[Federal Register: June 17, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 116)]

[Rules and Regulations]               

[Page 32765-32776]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr17jn99-35]                         





[[Page 32765]]



_______________________________________________________________________



Part IX











Department of the Interior











_______________________________________________________________________







Fish and Wildlife Service







_______________________________________________________________________







50 CFR Part 21







Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit; Final Rule





[[Page 32766]]







DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR



Fish and Wildlife Service



50 CFR Part 21



RIN 1018-AE46



 

Migratory Bird Special Canada Goose Permit



AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.



ACTION: Final rule.



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



SUMMARY: The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

establishes, in cooperation with State wildlife agencies, a Canada 

goose damage management program. This program is designed to provide a 

biologically sound and more cost-effective and efficient method for the 

control of locally-breeding Canada geese that pose a threat to health 

and human safety and damage personal and public property.



DATES: The rule becomes effective June 17, 1999.



ADDRESSES: You may request copies of the EA and comments received on 

the proposed rule by writing to the Chief, Office of Migratory Bird 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, 

ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, D.C. 20240. You may 

inspect comments during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington 

Square Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.



FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Andrew, Chief, Office of 

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-

1714.



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:



Background



    Numbers of Canada geese that nest and reside predominantly within 

the conterminous United States have increased exponentially in recent 

years (Rusch et al., 1995; Ankney, 1996). These increasing populations 

of locally-breeding geese are resulting in increasing numbers of 

conflicts with human activities and property, and concerns related to 

human health and safety are increasing (Ankney, 1996). To date, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (We) has attempted to address this 

growing problem through existing annual hunting season frameworks and 

the issuance of control permits on a case-by-case basis. While this 

approach has provided relief in some areas, we realize that sport 

harvest will not completely address the problem and that the current 

permit-issuance system is a time-consuming and burdensome process for 

both applicants and us. Therefore, we are changing the way we issue 

permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for control and management 

of resident Canada geese that either pose a threat to health and human 

safety or cause damage to personal and public property.



Which Canada Geese Are Affected by This Rule?



    The geographic scope of this rule is restricted to the conterminous 

United States and to Canada geese (Branta canadensis) that nest and/or 

reside predominately within the conterminous United States. Primarily, 

these geese consist mainly of B. c. maxima and B.c. moffitti, the 

``giant'' and ``western'' Canada goose, respectively. Nesting geese 

within the conterminous United States are usually considered members of 

these two subspecies or hybrids between the various subspecies 

originating in captivity and introduced into numerous areas throughout 

the conterminous United States. No evidence presently exists 

documenting breeding between Canada geese nesting within the 

conterminous United States and those subspecies nesting in northern 

Canada and Alaska. For the purposes of this rule, we will collectively 

refer to all Canada geese nesting in the conterminous United States 

and/or Canada geese residing within the conterminous United States in 

the months of June, July, and August as ``resident'' Canada geese.

    For the most part, the remaining subspecies of Canada geese 

recognized in North America nest in arctic and sub-arctic regions of 

Canada and Alaska (Lack 1974). These subspecies are usually encountered 

in the conterminous United States only during the fall, winter and 

spring of the year, or as a result of human placement.



How Does This New Program Avoid Conflicts With the Management of 

Other Migratory Canada Goose Populations?



    Generally, we have stressed the need to manage all geese on a 

population basis, guided by cooperatively-developed management plans. 

However, resident Canada goose populations and the development of a 

resident Canada goose damage management program presented several 

potential problems with this approach. Because resident goose 

populations interact and overlap with other Canada goose populations 

during the fall and winter, any management action or program targeted 

at resident Canada geese during the fall and winter could potentially 

affect these other goose populations. Therefore, to avoid potential 

conflicts with existing management plans for other goose populations, 

this new program is further restricted to March 11 through August 31 of 

each year. These dates encompass the period when sport hunting is 

prohibited throughout the conterminous United States by the Migratory 

Bird Treaty (1916) and resulting regulations promulgated under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918). Any injury and damage complaints 

occurring during September 1 to March 10, the period open to sport 

hunting, will continue to be addressed through either migratory bird 

hunting regulations or the existing migratory bird permit process.



What Authority Does the Service Have To Establish This New Program?



    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.



How Are These Resident Canada Geese Different Than Other Canada 

Geese Populations? Other Than Location, Do They Behave Differently 

or Have Different Biological Characteristics?



    Canada geese, like other geese, are long-lived birds with 

relatively low reproduction rates and high survival rates. However, of 

all the Canada goose subspecies, the subspecies comprising most 

resident geese have higher reproductive and adult survival rates. 

Resident geese live in more temperate climates with relatively stable 

breeding habitat conditions and low numbers of predators. Arctic and 

subarctic Canada goose survival and reproduction are greatly influenced 

by weather conditions. Additionally, nesting resident geese are very 



tolerant of human disturbance and willing to nest in close proximity to 

other geese (Gosser and Conover, 1999; Zenner and LaGrange, 1998). 

Urban and suburban landscaping in the conterminous United States also 

offers resident geese a relative abundance of their preferred habitat 

(park-like open areas with short grass adjacent to small bodies of 

water). Also, resident geese fly relatively short distances to winter 

compared with other Canada goose populations. All of these factors 

result in consistently high annual reproduction and survival for the 

resident Canada goose population.



What Is the Current Status of These Resident Populations?



    In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest 

predominantly within the conterminous United States have increased 

tremendously. Recent



[[Page 32767]]



surveys in the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways (Wood et al., 

1994; Kelley et al., 1998; Nelson and Oetting, 1998; Sheaffer and 

Malecki, 1998) suggest that the resident breeding population now 

exceeds 1 million individuals in both the Atlantic and Mississippi 

Flyways and is increasing exponentially.

    Information from the 1998 Waterfowl Status Report (Kelley et al., 

1998) shows that in the Atlantic Flyway, the resident population has 

increased an average of 14 percent per year since 1989. Last spring, 

the population estimate was 970,055 geese in the northeastern U.S., a 

number which is, however, similar to 1997. In the Mississippi Flyway, 

the resident population of Canada geese has increased at a rate of 

about 6 percent per year during the last 10 years. The 1998 spring 

population estimate was 1,167,085 geese, an increase of 21 percent from 

1997. In the Central and Pacific Flyways, populations of resident 

Canada geese have similarly increased over the last few years. In some 

areas, numbers of resident Canada geese have increased to record high 

levels. We remain concerned about the rapid growth rate exhibited by 

these already large populations, especially in parts of the Atlantic 

and Mississippi Flyways.



What Interests Are Being Injured by These Large Populations (i.e., 

What Are Some of the Problems and Conflicts)?



    Urban and suburban resident Canada goose populations are 

increasingly coming into conflict with human activities in many parts 

of the country, especially at public parks, airports, public beaches 

and swimming facilities, water-treatment reservoirs, corporate business 

areas, golf courses, schools, college campuses, private lawns, 

amusement parks, cemeteries, hospitals and residential subdivisions, 

and along or between highways. In parks and other open areas near 

water, large goose flocks create a nuisance with their abundant 

droppings and feather litter (Conover and Chasko, 1985). Surveys have 

found that while most landowners like seeing some geese on their 

property, eventually, increasing numbers of geese and the associated 

accumulation of goose droppings on lawns cause many landowners to view 

geese as a nuisance and thus reduce the aesthetic value and 

recreational use of these areas (Conover and Chasko, 1985). 

Additionally, goose droppings in heavy concentrations can overfertilize 

lawns and degrade water quality resulting in eutrophication of lakes 

with excessive algae growth (Manny et al., 1994). Overall, complaints 

related to personal and public property damage, agricultural damage and 

other public conflicts are increasing as resident Canada goose 

populations increase.



How Has the Service Dealt With These Problems in the Past?



    To date, we have tried to address injurious resident Canada goose 

problems through existing hunting seasons, the creation of new special 

Canada goose seasons designed to target resident populations, and 

issuance of permits allowing specific control activities.



Have Special Hunting Seasons Been Adequate To Solve the Problems?



    Special Canada goose seasons are hunting seasons specifically 

designed to target resident populations through either time or area 

restrictions. We first initiated special seasons targeting resident 

Canada geese in 1977 in the Mississippi Flyway with an experimental 

late season in Michigan. Following this and other early experiments in 

Michigan and several other Midwestern States, we gave notice of pending 

criteria for special Canada goose seasons in the June 6, 1986, Federal 

Register (51 FR 20681). We finalized criteria for special early seasons 

in the August 9, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 29905) and later 

expanded them to include special late seasons in the September 26, 

1991, Federal Register (56 FR 49111). The original intent of these 

special seasons was to provide additional harvest opportunities on 

resident Canada geese while minimizing impacts to migrant geese. The 

criteria were necessary to control harvests of non-target populations 

and required States to conduct annual evaluations. Initially, we 

considered all such seasons experimental, pending a thorough review of 

the data gathered by the participating State. Early seasons are 

generally held during early September, with late seasons occurring only 

after the regular season, but no later than February 15.

    We presently offer special seasons for resident Canada geese in all 

four Flyways, with 31 States participating. They are most popular among 

States when regular Canada goose seasons are restricted to protect 

migrant populations of Canada geese. Currently, restrictive harvest 

regimes are in place for the Atlantic, Southern James Bay, Dusky, 

Cackling and Aleutian Canada goose populations.

    Harvest of Canada geese during these special seasons has increased 

substantially over the last 10 years. In the Atlantic Flyway, 16 of 17 

States hold special Canada goose seasons, with harvest rising from 

about 2,300 in 1988 to almost 124,000 in 1995 (MBMO, 1997). In the 

Mississippi Flyway, 10 of 14 States hold special Canada goose seasons, 

and harvest has increased from less than 10,000 birds in 1986 to almost 

150,000 in 1995. Michigan currently harvests in excess of 50,000 

locally-breeding Canada geese per year. While the opportunities are not 

as significant in the Central and Pacific Flyways, as areas and seasons 

have expanded, harvest has increased from approximately 1,300 in 1989 

to over 20,000 in 1995.

    Creation of these special harvest opportunities has helped to limit 

the problems and conflicts between geese and people in some areas. 

However, many resident Canada geese remain in urban and suburban areas 

throughout the fall and winter where these areas afford them almost 

complete protection from sport harvest. Thus, while the creation of 

these special hunting seasons is our first and preferred alternative 

for dealing with most conflicts, we realize that harvest management 

will never completely address this growing problem and permits to 

conduct otherwise prohibited control activities will continue to be 

necessary to balance human needs with expanding resident Canada goose 

populations.



Have Control Measures Under the Existing Permit System Been 

Adequate?



    Complex Federal and State responsibilities are involved with all 

migratory bird control activities, including the control of resident 

Canada geese. All State and private control activities, except 

techniques intended to either scare geese out of or preclude them from 

a specific area, such as harassment, habitat management, or repellents, 

require us to issue a Federal permit. Additionally, we issue permits to 

alleviate migratory bird depredations in coordination with the Wildlife 

Services program of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS/WS). APHIS/WS is the Federal Agency with lead responsibility for 

dealing with wildlife damage complaints. In most instances, State 

permits are required as well.

    However, APHIS/WS has limited personnel and resources to respond to 

requests for assistance. Likewise, as the number of complaints and 

conflicts continue to increase, the public will place greater demand on 

us and the States to assist in goose damage-management programs. This 

increased need for assistance places greater demand on the current 

permit-issuance system. Unfortunately, administrative



[[Page 32768]]



procedures involved in the issuance of permits many times cause a lag 

time of several weeks between our receipt of a permit request, our 

evaluation and decision on issuing the permit, and the ultimate 

issuance of a site-specific permit authorizing a control action. In the 

interim, even small numbers of geese can cause significant damage to 

personal property and result in economic, recreational, and aesthetic 

losses. Thus, with the increase in complaints, the current permit 

issuance system has become time-consuming, cumbersome and inefficient 

for us and the States.



How Have the Number of Complaints and Requests for Assistance and 

Permits Increased?



    A brief summary of the complaints/requests for control permits 

placed with APHIS/WS indicates the increasing number of public 

conflicts. In 1997, APHIS/WS received 3,295 complaints of injurious 

Canada goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1997). In response to those 

complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 354 permits. The vast 

majority of these complaints concerned agricultural, human health and 

safety, and property issues and came primarily from the Northeastern/

New England area (50%) and the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area (29%). In 

1996 and 1995, APHIS/WS received 3,265 and 2,884 complaints, 

respectively, of injurious goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1996; APHIS/WS, 

1995 ). In response to those complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 

321 permits in 1996 and 250 permits in 1995.

    Comparing these figures with previous years' data shows a steady 

increase in complaints since 1991. For example, in 1993 and 1991 APHIS/

WS received 2,802 and 1,698 complaints, respectively, of injurious 

Canada goose activity (APHIS/WS, 1993; APHIS/WS, 1991). In response to 

those complaints, APHIS/WS recommended we issue 192 and 92 permits, 

respectively.



Has the Number of Permits Issued Increased Correspondingly?



    Yes. Our permit issuance has also increased tremendously in recent 

years. For example, Region 5 (the Northeastern/New England area) issued 

26 site-specific permits to kill resident Canada geese and 54 permits 

to addle eggs in 1994. Two years later in 1996, Region 5 issued 70 

site-specific permits to kill resident Canada geese, 1 permit to 

relocate geese, and 151 permits to addle eggs. In addition, the Region 

issued Statewide permits to relocate birds and addle eggs to agencies 

in certain States. Over 3 years, these permits resulted in the 

relocation of over 2,600 geese, the addling of eggs in over 2,300 

nests, and the take of over 1,000 birds.

    In Region 3, the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes area, the number and 

extent of permits issued to manage and control resident Canada geese 

has also increased significantly in the past few years. In 1994, the 

Region issued 149 permits authorizing resident Canada goose control 

activities, including trapping and relocation, destruction of nests/

eggs, and take of adults. In 1998, Region 3 issued 225 permits 

authorizing resident Canada goose control activities. In total, permit 

holders, including APHIS/WS, airports, and state wildlife agencies, 

reported taking in excess of 27,000 eggs and 6,800 geese, and trapped 

and relocated over 70,000 resident Canada geese (complete reports 

through 1997, partial reports for 1998). States in which control 

activities were conducted included Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

    Since 1995, Region 3 has also issued permits to the Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources and the Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources authorizing the capture and processing of resident Canada 

geese as food for local food-shelf programs. Minnesota's permit was a 

part of the their Urban Goose Management Program for the Minneapolis-

St. Paul Metropolitan Area (initiated in 1982). In 1995, the first year 

under these permits, Michigan and Minnesota were authorized to take up 

to 2,000 and 325 geese, respectively. Michigan reported taking 24 birds 

with Minnesota taking its full allotment of 325 birds. Since then, 

Minnesota has been authorized to annually take up to 2,500 resident 

Canada geese for its food-shelf program. In the three years under the 

program since 1995, Minnesota has reported taking 5,399 birds. 

Likewise, Michigan was also issued permits for 1996-1998 authorizing 

the take up to 1,000 resident Canada geese for its food-shelf programs. 

Michigan subsequently reported taking 490 birds in 1996 and 952 birds 

in 1997. Michigan vacated their 1998 permit.

    In Region 1, the Pacific Northwest/West Coast area, we have 

primarily limited permits for the control of resident Canada geese to 

the addling of eggs. In 1995, the Region issued permits authorizing the 

take of 900 eggs in the Puget Sound Area of Washington. In 1996, this 

number was increased to 2,000 eggs and 200 adult birds. APHIS/WS 

subsequently reported taking 911 and 1,570 eggs in 1995 and 1996, 

respectively, and 6 geese in 1996. For 1997, the Region authorized the 

take of 2,000 eggs in the Puget Sound Area and another 500 eggs in the 

City of Fremont, California.



What Exactly Are the New Permits Authorized By This Rule and How 

Will They Work?



    We, with our State and other Federal partners, believe development 

of an alternative method of issuing permits to control problem resident 

Canada geese, beyond those presently employed, is needed so that 

agencies can provide responsible, cost-effective, and efficient 

assistance. The special Canada goose permit authorized by this rule 

provide the States that opportunity while maintaining protection of our 

migratory bird resources. The new special Canada goose permits will 

allow States and their designated agents to conduct management 

activities as soon as it becomes apparent that resident Canada geese 

are a problem. The new permits would also rely on a greater application 

of community standards and preferences by allowing judgments 

determining appropriate levels of control to be made at a more local 

level.

    The new permits are specifically for the management and control of 

resident Canada geese (as defined in the rule). We will issue permits 

to State conservation or wildlife management agencies on a State-

specific basis, so States and their designated agents can initiate 

resident goose damage management and control injury problems within the 

conditions/restrictions of the permit program. The permits will be 

restricted to the period between March 11 and August 31. This new 

special permit will increase the use and availability of control 

measures, decrease the number of injurious resident Canada geese in 

localized areas, have little impact on hunting or other recreation 

dependent on the availability of resident Canada geese, and allow 

injury/damage problems to be dealt with on the State/local level, 

thereby resulting in more responsive and timely control activities. The 

new special permits will further result in biologically sound and more 

cost-effective and efficient resident Canada goose damage management. 

Those States not wishing to obtain these new permits would continue to 

operate under the current permitting process.



What Do States Need To Do To Apply for the New Permits?



    Applications for the new special permit would require several items 

from the State:

    1. A detailed statement estimating the size of the resident Canada 

goose breeding population in the State;



[[Page 32769]]



    2. A request for the number of resident Canada geese, including 

eggs and nests, to be taken;

    3. A statement showing that such damage-control actions will either 

provide for human health and safety or protect personal property, or 

compelling justification that the permit is needed to allow resolution 

of other conflicts between people and resident Canada geese; and

    4. A statement indicating that the State will inform all designated 

agents of the permit conditions applying to the implementation of 

resident Canada goose damage management activities.



What Are the Conditions and Restrictions of the New Permit Program?



    The special resident Canada goose damage-management permits are 

subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

    1. State wildlife agencies (States) may take injurious resident 

Canada geese as a management tool. States should utilize non-lethal 

management tools to the extent they consider appropriate in an effort 

to minimize lethal take.

    2. Control activities should not adversely affect other migratory 

birds or any species designated under the Endangered Species Act as 

threatened or endangered.

    3. States may conduct control activities March 11 through August 

31. States should make a concerted effort to limit the take of adult 

birds to June, July, and August in order to minimize the potential 

impact on other migrant populations. In areas where the threatened 

Aleutian Canada goose (B. c. leucoperia) has been present during the 

previous 10 years in California, Oregon and Washington, lethal control 

activities are restricted to May 1 through August 31. If this 

subspecies is delisted, we will review this provision.

    4. States must conduct control activities clearly as such (e.g., 

they cannot be set up to provide a hunting opportunity).

    5. States cannot use the permits to limit or initiate management 

actions on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal Agency with 

jurisdiction.

    6. States must properly dispose of or utilize Canada geese killed 

in control programs. States may donate Canada geese killed under these 

permits to public museums or public scientific and educational 

institutions for exhibition, scientific, or educational purposes, or 

charities for human consumption. States may also bury or incinerate 

geese. States may not allow for Canada geese taken under these permits, 

nor their plumage, to be sold, offered for sale, bartered, or shipped 

for purpose of sale or barter.

    7. States may use their own discretion for methods of take but 

utilized methods should be consistent with accepted wildlife-damage 

management programs.

    8. States may designate agents who must operate under the 

conditions of the State's permit.

    9. Any employee/designated agent authorized by the State to carry 

out control measures under a special permit must have in their 

possession a copy of the State's permit, and designation, in the case 

of an agent, while carrying out any control activity.

    10. States must keep records of all activities, including those of 

designated agents, carried out under the special permits. We will 

require an annual report detailing activities conducted under a permit.

    11. We will annually review States' reports and will periodically 

assess the overall impact of this program to ensure compatibility with 

the long-term conservation of this resource.

    12. States should not construe anything in the permits to authorize 

the killing of Canada geese contrary to any State law or regulation or 

on any Federal land without written authorization by the appropriate 

management authority. Further, States are not authorized to conduct 

control activities authorized by the permits without any required State 

permit.

    13. We reserve the authority to immediately suspend or revoke any 

permit if we find that the State has not adhered to the terms and 

conditions specified in 50 CFR 13.27 and 13.28 or if we determine that 

the State's population of resident Canada geese no longer poses a 

threat to human health or safety, to personal property, or of injury to 

other interests.



How Will This New Permit Actually Affect ``On-the-Ground'' Resident 

Canada Goose Control and Management Activities? Will We See a 

Dramatic Increase In The Use of Control Activities?



    Under the new permits, we expect that the use of resident Canada 

goose control and management activities, particularly lethal control 

methods such as egg and nest destruction, will increase. We also expect 

an initial increase in the lethal control methods associated with 

hazing techniques of adult birds. However, following this initial 

increase in control activities, we expect the hazing methods to become 

more effective and probably result in fewer overall lethal control 

activities.



Won't This Large-Scale Increased Use of Control Activities Result 

in Harm to the Population?



    No. We expect these lethal and non-lethal activities to decrease 

the number of injurious resident Canada geese in localized areas, 

especially urban and suburban areas. Regionally, we expect little 

overall impact on the resident Canada goose population because many 

goose populations have demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest 

rates in excess of 20 percent. We anticipate the magnitude of any 

lethal control activities will be well below 20 percent of any State's 

resident Canada goose breeding population.



Will These New Permits Impact Existing Sport Hunting Opportunities?



    We expect little impact on sport hunting under the new special 

permits. Resident Canada goose populations in areas targeted for 

management/control activities are generally those that provide little 

or no sport hunting opportunities due to restricted access within urban 

and suburban areas. As such, hunting in these areas is either precluded 

or severely restricted. We would expect areas and resident Canada goose 

populations already open to sport hunting to remain open, as special 

Canada goose season frameworks and guidelines would not change.



What Are Some of the Other Benefits of These New Permits?



    By allowing States and local jurisdictions to deal with injurious 

resident Canada goose problems, instead of having the Service do so at 

a regional level, we expect control activities will be more responsive 

and timely to the problem(s) than is currently the case. Consequently, 

we expect that with reduced injurious populations and more effective 

hazing programs, fewer complaints are likely to occur and less resident 

Canada goose damage is likely.

    With State fish and wildlife agencies responding to individual 

resident Canada goose problems within their respective jurisdictions, 

our administrative responsibilities for each individual control 

activity that currently necessitate the determination or issuance of a 

permit is expected to decrease significantly. Currently, in most 

instances, we must decide on a case-by-case basis whether a permit 

should be issued. This new permit would greatly lessen the number of 

these permits and the associated administrative procedures.



Public Comment



    On September 3, 1996, we issued in the Federal Register (61 FR 

46431) a



[[Page 32770]]



notice of availability of a Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) on 

Permits for Control of Injurious Canada Geese and Request for Comments 

on Potential Regulations. The notice advised the public that we had 

prepared a DEA. The notice also announced our intent to consider 

regulatory changes to the process for issuance of permits to control 

injurious resident Canada geese. We subsequently extended the public 

comment period on November 12, 1996 (61 FR 58084).

    As a result of this invitation for public comment, we received 101 

comments including two from Federal agencies, 28 from State wildlife 

agencies, 24 from private organizations and 47 from private citizens. 

After consideration of the comments, we revised our DEA.

    On March 31, 1998, we published in the Federal Register (63 FR 

15698) a proposal to establish a Canada goose damage management program 

(i.e., Special Canada Goose Permit). In response to our proposed rule, 

we received 465 comments from Federal, State and local agencies, non-

governmental organizations, and individuals. In addition, we received 

several petitions containing 1,674 signatures. We summarize the issues 

and provide our responses below. We also believe it is important to 

note that some of the comments we received on the proposed rule were 

very similar to comments received on the DEA. While we previously 

responded to these issues in our March 31, 1998 proposed rule, we 

respond here again as a convenience to the reader.

    Issue: Many private individuals and several private organizations 

commented that our Environmental Assessment was insufficient to comply 

with NEPA requirements, and that we should prepare a full Environmental 

Impact Statement before taking any action on the program.

    Service Response: We conducted an Environmental Assessment of 

alternative regulatory strategies to control and manage resident Canada 

geese that either pose a threat to health and human safety or cause 

damage to personal and public property. We considered four alternatives 

to the way permits for control and management of injurious resident 

Canada geese are issued:

    Alternative 1. Continue current permitting procedures as described 

in 50 CFR part 21. This would be the No Action Alternative.

    Alternative 2. Add a new permit option specifically for the 

management of injurious resident Canada geese. The permits would be 

available to State conservation or wildlife management agencies on a 

State-specific basis. Under the permits, States and their designated 

agents could initiate resident goose damage management and control 

injury problems within the conditions/restrictions of the program. Such 

permits would be restricted to the period between March 11 and August 

31.

    Alternative 3. Issue a depredation order allowing State 

conservation agencies to control resident Canada goose damage. The 

depredation order would allow States to control injury from resident 

Canada geese within the conditions/restrictions of the depredation 

order. Such a depredation order would be restricted to the period 

between March 11 and August 31.

    Alternative 4. More restrictive use of permits to control resident 

Canada goose damage, limited to situations where geese pose a direct 

threat to human life or safety.

    We selected Alternative 2, the addition of a new permit option 

specifically for resident Canada goose control and management available 

to State conservation agencies on a State-specific basis. This 

alternative would increase the use and availability of control 

measures, decrease the number of injurious resident Canada geese in 

localized areas, have little impact on hunting or other recreation 

dependent on the availability of resident Canada geese, and allow 

injury and damage problems to be dealt with on the State or local 

level, thereby resulting in more responsive and timely control 

activities. This alternative would further result in biologically sound 

and more cost-effective and efficient resident Canada goose damage 

management.

    Based on review and evaluation of comments by the public and 

information contained in the EA, we determined that the action to amend 

50 CFR Part 21 to establish a special Canada goose permit program for 

the control and management of resident Canada geese would not be a 

major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, we made a 

Finding of No Significant Impact on this action and determined that 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. This 

determination was based on consideration of the following factors which 

were addressed in the Finding of No Significant Impact and provided 

below:

    1. While the program is State-wide in application, resident Canada 

goose damage management activities conducted under the program will 

likely occur in localized areas only. The control activities resulting 

from this program would likely occur under individual special permits 

issued under the current permit regulations contained in 50 CFR part 

21.

    2. On balance, the impact of the new program will be beneficial in 

that reducing the number and frequency of injury to human interests 

will be beneficial to the human environment. However, because of the 

limited numbers of geese likely to be taken under the program, the 

benefits will not be significant. Likewise, due to the large and 

expanding population of resident Canada geese, adverse impacts (taking 

of individual geese) will not be significant in the context of the 

human environment.

    3. The activities conducted under the program will not 

significantly affect public health and safety. While we believe that 

any impacts to public health and safety will be beneficial, impacts 

will not be significantly beneficial. The program will likely have a 

beneficial impact on human health and safety through a reduction in the 

likelihood of bird aircraft strikes, conflicts with people and 

property, and potential concerns over the transmission of disease to 

humans.

    4. Although there is controversy over the program, it primarily has 

to do with objections by some groups opposed to any take of Canada 

geese rather than over the analysis or scientific basis for determining 

the impacts of our action. While some of these groups are opposed to 

all goose or other wildlife damage management activities and dispute 

the actual context of damage, the methods and impacts are generally not 

controversial among wildlife managers and wildlife damage management 

experts, nor the general public. All relevant concerns have been 

addressed in the Environmental Consequences chapter in the 

Environmental Assessment.

    5. The possible effects of the program on the quality of the human 

environment are not highly uncertain and do not involve unique or 

unknown risks. The effects and potential risks were determined in the 

process of development of the Environmental Assessment.

    6. The program does not establish a precedent for actions with 

future significant effects or represent a decision in principle about a 

future consideration. We have issued similar permits for goose control 

activities on a case-by-case or State-wide basis and States are 

currently conducting Canada goose damage management activities



[[Page 32771]]



under these permits. Likewise, we have issued similar regulations, in 

the form of depredation orders, for other species, such as the double-

crested cormorant, blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and magpies. 

Any future similar actions, either for Canada geese, or any other 

migratory bird species, would be analyzed under NEPA, with public 

involvement, on their own merits.

    7. There are no significant cumulative effects identified by this 

assessment. Under this program, we expect that the use of resident 

Canada goose control and management activities, particularly lethal 

control methods such as egg and nest destruction, would increase. 

Lethal control methods associated with hazing techniques of adult birds 

would also be expected to initially increase. However, following this 

initial increase, continual use of hazing methods should become more 

effective and may result in fewer overall lethal control activities. 

Such lethal and nonlethal activities would be expected to decrease the 

number of injurious resident Canada geese in specific localized areas, 

especially urban and suburban areas. Regionally and nationally, we 

expect little overall population impact because many Canada goose 

populations have demonstrated the ability to sustain harvest rates in 

excess of 20 percent. We anticipate that the magnitude of any lethal 

control activities will be well below 20 percent of any State's 

resident Canada goose breeding population. As discussed in the 

Environmental Assessment, we expect the program to slow the overall 

population growth rate and address specific localized injurious 

population, but not significantly impact the overall population.

    8. The program will fully comply with the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended. The Service determined that the program is not likely 

to adversely affect the Aleutian Canada goose, a Federally listed 

threatened species.

    9. The program will not threaten a violation of Federal, State, or 

local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the 

environment.

    The EA and Finding of No Significant Impact are available to the 

public at the location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.

    Issue: Some commenters expressed concern that we did not have the 

authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and subsequent 

regulations to allow non-Service entities (i.e., States) to issue 

permits. Many saw this as an attempt to abrogate our goose-management 

responsibility.

    Service Response: As we indicated in the proposed rule, we will 

utilize a process whereby permits are only issued to State conservation 

or wildlife management agencies responsible for migratory bird 

management. State conservation agency employees or their designated 



agents could then carry out resident Canada goose damage management and 

control injurious problems within the conditions/restrictions of the 

permit program. This process is essentially no different than the 

current permitting process contained in 50 CFR part 21.

    Issue: A large number of comments challenged the notion that there 

are in fact ``injurious'' Canada geese and that the entire concept and 

definition of ``resident'' Canada geese is invalid. Some commenters saw 

the new permit program as a mechanism to remove Canada geese from the 

protection afforded them under the Migratory Bird Treaty (Treaty).

    Service Response: We strongly disagree with these assertions and 

have included data in the EA that demonstrate the impact of resident 

Canada goose populations on personal property, agricultural 

commodities, and health and human safety. In addition, data is 

presented that clearly points out that Canada goose populations do nest 

in parts of the conterminous United States during the spring and summer 

and that these birds are increasingly causing injury to people and 

property. Furthermore, we are not redefining what is or is not a 

migratory bird under the Treaty. Canada geese are clearly protected by 

the Treaty and will continue to be. We are using the term ``resident'' 

to identify those commonly injurious Canada geese that will be the 

subject of permitted control activities within the scope of the Treaty. 

Additionally, in response to comments, we have clarified the definition 

of ``resident geese'' to read: Resident Canada geese means Canada geese 

that nest within the conterminous United States and/or Canada geese 

which reside within the conterminous United States during the months of 

June, July, or August.

    Issue: Several commenters believed the Treaty only authorizes the 

killing of migratory birds if they are seriously injurious to 

commercial interests, not personal property.

    Service Response: Article VII of the Treaty states, ``Permits to 

kill any of the above named birds, which under extraordinary conditions 

may become seriously injurious to the agricultural or other interests 

in any particular community (emphasis added), may be issued by the 

proper authorities * * *''. We believe that resident Canada goose 

populations have reached this level. The information available to us as 

discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, and in the Environmental 

Assessment accompanying this action, demonstrates that the current 

population levels are causing serious injury to increasing numbers of 

people and property. The Treaty does not limit the ``interests'' to be 

protected to those that are commercial. Rather, it provides the High 

Contracting Parties broad authority to address any affected interests. 

Therefore, we believe that establishment and implementation of this 

permit program is in accordance with the terms of the Treaty.

    Issue: Some commenters questioned the actual risks posed by Canada 

geese on human health and safety.

    Service Response: Although the human health and safety risks 

associated with resident Canada geese are difficult to quantify, we 

believe that the available data clearly indicate the potential negative 

impacts on health and safety issues (APHIS/WS, 1999). While we agree 

that the risk to human health from pathogens originating from geese is 

currently believed to be low, we are only beginning to understand these 

risks. Additional research is needed to assist in the quantification 

and understanding of these processes. Further, it is clear from bird-

aircraft strike data that resident Canada geese can cause significant 

aircraft safety concerns. We believe that increasingly large 

populations of geese, especially in localized areas, only serve to 

increase the uncertainty associated with these risks.

    Issue: A large number of commenters questioned the validity of 

resident Canada goose damage estimates supplied by APHIS/WS.

    Service Response: According to APHIS/WS (1999), each damage report 

received is questioned for both scope and magnitude in order to 

determine reasonable and practical solutions to reduce damage. 

Preference is given to non-lethal alternatives. However, if capture and 

euthanasia are ultimately requested or recommended, APHIS/WS makes a 

site visit to verify damage and ensure some non-lethal methods have 

been tried and were ineffective to adequately reduce the damage. We 

believe APHIS/WS's approach is appropriate.

    Issue: Several commenters believed the permit process does not 

allow adequate Federal oversight.

    Service Response: We disagree. State applications for the special 

permits require several detailed statements regarding the size of the 

resident Canada goose breeding population in the State and the number 

of resident Canada geese, including eggs and nests, to be



[[Page 32772]]



taken. In addition, the State must show that such damage-control 

actions will either provide for human health and safety or protect 

personal property, or compelling justification that the permit is 

needed to allow resolution of other conflicts between people and 

resident Canada geese. Any failure to follow these application 

procedures results in a rejected application. Further, after issuance 

of a permit, the State and its designated agents must follow the permit 

restrictions and report all activities conducted under the permit. As 

always, we retain the right to immediately revoke any permit violated. 

This process is essentially no different than the current permit-

issuance system contained in 50 CFR part 21.

    Issue: Some commenters stated that the time period associated with 

damage management control is too restrictive.

    Service Response: We acknowledge that complaints about injurious 

geese are increasing outside the time frame covered by the special 

permit. The permit program is designed to specifically address problems 

caused by resident geese during the time period when hunting seasons 

cannot be opened. We will continue to address injurious goose problems 

not covered within the permit time frame on a case-by-case basis.

    Issue: Several commenters recommended the issuance of permits for a 

period of 5 years rather than 3 years.

    Service Response: We concur that permits could reasonably be issued 

for a period of 5 years given timely submission of annual reports 

documenting the actions taken under authority of the permit. However, 

failure to submit complete annual reports may result in suspension or 

revocation of the permit.

    Issue: Several commenters recommended elimination of the paperwork 

and reporting requirements.

    Service Response: Information specific to the applicant State's 

population of resident Canada geese and the take requested is vital to 

the application and ultimate decision on a permit. The reporting 

requirement is essential for us to be able to monitor the action and 

assess possible impacts to the population. Additionally, we will 

utilize this information and other pertinent biological and population-

specific data as the basis for determining the permitted take.

    Issue: Several commenters stated that the special permit was 

unacceptable because it merely shifts costs and workload from the 

Federal level to the State level without providing additional funds to 

the States.

    Service Response: We are not obligating States to apply for this 

new permit. States may continue to handle injurious goose situations 

with the current permitting system on a case-by-case basis.

    Issue: Several commenters suggested that conditioning the permit 

whereby taking Canada geese could occur ``. . . only after applicable 

non-lethal alternatives means . . . have proven to be unsuccessful or 

not feasible'' is too restrictive.

    Service Response: We never intended that a State would need to 

prove the need for lethal control at each site before implementation of 

lethal control techniques. We believe this decision should be based on 

the experience and judgement of professional wildlife managers on-site. 

Thus, we have amended the wording of 21.26(c)(1)(I) to read as follows: 

``Take of resident Canada geese as a management tool pursuant to this 

section may not exceed the number authorized by the permit. States 

should utilize non-lethal goose management tools to the extent they 

deem appropriate in an effort to minimize lethal take.''

    Issue: Several commenters requested clarification that research 

activities are not included as a part of the proposed permit program.

    Service Response: Because the permit program is for the purpose of 

resolving injurious behavior of resident Canada geese, it is clear that 

scientific research is not covered. All researchers who are not Federal 

employees must have a scientific collecting permit to take any 

migratory birds. We believe additional wording to clarify this point is 

unnecessary.

    Issue: Several commenters requested clarification of designated 

agents and use of APHIS/WS as designated agents.

    Service Response: ``Designated agents'' means individuals or 

organizations and their employees who have written authority from the 

State wildlife management agency (permit holder) to implement State-

approved resident Canada goose control measures. Thus, States could 

utilize APHIS/WS as a designated agent.

    Issue: Some commenters were concerned that the new permit process 

does not allow more hunting opportunity.

    Service Response: The purpose of the new special permit program is 

to resolve injurious resident Canada goose problems, not create more 

hunting opportunity. More specifically, the permit program is designed 

to address problems caused by resident geese during the time period 

when hunting seasons cannot be opened. For those States wishing to 

primarily handle injurious resident populations through sport hunting, 

sufficient hunting opportunities designed to target resident Canada 

goose populations, while protecting migrant populations, exist in the 

current hunting season frameworks.

    Issue: Several commenters believed that the size of the resident 

goose population in the State has little to do with the population 

causing a problem in a localized area.

    Service Response: We designed the new special permit program to 

allow those States with widespread injurious goose problems the 

latitude to deal with those problems on a broader management basis than 

the current case-by-case basis. We believe the State wildlife agency is 

the logical authority, within the context of the new special permit's 

guidelines, to determine the proper goose management control activities 

for the State's resident Canada goose population, including those 

smaller, more localized populations. However, the new permit program 

does not preclude a State from applying for a depredation permit under 

the current permit regulations to deal with a specific localized 

injurious goose problem. In fact, we realize that injurious situations 

will continue to occur outside of the March 11 to August 31 time period 

allowed under the new permit program. We will continue to deal with 

these situations on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, as we stated 

earlier, information on the State's goose population is an essential 

part of the basis for our permit decisions and our long-term monitoring 

of the population.

    Issue: Several commenters were concerned that this action 

establishes a precedent for future actions.

    Service Response: We reiterate that this program does not establish 

a precedent for actions with future significant effects or represent a 

decision in principle about a future consideration. As we stated 

earlier, in the past, we have issued similar permits for goose control 

activities on a case-by-case or State-wide basis. States are currently 

conducting Canada goose damage management activities under these 

permits. Likewise, we have issued similar regulations, in the form of 

either depredation orders or permits, for other species, such as the 

double-crested cormorant, blackbirds, cowbirds, grackles, crows, and 

magpies. Any future similar actions, either for Canada geese, or any 

other migratory bird species, would be analyzed under NEPA, with public 

involvement, on their own merits.

    Issue: A large number of commenters indicated that they are 

philosophically



[[Page 32773]]



opposed to the killing of Canada geese and any other ``inhumane'' 

treatments of these birds. They expressed preferences for non-lethal 

solutions to all resident Canada goose/human conflicts and pointed out 

that people need to be more tolerant of wildlife. Some commenters also 

opposed the removal of geese on the grounds that these management 

actions were only short-term solutions.

    Service Response: We are also opposed to the inhumane treatment of 

any birds, but do not believe the capture and relocation, or processing 

for human consumption, of resident Canada geese from human conflict 

areas is by definition ``inhumane.'' Over the past few years, States 

have rounded up thousands of problem resident Canada geese and 

relocated them to unoccupied sites. However, few such unoccupied sites 

remain. Therefore, we believe that humane lethal control of some geese 

is an appropriate part of an integrated resident Canada goose damage 

and control management program.

    We also prefer non-lethal control activities, such as habitat 

modification, as the first means of eliminating resident Canada goose 

conflict and damage problems and have specified language to this effect 

in the final regulations. However, habitat modification and other 

harassment tactics do not always work satisfactorily and lethal methods 

are sometimes necessary to increase the effectiveness of non-lethal 

management methods.

    There are many situations where resident Canada geese have created 

injurious situations and damage problems that few people would accept 

if they had to deal directly with the problem situation. We continue to 

encourage state wildlife management agencies to work with not only the 

local citizens impacted by the management actions but all citizens. 

While it is unlikely that all resident Canada goose/human conflicts can 

be eliminated in all urban settings, implementation of broad-scale 

resident Canada goose management activities may result in an overall 

reduced need for other management actions, such as large-scale goose 

round-ups and lethal control.

    Issue: Some commenters indicated that they were concerned about the 

potential loss of aesthetic value if Canada geese were removed from 

areas.

    Service Response: While we attempted to consider the views of all 

those concerned, we admit that this was difficult given the highly 

variable values people place on geese and other wildlife. Some 

commenters conveyed their pleasure and appreciation for being able to 

see geese locally in their neighborhood. However, we must weigh these 

benefits with the views of other commenters who wanted to see fewer 

geese because of the damage, including loss in the aesthetic value, 

being caused by excessive numbers of geese on personal and public 

property .

    Issue: Several commenters believed that the special permit fell far 

short of providing the States with more authority and less burdensome 

regulations. Further, it does not provide States with enough management 

flexibility. They believed a depredation order approach would be a more 

cost-effective/efficient means to manage injurious resident Canada 

Geese.

    Service Response: As we indicated in the proposed rule, we included 

the depredation order alternative in the EA. However, while we agree 

that depredation orders in other circumstances have proven to be 

valuable tools in wildlife damage management, we believe that 

management of resident Canada geese deserves special attention and 

consideration which, at this time, is best provided by the special 

Canada goose permit program. We believe that the special Canada goose 

permit program will provide the management flexibility needed to 

address this serious problem and at the same time simplify the 

procedures needed to administer this program. The special Canada goose 

permit program will satisfy the need for an efficient and cost-

effective program while allowing us to maintain management control.

    However, in the long-term, we realize that more management 

flexibility will likely be necessary. Because of the unique locations 

where large numbers of these geese nest, feed, and reside, we believe 

that new and innovative approaches to dealing with bird/human conflicts 

will be needed. In order to best deal with this problem, we have begun 

to develop a short-term and long-term strategy. In the short-term, 

these regulations to create and issue a new special permit specifically 

for resident Canada goose control and damage management will 

significantly reduce Service administrative costs for this activity, 

provide quicker response to injurious situation and more effectively 

control resident Canada goose populations throughout the conterminous 

United States. In the long-term, we have recently begun the initial 

groundwork, with the full assistance and cooperation of the Flyway 

Councils and APHIS/WS, to integrate our management of these birds into 

a larger Flyway management plan system. We believe the end result of 

this approach should provide States with more management flexibility 

and authority to deal with resident Canada geese within their State 

while increasing the commitment to establish population goals and 

objectives, management planning, and population monitoring.



References



Animal Plant Health Inspection Service/Wildlife Services (Formerly 

Animal Damage Control). 1992. 1991 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, 

D.C.



________. 1994. 1993 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.

________. 1996. 1995 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.

________. 1997. 1996 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.

________. 1998. 1997 Annual Tables. APHIS/WS, Washington, D.C.

________. 1999. Environmental assessment for the management of 

conflicts with non-migratory (resident) Canada geese, migratory 

Canada geese, and urban/suburban ducks in the Commonwealth of 

Virginia. APHIS/WS, Moseley, VA. 65 pp. + app.

Ankney, C. D. 1996. An embarrassment of riches: Too many geese. J. 

Wildl. Manage. 60(2): 217-223.

Conover, M. R., and G. G. Chasko. 1985. Nuisance Canada goose 

problems in the eastern United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 13(3):228-

233.

Gosser, A. L., and M. R. Conover. 1999. Will the availability of 

insular nesting sites limit reproduction in urban Canada goose 

populations? J. Wildl. Manage. 63(1):369-373.

Kelley, J. R., D. F. Caithamer, and K. A. Wilkins. 1998. Waterfowl 

population status, 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department 

of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 31 pp. + appendices.

Lack, D. 1974. Evolution Illustrated by Waterfowl. Blackwell 

Scientific Publications. Oxford, London. 96 pp.

Manny, B. A., W. C. Johnson, and R. G. Wetzel. 1994. Nutrient 

additives by waterfowl to lakes and reservoirs: predicting their 

effects on productivity and water quality. Hydrobiologia 279:121-

132.

Nelson, H. K. and R. B. Oetting. 1998. Giant Canada goose flocks in 

the United States. Pages 483-495 in D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D. 

Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and management of Canada 

geese. Proceedings of the International Canada Goose Symposium, 

Milwaukee, WI.

Rusch, D. H., R. E. Malecki, and R. E. Trost. 1995. Canada geese in 

North America. Pages 26-28 in LaRoe, E. T., G. S. Farris, C. E. 

Puckett, P. D. Doran, and M. J. Mac. Editors. OUR LIVING RESOURCES: 

A report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of 

U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Biological Service. Washington, D.C. 530 pp.

Sheaffer, S. E. and R. A. Malecki. 1998. Status of Atlantic Flyway 

resident nesting Canada geese. Pages 29-34 in D. H. Rusch, M. D. 

Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. Biology and 

management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the



[[Page 32774]]



International Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.

Wood, J. C., D. H. Rusch, and M. Samuel. 1994. Results of the 1994 

spring survey of giant Canada goose survey in the Mississippi 

Flyway. U.W. Co-op Unit. 9 pp. (mimeo).

Zenner, G. G., and T. G. LaGrange. 1998. Densities and fates of 

Canada goose nests on islands in north-central Iowa. Pages 53-60 in 

D. H. Rusch, M. D. Samuel, D. D. Humburg, and B. D. Sullivan, eds. 

Biology and management of Canada geese. Proceedings of the 

International Canada Goose Symposium, Milwaukee, WI.



Effective Date



    Under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553 (d)) we waive 

the 30-day period before the rule becomes effective and find that 

``good cause'' exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the 

APA, and so this rule will take effect immediately upon publication. It 

is not in the public interest to delay the effective date of this rule. 

In many parts of the country, especially the northeastern and mid-

western States, locally-breeding Canada geese have already nested and 

produced broods. Molting will soon take place (typically mid-June to 

mid-July) and any delay in the effective date of this rule could reduce 

the effectiveness of potential damage management actions for this year. 

It is in the best interest of the public to establish this new special 

permit program to allow State wildlife agencies the ability to reduce 

the number and frequency of injurious resident Canada geese. It is also 

in the best interest of the public to provide alternative regulatory 

options to address the problem of overabundant resident Canada geese 

that may affect the public's health and safety.



NEPA Considerations



    We prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA), as defined under the 

authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in 

connection with this regulation. Based on review and evaluation of the 

information contained in the EA, we determined that the proposed action 

to amend 50 CFR Part 21 to establish a special Canada goose permit for 

the control and management of resident Canada geese would not be a 

major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the 

human environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(c) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, we made a 

Finding of No Significant Impact on this action and determined that 

preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement was not required. The 

EA is available to the public at the location indicated under the 

ADDRESSES caption.



Endangered Species Act Consideration



    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that, ``The Secretary shall 

review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in 

furtherance of the purposes of this Act'' (and) shall ``ensure 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 * * *'' Consequently, we initiated Section 7 

consultation under the ESA for this rulemaking. You may inspect 

completed results of our consultation under Section 7 of the ESA at the 

location indicated under the ADDRESSES caption.



Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection



    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), we submitted the necessary paperwork to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for approval to collect the information 

required by the applicant and permittee. Under the Act, OMB must 

approve information collections. After review, OMB approved the 

information collection requirements of the Special Canada Goose Permit 

and assigned clearance number 1018-0099. We will use the information 

collection requirement to administer this program and in the issuance 

and monitoring of these special permits. Federal agencies may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number.



Regulatory Flexibility Act



    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 

requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will 

have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. We 

determined that this rulemaking would not have a significant effect on 

a substantial number of small entities, which include small businesses, 

organizations and small governmental jurisdiction. This rule will only 

effect State wildlife agencies responsible for migratory bird 

management that wish to initiate a resident Canada goose control and 

damage management program within our guidelines. We anticipate that 

less than 45 applicants will annually apply. Therefore, this rule will 

have minimal effect on small entities.



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.



Executive Order 12866



    We determined that this rule is not significant under the 

definition in Executive Order 12866, and therefore, not subject to OMB 

review.



Unfunded Mandates



    We determined and certify in compliance with the requirements of 

the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this rulemaking 

will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on 

local or State government or private entities.



Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988



    The Department, in promulgating this rule, determined that these 

regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.



List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 21



    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

    Accordingly, we hereby amend part 21 of subchapter B, chapter I, 

title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:



PART 21--[AMENDED]



    1. The authority for part 21 continues to read as follows:



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



    2. Amend Sec. 21.3 by adding alphabetically definitions for 

``Resident Canada geese'' and ``Service.''





Sec. 21.3  Definitions.



* * * * *

    Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the 

conterminous United States and/or Canada geese which reside within the 

conterminous United States during the months of June, July, or August.

    Service or we means the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department 

of the Interior.

    3. Add a new Sec. 21.26 to read as follows:





Sec. 21.26.  Special Canada goose permit.



    (a) What is the special Canada goose permit and what is its 

purpose? The special Canada goose permit is a permit issued by us to a 

State wildlife agency authorizing certain resident Canada goose 

management and control activities



[[Page 32775]]



that are normally prohibited. We will only issue such a permit when it 

will contribute to human health and safety, protect personal property, 

or allow resolution or prevention of injury to people or property. The 

management and control activities conducted under the permit are 

intended to relieve or prevent injurious situations only. No person 

should construe the permit as opening, reopening, or extending any 

hunting season contrary to any regulations established under Section 3 

of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

    (b) Who may receive a permit? Only State wildlife agencies (State) 

are eligible to receive a permit to undertake the various goose 

management and control activities. Additionally, only employees or 

designated agents of a permitted State wildlife agency may undertake 

activities for injurious resident Canada geese in accordance with the 

conditions specified in the permit, conditions contained in 50 CFR part 

13, and conditions specified in paragraph (d) of this section.

    (c) How does a State apply for a permit? Any State wildlife agency 

wishing to obtain a permit must submit an application to the 

appropriate Regional Director (see Sec. 13.11(b) of this subchapter) 

containing the general information and certification required by 

Sec. 13.12(a) of this subchapter plus the following information:

    (1) A detailed statement showing that the goose management and 

control activities will either provide for human health and safety, 

protect personal property, or allow resolution of other injury to 

people or property;

    (2) An estimate of the size of the resident Canada goose breeding 

population in the State;

    (3) The requested annual take of resident Canada geese, including 

eggs and nests;

    (4) A statement indicating that the State will inform and brief all 

employees and designated agents of the requirements of these 

regulations and permit conditions.

    (d) What are the conditions of the permit? The special Canada goose 

permits are subject to the general conditions in 50 CFR part 13, the 

conditions elsewhere in this section, and, unless otherwise 

specifically authorized on the permit, the conditions outlined below:

    (1) What are the limitations on management and control activities? 

(i) Take of resident Canada geese as a management tool under this 

section may not exceed the number authorized by the permit. States 

should utilize non-lethal goose management tools to the extent they 

deem appropriate in an effort to minimize lethal take.

    (ii) Methods of take for the control of injurious resident Canada 

geese are at the State's discretion. Methods include, but are not 

limited to, firearms, alpha-chloralose, traps, egg and nest 

manipulation and other damage control techniques consistent with 

accepted wildlife damage-management programs.

    (2) When may a State conduct management and control activities? 

States and their employees and agents may conduct management and 

control activities, including the take of resident Canada geese, under 

this section between March 11 and August 31. In California, Oregon and 

Washington, in areas where the threatened Aleutian Canada goose (B. c. 

leucoperia) has been present during the previous 10 years, lethal 

control activities are restricted to May 1 through August 31, 

inclusive.

    (3) How must the States dispose or utilize geese taken under this 

permit? States and their employees and agents may possess, transport, 

and otherwise dispose of Canada geese taken under this section. States 

must utilize such birds by donation to public museums or public 

institutions for scientific or educational purposes, by processing them 

for human consumption and distributing them free of charge to 

charitable organizations, or by burying or incinerating them. States, 

their employees, and designated agents may not sell, offer for sale, 

barter, or ship for the purpose of sale or barter any Canada geese 

taken under this section, nor their plumage or eggs.

    (4) How does the permit relate to existing State law? No person 

conducting management and control activities under this section should 

construe the permit to authorize the killing of injurious resident 

Canada geese contrary to any State law or regulation, nor on any 

Federal land without specific authorization by the responsible 

management agency. No person may exercise the privileges granted under 

this section unless they possess any permits required for such 

activities by any State or Federal land manager.

    (5) When conducting management and control activities, are there 

any special inspection requirements? Any State employee or designated 

agent authorized to carry out management and control activities must 

have a copy of the permit and designation in their possession when 

carrying out any activities. The State must also require the property 

owner or occupant on whose premises the State is conducting activities 

to allow, at all reasonable times, including during actual operations, 

free and unrestricted access to any Service special agent or refuge 

officer, State wildlife or deputy wildlife agent, warden, protector, or 

other wildlife law enforcement officer (wildlife officer) on the 

premises where they are, or were, conducting activities. Furthermore, 

any State employee or designated agent conducting such activities must 

promptly furnish whatever information is required concerning such 

activities to any such wildlife officer.

    (6) What are the reporting requirements of the permit? Any State 

employee or designated agent exercising the privileges granted by this 

section must keep records of all activities carried out under the 

authority of this permit, including the number of Canada geese killed 

and their disposition. The State must submit an annual report detailing 

activities, including the time, numbers and location of birds, eggs, 

and nests taken and non-lethal techniques utilized, before December 31 

of each year. The State should submit the annual report to the 

appropriate Assistant Regional Director--Refuges and Wildlife (see 

Sec. 10.22 of this subchapter).

    (7) What are the limitations of the special permit? The following 

limitations apply:

    (i) Nothing in this section applies to any Federal land within a 

State's boundaries without written permission of the Federal Agency 

with jurisdiction.

    (ii) States may not undertake any actions under any permit issued 

under this section if the activities adversely affect other migratory 

birds or species designated as endangered or threatened under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act.

    (iii) We will only issue permits to State wildlife agencies in the 

conterminous United States.

    (iv) States may designate agents who must operate under the 

conditions of the permit.

    (v) How long is the special permit valid? A special Canada goose 

permit issued or renewed under this section expires on the date 

designated on the face of the permit unless it is amended or revoked or 

such time that we determine that the State's population of resident 

Canada geese no longer poses a threat to human health or safety, 

personal property, or injury to other interests. In all cases, the term 

of the permit may not exceed five (5) years from the date of issuance 

or renewal.

    (vi) Can we revoke the special permit? We reserve the right to 

suspend or revoke any permit, as specified in Sec. 13.27 and Sec. 13.28 

of this subchapter.



[[Page 32776]]



    (e) What are the OMB information collection requirements of the 

permit program? OMB has approved the information collection 

requirements of the permit and assigned clearance number 1018-0099. 

Federal agencies may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 

a currently valid OMB control number. We will use the information 

collection requirements to administer this program and in the issuance 

and monitoring of these special permits. We will require the 

information from State wildlife agencies responsible for migratory bird 

management in order to obtain a special Canada goose permit, and to 

determine if the applicant meets all the permit issuance criteria, and 

to protect migratory birds. We estimate the public reporting burden for 

this collection of information to average 8 hours per response for 45 

respondents (States), including the time for reviewing instructions, 

gathering and maintaining data needed, and completing and reviewing the 

collection of information. Thus, we estimate the total annual reporting 

and record-keeping for this collection to be 360 hours. States may send 

comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, ms 224-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street N.W., Washington, DC 

20240, or the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction 

Project 1018-0099, Washington, DC 20503.



    Dated: June 9, 1999

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 99-15408 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P