[Federal Register: November 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 215)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65925-65953]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05no08-11]
[[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
[[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 hope_grey@fws.gov (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