21 of this chapter.

PART 21--[AMENDED]

0
5. The authority citation for part 21 continues to read as follows:

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


0
6. Subpart E, consisting of Sec.  21.60, is revised to read as follows:

Subpart E--Control of Overabundant Migratory Bird Populations


Sec.  21.60  Conservation order for light geese.

    (a) What is a conservation order?
    A conservation order 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 authorizing a conservation order under the authority 
of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to reduce and stabilize various light 
goose populations. The conservation order allows new methods of taking 
light geese, allows shooting hours for light geese to end one-half hour 
after sunset, and imposes no daily bag limits for light geese inside or 
outside the migratory bird hunting season frameworks as described in 
this section.
    (b) Which waterfowl species are covered by the order?
    The conservation order addresses management of greater snow (Chen 
caerulescens atlantica), lesser snow (C. c. caerulescens), and Ross's 
(C. rossii) geese that breed, migrate, and winter in North America. The 
term light geese refers collectively to greater and lesser snow geese 
and Ross's geese.
    (c) Where can the conservation order be authorized?
    The Director can authorize the conservation order in these areas:
    (1) The following States that are contained within the boundaries 
of the Atlantic Flyway: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North 
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, 
Virginia, West Virginia.
    (2) The following States, or portions of States, that are contained 
within the boundaries of the Mississippi and Central Flyways: Alabama, 
Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,

[[Page 65952]]

Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South 
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    (3) The following States, or portions of States, that are contained 
within the boundaries of the Pacific Flyway: Alaska, Arizona, 
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, 
Washington, and Wyoming.
    (4) Tribal lands within the geographic boundaries in paragraphs 
(c)(1), (2), and (3) of this section.
    (d) When will the Director authorize the conservation order in a 
particular Flyway?
    (1) The Director may authorize the conservation order for the 
reduction of greater snow geese for any State or Tribe contained within 
the Atlantic Flyway by publishing a notice under paragraph (e) of this 
section when the May Waterfowl Population Status report indicates that 
the management goal of 500,000 birds has been exceeded and that special 
conservation actions conducted in Canada are insufficient to reduce the 
population. Authorization of the conservation order in the U.S. portion 
of the Atlantic Flyway will occur after the Director determines the 
degree to which the management goal has been exceeded, the trajectory 
of population growth, anticipated harvest that would result from 
implementation of the conservation order, and whether or not similar 
conservation actions will be conducted in Canada.
    (2) The Director may authorize the conservation order for the 
reduction of mid-continent light geese (lesser snow and Ross's geese) 
for any State or Tribe contained within the Mississippi and Central 
Flyways by publishing a notice under paragraph (e) of this section when 
the May Waterfowl Population Status report indicates that the 
management goal of 1,600,000 birds (winter index for Mid-continent 
Population and Western Central Flyway Population, combined) has been 
exceeded. Authorization of the conservation order in the U.S. portion 
of the Mississippi and Central Flyways will occur after the Director 
determines the degree to which the management goal has been exceeded, 
the trajectory of population growth, anticipated harvest that would 
result from implementation of the conservation order, and whether or 
not similar conservation actions will be conducted in Canada.
    (3) The Director may authorize a conservation order for the 
reduction of light geese (lesser snow and Ross's geese) for any State 
or Tribe contained within the Pacific Flyway by publishing a notice 
under paragraph (e) of this section when the Director determines that 
light goose numbers in the western Arctic have exceeded the ability of 
their breeding habitat to support them.
    (e) How will the conservation order be authorized for a particular 
Flyway?
    The Director will publish a notice in the Federal Register when the 
conservation order is authorized in a particular Flyway.
    (f) What is required for State/Tribal governments to participate in 
the conservation order?
    When authorized by the Director, any State or Tribal government 
responsible for the management of wildlife and migratory birds may, 
without permit, kill or cause to be killed under its general 
supervision, light geese under the following conditions:
    (1) Activities conducted under the conservation order may not 
affect endangered or threatened species as designated under the 
Endangered Species Act.
    (2) Control activities must be conducted clearly as such and are 
intended to relieve pressures on migratory birds and habitat essential 
to migratory bird populations only 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.
    (3) Control activities may be conducted only when all waterfowl 
(including light goose) and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, 
are closed.
    (4) Control measures employed through this section may be used only 
between the hours of one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour 
after sunset.
    (5) Nothing in the conservation order may limit or initiate 
management actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal 
agency with jurisdiction.
    (6) States and Tribes must designate participants who must operate 
under the conditions of the conservation order.
    (7) States and Tribes must inform participants of the requirements 
and conditions of the conservation order that apply.
    (8) States and Tribes must keep annual records of activities 
carried out under the authority of the conservation order. 
Specifically, information must be collected on:
    (i) The number of persons participating in the conservation order;
    (ii) The number of days people participated in the conservation 
order;
    (iii) The number of persons who pursued light geese with the aid of 
a shotgun capable of holding more than three shells;
    (iv) The number of persons who pursued light geese with the aid of 
an electronic call;
    (v) The number of persons who pursued light geese during the period 
one-half hour after sunset;
    (vi) The total number of light geese shot and retrieved during the 
conservation order;
    (vii) The number of light geese taken with the aid of an electronic 
call;
    (viii) The number of light geese taken with the fourth, fifth, or 
sixth shotgun shell;
    (ix) The number of light geese taken during the period one-half 
hour after sunset; and
    (x) The number of light geese shot but not retrieved.
    (9) The States and Tribes must submit an annual report summarizing 
activities conducted under the conservation order on or before 
September 15 of each year, to the Chief, Division of Migratory Bird 
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Mail 
Stop MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Information from Tribes may 
be incorporated in State reports.
    (g) What is required for persons to participate in the conservation 
order?
    Individual participants in State or Tribal programs covered by the 
conservation order must comply with the following provisions:
    (1) Nothing in the conservation order authorizes the take of light 
geese contrary to any State or Tribal laws or regulations, and none of 
the privileges granted under the conservation order may be exercised 
unless persons acting under the authority of the conservation order 
possess whatever permit or other authorization(s) may be required for 
such activities by the State or Tribal government concerned.
    (2) Persons who take light geese under the conservation order may 
not sell or offer for sale those birds or their plumage but may 
possess, transport, and otherwise properly use them.
    (3) Persons acting under the authority of the conservation order 
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.
    (4) Persons acting under the authority of the conservation order 
may take light geese by any method except those prohibited as follows:
    (i) With a trap, snare, net, rifle, pistol, swivel gun, shotgun 
larger than 10

[[Page 65953]]

gauge, punt gun, battery gun, machine gun, fish hook, poison, drug, 
explosive, or stupefying substance.
    (ii) 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.
    (iii) 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 carry out take 
activities from any stationary motor vehicle or stationary motor-driven 
land conveyance.
    (iv) 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 
bird.
    (v) By the use or aid of live birds as decoys. It is a violation of 
this paragraph (g) for any person to take light 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 light geese.
    (vi) 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 light geese.
    (vii) 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-k). Light 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 
(g) prohibits the taking of light geese on or over the following lands 
or areas that are not otherwise baited areas:
    (A) 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, 
postharvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice as 
described in Sec.  20.11(g), (i), (l), and (m);
    (B) From a blind or other place of concealment camouflaged with 
natural vegetation;
    (C) 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
    (D) 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.
    (viii) 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-bronze, 
tungsten-nickel-iron, tungsten-tin-iron, tungsten-nickel-iron-tin, 
tungsten-iron-copper-nickel, or other shots that are authorized in 
Sec.  20.21(j).
    (h) Can the conservation order be suspended?
    The Director reserves the right to suspend or revoke a State's or 
Tribe's authority under the conservation order if we find that the 
State or Tribe has not adhered to the terms and conditions specified in 
this section. 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 the Director determines that a specific 
population of light geese no longer poses a threat to habitats, 
agricultural crops, or other interests, or is within Flyway management 
objectives, the Director may choose to terminate part or all of the 
conservation order.
    (i) Under what conditions would the conservation order be 
suspended?
    The Director will annually assess the overall impact and 
effectiveness of the conservation order on each light goose population 
to ensure compatibility with long-term conservation of this resource. 
The Director will suspend the conservation order if at any time 
evidence clearly demonstrates that an individual light goose population 
no longer presents a serious threat of injury to the area or areas 
involved. Suspension by the Director will occur by publication of a 
notice in the Federal Register. However, resumption of growth by the 
light goose population in question may warrant reinstatement of the 
conservation order to control the population. The Director will publish 
a notice of such reinstatement in the Federal Register. Depending on 
the status of individual light goose populations, it is possible that a 
conservation order may be in effect for one or more light goose 
populations, but not others.
    (j) What are the information collection requirements?
    The information collection requirements associated with the 
conservation order are described in paragraphs (f)(6) through (9) of 
this section. Reported information helps us to assess the effectiveness 
of light geese population control methods and strategies and assess 
whether or not additional population control methods are needed. The 
Office of Management and Budget has approved this information 
collection and assigned OMB Control No. 1018-0103. We 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. At 
any time, you may submit comments on these information collection 
requirements to the Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW., (mailstop ARL SQ-222), 
Washington, DC 20240.

    Dated: July 22, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

    Editorial Note: This document was received in the Office of the 
Federal Register on October 29, 2008.

[FR Doc. E8-26171 Filed 11-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P