`[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 154 (Thursday, August 10, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45964-45993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6739]



[[Page 45963]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Parts 20 and 21



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 45964]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

RIN 1018-AI32


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule and notice of record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or 
reside predominantly within the conterminous United States (resident 
Canada geese) have undergone dramatic growth to levels that are 
increasingly coming into conflict with people and human activities and 
causing personal and public property damage, as well as public health 
concerns, in many parts of the country. In February 2002, the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service (Service or ``we'') completed a Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on resident Canada goose 
management. In August 2003, we published a proposed rule to establish 
regulations to implement the DEIS proposed action, Alternative F. In 
November 2005, the notice of availability for a Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) was published, followed by a 30-day public 
review period. This final rule sets forth regulations for implementing 
the FEIS preferred alternative, Alternative F, which would authorize 
State wildlife agencies, private landowners, and airports to conduct 
(or allow) indirect and/or direct population control management 
activities, including the take of birds, on resident Canada goose 
populations. The Record of Decision (ROD) is also published here.

DATES: This final rule will go into effect on September 11, 2006.

ADDRESSES: The public may inspect comments received on the DEIS and the 
proposed rule during normal business hours in Room 4107, 4501 North 
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. You may obtain copies of the FEIS 
from the above address or from the Division of Migratory Bird 
Management Web site at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority and Responsibility

    Migratory birds are protected under four bilateral migratory bird 
treaties the United States entered into with Great Britain (for Canada 
in 1916 as amended in 1999), the United Mexican States (1936 as amended 
in 1972 and 1999), Japan (1972 as amended in 1974), and the Soviet 
Union (1978). Regulations allowing the take of migratory birds are 
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711), and 
the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712). The 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Act), which implements the above-mentioned 
treaties, provides that, subject to and to carry out the purposes of 
the treaties, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed 
to determine when, to what extent, and by what means it is compatible 
with the conventions to allow hunting, killing, and other forms of 
taking of migratory birds, their nests, and eggs. The Act requires the 
Secretary to implement a determination by adopting regulations 
permitting and governing those activities.
    Canada geese are Federally protected by the Act by reason of the 
fact that they are listed as migratory birds in all four treaties. 
Because Canada geese are covered by all four treaties, regulations must 
meet the requirements of the most restrictive of the four. For Canada 
geese, this is the treaty with Canada. We have prepared these 
regulations compatible with its terms, with particular reference to 
Articles VII, V, and II.
    Each treaty not only permits sport hunting, but permits the take of 
migratory birds for other reasons, including scientific, educational, 
propagative, or other specific purposes consistent with the 
conservation principles of the various Conventions. More specifically, 
Article VII, Article II (paragraph 3), and Article V of ``The Protocol 
Between the Government of the United States of America and the 
Government of Canada Amending the 1916 Convention between the United 
Kingdom and the United States of America for the Protection of 
Migratory Birds in Canada and the United States'' provides specific 
limitations on allowing the take of migratory birds for reasons other 
than sport hunting. Article VII authorizes permitting the take, kill, 
etc., of migratory birds that, under extraordinary conditions, become 
seriously injurious to agricultural or other interests. Article V 
relates to the taking of nests and eggs, and Article II, paragraph 3, 
states that, in order to ensure the long-term conservation of migratory 
birds, migratory bird populations shall be managed in accord with 
listed conservation principles.
    The other treaties are less restrictive. The treaties with both 
Japan (Article III, paragraph 1, subparagraph (b)) and the Soviet Union 
(Article II, paragraph 1, subparagraph (d)) provide specific exceptions 
to migratory bird take prohibitions for the purpose of protecting 
persons and property. The treaty with Mexico requires, with regard to 
migratory game birds, only that there be a ``closed season'' on hunting 
and that hunting be limited to 4 months in each year.
    Regulations governing the issuance of permits to take, capture, 
kill, possess, and transport migratory birds are promulgated in title 
50, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), parts 13 and 21, and issued by 
the Service. The Service annually promulgates regulations governing the 
take, possession, and transportation of migratory birds under sport 
hunting seasons in 50 CFR part 20.

Background

    In recent years, numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or reside 
predominantly within the conterminous United States (resident Canada 
geese) have undergone dramatic growth to levels that are increasingly 
coming into conflict with people and causing personal and public 
property damage. We believe that resident Canada goose populations must 
be reduced, more effectively managed, and controlled to reduce goose-
related damages. This rule would establish a new regulation authorizing 
State wildlife agencies, private landowners, and airports to conduct 
(or allow) indirect and/or direct population control management 
activities, including the take of birds, on resident Canada goose 
populations. The intent of this rule is to allow State wildlife 
management agencies and the affected public sufficient flexibility to 
deal with problems caused by resident Canada geese and guide and direct 
resident Canada goose population growth and management activities in 
the conterminous United States when traditional and otherwise 
authorized management measures are unsuccessful in preventing injury to 
property, agricultural crops, public health, and other interests.

Population Delineation and Status

    Waterfowl management activities frequently are based on the 
delineation of populations that are the target of management. Some 
goose populations are delineated according to where they winter, 
whereas others are delineated based on the location of their breeding 
grounds. For management purposes, populations can comprise one or more 
species of geese.
    Canada geese (Branta canadensis) nesting within the conterminous 
United States are considered subspecies or

[[Page 45965]]

hybrids of the various subspecies originating in captivity and 
artificially introduced into numerous areas throughout the conterminous 
United States. Canada geese are highly philopatric to natal areas, and 
no evidence presently exists documenting breeding between Canada geese 
nesting within the conterminous United States and those subspecies 
nesting in northern Canada and Alaska. Canada geese nesting within the 
conterminous United States in the months of March, April, May, or June, 
or residing within the conterminous United States in the months of 
April, May, June, July, and August will be collectively referred to in 
this rule as ``resident'' Canada geese.
    The recognized subspecies of Canada geese are distributed 
throughout the northern temperate and sub-arctic regions of North 
America (Delacour 1954; Bellrose 1976; Palmer 1976). Historically, 
breeding Canada geese are believed to have been restricted to areas 
north of 35 degrees and south of about 70 degrees latitude (Bent 1925; 
Delacour 1954; Bellrose 1976; Palmer 1976). Today, in the conterminous 
United States, Canada geese can be found nesting in every State, 
primarily due to translocations and introductions since the 1940s.
    The majority of Canada geese still nest in localized aggregations 
throughout Canada and Alaska and migrate annually to the conterminous 
United States to winter, with a few reaching as far south as northern 
Mexico. However, the distribution of Canada geese has expanded 
southward and numbers have increased appreciably throughout the 
southern portions of the range during the past several decades (Rusch 
et al. 1995). The following is a brief description of the status and 
distribution of the major management populations of Canada geese 
covered by this rule. (We note that there are a number of various 
surveys that utilize different methodologies, and resulting estimates 
can vary quite significantly between the various surveys and years. 
However, we believe all of the various data, when taken together, 
reinforce our conclusions).
    In the Atlantic Flyway, the resident population of Canada geese 
nests from Southern Quebec and the Maritime Provinces of Canada 
southward throughout the States of the Atlantic Flyway (Sheaffer and 
Malecki 1998; Johnson and Castelli 1998; Nelson and Oetting 1998). This 
population is believed to be of mixed subspecies (B. c. canadensis, B. 
c. interior, B. c. moffitti, and B. c. maxima) and is the result of 
purposeful introductions by management agencies, coupled with released 
birds from private aviculturists and releases from captive decoy flocks 
after live decoys were outlawed for hunting in the 1930s. Following the 
Federal prohibition on the use of live decoys in 1935, Dill and Lee 
(1970) cited an estimate of more than 15,000 domesticated and semi-
domesticated geese that were released from captive flocks. With the 
active restoration programs that occurred from the 1950s through the 
1980s, the population grew to over 1 million birds and has increased an 
average of 2 percent per year since 1995 (Sheaffer and Malecki 1998; 
Atlantic Flyway Council 1999; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004). In 
fact, 2005 spring surveys and estimates from the States of the Atlantic 
Flyway now total over 1.36 million geese, with a 3-year average of 1.32 
million (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data, 2006).
    In the Mississippi Flyway, most resident Canada geese are giant 
Canada geese (B. c. maxima). Once believed to be extinct (Delacour 
1954), Hanson (1965) rediscovered them in the early 1960s, and 
estimated the giant Canada goose population at about 63,000 birds in 
both Canada and the United States. In the nearly 40 years since their 
rediscovery, giant Canada geese have been reestablished or introduced 
in all Mississippi Flyway states. The breeding population of giant 
Canada geese in the Mississippi Flyway has exceeded 1.5 million 
individuals in recent years and has been growing at a rate of about 6 
percent per year over the last 10 years (Rusch et al. 1996; Wood et al. 
1996; Nelson and Oetting 1998; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004). 
However, estimates resulting from spring breeding surveys have recessed 
slightly over the past 3 years and the latest 2005 spring surveys and 
estimates from the States of the Mississippi Flyway total about 1.25 
million geese, with a 3-year average of 1.27 million (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, unpublished data, 2006).
    In the Central Flyway, Canada geese that nest and/or reside in the 
States of the Flyway consist mainly of two populations, the Great 
Plains and Hi-Line. The Great Plains Population (Nelson 1962; Vaught 
and Kirsch 1966; Williams 1967) consists of geese (B. c. maxima/B. c. 
moffiti) that have been restored to previously occupied areas in 
Saskatchewan, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and 
Texas. For management purposes, this population is often combined with 
the Western Prairie Population (composed of geese (B. c. maxima/B. c. 
moffiti/B. c. interior) that nest throughout the prairie regions of 
Manitoba and Saskatchewan) and winter together from the Missouri River 
in South Dakota southward to Texas. The Hi-Line Population (Rutherford 
1965; Grieb 1968, 1970) (B. c. moffitti) nests in southeastern Alberta, 
southwestern Saskatchewan and eastern Montana, Wyoming, and 
northcentral Colorado. The population winters from Wyoming to central 
New Mexico. Overall, these populations of large subspecies of Canada 
geese have increased tremendously over the last 30 years as the result 
of active restoration and management by Central Flyway States and 
Provinces. The current index for these populations in 2004 was over 
837,000 birds, and has been growing at a rate of 7 percent (Great 
Plains and Western Prairie Populations) and 4 percent (Hi-Line 
Population), per year since 1995 (Gabig 2000; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 2004). Looking at only the geese in the U.S. portion of these 
populations, the current 2005 spring estimate is approximately 590,000 
with a 3-year average of 540,000 geese (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
unpublished data, 2006).
    In the Pacific Flyway, two populations of the western Canada goose, 
the Rocky Mountain Population and the Pacific Population, are 
predominantly composed of Canada geese that nest and/or reside in the 
States of the Flyway. The Rocky Mountain Population (B. c. moffitti) 
nests from southwestern Alberta southward through the intermountain 
regions of western Montana, Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming. 
They winter southward from Montana to southern California, Nevada, and 
Arizona. Highly migratory, they have grown from a breeding population 
of about 14,000 in 1970 (Krohn and Bizeau 1980) to over 130,000 
(Subcommittee on Rocky Mountain Canada Geese 2000). The 2004 estimated 
spring population was 152,000 and has increased 3 percent per year over 
the last 10 years; however, the mid-winter survey estimates have shown 
no apparent trend since 1995 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2004). 
The Pacific Population (B. c. moffitti) nests from southern British 
Columbia southward and west of the Rockies in the States of Idaho, 
western Montana, Washington, Oregon, northern California, and 
northwestern Nevada (Krohn and Bizeau 1980; Ball et al. 1981). They are 
relatively nonmigratory and winter primarily in these same areas. 
Reliable survey estimates are not available.

Flyway Management Plans and Population Goals

    The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils are 
administrative bodies established to

[[Page 45966]]

cooperatively deliver migratory bird management under the flyway 
system. The Councils, which comprises representatives from each member 
State and Province, make recommendations to the Service on matters 
regarding migratory game birds. The Flyway Councils work with the 
Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service to manage populations of 
Canada geese that occur in their geographic areas. Since there are 
large numbers of resident Canada geese in each Flyway, the Councils 
developed and prepared cooperative Flyway management plans to address 
these populations and establish overall population goals and associated 
objectives/strategies. A common goal among the plans is the need to 
balance the positive aspects of resident Canada geese with the 
conflicts they can cause. While the Flyway Council system is 
cooperative in nature, the Service does not formally adopt Flyway 
management plans. However, because the Flyway Councils and States are 
the most knowledgeable sources regarding the establishment of goose 
population goals and objectives under their purview, we have attempted 
to incorporate the goals and objectives of the Flyways'' resident 
Canada goose management plans and their associated objectives into this 
rule. A more detailed discussion of the Flyway management plans, their 
specific goals and objectives, is contained in the EIS described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    As we stated earlier, the objective of this rule is to allow State 
wildlife management agencies, private and public landowners, and 
airports sufficient flexibility to deal with problems, conflicts, and 
damages caused by resident Canada geese and guide and direct resident 
Canada goose population growth and management activities in the 
conterminous United State when traditional and otherwise authorized 
management measures are unsuccessful in preventing injury to property, 
agricultural crops, public health, and other interests. The goal of the 
program established by this rule will contribute to human health and 
safety, protect personal property and agricultural crops, protect other 
interests from injury, and allow resolution or prevention of injury to 
people, property, agricultural crops, or other interests from resident 
Canada geese. Further, the program established by this rule is intended 
to be in accordance with the mission of the Service, effective, 
environmentally sound, cost-effective, and flexible enough to meet the 
variety of management needs found throughout the flyways and will not 
threaten viable resident Canada goose populations as determined by each 
Flyway Council and our obligations under the Act. Formulating such a 
national management strategy to reduce, manage, and control resident 
Canada goose populations in the continental United States and to reduce 
related damages, safety, and public health concerns was a complex 
problem, and Flyway input was essential for incorporating regional 
differences and solutions.
    As such, we note that the overall population objectives established 
by the Flyways were derived independently based on the States'' 
respective management needs and capabilities, and in some cases, these 
objectives were an approximation of population levels from an earlier 
time when problems were less severe. In other cases, population 
objective levels were calculated from what was professionally judged to 
be a more desirable or acceptable density of geese with respect to 
conflicts. We further note that these population sizes are only optimal 
in the sense that it was each Flyway's best attempt to balance the many 
competing considerations of both consumptive (i.e., hunters) and 
nonconsumptive (i.e., bird watchers) users and those suffering economic 
damage. As with any goal or objective, we believe that these population 
objectives should be periodically reviewed and/or revised in response 
to changes in resident Canada goose populations, damage levels, public 
input, or other factors. Current resident Canada goose population 
estimates and population objectives for each Flyway are shown in Table 
1. We note that over the most recent 3 years with complete estimates 
(2003-05), the total number of temperate-nesting Canada geese, or 
resident Canada geese, has averaged approximately 3.34 million in the 
United States and 1.37 million in Canada for a total spring population 
of 4.71 million (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data, 
2006). These estimates represent an increase in the average of 
approximately 150,000 geese in the United States (from 3.19 million) 
and 200,000 geese in Canada (from 1.17 million) from the 2000-02 
average of 4.36 million. In fact, over the last six years, we estimate 
that U.S. populations have increased at an annual growth rate of 1.14 
percent and Canada populations at 4.15 percent, resulting in an overall 
growth rate of 1.99 percent annually. The largest increases continue to 
be experienced in the States and Provinces of Atlantic Flyway, which 
increased from an average of 1.37 million for 2000-02 (1.15 million in 
the United States and 0.21 million in Canada) to 1.60 million for 2003-
05 (1.32 million in the United States and 0.28 million in Canada).

  Table 1.--Recent Resident Canada Goose Population Estimates (2003-05 Average) and Population Objectives on a
                                                  Flyway Basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current resident Canada goose population     Atlantic       Mississippi
                   \a\                        Flyway          Flyway        Central Flyway      Pacific Flyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States...........................       1,324,261       1,277,804             540,723             199,011
Canada..................................         284,422         225,571             452,578             413,743
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................       1,608,683       1,503,375             993,301             612,754
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Resident Canada goose population         Atlantic       Mississippi
                objective                   Flyway \b\        Flyway      Central Flyway \c\    Pacific Flyway
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States...........................         620,000         949,000     368,833-448,833   \d\ 54,840-90,900
Canada..................................          30,000         180,000  ..................   \d\ 35,750-56,250
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................         650,000       1,132,000  ..................  \d\ 90,590-147,150
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Moser and Caswell, 2004.
\b\ Atlantic Flyway Council Section 1999.
\c\ Only U.S. States provided population objectives (Gabig 2000).

[[Page 45967]]

 
\d\ Lower end of the Pacific Flyway population objective for the Pacific Population of Western Canada geese
  derived from ``Restriction Level'' and upper end derived from ``Liberalization Level'' as shown in Management
  Plan for the Pacific Population of Western Canada Geese (Subcommittee on Pacific Population of Western Canada
  Geese 2000). While the cited report refers to numbers of pairs, nests, and individual geese, the numbers shown
  here have been converted to numbers of individual geese.

Potential Causes of Population Growth and Past Attempts To Slow Growth

    The rapid rise of resident Canada goose populations has been 
attributed to a number of factors. Most resident Canada geese live in 
temperate climates with relatively stable breeding habitat conditions 
and low numbers of predators, tolerate human and other disturbances, 
have a relative abundance of preferred habitat (especially those 
located in urban/suburban areas with current landscaping techniques), 
and fly relatively short distances to winter compared with other Canada 
goose populations. This combination of factors contributes to 
consistently high annual production and survival. Further, the virtual 
absence of waterfowl hunting in urban areas provides additional 
protection to those urban portions of the resident Canada goose 
population. Given these characteristics, most resident Canada goose 
populations are continuing to increase in both rural and urban areas.
    In order to reduce injury from resident Canada geese, we have 
attempted to curb the growth of resident Canada goose populations by 
several means. Expansion of existing annual hunting season frameworks 
(special and regular seasons), the issuance of control permits on a 
case-by-case basis, and a Special Canada goose permit (see June 17, 
1999, Federal Register (64 FR 32766) for further information) have all 
been used with varying degrees of success. While these approaches have 
provided relief in some areas, they have not completely addressed the 
problem.
    Normally, complex Federal and State responsibilities are involved 
with Canada goose control activities. All control activities, except 
those intended to either scare geese out of, or preclude them from 
using, a specific area, such as harassment, habitat management, or 
repellants, require a Federal permit issued by the Service. 
Additionally, permits to alleviate migratory bird depredations are 
issued by the Service in coordination with the Wildlife Services 
program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (Wildlife Services). Wildlife Services is the 
Federal agency with lead responsibility for dealing with wildlife 
damage complaints. In most instances, State permits are required as 
well.

Conflicts and Impacts

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

Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action

    We fully analyzed the No Action alternative with regard to resident 
Canada goose management in our EIS, to which we refer the reader (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). In summary, we expect that resident 
Canada goose populations will continue to grow. Within 10 years, 
populations could approach 1.37 million in the Atlantic Flyway (using a 
population of around 1 million) and 1.8 million in the Mississippi 
Flyway. Within 5 years, populations could reach 1.07 million in the 
Central Flyway and 309,000 in the Pacific Flyway. Additionally, 
resident Canada goose problems and conflicts related to goose 
distribution are likely to continue and expand. Resident Canada geese 
will continue to impact public and private property, safety, and 
health, and impacts are likely to grow as goose populations increase. 
Lastly, both Federal and State workloads related to dealing with these 
increasing conflicts and populations will also increase.

Environmental Consequences of the Selected Action

    We fully analyzed our selected action in the EIS on resident Canada 
goose management, to which we refer the reader for specific details 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). In summary, under our preferred 
alternative, entitled ``Integrated Damage Management and Population 
Reduction,'' we expect a reduction in resident Canada goose 
populations, especially in problem areas. We also expect significant 
reductions in conflicts caused by resident Canada geese; decreased 
impacts to property, safety, and health; and increased hunting 
opportunities. We expect some initial State and

[[Page 45968]]

Federal workload increases associated with implementation of the 
management strategies; however, over the long term, we expect that 
workloads would decrease. Lastly, we expect our action to maintain 
viable resident Canada goose populations.

Final Resident Canada Goose Regulations

    Recently completed resident Canada goose modeling in Missouri 
(Coluccy 2000; Coluccy and Graber 2000), when extrapolated to the 
entire Mississippi Flyway, indicates that stabilization of the 
Mississippi Flyway's resident population at the current 1,582,200 geese 
would require one of several management actions: (1) The harvest of an 
additional 273,642 geese annually over that already occurring; (2) the 
take of 541,624 goslings per year; (3) a Flyway-wide nest removal of 
338,630 nests annually; or (4) a combination of harvesting an 
additional 153,702 geese annually and the take of 203,719 goslings per 
year. Each of these management alternatives would be required annually 
for 10 years to overcome the current growth rates and stabilize the 
Flyway's population. Similar type numbers would be expected in the 
Atlantic and Central Flyway, while numbers would be correspondingly 
much smaller in the Pacific Flyway.
    Thus, to merely stabilize the four Flyways' resident populations at 
the current level of approximately 3.68 million would require, at a 
minimum for the next 10 years, either the harvest of an additional 
636,000 geese annually, the take of 1,258,000 goslings per year, a 
nation-wide nest removal of 787,000 nests annually, or a combination of 
the harvest of an additional 357,000 geese annually and the take of 
473,000 goslings per year. While we realize that these numbers seem 
insurmountable and are simple extrapolations of one State-specific 
model (Missouri), we believe they are reliable enough to illustrate our 
point: The only way to possibly reduce injuries currently being caused 
by overabundant resident Canada geese is to utilize the abilities of 
airports, military airfields, private landowners, public land managers, 
agricultural producers, State wildlife agencies, and hunters and 
authorize them to address the problems and conflicts caused by resident 
Canada goose populations and to ultimately reduce populations. By 
addressing conflicts and population reductions on a wide number of 
available fronts, we believe the combination of various damage 
management strategies and population control strategies could 
successfully reduce numbers of resident Canada geese in specific 
problem areas and reduce or stabilize growth rates on a wider 
population-level scale. Since the States are the most informed and 
knowledgeable local authorities on wildlife conflicts in their 
respective States, we believe it is logical and proper to authorize 
them particularly to take adult resident Canada geese that they 
determine are responsible for injuries.
    To give States the needed flexibility to address the problems 
caused by resident Canada geese, this rule would establish regulations 
consisting of three main program components. The first component would 
consist of four specific control and depredation orders (Airports, 
Nests and Eggs, Agricultural, and Public Health) designed to address 
resident Canada goose depredation, damage, and conflict management. 
These actions could be conducted by the appropriate State wildlife 
agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or other official agent (such as 
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services), or in some 
cases, landowners and airport managers. The control and depredation 
orders would be for resident Canada goose populations only and, as 
such, could only be implemented between April 1 and August 31, except 
for the take of nests and eggs which could be implemented in March.
    The second component would provide expanded hunting methods and 
opportunities to increase the sport harvest of resident Canada geese 
above that which results from existing September special Canada goose 
seasons. This component would provide new regulatory options to State 
wildlife management agencies and Tribal entities by authorizing the use 
of additional hunting methods such as electronic calls, unplugged 
shotguns, and expanded shooting hours (one-half hour after sunset) 
during existing, operational September Canada goose seasons (i.e., 
September 1-15). Utilization of these additional hunting methods during 
any new special seasons or other existing, operational special seasons 
(i.e., September 15-30) could be approved by the Service and would 
require demonstration of a minimal impact to migrant Canada goose 
populations. These seasons would be authorized on a case-by-case basis 
through the normal migratory bird hunting regulatory process. All of 
these expanded hunting methods and opportunities under Special Canada 
goose hunting seasons would be in accordance with the existing 
Migratory Bird Treaty frameworks for sport hunting seasons (i.e., 107-
day limit from September 1 to March 10) and would be conducted outside 
of any other open waterfowl season (i.e., when all other waterfowl and 
crane hunting seasons were closed).
    The third component would authorize the Director to implement a 
resident Canada goose population control program, or management take 
(defined as a special management action that is needed to reduce 
certain wildlife populations when traditional and otherwise authorized 
management measures are unsuccessful, not feasible for dealing with, or 
applicable, in preventing injury to property, agricultural crops, 
public health, and other interests from resident Canada geese). 
Following the conclusion of the first full operational year of this 
rule, any wildlife agency from a State or Tribe in the Atlantic, 
Mississippi, and Central Flyway could request approval for this 
population control program. A request must include a discussion of the 
State's or Tribe's efforts to address its injurious situations 
utilizing the methods approved in this rule or a discussion of the 
reasons why the methods authorized by these rules are not feasible for 
dealing with, or applicable to, the injurious situations that require 
further action. Discussions should be detailed and provide the Service 
with a clear understanding of the injuries that continue, why the 
authorized methods utilized have not worked, and why methods not 
utilized could not effectuate resolution of the injuries. We note that 
a State's request for approval may be for an area or areas smaller than 
the entire State. Following receipt and review of the State's request, 
the Director may or may not authorize implementation of a managed take 
program in the State in question.
    Management take would enable States and Tribes to use hunters to 
harvest resident Canada geese, by way of shooting in a hunting manner, 
during the August 1 through August 31 period. The intent of the program 
is to reduce resident Canada goose populations in order to protect 
personal property and agricultural crops, protect other interests from 
injury, resolve or prevent injury to people, property, agricultural 
crops, or other interests from resident Canada geese, and contribute to 
potential concerns about human health when all other methods fail to 
address, or are not feasible for dealing with, or applicable to, the 
injuries caused by resident Canada geese. States and Tribes would be 
required to designate participants operating under the conditions of 
the management take program and keep annual records of

[[Page 45969]]

activities carried out under the authority of the program. 
Additionally, participating States and Tribes would be required to 
monitor the spring breeding population by providing an annual estimate 
of the breeding population and distribution of resident Canada geese in 
their State in order to assess population status.
    We would annually assess the overall impact and effectiveness of 
the management take program on resident Canada goose populations to 
ensure compatibility with long-term conservation of the resource and 
its effect on injuries from resident Canada geese. If at any time 
evidence is presented that clearly demonstrates that a resident Canada 
goose population no longer needs to be reduced in order to allow 
resolution or prevention of injury to people, property, agricultural 
crops, or other interests, we would suspend the program for the 
resident Canada goose population in question. However, resumption of 
injuries caused by growth of the population in question and not 
otherwise addressable by the methods in this rule could warrant 
reinstatement of the program to control the population. Depending on 
the location of the injury or threat of injury, it is possible that a 
management take program could be in effect for one or more resident 
Canada goose populations, but not others.
    Overall, the management take component, the expanded hunting 
methods and opportunities component, and the agricultural depredation 
order would be restricted to the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, 
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 
Wyoming. Only State wildlife agencies and Tribal entities in these 
States could authorize the use of these components for resident Canada 
geese in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of 
these States.
    In addition to the three main new components, we would continue the 
use of special and regular hunting seasons, issued under 50 CFR part 
20, and the issuance of depredation permits and special Canada goose 
permits, issued under 50 CFR 21.41 and 21.26, respectively.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

Administration and Organization of Proposed Action

    To better relate the goals and objectives of the overall program, 
we separated the program into two main areas: depredation/damage/
conflict management and population reduction/control. The depredation/
damage/conflict management objective is addressed through the various 
specific depredation orders. The population reduction/control objective 
is addressed through the other two main components of the program: the 
increased hunting methods and opportunities and the managed take 
component. We believe this reorganization makes the entire program 
better understood and administratively better organized.
    Further, we have clarified that the third component of the program, 
the management take component, is intended as a method to address 
injury from resident Canada geese when other methods have failed to do 
so (see further discussion below under Population Control/Reduction 
Components).

Airport Control Order

    We have removed the Airport Control Order from under the State's 
direct control for implementation and made it a stand-alone control 
order, i.e., under our direct control and supervision. The State would 
continue to have the legal ability to impose either further State 
restrictions on the program if they so wish or decline participation of 
airports in their State. As with all Federal regulations, the State may 
always be more restrictive. We believe the issues surrounding public 
safety at airports and military airfields warrant this administrative 
change. The State will not have to expend resources monitoring and 
administrating this element of the program and the change further sets 
the stage for either adding additional species to the control order 
(should they be warranted) or doing an airport control order that 
encompasses all migratory bird species.
    Second, we have added military airfields to the Airport Control 
Order. Military airfields are a significant component of the Nation's 
overall air traffic and warrant inclusion in any resident Canada goose 
airport control program.

Nests and Egg Depredation Order

    Similar to the Airport Control Order, we have removed the Nest and 
Egg Depredation Order from under the State's direct control for 
implementation and made it a stand-alone depredation order, i.e., under 
our direct control and supervision. The State would continue to have 
the legal ability to impose either further State restrictions on the 
program if they so wish or decline participation of private landowners 
and public land managers in their State. As with all Federal 
regulations, the State may always be more restrictive. We believe the 
large number of existing nest and egg permits, the minimal amount of 
environmental review currently being conducted, and the potential 
increased burden of placing the administration of this program with the 
State warrant this administrative change. The State will not have to 
expend resources reviewing, monitoring, and administrating this element 
of the program. Since significant numbers of comments both from the 
States and numerous nongovernmental organizations centered on the 
States having to assume control of this issue and possibly issue 
permits, our decision to make it a stand-alone depredation order under 
our direct control should alleviate those concerns.

Public Health Control Order

    Under the proposed Public Health Control Order, the authority to 
conduct management and control activities was entrusted with the State, 
County, municipal, or local public health agency if the State decided 
to implement the Public Health Control Order component. We realize that 
most authorized management activities would not be conducted by the 
public health agency but would likely be conducted by the State 
wildlife agency, Wildlife Services, or a private contractor. We have 
removed the public health agency as the primary implementing entity and 
have identified the State wildlife agency (or their agent) as the 
implementing entity as long as the State, County, or local health 
agency recommends management action.
    Further, resident Canada geese eligible for management actions must 
pose a direct threat to human health. A direct threat to human health 
is defined as one where a Federal, State, or local public health agency 
has determined that resident Canada geese pose a specific, immediate 
human health threat because of conditions conducive to the transmission 
of human or zoonotic pathogens. Situations where resident Canada geese 
are merely causing a nuisance would not be eligible.

Population Control/Reduction Components

    With the administrative reorganization of the overall program, the 
changes made to the control and depredation orders, and our

[[Page 45970]]

reevaluation of the existing Special Canada Goose Permit (50 CFR 
21.26), we have eliminated the State agency population control 
component within the proposed rule. Our reason in doing so was our 
belief that this component, outside of the management take component, 
was largely duplicative of already authorized management activities 
contained in the existing Special Canada Goose Permit.
    Currently 18 States are operating under the Special Canada Goose 
Permit (Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, 
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wyoming). The number of States 
operating under this permit has grown steadily since its inception in 
1999. As recently as 2000, only five States were operating under the 
special permit (Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and South Dakota) 
with no States in the Atlantic Flyway. The increased use of this 
permit, along with the some of the overlapping aspects of the Special 
Canada Goose Permit with our proposed rule's State population control 
component, confirm our belief that this component should be eliminated.
    We have, however, retained the management take component with some 
modification and clarification as to when it takes effect or is 
implemented. Based on comments we received, there were some questions 
as to when this component could be implemented. The management take 
component is intended as a method to address injury from resident 
Canada geese only when other methods have failed to do so. Under this 
component as modified, the Director, after finding that traditional and 
otherwise authorized management measures are unsuccessful, not feasible 
for dealing with, or applicable, in preventing injury to property, 
agricultural crops, public health, and other interests from resident 
Canada geese may authorize States and Tribes to implement a managed 
take program to remedy these injuries by issuance of an Order. While 
the management take component is dependent on implementation and 
regulation by the State or Tribe, it is not solely a State-conducted 
management activity, like the State population control component was in 
the proposed rule. Further, the management take component remains 
dependent on State surveys and will be the first component to be 
eliminated once the population reaches a level that its use is no 
longer necessary to reduce injuries. We continue to believe that if a 
State desires to address injuries via management take, it should be 
incumbent on them to provide additional population status information 
since this component is a more broad-based management action.

Pacific Flyway

    We have dropped participation and applicability of States in the 
Pacific Flyway from some program components in the final rule. The 
Pacific Flyway Council and Pacific Flyway States have consistently 
commented that they do not wish to participate in any new regulations 
and that they do not have the same resident Canada goose problems that 
the rest of the country, in particular the eastern and Great Lakes 
regions of the United States, currently is experiencing. From a 
population status information standpoint, evidence warranting inclusion 
in the proposed alternative was somewhat ambiguous in the Pacific 
Flyway, other than specific localized instances. The Pacific Flyway 
generally lacks good resident goose breeding and population surveys, 
numbers of geese are not as significant as other parts of the country, 
and the problems/issues/conflicts are more isolated and localized. 
Thus, we have dropped the States of the Pacific Flyway from all 
components except the Nest and Egg Depredation Order, the Public Health 
Control Order, and the Airport Control Order. Based on comments and our 
analysis, we believe the agricultural depredation issue in the Pacific 
Flyway is primarily a migrant Canada goose issue, not a resident Canada 
goose issue.

Management Take in September

    In the proposed rule, we had proposed the use of management take 
during the first 15 days of September. We have eliminated that 
provision in this final rule. Traditionally, we have used special 
Canada goose seasons in September to target resident goose populations 
and address some of the conflicts and problems caused by overabundant 
resident Canada geese. The primary issue with extending a management 
take type action into September is that we know some migrant geese in 
some areas will be taken. In particular, areas in the upper midwest 
(Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, and 
Montana) would have some level of migrant geese taken. Our information 
is based on studies these States conducted on their existing September 
special Canada goose seasons. However, we note that all areas in 
question fall within the existing special September Canada goose season 
criteria of less than 10 percent migrant geese. Since the management 
take component, as is the entire scope of the rule, is specifically 
directed at resident Canada geese, we cannot reliably extend this 
component into September.

Tribal Entities

    Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed 
guidelines to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations 
on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) 
and ceded lands. These guidelines were developed in response to tribal 
requests for recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for some 
tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both 
tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. The 
guidelines apply to those Tribes having recognized reserved hunting 
rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust 
lands) and on ceded lands. They also apply to establishing migratory 
bird hunting regulations for nontribal members on all lands within the 
exterior boundaries of reservations where Tribes have full wildlife 
management authority over such hunting or where the Tribes and affected 
States otherwise have reached agreement over hunting by nontribal 
members on lands owned by non-Indians within the reservation. Because 
of the ongoing relationship we enjoy with the participating tribes 
(approximately 30 annually), and their full wildlife management 
authority on tribal lands, we have decided to include their 
participation in several of the program components. More specifically, 
tribal eligibility under the specific depredation and control orders 
and the management take component is included in this rule. Currently, 
there are approximately 13 tribes participating in the Atlantic, 
Mississippi, and Central Flyways.

References

    A complete list of citation references is available upon request 
from the Division of Migratory Bird Management (see ADDRESSES).

Public Comments and Responses to Significant Comments

    On March 1, 2002 (67 FR 9448), the Environmental Protection Agency 
published a Notice of Availability of our DEIS. On March 7, 2002 (67 FR 
10431), we published our own Notice of Availability of the DEIS. We 
published a Notice of Meetings on the DEIS on March 26, 2002 (67 FR 
13792). Initial comments were accepted until May 30, 2002. We 
subsequently published another Notice of Availability reopening the 
comment period on August 21, 2003 (68 FR 50546). Also on August 21, 
2003,

[[Page 45971]]

we published a proposed rule regarding control and management of 
resident Canada goose populations (68 FR 50496). Comments were accepted 
on both the DEIS and the proposed rule until October 20, 2003.
    We received public comments on the DEIS from 2,657 private 
individuals, 33 State wildlife resource agencies, 37 nongovernmental 
organizations, 29 local governments, 5 Federal or State legislators, 4 
Flyway Councils, 4 Federal agencies, 3 tribes, 3 businesses, and 2 
State agricultural agencies. Of the 2,657 comments received from 
private individuals, 56 percent opposed the preferred alternative and 
supported only nonlethal control and management alternatives, while 40 
percent supported either the proposed alternative or a general 
depredation order.
    We received 2,973 public comments on the proposed rule from 2,925 
private individuals, 17 State wildlife resource agencies, 15 
nongovernmental organizations, 4 Flyway Councils, 1 Federal agency, 8 
agricultural interests, and 3 others. Of the 2,925 comments received 
from private individuals, 95 percent supported the use of nonlethal 
control and management alternatives. Sixty-eight percent supported the 
use of lethal methods where nonlethal methods have failed or where 
``true'' human safety threats exist. Most of the comments from 
individuals were either submitted via email or computer-generated form 
letters.
    We considered all comments. Below, we provide our responses to 
comments on the proposed rule. Further, because of the highly 
interrelated public processes with the DEIS, FEIS, and the proposed 
rule, as an aid to the reader, we have in large part replicated 
comments we received on the DEIS and our responses contained in the 
November 2005 FEIS. In some instances to avoid duplicative answers, we 
refer the reader to previous responses.

Comments on the DEIS

(1) Why didn't the Service select Alternative A (No Action) as the 
preferred alternative/proposed action?
    In recent years, it has become clear from public and professional 
feedback that the status quo is not adequately resolving resident 
Canada goose conflicts for many stakeholders or reducing the 
population. Furthermore, our environmental analysis indicated that 
growth rates were more likely to be reduced and conflicts were more 
likely to be resolved under other options than under Alternative A.
(2) Why didn't the Service select Alternative B (nonlethal control and 
management) as the preferred alternative/proposed action?
    In the wildlife management field, the control of birds through the 
use of humane, but lethal, techniques can be an effective means of 
alleviating resource damages, preventing further damages, and/or 
enhancing nonlethal techniques. It would be unrealistic and overly 
restrictive to limit a resource manager's damage management methods to 
nonlethal techniques, even if ``nonlethal'' included nest destruction 
and/or egg oiling. Lethal control techniques are an important, and in 
many cases necessary, part of a resource manager's toolbox. Further, in 
this instance, our analysis indicates that the use of only non-lethal 
control and management techniques would not result in reaching our 
overall objectives.
(3) Why didn't the Service select Alternative C (nonlethal control and 
management with permitted activities) as the preferred alternative/
proposed action?
    Our analysis indicated that under Alternative C population growth 
would continue and be more pronounced than under the No Action 
alternative. Further, our analysis indicated no real appreciable 
advantage of this alternative over Alternative B (nonlethal control and 
management) other than the permitted take of nests and eggs.
(4) Why didn't the Service select Alternative D (expanded hunting 
methods and opportunities) as the preferred alternative/proposed 
action?
    We did select Alternative D, only we combined the components of 
Alternative D with other components into our selected Alternative F. 
Selecting only Alternative D would not have resulted in meeting our 
overall objectives.
(5) Why didn't the Service select Alternative E (control and 
depredation order management) as the preferred alternative/proposed 
action?
    We did select Alternative E, only we combined the components of 
Alternative E with other components into our proposed Alternative F. 
Selecting only Alternative E would not have resulted in meeting our 
overall objectives.
(6) Why didn't the Service select Alternative G (general depredation 
order) as the preferred alternative/proposed action?
    Environmentally, the impacts under Alternative G were similar to 
those under our selected alternative, Alternative F. However, 
practically and administratively the impacts are much different. Under 
Alternative G, the State would not be a primary decision maker 
regarding resident Canada goose management in their State, unless they 
decided on their own to become involved. We continue to believe that 
this alternative would not be in the best interest of either the 
resource or the affected entities. Management of resident Canada geese 
should be a cooperative effort on the part of Federal, State, and local 
entities, especially those decisions involving the potential take of 
adult geese. These decisions, regardless of population status, should 
not be taken lightly. Further, these actions warrant adequate oversight 
and monitoring from all levels to ensure the long-term conservation of 
the resource. To do otherwise, we believe, would be an abrogation of 
our and the State's responsibility.
(7) In the DEIS, did the Service consider a range of reasonable 
alternatives?
    Yes. We selected the seven alternatives in the DEIS based on the 
public scoping period and NEPA requirements. The alternatives 
adequately reflected the range of public comments and represented what 
we considered to be all reasonable alternatives. Alternatives we 
considered but eliminated from analysis are discussed in the EIS. 
Comments received during scoping are discussed in ``Scoping/Public 
Participation Report for Environmental Impact Statement on Resident 
Canada Goose Management'' (Appendix 8 of the FEIS).
(8) Why didn't the Service more fully consider the option of removing 
resident Canada geese from the list of birds protected under the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act?
    In our view, this is not a ``reasonable alternative.'' Canada geese 
have been protected under the MBTA since the original treaty was signed 
with Canada in 1916. Seeking to remove resident Canada geese from MBTA 
protection would not only be contrary to the intent and purpose of the 
original treaties, but would require amendment of the original 
treaties--a lengthy process requiring approval of the U.S. Senate and 
President and subsequent amendments to each treaty by each signatory 
nation. At this time, there appears to be adequate leeway for managing 
resident Canada goose conflicts within the context of their MBTA 
protection, retaining MBTA protection for this component of the overall 
population. We believe this

[[Page 45972]]

approach is neither practical nor in the best interest of the migratory 
bird resource.
(9) Why doesn't the Service just allow resident Canada goose 
populations to regulate themselves?
    Available information indicates that goose populations would 
continue to grow in most areas until they reach, or exceed, the 
carrying capacity of the environment. Further, given the relative 
abundance and stability of breeding habitat conditions, the birds' 
tolerance of human disturbance, their ability to utilize a wide range 
of habitats, and their willingness to nest in close proximity to other 
goose pairs, we believe it likely that resident Canada geese will 
remain significantly below their carrying capacity. While we generally 
agree that, at some future point, it is possible that density-dependent 
regulation of the population would occur, the timing, likelihood, and 
scale of a population decline of this nature is unpredictable. Thus, 
conflicts are likely not only to continue, but increase, under the No 
Action alternative. Therefore, because the injuries form geese in an 
ever-expanding population would increase in occurrence, we do not 
believe that we, the States, the affected parties, or the general 
public, can afford to allow resident Canada goose populations to 
regulate themselves.
(10) Doesn't the selected alternative violate the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act by abrogating the Federal role in managing migratory birds?
    No, it is an exercise of the authority of the MBTA. First of all, 
Alternative F (the preferred alternative) by no means puts an end to 
the Federal role in migratory bird management. The conservation of 
migratory bird populations is and will remain the Service's 
responsibility. Second, while the MBTA gives the Federal Government (as 
opposed to individual States) the chief responsibility for ensuring the 
conservation of migratory birds, this role does not preclude State 
involvement in management efforts. Bean (1983) described the Federal/
State relationship as such:

    It is clear that the Constitution, in its treaty, property, and 
commerce clauses, contains ample support for the development of a 
comprehensive body of federal wildlife law and that, to the extent 
such law conflicts with state law, it takes precedence over the 
latter. That narrow conclusion, however, does not automatically 
divest the states of any role in the regulation of wildlife or imply 
any preference for a particular allocation of responsibilities 
between the states and the federal government. It does affirm, 
however, that such an allocation can be designed without serious 
fear of constitutional hindrance. In designing such a system, for 
reasons of policy, pragmatism, and political comity, it is clear 
that the states will continue to play an important role either as a 
result of federal forbearance or through the creation of 
opportunities to share in the implementation of federal wildlife 
programs.

    Nowhere in the MBTA is the implementation of migratory bird 
management activities limited to the Federal Government. In fact, the 
statute specifically gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority 
to determine when take of migratory birds may be allowed and to adopt 
regulations for this purpose. In accordance with the Act, we are 
adopting regulations that are compatible with the applicable 
Conventions (Treaty).
(11) Is the level of analysis conducted in the DEIS sufficient 
according to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act? 
Did the Service properly evaluate the environmental impacts of the 
selected action?
    Yes on both counts. The analysis included, as required by NEPA, a 
discussion of the environmental impacts associated with the various 
alternatives, unavoidable adverse environmental effects associated with 
the selected action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-
term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 
resources associated with the selected action. New information since 
publication of the DEIS was used to augment the discussion in the FEIS.
(12) In violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, has the 
Service ``failed to justify the purpose and need for action''?
    No. NEPA does not require ``justification,'' but instead requires 
that the purpose and need for the action be identified. As stated in 43 
CFR 1502.1, the purpose of an EIS is ``to serve as an action-forcing 
device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the Act are 
infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal 
Government.'' We are confident that we fulfilled this purpose in the 
DEIS and FEIS.
(13) Did the Service fail to disclose or evaluate the environmental 
impacts of the selected action on threatened or endangered species?
    No. In the DEIS, the Service listed species that ``may be 
affected'' by resident Canada goose management as a precursor to its 
completion of the Section 7 consultation. The consultation evaluated 
any impacts on listed species and was completed for the FEIS.
(14) Isn't the selected alternative essentially an ``unfunded mandate'' 
for the States?
    No. The selected alternative is not a requirement being forced upon 
the States (or any other agency) by the Federal Government. The 
decision ultimately lies with individual States to choose whether or 
not to act under the authorizations in the regulations. It will be up 
to them to decide whether resident Canada goose control and population 
reduction is a high enough priority within their budget allocation 
processes.
(15) Were public comments fairly and completely considered?
    Yes. As documented in the public scoping report, all comments, 
written and verbal, received during the scoping period were fully 
considered in determining the scope of issues and the range of 
alternatives addressed in the DEIS. We also full considered all the 
comments received on the DEIS and responded to them in the FEIS.
(16) Is there sufficient evidence to justify the selected action?
    What constitutes ``sufficient'' evidence to justify resident Canada 
goose control is, to a certain extent, a question of values. Among all 
stakeholders concerned with resident Canada goose management, we can 
safely say that there is considerable disagreement over whether or not 
the selected action is justified (with many even arguing that the 
selected action does not go far enough). The Service and Wildlife 
Services, as the lead and cooperating agencies in the EIS process, 
jointly agree that we have sufficient evidence to justify the selected 
action of impacts from goose/human conflicts and the probability that 
these impacts would continue to increase.
(17) Will the Service remain the lead agency in overseeing resident 
Canada goose control and management efforts?
    Certainly. We fully understand the necessity and legal obligation 
to retain national control of resident Canada goose populations and, 
therefore, of any resident Canada goose management program, especially 
one that authorizes States, other agencies, and public and private 
entities to conduct control activities without a Federal permit. While 
the selected alternative gives States and other entities more authority 
to decide when to conduct resident Canada goose control, we will retain 
our oversight role in order to keep track of

[[Page 45973]]

resident Canada goose management activities, their effectiveness, and 
their continuing need in light of Canada goose population management 
from a national perspective. The selected alternative is by no means 
intended to inhibit regional or national coordination of resident 
Canada goose management activities.
(18) Will the Service provide funding to agencies that carry out 
resident Canada goose management under the selected alternative?
    We currently have no plans to fund other agencies or entities. 
However, in our Congressional budget request, we have asked for 
increased financial resources to implement the selected action. This 
figure specifically includes money that could be used in cooperative 
efforts with States and other agencies to conduct resident Canada goose 
management, research, and monitoring.
(19) How will the Service ensure that resident Canada goose populations 
remain healthy and sustainable?
    There are a number of methods that, collectively, the Service can 
use to keep track of the status of resident Canada goose populations. 
Population monitoring is the best means for understanding changes in a 
species population over time. Along with the various State wildlife 
agencies and the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Service annually 
monitors resident Canada goose populations. In addition, the Service 
will be able to estimate both take and harvest, via reporting 
requirements, and will keep track of how many resident Canada geese are 
taken under authority of the various control and depredation orders. We 
will also continue to support and be involved in research efforts. The 
Service will use the information it develops and receives to make 
decisions regarding the need to make changes to the take 
authorizations.
(20) Will the Service provide more detail in the FEIS on monitoring and 
population survey requirements? Will the Service establish guidelines 
for agencies to use in population monitoring?
    No, because we do not believe that this level of detail is 
necessary. While we understand the importance of uniformity in data 
collection, we have to consider other factors as well. We want agencies 
to monitor populations and adequately report results from management 
actions on resident Canada geese, but we don't want the requirements to 
do so to be cost prohibitive or burdensome. They only need to be 
sufficient to allow us to conduct proper oversight. In addition, 
because resident Canada geese are a game species, the Service and the 
States already have in place annual monitoring programs (in particular, 
nationwide harvest monitoring and widespread population monitoring) 
that provide both a historical data base as well as future annual data.
(21) What does the Service plan to do to educate the public about 
resident Canada geese?
    We have prepared fact sheets for public distribution. Information 
about resident Canada geese is available at our Web site http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues. Our intention is to distribute fact 
sheets on the various control and depredation orders and the other 
components of the selected alternative in the near future.
(22) Will agencies or other entities acting under the various control 
and depredation orders in the selected alternative be authorized to 
designate agents?
    Yes, as long as the ``agents'' abide by the purpose, terms, and 
conditions of the order.
(23) Will State oversight be preserved under the selected alternative?
    Yes, in addition to complying with the Federal rules, any agency or 
agent acting under the selected alternative must follow all applicable 
State laws. For example, if a State permit is required to authorize a 
particular control activity, such permit must be obtained before that 
activity can be conducted.
(24) Will the Service more clearly describe allowable control 
activities in the FEIS/final rule?
    Yes. Management activities authorized under the selected action are 
clearly stated in this rule.
(25) Will the Service clarify the procedures by which an agency's or 
other entity's authority to act under the selected alternative would be 
revoked?
    Yes, this rule reflects this clarification.
(26) Is the selected action the most cost effective management 
alternative?
    In selecting the preferred alternative, we based our decision on 
many considerations, only one of which was cost effectiveness. However, 
this is a cost-effective alternative, although probably not 
significantly more or less so than other alternatives.
(27) How can the Service be sure that increased control under the 
selected action will result in alleviation of conflicts?
    No one can predict with 100 percent accuracy that the selected 
action will alleviate all conflicts; indeed, we don't expect the 
selected action to alleviate all conflicts. Our analysis indicates that 
the selected action is highly likely to alleviate many of the impacts 
associated with resident Canada geese, especially over the long-term.
(28) How will the Service keep track of geese killed under the selected 
alternative?
    Recording and reporting requirements are directly tied to the 
various control and depredation order components and the other 
components of the selected action. The Service will prepare reports on 
a regular basis summarizing activities under the selected alternative.
(29) Does the Service have the resources to properly implement the 
selected action?
    The selected action is not particularly resource intensive as far 
as the Service itself is concerned. We anticipate that current staff in 
the migratory bird program will be able to handle the activities 
associated with the selected action.
(30) Has the Service based its management decisions on scientific 
evidence? Does the selected action have a sound scientific foundation?
    Yes. We believe that we have sufficient biological and economic 
evidence regarding the injuries caused by resident Canada geese to 
support this method of addressing the problem and to support this 
action.
(31) Is the Service authorizing greater control just to appease public 
outcry?
    No, we are authorizing greater control to try to minimize resident 
Canada goose conflicts, prevent injury, and address their impacts more 
effectively, to reduce population growth rates and populations, and to 
allow other agencies and entities more flexibility in dealing with 
goose conflicts.
(32) Is it right to kill birds that may have come to be a problem due 
to human activities (e.g., destruction of habitat, reintroduction of 
species, current habitat management practices, etc.)?
    Right or wrong, in this case, appears to be a matter of 
perspective. Attitudes about the ethics of wildlife damage management, 
however, vary widely, often depending on the individual's proximity to 
the problem. Our role is to

[[Page 45974]]

address injuries caused by geese while ensuring that resident Canada 
goose populations remain healthy.
(33) Is the role of Wildlife Services as a ``cooperating agency'' 
appropriate?
    Yes. As explained in the FEIS, Wildlife Services plays an important 
role in the management of resident Canada goose damages, especially to 
agricultural resources, airports and military airfields, and suburban/
urban areas. The Council on Environmental Quality NEPA guidelines state 
that ``any other Federal agency which has special expertise with 
respect to any environmental issue may be a cooperating agency.''
(34) Isn't the selected action merely an attempt on the part of the 
Service to ``pass the buck'' of resident Canada goose management on to 
the States?
    No. As we were considering options for addressing resident Canada 
goose injuries and population management more effectively, it became 
clear that, since many conflicts tend to be localized in nature, a 
sensible and flexible solution was to authorize local agencies more 
authority to take action to control resident Canada geese when 
circumstances warrant it. States are major contributors to the 
conservation of American fish and wildlife resources. Further, in this 
final rule, in large response to comments from State agencies, we have 
lessened the impact of the selected alternative on the States by 
removing the airport and nest and egg control and depredation orders 
from their responsibility and by removing the Pacific Flyway States 
from the agricultural depredation order, the expanded hunting methods 
component, and the management take component of the proposed 
alternative.
(35) By controlling resident Canada geese, isn't the Service dealing 
with a symptom rather than the underlying causes?
    Numerous deterrents, including both legal and logistical, prevent 
us from changing the entire American landscape to make it less 
desirable for resident Canada geese. We do acknowledge that controlling 
resident geese while their environmental needs (e.g., food and habitat) 
remain abundant might be seen by some as being a ``bandage'' approach. 
However, we are also implementing other program components designed to 
reduce resident Canada goose populations on a larger scale in addition 
to focusing on the alleviation of local damages.
(36) Isn't it archaic to allow the killing of a species simply because 
certain people find it to be a nuisance?
    We allow killing of resident Canada geese only when they are 
associated with a specific problem, not because they are considered a 
pest or a nuisance.
(37) Isn't the real problem here humans and, therefore, it is people 
who are in need of ``management,'' not resident Canada geese?
    The answer depends on what exactly is meant by ``people 
management.'' Certainly, among the broad range of stakeholders, there 
is a need to promote a better understanding of the biological and 
sociological complexities associated with resident Canada goose 
management.
(38) Resident Canada goose population reduction is necessary.
    We agree. Current populations, especially in the Atlantic and 
Mississippi Flyways, are well above Flyway-established population goals 
and continue to grow. While we acknowledge that growth rates have 
subsided in recent years, total population numbers are such that 
conflicts and injuries continue to occur and show little likelihood of 
lessening on their own accord.
(39) States should not be given authority to manage resident Canada 
geese.
    We disagree. The Service is authorizing States and other affected 
publics to take geese in certain circumstances but retains the 
authority and management responsibility. Certainly, States, because of 
their intimate knowledge of local conflicts, issues, and problems, are 
the logical choice to make specific, local-based decisions on resident 
Canada goose management activities within the requirements and 
limitations in the regulation. The Service will maintain primary 
authority over nests and egg removal activities and airport activities 
and will maintain oversight authority on all other activities that 
participating States decide to implement.
(40) Reducing goose populations is not the same as reducing damages.
    We agree, and we have attempted to address the overall problem on 
several fronts. The selected alternative addresses the depredation/
damage/conflict management issue through the first component of the 
alternative--the various control and depredation orders contained in 
Alternative E--Control and Depredation Order Management. The population 
reduction/control objective is addressed through the other two main 
components of the alternative to justify the selected action: the 
increased hunting methods available in Alternative D and the management 
take component. In concert, we believe that the various components will 
serve both objectives.
(41) The Flyway Council's population objectives are arbitrary.
    We disagree. The Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils are administrative units for migratory bird management in the 
flyway system and comprise representatives from member States and 
Provinces. The Flyway Councils work cooperatively with the Service and 
the Canadian Wildlife Service to manage populations of Canada geese 
that occur in their geographic areas. As such, it should be remembered 
that the overall population objectives established by the Flyways were 
derived independently based on the States' respective management needs 
and capabilities, and in some cases, their objectives are an 
approximation of population levels from an earlier time when problems 
were less severe. In other cases, objectives are calculated from what 
is professionally judged to be a more desirable or acceptable density 
of geese. We further note that these population sizes are only optimal 
in the sense that it is each Flyway's best attempt to balance the many 
competing considerations of both consumptive (i.e., hunters) and 
nonconsumptive (i.e., bird watchers) users and those suffering 
injuries. However, a commonality among the various plans' goals is the 
need to balance the positive aspects of resident Canada geese with the 
injuries they can cause. Thus, we have incorporated Flyway population 
objectives into the FEIS to help define our objectives for acceptable 
management measures.
(42) The Service should develop a more integrated, community-based, 
scientifically sound approach to managing goose problems.
    We believe that our selected alternative is integrated (three main 
components), community-based (local-based decision in large part), and 
scientifically sound (preponderance of available evidence).
(43) Goose conflicts are primarily an aesthetic concern.
    We disagree. To those agricultural producers experiencing 
depredation from resident Canada geese and those airports experiencing 
goose-aircraft strikes, the injuries are very real and substantial. 
Further, in those areas where excessive numbers of geese have

[[Page 45975]]

caused substantial economic damages, the injuries are very real. 
Lastly, in those areas where the public has substantial concerns over 
potential health threats, the injuries are real. While we recognize 
that many people do not experience any impacts from resident Canada 
geese, substantial numbers of people and other entities are 
experiencing very real problems.
(44) Using human health as an excuse to kill geese is unsubstantiated.
    Although the human health and safety risks associated with resident 
Canada geese are controversial and difficult to quantify, we believe 
that available data clearly indicates the raised level of public 
concern and the potential health issues associated with resident Canada 
geese.
    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. There is a general perception 
among the public and a concern among resource management personnel that 
resident Canada geese do have the ability to transmit diseases to 
humans, but a direct link is difficult to establish due to the expense 
of testing and the difficulty of tracing the disease back to Canada 
geese. Studies have confirmed the presence of human pathogens in goose 
feces, so the presence of these feces in water or on the ground where 
humans may come into contact with them is a legitimate health concern. 
The Service and the various State natural resource agencies do not have 
the expertise to deal with the myriad human health/disease questions 
surrounding resident Canada geese in every specific instance, and 
therefore, must rely on other more pertinent agencies. We acknowledge 
that additional research is needed to assist in the quantification and 
understanding of these issues and concerns. However, we believe that 
increasingly large populations of geese, especially in high 
concentration areas, only serve to increase the uncertainty associated 
with these risks. Given the wide divergence of opinion within the 
public health community, the Service and Wildlife Services have 
recognized and deferred to the authority and expertise of local and 
State health officials in determining what does or does not constitute 
a direct threat to public health. We believe this is appropriate.
(45) The killing of Canada geese is philosophically wrong and is 
``inhumane'' treatment of these birds. Further, nonlethal solutions to 
all resident Canada goose/human conflicts are preferred and people need 
to be more tolerant of wildlife. Removal of geese under these 
management actions is only a short-term solution.
    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, if any, such unoccupied sites remain. 
Therefore, we believe that humane lethal control of geese is an 
appropriate part of an integrated resident Canada goose damage and 
control management program and ultimately a population reduction 
program.
    We also prefer nonlethal 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 this final rule. However, habitat modification and other harassment 
tactics do not always work satisfactorily and lethal methods are 
oftentimes necessary to increase the effectiveness of nonlethal 
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, 
integrated resident Canada goose management activities should result in 
an overall reduced need for other management actions, such as large-
scale goose round-ups and lethal control.
(46) The rule will make individual States more vulnerable to legal 
challenges.
    We disagree. The conservation of migratory bird populations is and 
will remain the Service's responsibility. Under the selected 
alternative, the Service would maintain primary authority for the 
management of resident Canada geese, but the individual States would be 
authorized to implement certain provisions of the alternative within 
guidelines established by the Service.
(47) The Service should take the lead role in resident Canada goose 
management. The proposed rule removes the Service as a full partner in 
goose management and establishes it as an enforcement agency.
    The Service will retain the lead role in resident Canada goose 
management. We disagree with the assertion that our selected 
alternative removes the Service as a full partner in goose management 
and merely establishes us as an enforcement agency. We fully understand 
the necessity of retaining national oversight of resident Canada goose 
populations. While the selected alternative authorizes States and other 
entities to conduct resident Canada goose control when certain 
circumstances occur, we will retain our oversight role in order to keep 
track of resident Canada goose management activities from a national 
perspective. However, since the States are the most informed and 
knowledgeable local authorities on wildlife conflicts in their 
respective States, we believe it is logical to place some of the 
responsibilities and decisions of the program with them, in particular 
those portions of the program that involve the take of adult geese. We 
do not see this as the removal of the Service as a ``full partner.''
(48) The Service should hold additional public meetings.
    We held 9 public scoping meetings and 11 public comment meetings on 
the DEIS across the country. We believe that we have adequately 
fulfilled our responsibilities under NEPA.
(49) The selected alternative is too heavily focused on lethal 
management. Nonlethal methods combined with public education can 
resolve goose problems as workable nonlethal solutions exist.
    We disagree. As we stated in our response to question 2, 
the control of birds through the use of humane, but lethal, techniques 
can be an effective means of alleviating resource damages, preventing 
further damages, and/or enhancing nonlethal techniques. We reiterate 
that it would be unrealistic and overly restrictive to limit a resource 
manager's damage management methods to nonlethal techniques, even if 
``nonlethal'' included nest destruction and/or egg oiling. Lethal 
control techniques are an important, and in many cases necessary, part 
of a resource

[[Page 45976]]

manager's tool box. Further, our analysis indicated that under a 
nonlethal alternative (such as Alternative B or C), population growth 
would continue and be more pronounced than under the No Action 
alternative.
(50) The FEIS should maintain the Flyway system of population 
management of resident Canada geese, allowing cooperative Flyway 
actions. Populations should not be dealt with on a State-by-State 
basis.
    We believe the FEIS's selected alternative does maintain and 
respect the Flyway system of population management. It uses the 
Flyways' established goals and objectives for resident Canada geese as 
the determining basis for population targets. However, because the 
overwhelming majority of resident Canada goose conflicts occur within 
the State in which the geese reside (rather than a State they may be 
migrating through or into), the logical place both to deal with these 
conflicts and direct population reduction activities is within the 
residing State. Thus, a State-by-State approach, integrated within the 
overall Flyway approach, is needed.
(51) Problems with local resident Canada goose flocks may require 
control measures regardless of the status of a State's flock or the 
Flyway population.
    We agree that, regardless of the overall population status, 
conflicts will likely continue to occur at some level in some areas. 
Thus, the various control and depredation orders contained in 
Alternative F are not strictly driven by the population status but are 
subject to annual review and determination of continued need in order 
to resolve or prevent injury to people, property, agricultural crops, 
or other interests.
(52) There needs to be more discussion of Wildlife Services' role in 
managing resident Canada geese.
    The Wildlife Services program is directed by law to protect 
American agriculture and other resources from damage associated with 
wildlife. Wildlife Services' mission is to ``provide leadership in 
wildlife damage management in the protection of America's agricultural, 
industrial and natural resources, and to safeguard public health and 
safety.'' As such, Wildlife Services is the lead Federal agency on 
matters relating to wildlife damage management, and their role in the 
management of resident Canada geese relates primarily to damage 
management, including damage abatement. We rely on Wildlife Services' 
expertise to evaluate the various damage management strategies analyzed 
in the FEIS and to make recommendations on the specific deployment of 
the selected alternative. Further, we envision that Wildlife Services 
will be an integral and valuable cooperator, given their expertise, 
with participating State agencies, airports, agricultural producers, 
public health agencies, private landowners, and public land managers on 
the actual on-the-ground implementation of the selected alternative. 
The role of Wildlife Services should not be confused with the Services' 
role of monitoring the status of the various resident Canada goose 
populations to ensure the long-term conservation of the resource.
(53) The first level of population control for resident Canada geese 
should be through sport harvest. Thus, allowing the greatest amount of 
latitude for States to use hunters to help manage State flocks should 
be a primary objective.
    We agree and, to date we have largely relied on that premise to 
address growing populations of resident Canada geese through the use of 
special early and late seasons. However, it has become readily apparent 
that sport harvest alone has not been able to adequately control 
resident Canada goose populations. We believe that, by implementation 
of a management take program and by expanding hunting methods during 
special early seasons, we are utilizing hunters to help reduce 
populations of resident Canada geese and allowing the States sufficient 
latitude to do so.
(54) The September 15 framework end date for the Management Take 
Program should be later, and expanded hunting methods should be allowed 
anytime in September.
    We disagree. First, as we discussed in the FEIS, traditionally we 
have used special Canada goose seasons in September to specifically 
target resident goose populations and address some of the conflicts and 
problems caused by overabundant resident Canada geese. The primary 
issue with extending a management-take type action into September is 
that we know some migrant geese in some areas would be taken. In 
particular, areas in the upper midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, 
North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana) would have some level of 
migrant geese taken. Since the management take component, as with the 
entire scope of the EIS, is specifically directed at resident Canada 
geese, we cannot reliably extend this component into September. Second, 
the needs of this management problem require that extraordinary 
measures be implemented. However, we believe that caution should be 
exercised to ensure that other migratory game bird populations are not 
impacted by such measures. As such, we have eliminated the management 
take component from any portion of the open Treaty period (after August 
31) and limited the use of expanded hunting methods to September 1 to 
15. Based on data from the numerous experimental September Canada goose 
seasons conducted in the early implementation of these seasons, we know 
that the period after September 15 is highly temporally and spatially 
variable on whether or not a specific area contains migrant geese 
(either appreciable numbers or an appreciable percentage). Because of 
the potential for these expanded methods to significantly affect 
harvest, we believe that the use of these methods of take (i.e., 
electronic calls, unplugged shotguns, and the allowance of shooting 
hours to one-half hour after sunset) should be limited to the extent 
possible to those areas that are relatively ``free'' of migrant geese. 
Thus, initially, we will restrict the use of these new methods to the 
September 1 to 15 period and review their use after September 15 on a 
case-by-case basis.
(55) Each Flyway Council (not the Service) should determine the 
appropriate dates for the Management Take program.
    If the Flyway Councils wish to make recommendations to their member 
States on the Flyway-appropriate dates for the management take 
component, we have no issue with that process. However, as the agency 
responsible for the management of resident Canada geese under the MBTA, 
the Service is the appropriate entity for establishing when this may be 
utilized and the outer frameworks (August 1 to 31) for this new action.
(56) Language in the final rule should clarify that days available for 
use in the Management Take Program are outside of and in addition to 
the 107 days allowed by the Migratory Bird Treaty.
    Since the management take program, if authorized by the Director, 
can occur only from August 1 to 31, before the Treaty's established 
sport hunting season, any days under the management take program are 
outside the Treaty's allowance of a maximum 107-day sport hunting 
season.

[[Page 45977]]

(57) The study requirements for extending the management take program 
past September 15 should be eliminated for mid-latitude and southern 
States since evidence already exists that few migrant geese are 
present.
    Following initial implementation of the selected alternative and 
the associated expanded hunting methods during the September special 
seasons (September 1 to 15), we will evaluate the September 15 
restriction on a case-by-case basis. We realize that some mid-latitude 
and southern areas are relatively free of migrant geese well past 
September 15. However, we believe that caution is the prudent path.
    Regarding the management take program, we have decided to restrict 
that program to the month of August.
(58) Alternative methods of take within the management take frameworks 
should be allowed including the use of snares, nets, and entanglement 
devices.
    Since the management take program would use hunters as the primary 
designated agents, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow the use 
of non-traditional hunter-based harvest tools (e.g., nets, snares, 
etc.) during this period. However, States are generally free to use 
these management tools under the existing Special Canada Goose Permit, 
and Wildlife Services normally uses such methods under their permits. 
Further, any entity could continue to apply for a permit to use such 
methods in management activities. Such requests would be evaluated on a 
case-by-case basis.
(59) Any consideration of suspending the Management Take option should 
occur at the statewide level (not at a finer scale).
    We agree to a point. Any evaluation of the management take program 
will occur on a Statewide level at a minimum. We believe it is highly 
unlikely we would be able to evaluate on a finer scale. However, we 
believe it is highly likely that there may be instances where certain 
program components, including the management take component, would be 
utilized in some areas of a State and not others.
(60) The FEIS should not authorize electronic calls, unplugged 
shotguns, and longer shooting hours.
    We disagree. The objective of reducing the resident Canada goose 
population to levels more in-line with the Flyway Councils' established 
goals and objectives requires extraordinary measures. Currently 
available harvest and population data clearly indicate that current 
harvest is not able to significantly impact resident Canada goose 
population growth rates on other than a local scale. We estimate that 
the additional use of these methods during the September special 
seasons could increase harvest by at least 25 percent, or an additional 
140,000 geese annually. We believe that implementation of these new 
hunting methods will help contribute to the overall program's objective 
of stabilizing and reducing resident Canada goose populations.
(61) Individuals should be allowed to dispose of birds so that human 
consumption of geese will be maximized instead of birds being wasted.
    We agree and have clarified the restrictions regarding the disposal 
of birds in this final rule.
(62) The DEIS underestimates cost and personnel needs of States to 
implement the proposed program, as such the FEIS should attempt to 
quantify projected costs of implementing the rule's provisions and 
identify federal sources of funding to offset those costs. The proposed 
program is a huge financial burden for the States.
    We have revised the FEIS to reflect both updated costs and 
administrative changes to the selected alternative since the DEIS. We 
believe they are an accurate reflection of anticipated costs.
(63) The selected alternative mostly just transfers the permitting and 
reporting paperwork to the States. The Service should allow States the 
latitude to address their problems as needed, without creation of an 
immense workload.
    We are not obligating States to participate in this new program or 
to impose new restrictions to gain regulatory authority of a Federally 
authorized activity (i.e., nest and egg removal). States may continue 
to handle injurious goose situations with the current permitting system 
on a case-by-case basis or they may opt to participate in any component 
of the new program. The decision is entirely up to individual States.
(64) The requirement for States to conduct annual estimates of the 
breeding population and statewide distribution is unnecessary and also 
redundant to existing monitoring and evaluation tools currently in 
place. States should not have to conduct highly precise population 
estimates. Trend data should be adequate.
    We disagree. The take of resident Canada geese under the management 
take component of the overall program is an extraordinary step in the 
effort to control and reduce resident Canada goose populations in order 
to ultimately reduce injuries. Thus, we believe it is incumbent upon 
those participating States to carefully monitor both goose populations 
and take of geese under the program.
(65) Given the overabundance of resident Canada geese, micromanagement 
and detailed reporting of authorized activities is not necessary. The 
final rule should have less recordkeeping conditions for States and 
other agencies.
    We do not believe our required recordkeeping and reporting 
constitute micromanagement. Information specific to the management 
activities conducted under the selected alternative is vital to the 
overall evaluation of the program. However, we have scaled-back, 
reduced, or eliminated many aspects of the activity reporting. For 
instance, most of the control and depredation order participants will 
operate under a logbook requirement with reduced information rather 
than requiring a specific instance report. The reporting requirements 
are essential for us to be able to monitor actions and assess possible 
impacts to the population.
(66) The Service should provide resources to expand the May Breeding 
Waterfowl Survey to States that don't currently participate.
    We have requested additional funding to help States implement 
surveys.
(67) Airport operations should not have to consider nonlethal 
harassment methods first as such methods dangerously put geese in 
flight.
    Nonlethal harassment methods are an integral part of any integrated 
damage management program. As such, we have clarified in the final rule 
that airports, as other authorized entities, should use nonlethal goose 
management tools to the extent they deem appropriate (given the 
specific circumstances). Further, to minimize lethal take, authorized 
entities will have to implement all appropriate nonlethal management 
techniques in conjunction with authorized take.
(68) We see little need for different date restrictions for the 
different management components.
    The removal of nests and eggs is a much different management 
activity than the removal of adult geese. Resident Canada geese are 
nesting in some areas of the country in March with most nesting 
occurring in April. Migrant geese, however, are still present in many 
areas of the country in March and linger

[[Page 45978]]

in northern areas until April. Because of this nesting activity and 
because of the potential take of migrant geese, we have decided to 
establish differential time constraints on the various control and 
depredation orders. We view these constraints as necessary safeguards 
for migrant populations.
(69) A component that combines Management Take with a General 
Depredation Order is needed.
    As we discuss in Question 6, environmentally, the impacts 
under the Alternative G--General Depredation Order were similar to 
those under our selected alternative, Alternative F. However, 
practically and administratively the impacts are much different. Under 
Alternative G, the State would be virtually eliminated from decisions 
regarding resident Canada goose management, unless they decided on 
their own to become involved. We believe that this alternative would 
not be in the best interest of either the resource or the affected 
entities. Management of resident Canada geese should be a cooperative 
effort on the part of Federal, State, and local entities, especially 
those decisions involving the potential take of adult geese. Further, 
these actions warrant adequate oversight and monitoring from all levels 
to ensure the long-term conservation of the resource. A ``management 
take'' component would not be consistent with the general workings of 
Alternative G.
(70) Other hunting should be allowed to continue during the resident 
Canada goose management take provision and the expanded hunting methods 
period, especially if the State opts not to allow expanded methods 
during the management take period.
    Like the light goose conservation order, the needs of this 
management problem require that extraordinary measures be implemented 
and caution be exercised to ensure that other migratory game bird 
populations are not impacted by such measures. As such, we have 
eliminated the management take component from any portion of the open 
season Treaty period (after August 31). Thus, allowing other migratory 
bird hunting seasons to be open during the management take period is 
now a moot point. Further, closure of crane and other waterfowl hunting 
seasons during the expanded hunting methods period (September 1 to 15) 
will eliminate or greatly reduce the possibility of increased harvest 
due to the use of new methods of take, such as electronic calls, 
unplugged shotguns, and the allowance of shooting hours to one-half 
hour after sunset. Although some harvest opportunity on other species 
will be lost in some instances (because of this need to have other 
seasons closed during these special expanded hunting methods period), 
we believe that the need to reduce the resident Canada goose population 
outweighs this loss.
(71) The stringent oversight and reporting requirements of the 
management take component (formerly known as the conservation order in 
the DEIS) are an unnecessary burden on States choosing to participate. 
Harvest estimates should be derived from the Harvest Information 
Program (HIP).
    Information on hunter participation, methods used, and resident 
Canada goose harvest is critical for conducting a proper evaluation of 
the effectiveness of the management take program. There are several 
reasons why HIP cannot be utilized to estimate these parameters. In 
order to utilize HIP to estimate resident Canada goose harvest before 
September 1, the duration of the HIP sampling period would need to be 
greatly expanded. By doing so, response rates from all migratory game 
bird hunters will decrease, and memory bias will increase. This will 
negatively impact the precision and accuracy of not only resident 
Canada goose estimates, but estimates for all migratory game bird 
species, including ducks and other goose species. We do not believe the 
substantial negative impact to HIP estimates of duck and other goose 
harvest can be justified for the sake of obtaining information on 
management take harvest. To avoid negative impacts to HIP estimates of 
other migratory game bird species, a separate resident Canada goose 
harvest survey could be conducted. However, the current HIP sampling 
frame is very large and a separate Federal survey would require large 
sample sizes to ensure that adequate numbers of management take 
participants were contacted, which is cost-prohibitive. A solution 
would be to implement a separate Federal resident Canada goose permit 
to create a sampling frame that would be used to generate harvest 
estimates. However, the permit would have to be enforced in order to 
ensure that the sample frame contained all participants. If the sample 
frame was incomplete, the management take estimates would be biased 
low. Enforcement and administration of a uniform Federal permit would 
be difficult. For example, States that participate in the light goose 
conservation order either have implemented their own permit, or they 
sample State duck stamp purchasers in order to obtain harvest 
estimates. We believe States are better equipped to develop harvest 
surveys tailored specifically to the management take program in their 
State.
(72) Tribes should be treated the same as State wildlife agencies under 
the selected alternative.
    We have added Tribes as specifically being eligible to conduct 
resident Canada goose management activities under the selected 
alternative's management take component, the expanded hunting 
opportunities component, and the agricultural depredation order. They 
are ineligible, as are State wildlife agencies, under the airport 
control order. Under the nest and egg depredation order, Tribes are 
treated the same as all other entities. Under the public health control 
order, we will continue to rely on the public health agency to make the 
determination that there is a direct threat to public health.
(73) Under the Service's 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.
    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.
(74) It is unfortunate that the Service is entirely dependent on 
revenues from the sale of hunting permits and hunting paraphernalia. 
The resulting extreme bias of this agency is therefore obvious to 
anyone who cares to take a closer look.
    The Service operates its programs with funds appropriated by 
Congress. It does not receive operational funds from the sale of 
hunting permits or licenses or hunting paraphernalia. There is no 
Federal hunting permit that is sold to generate revenues upon which the 
Service relies. Revenue from sales of State hunting permits goes to 
State fish and wildlife agencies and not the Service. Furthermore, the 
Service is not dependent on revenues of hunting paraphernalia. Federal 
excise taxes collected on the sale of hunting equipment under the 
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act is returned to State fish and 
wildlife agencies in the form of grants to undertake projects that 
benefit a variety of wildlife species and receipts from the sale of 
Federal duck

[[Page 45979]]

stamps is used to acquire land for wildlife. Therefore, the Service has 
not developed an extreme bias towards hunting interests due to a 
dependency on hunting permit revenues.
(75) The Service reports that six times as many people participate in 
non-hunting activities related to migratory birds as compared to 
hunting them. Times have changed and so must the Service and wildlife 
agencies.
    First of all, this is not a hunting program, it is a wildlife 
management action designed to minimize impacts from these birds. We 
examined socioeconomic considerations in the FEIS and reported that 
more citizens participate in non-hunting than hunting activities 
related to migratory birds. However, the impacts of resident Canada 
goose populations negatively affect a variety of entities, including 
non-hunters as well as hunters. Furthermore, the fact that many 
citizens do not hunt does not negate the fact that hunting and take by 
hunters is a legitimate wildlife management tool.
(76) Clearly the best option is to have the sportsmen harvest the 
overabundance of resident Canada geese. This method will come at no 
cost to the taxpayers, is extremely effective, and will help reduce the 
population.
    One component of our preferred alternative established regulations 
that will allow citizens to increase their harvest of resident Canada 
geese.
(77) The entire concept and definition of ``resident'' Canada geese is 
invalid.
    We disagree. Data 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 Treaties and the MBTA. Canada geese are 
clearly protected by the Treaties and the MBTA 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 Treaties and the MBTA.

Comments on the Proposed Rule

(1) Resident goose management action needs to be taken.
    We agree. See our response to DEIS comment 38.
(2) Do not transfer management authority to the States. Maintain 
federal responsibility and leadership or actions will be open to legal 
challenges.
    We are not transferring management authority to the States. 
However, States, because of their intimate knowledge of local 
conflicts, issues, and problems, are the logical choice to take 
specific, local-based actions on resident Canada goose management 
activities within the requirements and limitations in the regulation. 
The Service will maintain primary authority over nest and egg removal 
activities and airport activities and will maintain oversight authority 
on all other activities that participating States decide to implement.
    Regarding legal challenges, the conservation of migratory bird 
populations is and will remain the Service's responsibility. Under the 
program, the Service will maintain primary authority for the management 
of resident Canada geese, but the individual States would be authorized 
to implement certain actions within our guidelines.
(3) Proposed options result in too much record keeping and reporting 
requirements for the States. Further, the overall process is too 
burdensome.
    We disagree. See our response to DEIS comment 65.
(4) No additional surveys are needed as there is enough survey data 
already available. HIP or other existing data can be used.
    See our response to DEIS comments 64, 65, and 
71 and Proposed Rule (PR) comment 2.
(5) We agree with giving States authority to manage geese, but the 
Service must stay involved as a full federal partner with lead 
responsibility.
    See our response to DEIS comment 47.
(6) The provisions of the proposed rule results in an unfunded mandate, 
therefore, the Service should provide funding support to the States to 
implement the proposal.
    We disagree. See our response to DEIS comment 14.
(7) Amend the provision to extend sport harvest to end of September.
    See our response to DEIS comment 54.
(8) Allow States to make the maximum use of hunters, by expanding all 
sport harvest methods and opportunities. Further, remove all 
restrictions to the use of decoys, calls, etc.
    We largely agree and have attempted to remove those restrictions we 
view as an impediment to increasing the harvest of resident Canada 
geese during special seasons. However, we do not believe that it would 
be prudent, wise, or in the best interest of the migratory bird 
resource, to remove all hunting restrictions. See our response to DEIS 
comment 53.
(9) Adjust the different management options available so that they all 
have the same beginning and ending dates.
    We have established what we believe are the most liberal timeframes 
available for all the various management actions given other resources 
(i.e., other Federally-protected species) and public concerns. See our 
response to DEIS comment 68.
(10) Set no date restriction for egg/nest destruction, allow year-round 
opportunity.
    We see no reason for year-round egg and nest removal and 
destruction, as resident Canada geese only nest once per year.
(11) Amend language to maximize geese taken to be used for human 
consumption, not burying/incinerating.
    See our response to DEIS comment 61.
(12) Base resident goose management on Flyway programs.
    We believe the final rule does maintain the Flyway system of 
population management. It utilizes the Flyways' established goals and 
objectives for resident Canada geese as the determining basis for 
population targets. However, because the overwhelming majority of 
resident Canada goose injuries occur within the State the geese reside 
in (rather than a State they may be migrating through or into), the 
logical place to both deal with these conflicts and direct population 
reduction activities is within the residing State. Thus, a State-by-
State approach, integrated within the overall Flyway approach, is 
needed.
(13) Streamline the process by merging the various depredation orders 
into a single Federal Depredation Order. As written, the menu of 
options cannot be implemented by the States without agreeing to 
implement the first option.
    We have changed the final rule to streamline the process. Based on

[[Page 45980]]

comments we received, States are no longer responsible for 
implementation of the nest and egg depredation order or the airport 
control order unless they choose to do so. Further, we have removed the 
requirement in question.
(14) Nonlethal techniques should be emphasized to the maximum extent 
possible and use of lethal tools minimized.
    See our response to DEIS comment 45.
(15) Develop more educational material.
    We believe educational materials have their place, and we will 
continue to develop and distribute them to those that desire. However, 
educational materials are only one tool available, and their 
contribution can vary widely given the particulars of the individual 
situation or problem.
(16) Extend special late seasons to mid/late February.
    The Flyway Councils and Service have developed criteria for special 
late seasons. However, given the time and spatial mixing of the various 
resident and migrant Canada goose populations, extension of special 
late Canada goose seasons is not always possible or advisable. We will 
continue to review requests for such on a case-by-case basis.
(17) Don't hold the southern and mid-latitude States (where there are 
no migrant geese) to the same time period requirements as northern 
States.
    See our response to DEIS comment 57.
(18) Do not expand hunting into September.
    We agree and have eliminated the Management Take component from the 
month of September. See our response to DEIS comment 54.
(19) Lethal methods should be emphasized for airport work.
    See our response to DEIS comment 67.
(20) Extend the time period for implementing the airport depredation 
order and the 3-mile limit.
    Since the scope of this assessment and final rule only covers 
resident Canada geese, we do not believe it is appropriate to expand 
either the time period or scope of the airport control order. Goose 
problems and conflicts outside the scope of the FEIS and final rule 
will continue to be handled by the current permitting process.
(21) The 1-year recordkeeping of requirement for the agriculture 
depredation order should be expanded to 3 years.
    We agree, and this final rule reflects a 3-year timeframe.
(22) The term ``adversely affect'' used in Sec.  21.61(e) in the 
proposed rule needs to be clearly defined.
    We have further detailed the restrictions pertaining to endangered 
or threatened species within each regulatory section.
(23) The regulatory language does not address subpopulations.
    We have separated the various populations into the smallest units 
we believe necessary to address the various goose conflicts and issues. 
We realize, however, that there will always be instances where these 
regulations may not be the best solution for the problem, such as that 
involving an isolated conflict. In those instances, the use of Federal 
permits would be advisable.
(24) Restrict the use of allowable hunting methods such as calls, 
unplugged guns, etc.
    We realize that there are those who believe that we have 
unnecessarily liberalized the allowable hunting methods, and therefore 
sacrificed hunting ethics in our perceived shortsightedness. However, 
given the extraordinary circumstances of these populations, the many 
challenges of reducing the populations on a national scale, and the 
Flyways' and our long-range population goals, we have expanded the 
allowable hunting methods to the extent we believe necessary to help 
assist in reducing resident Canada goose populations. Once we have 
attained these objectives, we will initiate action to rescind these 
liberalizations. See also our response to DEIS comment 60.
(25) The rulemaking violates both the spirit and the letter of the 
MBTA. The Service is seeking to abrogate their responsibility under the 
MBTA by giving too much authority to the States and creating de facto 
unregulated take.
    We disagree. See our response to DEIS comment 10.
(26) The rule is arbitrary and capricious.
    We disagree. Data clearly points out that the Canada goose 
populations in question are increasingly causing injury to people and 
property. Furthermore, Canada geese are clearly protected by the 
Treaties and the MBTA and will continue to be under this final rule. We 
are merely implementing a range of management actions to help reduce 
the current population to more manageable levels and to help alleviate 
injurious situations caused by resident Canada geese.
(27) Any long-term solutions to the goose problem must be ecologically 
based, not as currently proposed.
    Barring all other factors and considerations, a strictly 
ecologically-based solution would be best. However, we cannot overlook 
the important sociological aspects of the issue and injuries. Further, 
we believe that our actions are integral to reducing the populations to 
a more ecologically and socially balanced level.
(28) The use of integrated nonlethal management methods have proved 
successful and should be emphasized.
    We agree. However, we believe that our selected alternative is 
integrated (three main components). Further, we believe that both 
lethal and nonlethal control of geese are appropriate parts of an 
integrated resident Canada goose damage and control management program 
and ultimately a population reduction program. While we also prefer 
nonlethal control activities, such as habitat modification, as the 
first means of eliminating resident Canada goose conflict and damage 
problems, habitat modification and other harassment tactics do not 
always work satisfactorily and lethal methods are oftentimes necessary 
to increase the effectiveness of nonlethal 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 will 
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, integrated resident Canada goose management activities 
should result in an overall reduced need for other management actions, 
such as large-scale goose round-ups and lethal control.
(29) There is no scientific support for the health hazard attributed to 
geese.
    See our response to DEIS comment 44.

[[Page 45981]]

(30) There are no studies that show that complaints are valid or that 
killing/reducing resident geese populations would address those 
complaints.
    We disagree. We realize that there is considerable disagreement 
over whether or not this action is justified, but many have argued that 
this action does not go far enough. However, the Service and Wildlife 
Services, as the lead and cooperating agencies in the EIS process, 
jointly agree that there is sufficient evidence of impacts from goose/
human conflicts and the probability these impacts will continue to 
increase to justify the selected action. Further, no one can predict 
with 100 percent accuracy that the selected action will alleviate all 
impacts or injuries, but our analysis indicates that this action is 
highly likely to alleviate many of the impacts associated with resident 
Canada geese, especially over the long-term.
(31) The Service is unable to distinguish between a migrant goose or a 
resident goose.
    See our response to DEIS comment 77.
(32) The rulemaking fails to establish the criteria for designating 
``seriously injurious.''
    We disagree. The FEIS contains sufficient biological and economic 
evidence regarding the injuries to justify resident Canada goose 
control and to support this action.
(33) The regulatory process and content contained no mechanism for 
input from citizens.
    We disagree. We held 9 public scoping meetings and 11 public 
comment meetings on the DEIS across the country. Further, we received 
2,777 public comments on the DEIS and 2,973 public comments on the 
proposed rule. We believe we have adequately fulfilled our 
responsibilities under NEPA.
(34) Killing methods allowed by this rulemaking are inhumane.
    See our response to DEIS comment 45.
(35) The DEIS inadequately supports the proposed regulations.
    We disagree. See our responses to DEIS comments 11, 
12, and 16.
(36) The monitoring and reporting requirements described are lacking in 
content and adequacy.
    We disagree. All the monitoring and reporting requirements are 
designed to supply us with the level of information necessary to manage 
these populations.
(37) The depredation orders for airports, public health, and 
agriculture are adequate for good management.
    We agree. However, we believe they are only one component of an 
overall strategy.
(38) Flyway Council population objectives for use in establishing 
management goals are arbitrary.
    We disagree. See our response to DEIS comment 41.
(39) The States lack funding to implement the provisions suggested by 
the Service.
    See our responses to DEIS comments 14 and 18.
(40) The population estimates used by the Service for resident geese 
are not based on good science.
    We disagree. We realize that a number of surveys use different 
methodologies and resulting estimates can vary quite significantly 
between the surveys and years. However, we believe all of the data, 
when taken together, not only reinforce our position that resident 
populations are continuing to grow, but provide strong evidence that 
these populations need to be reduced.
(41) The take of goslings should not be allowed, only the take of eggs.
    While we realize some consider the take of nests and eggs as 
nonlethal management, we view the take of goslings as no different than 
the take of adults, and technically, the take of eggs. All are 
prohibited by the various treaties and the MBTA, unless specifically 
allowed through regulation or permit.
(42) The Service should set statewide management objectives.
    Statewide management objectives are contained in the various Flyway 
management plans. We do not believe it is within our purview to 
establish these individual State management goals, but the Flyways 
established the overall population based on the States' respective 
management needs and capabilities. In some cases, objectives were 
calculated from what was professionally judged to be a more desirable 
or acceptable density of geese. These population sizes are only optimal 
in the sense that it is each Flyway's best attempt to balance the many 
competing considerations of both consumptive and nonconsumptive users.
(43) Lethal methods should be used where nonlethal methods have failed 
or where a ``true'' human safety threat exists.
    We agree in large part and note that the use of nonlethal methods 
have failed on a wide geographic front as these populations continue to 
expand and increase.

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 parts 1500-1508), we published the availability of a DEIS on March 
7, 2002 (67 FR 10431), followed by a 91-day comment period. We 
subsequently reopened the comment period for 60 additional days (68 FR 
50546, August 21, 2003). On November 18, 2005, both the Service and the 
Environmental Protection Agency published notices of availability for 
the FEIS in the Federal Register (70 FR 69966 and 70 FR 69985). This 
FEIS is available to the public (see ADDRESSES).

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 a biological 
evaluation and informal consultation (both available upon request; see 
ADDRESSES) under section 7 of the ESA for the action described in this 
final rule. In the letter of concurrence between the Division of 
Migratory Bird Management and the Division of Endangered Species, we 
concluded that the inclusion of specific conservation measures in the 
final rule satisfies concerns about certain species. Therefore, the 
action is not likely to adversely affect any threatened, endangered, or 
candidate species.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
requires the preparation of flexibility analyses for actions that will 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, which includes small businesses, organizations, or 
governmental

[[Page 45982]]

jurisdictions. The economic impacts of this rule will fall primarily on 
State and local governments and Wildlife Services because of the 
structure of wildlife damage management. Data are not available to 
estimate the exact number of governments affected, but it is unlikely 
to be a substantial number on a national scale. We estimate that 
implementation of new resident Canada goose management regulations will 
help alleviate local public health and safety concerns, decrease 
economic damage caused by excessive numbers of geese, and increase the 
quality of life for those people experiencing goose conflicts. 
Implementation of new resident Canada goose regulations will also help 
reduce agricultural losses caused by these geese. Our rule gives State 
fish and wildlife agencies significantly more latitude to manage 
resident Canada goose populations. Goose populations may be reduced to 
levels that local communities can support, and agricultural damages 
from resident Canada geese may be reduced. We have determined that a 
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis is not required.

Executive Order 12866

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

Paperwork Reduction Act and Information Collection

    These regulations contain information collection and recordkeeping 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
3507(d) and which OMB has approved and assigned control number 1018-
0133, which expires on August 31, 2009. Public reporting burden 
associated with: (1) The Airport Control Order averages 1.5 hours per 
annual report; (2) the Nest and Egg Depredation Order averages 0.5 
hours per registration and 0.5 hours per annual report; (3) the 
Agriculture Depredation Order averages 0.5 hours for recordkeeping and 
8 hours per annual report; (4) the Public Health Control Order averages 
1 hour per annual report; and (5) the Population Control component 
averages 24 hours for the approval request and annual report and 160 
hours per population survey. These burden estimates include time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are 
not required to respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

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 invasion of property, or the regulatory 
taking of any property. In fact, this action will help alleviate 
private and public property damage and concerns related to public 
health and safety and allow the exercise of otherwise unavailable 
privileges.

Federalism Effects

    Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the 
Federal Government has been given statutory responsibility over these 
species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. While legally this 
responsibility rests solely with the Federal Government, it is in the 
best interest of the migratory bird resource for us to work 
cooperatively with the Flyway Councils and States to develop and 
implement the various migratory bird management plans and strategies.
    For example, in the establishment of migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we annually prescribe frameworks from which the States 
make selections and employ guidelines to establish special regulations 
on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves 
the ability of the States and Tribes to determine which seasons meet 
their individual needs. Frameworks are developed in a cooperative 
process with the States and the Flyway Councils and any State or Tribe 
may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks. This allows States

[[Page 45983]]

to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will 
make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations.
    The rulemaking was developed following extensive input from the 
Flyway Councils, States, and Wildlife Services. Individual Flyway 
management plans were developed and approved by the four Flyway 
Councils, and States actively participated in the scoping process for 
the DEIS. This final rule does not have a substantial direct effect on 
fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or 
State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. The 
rule allows States the latitude to develop and implement their own 
resident Canada goose management action plan within the frameworks of 
the selected alternative. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 
13132, this rule does not have significant federalism effects and does 
not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation 
of a Federalism Assessment.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

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

Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211

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

Record of Decision

    The Record of Decision for management of resident Canada 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, manage, and control resident Canada goose populations in the 
continental United States and to reduce related damages. Alternatives 
have been fully described and evaluated in the November 2005 Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on resident Canada 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

    In recent years, Canada geese that nest and/or reside predominantly 
within the conterminous United States have undergone dramatic 
population growth and are increasingly coming into conflict with people 
and causing personal and public property damage. In 1999, in response 
to urging from the public and from State and Federal wildlife agencies, 
the Service decided to prepare a programmatic EIS, in cooperation with 
the Wildlife Services program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS WS), to evaluate 
strategies to reduce, manage, and control resident Canada goose 
populations in the continental United States and to reduce related 
damages.

Key Issues

    Public involvement occurred throughout the EIS and rulemaking 
process. From 1999 to 2005, we held 20 public meetings over the course 
of more than 11 months of total public comment. Through public scoping 
(the first stage of public comment) and agency discussions, key issues 
were identified. In the EIS environmental analysis, alternatives were 
analyzed with regard to their potential impacts on resident Canada 
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 resident Canada goose populations in the 
continental United States and to reduce related damages, and to provide 
a regulatory mechanism that would allow State and local agencies, other 
Federal agencies, and groups and individuals to respond to damage 
complaints or damages by resident Canada geese.

Alternatives

    Since the FEIS is a programmatic document, the alternatives reflect 
general management strategies to reduce, manage, and control resident 
Canada goose populations in the continental United States and to reduce 
related damages. The EIS examined seven alternatives: (A) No Action, 
(B) Increase Use of Nonlethal Control and Management (no currently 
permitted activities); (C) Increase Use of Nonlethal Control and 
Management (continued permitting of those activities generally 
considered nonlethal); (D) Expanded Hunting Methods and Opportunities; 
(E) Depredation Order Management (consisting of an Airport Depredation 
Order, a Nest and Egg Depredation Order, an Agricultural Depredation 
Order, and a Public Health Depredation Order); (F) Integrated Damage 
Management and Population Control (Selected Action); and (G) General 
Depredation Order.

Alternative A

    Under the No Action Alternative, the status quo would be 
maintained. All methods of nonlethal harassment would continue to be 
allowed. The use of special and regular hunting seasons and the 
issuance of depredation permits and special Canada goose permits would 
continue. Those conflicts not eligible for inclusion under the special 
Canada goose permit would continue to be dealt with on a case-by-case 
basis, requiring a separate Federal permit for every locality and 
occurrence within a State.

Alternative B

    Under this alternative, the Service and Wildlife Services would 
actively promote (i.e., either provide staffing and/or funding) the use 
of nonlethal management tools, such as habitat manipulation and 
management and goose harassment techniques, and cease the issuance of 
all Federal permits for the management and control of resident Canada 
geese. Only those management

[[Page 45984]]

techniques not currently requiring a Federal permit would be continued 
under this alternative. Management activities such as trapping and 
relocation of geese or egg addling would not be allowed or permitted 
since all permit issuance would cease under this alternative. Permits 
under existing regulations allowing the take of either goslings or 
adults would not be issued, and special hunting seasons primarily 
directed at resident Canada geese would be discontinued.

Alternative C

    Under this alternative, the Service and Wildlife Services would 
actively promote (i.e., either provide staffing and/or funding) the use 
of nonlethal management tools, such as habitat manipulation and 
management and goose harassment techniques. Management activities such 
as trapping and relocation of geese or egg addling would be allowed 
with a Federal permit. However, permits under existing regulations, 
including the Special Canada goose permit, allowing the take of either 
goslings or adults would not be issued. Special hunting seasons 
primarily targeted at resident Canada geese would be continued.

Alternative D

    This alternative would provide new regulatory options to State 
wildlife management agencies and Tribal entities potentially to 
increase the harvest of resident Canada geese. This approach would 
authorize the use of additional hunting methods such as electronic 
calls, unplugged shotguns, and expanded shooting hours (one-half hour 
after sunset) during existing, operational, special September Canada 
goose seasons (i.e., September 1-15). Utilization of these additional 
hunting methods during any new special seasons or other existing, 
operational special seasons (i.e., September 15-30) would be 
experimental and require demonstration of a minimal impact to migrant 
Canada goose populations. These experimental seasons would be 
authorized on a case-by-case basis through the normal migratory bird 
hunting regulatory process. All expanded hunting methods and 
opportunities would be conducted outside of any other open waterfowl 
season (i.e., when all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons were 
closed) and restricted to States (or portions of States) in the 
Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyway. Only State wildlife agencies 
and Tribal entities in these States could authorize the use of the 
additional hunting methods for resident Canada geese.
    In addition, we would continue the issuance of depredation permits 
and special Canada goose permits, issued under 50 CFR 21.41 and 21.26, 
respectively. Annual spring breeding population monitoring would be 
used to assess population status and provide for the long-term 
conservation of the resource.

Alternative E

    This alternative consists of four separate Control and Depredation 
Orders. The Orders would allow management activities for resident 
Canada goose populations generally between March 1 and August 31. In 
addition to these specific strategies, we would continue the use of 
special and regular hunting seasons, issued under 50 CFR part 20, and 
the issuance of depredation permits and special Canada goose permits, 
issued under 50 CFR 21.41 and 21.26, respectively.

Airport Control Order

    This option would establish a control order authorizing airport 
managers at commercial, public, and private airports and military air 
operation facilities to establish and implement a resident Canada goose 
control and management program when necessary to protect public safety 
and allow resolution or prevention of airport and military airfield 
safety threats from resident Canada geese. Control and management 
activities would include indirect and/or direct control strategies such 
as trapping and relocation, nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult 
trapping and culling programs, or other control strategies. The intent 
of this alternative is to significantly reduce resident Canada goose 
populations at airports, where there is a demonstrated threat to human 
safety and aircraft.
    Airports and military airfields could conduct management and 
control activities between April 1 and September 15. The destruction of 
resident Canada goose nests and eggs could take place between March 1 
and June 30.

Nest and Egg Depredation Order

    This option would establish a depredation order authorizing private 
landowners and managers of public lands to destroy resident Canada 
goose nests and take resident Canada goose eggs on property under their 
jurisdiction when necessary to resolve or prevent injury to people, 
property, agricultural crops, or other interests. The goal of this 
program would be to stabilize resident Canada goose breeding 
populations, not directly reduce populations, and thus prevent an 
increase in long-term conflicts between geese and people. Landowners 
could conduct resident Canada goose nest and egg destruction activities 
between March 1 and June 30.

Agricultural Depredation Order

    This option would establish a depredation order at agricultural 
facilities by authorizing States, via the State wildlife agency, to 
implement a program to allow landowners, operators, and tenants 
actively engaged in commercial agriculture to conduct direct damage 
management actions such as nest and egg destruction, gosling and adult 
trapping and culling programs, or other wildlife-damage management 
strategies on resident Canada geese when the geese are committing 
depredations to agricultural crops and when necessary to resolve or 
prevent injury to agricultural crops or other agricultural interests 
from resident Canada geese. The program would be restricted to the 
States in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyways. Authorized 
agricultural producers could conduct management and control activities 
between May 1 and August 31. The destruction of resident Canada goose 
nests and eggs could take place between March 1 and June 30. All 
management actions would have to occur on the premises of the 
depredation area.

Public Health Control Order

    This option would establish a control order authorizing States, via 
the State wildlife agency, to conduct resident Canada goose control and 
management activities including direct control strategies when resident 
Canada geese are posing a direct threat to human health. A direct 
threat to human health is one where a Federal, State, or local public 
health agency recommends removal of resident Canada geese that the 
agency has determined pose a specific, immediate human health threat by 
creating conditions conducive to the transmission of human or zoonotic 
pathogens. The State could not use this control order for situations in 
which resident Canada geese were merely causing a nuisance. Management 
and control activities could only be conducted between April 1 and 
August 31. The destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs 
could take place between March 1 and June 30. Resident Canada geese 
could be taken only within the specified area of the direct threat to 
human health.

Alternative F

    This alternative would establish a new regulation with three main 
program components. The first component

[[Page 45985]]

would consist of Alternative E--Control and Depredation Order 
Management and would be targeted to address resident Canada goose 
depredation, damage, and conflict management.
    The second component would consist of Alternative D--Expanded 
Hunting Methods and Opportunities and would be targeted to increase the 
sport harvest of resident Canada geese above that which results from 
existing September special Canada goose seasons.
    The third component would consist of a resident Canada goose 
population control program, or management take. Management take is 
defined as a special management action needed to reduce certain 
wildlife populations when traditional management programs are 
unsuccessful in preventing injuries from overabundance of the 
population. The management take program would authorize the Director to 
enable States to use hunters to harvest resident Canada geese, by way 
of shooting in a hunting manner, during the August 1 through August 31 
period using additional methods of taking resident Canada geese, i.e., 
allow shooting hours to extend to one-half hour after sunset and remove 
daily bag limits for resident Canada geese. The intent of the program 
is to reduce resident Canada goose populations in order to protect 
personal property and agricultural crops, protect other interests from 
injury, resolve or prevent injury to people, property, agricultural 
crops, or other interests from resident Canada geese, and contribute to 
potential concerns about human health when traditional and otherwise 
authorized management measures are unsuccessful in preventing injuries. 
Like Alternative D, the management take component would be restricted 
to the States in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyways.
    States participating in the management take program component would 
be required to annually monitor the spring breeding population in their 
State in order to assess population status. We would annually assess 
the overall impact and effectiveness of the management take program on 
resident Canada goose populations to ensure compatibility with long-
term conservation of the resource.
    In addition to the three main new components, we would continue the 
use of special and regular hunting seasons, issued under 50 CFR part 
20, and the issuance of depredation permits and special Canada goose 
permits, issued under 50 CFR 21.41 and 21.26, respectively.

Alternative G

    This alternative would establish a general depredation order, 
allowing any authorized person to conduct damage management activities 
on resident Canada goose populations either posing a threat to health 
and human safety or causing damage to personal or public property. The 
intent of this alternative would be to significantly reduce resident 
Canada goose populations in areas where conflicts are occurring. The 
general depredation order could only be implemented between April 1 and 
August 31, except for the take of nests and eggs which would be 
additionally allowed in March. This alternative would also include all 
components of Alternative D--Expanded Hunting Methods and 
Opportunities. In addition, we would continue the use of special and 
regular hunting seasons, issued under 50 CFR part 20, and the issuance 
of depredation permits and special Canada goose permits, issued under 
50 CFR 21.41 and 21.26, respectively.
    Under this alternative, unlike Alternative Integrated Damage 
Management and Population Control, the authorization for management 
activities, would come directly from the Service via this depredation 
order and the authorized person or entity could implement the 
provisions of this alternative within the guidelines established by the 
Service. Persons authorized by the Service under the Depredation Order 
would not need to obtain authority from the State unless required to do 
so under State law.

Decision

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

Other Agency Decisions

    A Record of Decision will be produced by APHIS/WS. The responsible 
officials at APHIS/WS will adopt the FEIS.

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 resident Canada 
goose populations or populations of any other natural resource.
    Alternative F (Integrated Damage Management and Population Control) 
was selected because increased lethal and nonlethal activities would be 
expected to significantly decrease the number of injurious resident 
Canada geese in specific localized areas, especially airports and 
military airfields, agricultural areas, urban/suburban areas subjected 
to nest and egg removal, and public health threat areas. Further, 
expanded hunting opportunities inside the existing hunting frameworks 
and additional management take outside the sport hunting frameworks 
would help decrease populations and injuries on a more regional and 
statewide scale, compared to site-specific management activities. 
Regionally and nationally, we expect resident Canada goose populations 
would gradually return to levels that we, the Flyway Councils, and the 
States believe are more compatible with human activities, especially in 
those high-conflict areas related to public health and safety, 
agricultural depredation, and urban and suburban areas. The long-term 
viability of goose populations and other Federally-protected species 
would not be affected.
    We did not select the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) because 
in recent years it has become clear from public and professional 
feedback that the status quo is not adequately resolving resident 
Canada goose conflicts for many stakeholders or reducing the 
population. Furthermore, our environmental analysis indicated that 
growth rates were more likely to be reduced and conflicts were more 
likely to be resolved under other options than under the No Action 
Alternative. Alternatives that were either strictly, or largely, 
nonlethal control and management (Alternatives B and C) were not 
selected because our analysis indicated that population growth and 
resultant injury would continue and be more pronounced than under the 
No Action alternative. We did not select the General Depredation Order 
Alternative (G) because, while environmentally the impacts were similar 
to those under our selected alternative, practically and 
administratively the impacts were much different. Under the General 
Depredation Order Alternative, the State's role would be significantly 
diminished in decisions regarding resident Canada goose management,

[[Page 45986]]

unless they decided on their own to become involved, and we believe 
this would not be in the best interest of either the resource or the 
affected entities.
    We did select the Expanded Hunting Methods and Opportunities 
Alternative (D) and the Control and Depredation Order Management 
Alternative (E), but we combined the components of both alternatives 
with other components into our selected Alternative F.

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 is revised to read as follows:

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  20.11 by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.11  What terms do I need to understand?

* * * * *
    (n) Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the 
lower 48 States in the months of March, April, May, or June, or reside 
within the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months 
of April, May, June, July, or August.


0
3. Revise paragraphs (b) and (g) of Sec.  20.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  20.21  What hunting methods are illegal?

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

PART 21--[AMENDED]

0
4. The authority citation for part 21 is revised to read as follows:

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


0
5. Amend Sec.  21.3 by revising the definition for ``Resident Canada 
geese'' to read as follows:


Sec.  21.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Resident Canada geese means Canada geese that nest within the lower 
48 States in the months of March, April, May, or June, or reside within 
the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia in the months of 
April, May, June, July, or August.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend subpart D by revising the title to read as follows:

Subpart D--Control of Depredating and Otherwise Injurious Birds

* * * * *
0
7. Add Sec.  21.49 to subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  21.49  Control order for resident Canada geese at airports and 
military airfields.

    (a) Which Canada geese are covered by this order? This regulation 
addresses the control and management of resident Canada geese, as 
defined in Sec.  21.3.
    (b) What is the control order for resident Canada geese at 
airports, and what is its purpose? The airport control order authorizes 
managers at commercial, public, and private airports (airports) (and 
their employees or their agents) and military air operation facilities 
(military airfields) (and their employees or their agents) to establish 
and implement a control and management program when necessary to 
resolve or prevent threats to public safety from resident Canada geese. 
Control and management activities include indirect and/or direct 
control strategies such as trapping and relocation, nest and egg 
destruction, gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, or other 
lethal and non-lethal control strategies.
    (c) Who may participate in the program? To be designated as an 
airport that is authorized to participate in this program, an airport 
must be part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems and 
have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance, or a military airfield, 
meaning an airfield or air station that is under the jurisdiction, 
custody, or control of the Secretary of a

[[Page 45987]]

military department. Only airports and military airfields in the lower 
48 States and the District of Columbia are eligible to conduct and 
implement the various resident Canada goose control and management 
program components.
    (d) What are the restrictions of the control order for resident 
Canada geese at airports and military airfields? The airport control 
order for resident Canada geese is subject to the following 
restrictions:
    (1) Airports and military airfields should use nonlethal goose 
management tools to the extent they deem appropriate. To minimize 
lethal take, airports and military airfields should follow this 
procedure:
    (i) Assess the problem to determine its extent or magnitude, its 
impact on current operations, and the appropriate control method to be 
used.
    (ii) Base control methods on sound biological, environmental, 
social, and cultural factors.
    (iii) Formulate appropriate methods into a control strategy that 
uses several control techniques rather than relying on a single method.
    (iv) Implement all appropriate nonlethal management techniques 
(such as harassment and habitat modification) in conjunction with take 
authorized under this order.
    (2)(i) Methods of take for the control of resident Canada geese are 
at the airport's and military airfield's discretion from among the 
following:
    (A) Egg oiling,
    (B) Egg and nest destruction,
    (C) Shooting,
    (D) Lethal and live traps,
    (E) Nets,
    (F) Registered animal drugs, pesticides, and repellants,
    (G) Cervical dislocation, and
    (H) CO2 asphyxiation.
    (ii) Birds caught live may be euthanized or transported and 
relocated to another site approved by the State or Tribal wildlife 
agency, if required.
    (iii) All techniques used must be in accordance with other Federal, 
State, and local laws, and their use must comply with any labeling 
restrictions.
    (iv) Persons using shotguns must use nontoxic shot, as listed in 
Sec.  20.21(j) of this subchapter.
    (v) Persons using egg oiling must use 100 percent corn oil, a 
substance exempted from regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
    (3) Airports and military airfields may conduct management and 
control activities, involving the take of resident Canada geese, under 
this section between April 1 and September 15. The destruction of 
resident Canada goose nests and eggs may take place between March 1 and 
June 30.
    (4) Airports and military airfields and their employees and agents 
may possess, transport, and otherwise dispose of resident Canada geese 
taken under this section. Disposal of birds taken under this order may 
be by donation to public museums or public institutions for scientific 
or educational purposes, processing for human consumption and 
subsequent distribution free of charge to charitable organizations, or 
burial or incineration. Airports/military airfields, their employees, 
and designated agents may not sell, offer for sale, barter, or ship for 
the purpose of sale or barter any resident Canada geese taken under 
this section, nor their plumage or eggs. Any specimens needed for 
scientific purposes as determined by the Regional Director must not be 
destroyed, and information on birds carrying metal leg bands must be 
submitted to the Bird Banding Laboratory by means of a toll-free 
telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND (or 2263).
    (5) Resident Canada geese may be taken only within a 3-mile radius 
of the airport or military airfield. Airports and military airfields or 
their agents must first obtain all necessary authorizations from 
landowners for all management activities conducted outside the airport 
or military airfield's boundaries and be in compliance with all State 
and local laws and regulations.
    (6) Nothing in this section authorizes the killing of resident 
Canada geese or destruction of their nests and eggs contrary to the 
laws or regulations of any State or Tribe, and none of the privileges 
of this section may be exercised unless the airport or military 
airfield possesses the appropriate State or Tribal authorization or 
other permits required by the State or Tribe. Moreover, this section 
does not authorize the killing of any migratory bird species or 
destruction of their nest or eggs other than resident Canada geese.
    (7) Authorized airports and military airfields, and their employees 
and agents operating under the provisions of this section may not use 
decoys, calls, or other devices to lure birds within gun range.
    (8) Airports and military airfields exercising the privileges 
granted by this section must submit an annual report summarizing 
activities, including the date and numbers and location of birds, 
nests, and eggs taken, by December 31 of each year to the Regional 
Migratory Bird Permit Office listed in Sec.  2.2 of this subchapter.
    (9) Nothing in this section applies to any Federal land without 
written permission of the Federal agency with jurisdiction.
    (10) Airports and military airfields may not undertake any actions 
under this section if the activities adversely affect other migratory 
birds or species designated as endangered or threatened under the 
authority of the Endangered Species Act. Persons operating under this 
order must immediately report the take of any species protected under 
the Endangered Species Act to the Service. Further, to protect certain 
species from being adversely affected by management actions, airports 
and military airfields must:
    (i) Follow the Federal-State Contingency Plan for the whooping 
crane;
    (ii) Conduct no activities within 300 meters of a whooping crane or 
Mississippi sandhill crane nest;
    (iii) Follow all Regional (or National when available) Bald Eagle 
Nesting Management guidelines for all management activities;
    (iv) Contact the Arizona Ecological Services Office (for the 
Colorado River and Arizona sites) or the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (for Salton Sea sites) if control activities are proposed in or 
around occupied habitats (cattail or cattail bulrush marshes) to 
discuss the proposed activity and ensure that implementation will not 
adversely affect clapper rails or their habitats; and
    (v) In California, any control activities of resident Canada geese 
in areas used by the following species listed under the Endangered 
Species Act must be done in coordination with the appropriate local FWS 
field office and in accordance with standard local operating procedures 
for avoiding adverse effects to the species or its critical habitat:
    (A) Birds: Light-footed clapper rail, California clapper rail, Yuma 
clapper rail, California least tern, southwestern willow flycatcher, 
least Bell's vireo, western snowy plover, California gnatcatcher.
    (B) Amphibians: California red-legged frog and California tiger 
salamander.
    (C) Insects: Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and delta green 
ground beetle.
    (D) Crustaceans: Vernal pool fairy shrimp, conservancy fairy 
shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, San Diego 
fairy shrimp, and Riverside fairy shrimp.
    (E) Plants: Butte County meadowfoam, large-flowered wooly 
meadowfoam, Cook's lomatium, Contra Costa goldfields, Hoover's spurge, 
fleshy owl's clover, Colusa grass, hairy Orcutt grass, Solano grass, 
Greene's tuctoria,

[[Page 45988]]

Sacramento Valley Orcutt grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, 
slender Orcutt grass, California Orcutt grass, spreading navarretia, 
and San Jacinto Valley crownscale.
    (e) Can the control order be suspended? We reserve the right to 
suspend or revoke an airport's or military airfield's authority under 
this control order if we find that the terms and conditions specified 
in the control order have not been adhered to by that airport or 
military airfield. Final decisions to revoke authority will be made by 
the appropriate Regional Director. The criteria and procedures for 
suspension, revocation, reconsideration, and appeal are outlined in 
Sec. Sec.  13.27 through 13.29 of this subchapter. For the purposes of 
this section, ``issuing officer'' means the Regional Director and 
``permit'' means the authority to act under this control order. For 
purposes of Sec.  13.29(e), appeals must be made to the Director.
    (f) Has the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the 
information collection requirements of the control order? OMB has 
approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements of 
the control order under OMB control number 1018-0133. We may not 
conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. You may send comments on the information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements to the Service's Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222--ARLSQ, 1849 
C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.

0
8. Add Sec.  21.50 to subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  21.50  Depredation order for resident Canada geese nests and 
eggs.

    (a) Which Canada geese are covered by this order? This regulation 
addresses the control and management of resident Canada geese, as 
defined in Sec.  21.3.
    (b) What is the depredation order for resident Canada geese nests 
and eggs, and what is its purpose? The nest and egg depredation order 
for resident Canada geese authorizes private landowners and managers of 
public lands (landowners) (and their employees or their agents) to 
destroy resident Canada goose nests and eggs on property under their 
jurisdiction when necessary to resolve or prevent injury to people, 
property, agricultural crops, or other interests.
    (c) Who may participate in the depredation order? Only landowners 
(and their employees or their agents) in the lower 48 States and the 
District of Columbia are eligible to implement the resident Canada 
goose nest and egg depredation order.
    (d) What are the restrictions of the depredation order for resident 
Canada goose nests and eggs? The resident Canada goose nest and egg 
depredation order is subject to the following restrictions:
    (1) Before any management actions can be taken, landowners must 
register with the Service at http://www.fws.gov/permits/mbpermits/gooseeggregistration.html. Landowners must also register each employee 
or agent working on their behalf. Once registered, landowners or their 
agents will be authorized to act under the depredation order.
    (2) Landowners authorized to operate under the depredation order 
must use nonlethal goose management techniques to the extent they deem 
appropriate in an effort to minimize take.
    (3) Methods of nest destruction or take are at the landowner's 
discretion from among the following:
    (i) Egg oiling, using 100 percent corn oil, a substance exempted 
from regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the 
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and
    (ii) Removal and disposal of eggs and nest material.
    (4) Landowners authorized to operate under the depredation order 
may conduct resident Canada goose nest and egg destruction activities 
between March 1 and June 30.
    (5) Landowners authorized to operate under the depredation order 
may possess, transport, and dispose of resident Canada goose nests and 
eggs taken under this section. Landowners authorized to operate under 
the program may not sell, offer for sale, barter, or ship for the 
purpose of sale or barter any resident Canada goose nest or egg taken 
under this section.
    (6) Landowners exercising the privileges granted by this section 
must complete an annual report summarizing activities, including the 
date, numbers, and location of nests and eggs taken by October 31 of 
each year at http://www.fws.gov/permits/mbpermits/gooseeggregistration/report.html before any subsequent registration for the following year.
    (7) Nothing in this section authorizes the destruction of resident 
Canada goose nests or the take of resident Canada goose eggs contrary 
to the laws or regulations of any State or Tribe, and none of the 
privileges of this section may be exercised unless the landowner is 
authorized to operate under the program and possesses the appropriate 
State or Tribal permits, when required. Moreover, this section does not 
authorize the killing of any migratory bird species or destruction of 
their nest or eggs other than resident Canada geese.
    (8) Landowners may not undertake any actions under this section if 
the activities adversely affect other migratory birds or species 
designated as endangered or threatened under the authority of the 
Endangered Species Act. Persons operating under this order must 
immediately report the take of any species protected under the 
Endangered Species Act to the Service. Further, to protect certain 
species from being adversely affected by management actions, landowners 
must:
    (i) Follow the Federal-State Contingency Plan for the whooping 
crane;
    (ii) Conduct no activities within 300 meters of a whooping crane or 
Mississippi sandhill crane nest;
    (iii) Follow all Regional (or National when available) Bald Eagle 
Nesting Management guidelines for all management activities;
    (iv) Contact the Arizona Ecological Services Office (for the 
Colorado River and Arizona sites) or the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife 
Office (for Salton Sea sites) if control activities are proposed in or 
around occupied habitats (cattail or cattail bulrush marshes) to 
discuss the proposed activity and ensure that implementation will not 
adversely affect clapper rails or their habitats; and
    (v) In California, any control activities of resident Canada geese 
in areas used by the following species listed under the Endangered 
Species Act must be done in coordination with the appropriate local FWS 
field office and in accordance with standard local operating procedures 
for avoiding adverse effects to the species or its critical habitat:
    (A) Birds: Light-footed clapper rail, California clapper rail, Yuma 
clapper rail, California least tern, southwestern willow flycatcher, 
least Bell's vireo, western snowy plover, California gnatcatcher.
    (B) Amphibians: California red-legged frog and California tiger 
salamander.
    (C) Insects: Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and delta green 
ground beetle.
    (D) Crustaceans: Vernal pool fairy shrimp, conservancy fairy 
shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, San Diego 
fairy shrimp, and Riverside fairy shrimp.
    (E) Plants: Butte County meadowfoam, large-flowered wooly 
meadowfoam, Cook's lomatium, Contra

[[Page 45989]]

Costa goldfields, Hoover's spurge, fleshy owl's clover, Colusa grass, 
hairy Orcutt grass, Solano grass, Greene's tuctoria, Sacramento Valley 
Orcutt grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, slender Orcutt grass, 
California Orcutt grass, spreading navarretia, and San Jacinto Valley 
crownscale.
    (e) Can the depredation order be suspended? We reserve the right to 
suspend or revoke this authorization for a particular landowner if we 
find that the landowner has not adhered to the terms and conditions 
specified in the depredation order. Final decisions to revoke authority 
will be made by the appropriate Regional Director. The criteria and 
procedures for suspension, revocation, reconsideration, and appeal are 
outlined in Sec. Sec.  13.27 through 13.29 of this subchapter. For the 
purposes of this section, ``issuing officer'' means the Regional 
Director and ``permit'' means the authority to act under this 
depredation order. For purposes of Sec.  13.29(e), appeals must be made 
to the Director. Additionally, at such time that we determine that 
resident Canada goose populations no longer need to be reduced in order 
to resolve or prevent injury to people, property, agricultural crops, 
or other interests, we may choose to terminate part or all of the 
depredation order by subsequent regulation. In all cases, we will 
annually review the necessity and effectiveness of the depredation 
order.
    (f) Has the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the 
information collection requirements of the depredation order? OMB has 
approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements of 
the depredation order under OMB control number 1018-0133. We may not 
conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. You may send comments on the information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements to the Service's Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222--ARLSQ, 1849 
C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240.


0
9. Add Sec.  21.51 to subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  21.51  Depredation order for resident Canada geese at 
agricultural facilities.

    (a) Which Canada geese are covered by this order? This regulation 
addresses the control and management of resident Canada geese, as 
defined in Sec.  21.3.
    (b) What is the depredation order for resident Canada geese at 
agricultural facilities, and what is its purpose? The depredation order 
for resident Canada geese at agricultural facilities authorizes States 
and Tribes, via the State or Tribal wildlife agency, to implement a 
program to allow landowners, operators, and tenants actively engaged in 
commercial agriculture (agricultural producers) (or their employees or 
agents) to conduct direct damage management actions such as nest and 
egg destruction, gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, or 
other lethal and non-lethal wildlife-damage management strategies on 
resident Canada geese when the geese are committing depredations to 
agricultural crops and when necessary to resolve or prevent injury to 
agricultural crops or other agricultural interests from resident Canada 
geese.
    (c) Who may participate in the depredation order? State and Tribal 
wildlife agencies in the following States may authorize agricultural 
producers (or their employees or agents) to conduct and implement 
various components of the depredation order at agricultural facilities 
in the Atlantic, Central, and Mississippi Flyway portions of these 
States: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, 
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, 
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, 
Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
    (d) What are the restrictions of the depredation order for resident 
Canada geese at agricultural facilities? The depredation order for 
resident Canada geese at agricultural facilities is subject to the 
following restrictions:
    (1) Only landowners, operators, and tenants (or their employees or 
agents) actively engaged in commercial activities (agricultural 
producers) so designated by the States may act under this order.
    (2) Authorized agricultural producers should use nonlethal goose 
management tools to the extent they deem appropriate. To minimize 
lethal take, agricultural producers should adhere to the following 
procedure:
    (i) Assess the problem to determine its extent or magnitude, its 
impact to current operations, and the appropriate control method to be 
used.
    (ii) Base control methods on sound biological, environmental, 
social, and cultural factors.
    (iii) Formulate appropriate methods into a control strategy that 
uses the approach/concept that encourages the use of several control 
techniques rather than relying on a single method.
    (iv) Implement all appropriate nonlethal management techniques 
(such as harassment and habitat modification) in conjunction with take 
authorized under this order.
    (3)(i) Methods of take for the control of resident Canada geese are 
at the State's or Tribe's discretion among the following:
    (A) Egg oiling,
    (B) Egg and nest destruction,
    (C) Shotguns,
    (D) Lethal and live traps,
    (E) Nets,
    (F) Registered animal drugs, pesticides, and repellants,
    (G) Cervical dislocation, and
    (H) CO2 asphyxiation.
    (ii) Birds caught live may be euthanized or transported and 
relocated to another site approved by the State or Tribal wildlife 
agency, if required.
    (iii) All techniques used must be in accordance with other Federal, 
State, Tribal, and local laws, and their use must comply with any 
labeling restrictions.
    (iv) Persons using shotguns must use nontoxic shot, as listed in 
Sec.  20.21(j) of this subchapter.
    (v) Persons using egg oiling must use 100 percent corn oil, a 
substance exempted from regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
    (4) Authorized agricultural producers and their employees and 
agents may conduct management and control activities, involving the 
take of resident Canada geese, under this section between May 1 and 
August 31. The destruction of resident Canada goose nests and eggs may 
take place between March 1 and June 30.
    (5) Authorized agricultural producers and their employees and 
agents may possess, transport, and otherwise dispose of resident Canada 
geese taken under this section. Disposal of birds taken under this 
order may be by donation to public museums or public institutions for 
scientific or educational purposes, processing for human consumption 
and subsequent distribution free of charge to charitable organizations, 
or burial or incineration. Agricultural producers, their employees, and 
designated agents may not sell, offer for sale, barter, or ship for the 
purpose of sale or barter any resident Canada geese taken under this 
section, nor their plumage or eggs. Any specimens needed for scientific 
purposes as determined by

[[Page 45990]]

the Director must not be destroyed, and information on birds carrying 
metal leg bands must be submitted to the Bird Banding Laboratory by 
means of a toll-free telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND (or 2263).
    (6) Resident Canada geese may be taken only on land which an 
authorized agricultural producer personally controls and where geese 
are committing depredations to agricultural crops.
    (7) Authorized agricultural producers, and their employees and 
agents, operating under the provisions of this section may not use 
decoys, calls, or other devices to lure birds within gun range.
    (8) Any authorized agricultural producer exercising the privileges 
of this section must keep and maintain a log that indicates the date 
and number of birds killed and the date and number of nests and eggs 
taken under this authorization. The log must be maintained for a period 
of 3 years (and records for 3 previous years of takings must be 
maintained at all times thereafter). The log and any related records 
must be made available to Federal, State, or Tribal wildlife 
enforcement officers upon request during normal business hours.
    (9) Nothing in this section authorizes the killing of resident 
Canada geese or the destruction of their nests and eggs contrary to the 
laws or regulations of any State or Tribe, and none of the privileges 
of this section may be exercised unless the agricultural producer 
possesses the appropriate State or Tribal permits, when required. 
Moreover, this regulation does not authorize the killing of any 
migratory bird species or destruction of their nests or eggs other than 
resident Canada geese.
    (10) States and Tribes exercising the privileges granted by this 
section must submit an annual report summarizing activities, including 
the numbers and County of birds, nests, and eggs taken, by December 31 
of each year to the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office listed in 
Sec.  2.2 of this subchapter.
    (11) Nothing in this section applies to any Federal land without 
written permission of the Federal agency with jurisdiction.
    (12) Authorized agricultural producers may not undertake any 
actions under this section if the activities adversely affect other 
migratory birds or species designated as endangered or threatened under 
the authority of the Endangered Species Act. Persons operating under 
this order must immediately report the take of any species protected 
under the Endangered Species Act to the Service. Further, to protect 
certain species from being adversely affected by management actions, 
agricultural producers must:
    (i) Follow the Federal-State Contingency Plan for the whooping 
crane;
    (ii) Conduct no activities within 300 meters of a whooping crane or 
Mississippi sandhill crane nest; and
    (iii) Follow all Regional (or National when available) Bald Eagle 
Nesting Management guidelines for all management activities.
    (e) Can the depredation order be suspended? We reserve the right to 
suspend or revoke a State, Tribal, or agricultural producer's authority 
under this program if we find that the terms and conditions specified 
in the depredation order have not been adhered to by that State or 
Tribe. Final decisions to revoke authority will be made by the 
appropriate Regional Director. The criteria and procedures for 
suspension, revocation, reconsideration, and appeal are outlined in 
Sec. Sec.  13.27 through 13.29 of this subchapter. For the purposes of 
this section, ``issuing officer'' means the Regional Director and 
``permit'' means the authority to act under this depredation order. For 
purposes of Sec.  13.29(e), appeals must be made to the Director. 
Additionally, at such time that we determine that resident Canada geese 
populations no longer pose a threat to agricultural crops or no longer 
need to be reduced in order to resolve or prevent injury to 
agricultural crops or other agricultural interests, we may choose to 
terminate part or all of the depredation order by subsequent 
regulation. In all cases, we will annually review the necessity and 
effectiveness of the depredation order.
    (f) Has the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the 
information collection requirements of the depredation order? OMB has 
approved the information collection and recordkeeping requirements of 
the depredation order under OMB control number 1018-0133. We may not 
conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. You may send comments on the information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements to the Service's Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 1849 C 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.

0
10. Add Sec.  21.52 to subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  21.52  Public health control order for resident Canada geese.

    (a) Which Canada geese are covered by this order? This regulation 
addresses the control and management of resident Canada geese, as 
defined in Sec.  21.3.
    (b) What is the public health control order for resident Canada 
geese, and what is its purpose? The public health control order for 
resident Canada geese authorizes States, Tribes, and the District of 
Columbia, via the State or Tribal wildlife agency, to conduct resident 
Canada goose control and management activities including direct control 
strategies such as trapping and relocation, nest and egg destruction, 
gosling and adult trapping and culling programs, or other lethal and 
non-lethal wildlife damage-management strategies when resident Canada 
geese are posing a direct threat to human health.
    (c) What is a direct threat to human health? A direct threat to 
human health is one where a Federal, State, Tribal, or local public 
health agency has determined that resident Canada geese pose a 
specific, immediate human health threat by creating conditions 
conducive to the transmission of human or zoonotic pathogens. The State 
or Tribe may not use this control order for situations in which 
resident Canada geese are merely causing a nuisance.
    (d) Who may participate in the program? Only State and Tribal 
wildlife agencies in the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia 
(or their employees or agents) may conduct and implement the various 
components of the public health control order for resident Canada 
geese.
    (e) What are the restrictions of the public health depredation 
order for resident Canada geese? The public health control order for 
resident Canada geese is subject to the following restrictions:
    (1) Authorized State and Tribal wildlife agencies should use 
nonlethal goose management tools to the extent they deem appropriate.
    (2)(i) Methods of take for the control of resident Canada geese are 
at the State's and Tribe's discretion from among the following:
    (A) Egg oiling,
    (B) Egg and nest destruction,
    (C) Shotguns,
    (D) Lethal and live traps,
    (E) Nets,
    (F) Registered animal drugs, pesticides, and repellants,
    (G) Cervical dislocation, and
    (H) CO2 asphyxiation.
    (ii) Birds caught live may be euthanized or transported and 
relocated to another site approved by the State or Tribal wildlife 
agency, if required.

[[Page 45991]]

    (iii) All techniques used must be in accordance with other Federal, 
State, Tribal, and local laws, and their use must comply with any 
labeling restrictions.
    (iv) Persons using shotguns must use nontoxic shot, as listed in 
Sec.  20.21(j) of this subchapter.
    (v) Persons using egg oiling must use 100 percent corn oil, a 
substance exempted from regulation by the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
    (3) Authorized State and Tribal wildlife agencies and their 
employees and agents may conduct management and control activities, 
involving the take of resident Canada geese, under this section between 
April 1 and August 31. The destruction of resident Canada goose nests 
and eggs may take place between March 1 and June 30.
    (4) Authorized State and Tribal wildlife agencies and their 
employees and agents may possess, transport, and otherwise dispose of 
resident Canada geese taken under this section. Disposal of birds taken 
under this order may be by donation to public museums or public 
institutions for scientific or educational purposes, processing for 
human consumption and subsequent distribution free of charge to 
charitable organizations, or burial or incineration. States, their 
employees, and designated agents may not sell, offer for sale, barter, 
or ship for the purpose of sale or barter any resident Canada geese 
taken under this section, nor their plumage or eggs. Any specimens 
needed for scientific purposes as determined by the Regional Director 
must not be destroyed, and information on birds carrying metal leg 
bands must be submitted to the Bird Banding Laboratory by means of a 
toll-free telephone number at 1-800-327-BAND (or 2263).
    (5) Resident Canada geese may be taken only within the specified 
area of the direct threat to human health.
    (6) Authorized State and Tribal wildlife agencies, and their 
employees and agents operating under the provisions of this section may 
not use decoys, calls, or other devices to lure birds within gun range.
    (7) No person conducting activities under this section should 
construe the program as authorizing the killing of resident Canada 
geese or destruction of their nests and eggs contrary to any State law 
or regulation, nor may any control activities be conducted on any 
Federal land without specific authorization by the responsible 
management agency. No person may exercise the privileges granted under 
this section unless they possess any permits required for such 
activities by any State or Federal land manager.
    (8) Any State or Tribal employee or designated agent authorized to 
carry out activities under this section must have a copy of the State's 
or Tribal authorization and designation in their possession when 
carrying out any activities. If the State or Tribe is conducting 
operations on private property, the State or Tribe must also require 
the property owner or occupant on whose premises resident Canada goose 
activities are being conducted to allow, at all reasonable times, 
including during actual operations, free and unrestricted access to any 
Service special agent or refuge officer, State or Tribal wildlife or 
deputy wildlife agent, warden, protector, or other wildlife law 
enforcement officer on the premises where they are, or were, conducting 
activities. Furthermore, any State or Tribal employee or designated 
agent conducting such activities must promptly furnish whatever 
information is required concerning such activities to any such wildlife 
officer.
    (9) States and Tribes exercising the privileges granted by this 
section must submit an annual report summarizing activities, including 
the numbers and County of birds taken, by December 31 of each year to 
the Regional Migratory Bird Permit Office listed in Sec.  2.2 of this 
subchapter.
    (10) Authorized State and Tribal wildlife agencies may not 
undertake any actions under this section if the activities adversely 
affect other migratory birds or species designated as endangered or 
threatened under the authority of the Endangered Species Act. Persons 
operating under this order must immediately report the take of any 
species protected under the Endangered Species Act to the Service. 
Further, to protect certain species from being adversely affected by 
management actions, State and Tribal wildlife agencies must:
    (i) Follow the Federal-State Contingency Plan for the whooping 
crane;
    (ii) Conduct no activities within 300 meters of a whooping crane or 
Mississippi sandhill crane nest;
    (iii) Follow all Regional (or National when available) Bald Eagle 
Nesting Management guidelines for all management activities;
    (iv) Contact the Arizona Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological 
Services Office (for the Colorado River and Arizona sites) or the 
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (for Salton Sea sites) if control 
activities are proposed in or around occupied habitats (cattail or 
cattail bulrush marshes) to discuss the proposed activity and ensure 
that implementation will not adversely affect clapper rails or their 
habitats; and
    (v) In California, any control activities of resident Canada geese 
in areas used by the following species listed under the Endangered 
Species Act must be done in coordination with the appropriate local FWS 
field office and in accordance with standard local operating procedures 
for avoiding adverse effects to the species or its critical habitat:
    (A) Birds: Light-footed clapper rail, California clapper rail, Yuma 
clapper rail, California least tern, southwestern willow flycatcher, 
least Bell's vireo, western snowy plover, California gnatcatcher.
    (B) Amphibians: California red-legged frog and California tiger 
salamander.
    (C) Insects: Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and delta green 
ground beetle.
    (D) Crustaceans: Vernal pool fairy shrimp, conservancy fairy 
shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, San Diego 
fairy shrimp, and Riverside fairy shrimp.
    (E) Plants: Butte County meadowfoam, large-flowered wooly 
meadowfoam, Cook's lomatium, Contra Costa goldfields, Hoover's spurge, 
fleshy owl's clover, Colusa grass, hairy Orcutt grass, Solano grass, 
Greene's tuctoria, Sacramento Valley Orcutt grass, San Joaquin Valley 
Orcutt grass, slender Orcutt grass, California Orcutt grass, spreading 
navarretia, and San Jacinto Valley crownscale.
    (f) Can the control order be suspended? We reserve the right to 
suspend or revoke a State's or Tribe's authority under this program if 
we find that the terms and conditions specified in the depredation 
order have not been adhered to by that agency. Final decisions to 
revoke authority will be made by the appropriate Regional Director. The 
criteria and procedures for suspension, revocation, reconsideration, 
and appeal are outlined in Sec. Sec.  13.27 through 13.29 of this 
subchapter. For the purposes of this section, ``issuing officer'' means 
the Regional Director and ``permit'' means the authority to act under 
this control order. For purposes of Sec.  13.29(e), appeals must be 
made to the Director. Additionally, at such time that we determine that 
resident Canada geese populations no longer pose direct threats to 
human health, we may choose to terminate part or all of the control 
order by subsequent regulation. In all cases, we will annually review 
the necessity and effectiveness of the control order.
    (g) Has the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the 
information collection requirements of the control

[[Page 45992]]

order? OMB has approved the information collection and recordkeeping 
requirements of the control order under OMB control number 1018-0133. 
We may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, 
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. You may send comments on the information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements to the Service's Information Collection 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 1849 C 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.


0
11. Add Sec.  21.61 to subpart E to read as follows:


Sec.  21.61  Population control of resident Canada geese.

    (a) Which Canada geese are covered by this regulation? This 
regulation addresses the population control of resident Canada geese, 
as defined in Sec.  21.3.
    (b) What is the resident Canada goose population control program, 
and what is its purpose? The resident Canada goose population control 
program is a managed take program implemented under the authority of 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to reduce and stabilize resident Canada 
goose populations when traditional and otherwise authorized management 
measures are unsuccessful, not feasible for dealing with, or 
applicable, in preventing injury to property, agricultural crops, 
public health, and other interests from resident Canada geese. The 
Director is authorized to allow States and Tribes to implement a 
population control, or managed take, program to remedy these injuries. 
When authorized by the Director, managed take allows additional methods 
of taking resident Canada geese, allows shooting hours for resident 
Canada geese to extend to one-half hour after sunset, and removes daily 
bag limits for resident Canada geese inside or outside the migratory 
bird hunting season frameworks as described in this section. The intent 
of the program is to reduce resident Canada goose populations in order 
to protect personal property and agricultural crops and other interests 
from injury and to resolve potential concerns about human health. The 
management and control activities allowed or conducted under the 
program are intended to relieve or prevent damage and injurious 
situations. No person should construe this program as opening, 
reopening, or extending any hunting season contrary to any regulations 
established under section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
    (c) What areas are eligible to participate in the program? When 
approved by the Director, the State and Tribal wildlife agencies of 
Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, 
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North 
Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West 
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming may implement the resident Canada 
goose population control program components in the Atlantic, Central, 
and Mississippi Flyway portions of these States.
    (d) What is required in order for State governments to participate 
in a managed take program? Following the conclusion of the first full 
operational year of Sec. Sec.  21.49 through 21.52 of this part, any 
wildlife agency from a State listed in 21.61(c) may request approval 
for the population control program. A request must include a discussion 
of the State's or Tribe's efforts to address its injurious situations 
utilizing the methods approved in this rule or a discussion of the 
reasons why the methods authorized by these rules are not feasible for 
dealing with, or applicable to, the injurious situations that require 
further action. Discussions should be detailed and provide the Service 
with a clear understanding of the injuries that continue, why the 
authorized methods utilized have not worked, and why methods not 
utilized could not effectuate resolution of the injuries. A State's 
request for approval may be for an area or areas smaller than the 
entire State. Upon written approval 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, resident Canada geese under the following 
conditions:
    (1) Activities conducted under the managed take program may not 
affect endangered or threatened species as designated under the 
Endangered Species Act.
    (2) Control activities may be conducted under this section only 
between August 1 and August 30.
    (3) Control measures employed through this section may be 
implemented only between the hours of one-half hour before sunrise to 
one-half hour after sunset.
    (4) Nothing in the program may limit or initiate management actions 
on Federal land without concurrence of the Federal agency with 
jurisdiction.
    (5) States and Tribes must designate participants who must operate 
under the conditions of the managed take program.
    (6) States and Tribes must inform participants of the requirements/
conditions of the program that apply.
    (7) States and Tribes must keep annual records of activities 
carried out under the authority of the program. Specifically, 
information must be collected on:
    (i) The number of individuals participating in the program;
    (ii) The number of days individuals participated in the program;
    (iii) The total number of resident Canada geese shot and retrieved 
during the program; and
    (iv) The number of resident Canada geese shot but not retrieved. 
The States and Tribes must submit an annual report summarizing 
activities conducted under the program and an assessment of the 
continuation of the injuries on or before June 1 of each year to the 
Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, 
ms-MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
    (e) What is required for individuals to participate in the program? 
Individual participants in State and Tribal programs covered by the 
managed take program must comply with the following requirements:
    (1) Participants must comply with all applicable State and Tribal 
laws or regulations including possession of whatever permit(s) or other 
authorization(s) may be required by the State or Tribal government 
concerned.
    (2) Participants who take resident Canada geese under the program 
may not sell or offer for sale those birds or their plumage, but may 
possess, transport, and otherwise properly use them.
    (3) Participants must permit at all reasonable times, including 
during actual operations, any Service special agent or refuge officer, 
State or Tribal wildlife or deputy wildlife agent, warden, protector, 
or other wildlife 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) Participants may take resident Canada geese by any method 
except those prohibited as follows:
    (i) With a trap, snare, net, rifle, pistol, swivel gun, shotgun 
larger than 10 gauge, punt gun, battery gun, machine

[[Page 45993]]

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 paraplegic 
persons and persons missing one or both legs may take 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 
birds.
    (v) By the use or aid of live birds as decoys. No person may take 
resident Canada geese on an area where tame or captive live geese are 
present unless such birds are, and have been for a period of 10 
consecutive days before the taking, confined within an enclosure that 
substantially reduces the audibility of their calls and totally 
conceals the birds from the sight of resident Canada geese.
    (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 resident Canada 
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) and (k) of this part. Resident 
Canada geese may not be taken on or over lands or areas that are baited 
areas, and where grain or other feed has been distributed or scattered 
solely as the result of manipulation of an agricultural crop or other 
feed on the land where grown, or solely as the result of a normal 
agricultural operation as described in Sec.  20.11(h) and (l) of this 
part. However, nothing in this paragraph prohibits the taking of 
resident Canada geese on or over the following lands or areas that are 
not otherwise baited areas:
    (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, 
post-harvest manipulation or normal soil stabilization practice as 
described in Sec.  20.11(g), (i), (l), and (m) of this part;
    (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.
    (E) Participants may not possess shot (either in shotshells or as 
loose shot for muzzleloading) other than steel shot, bismuth-tin, 
tungsten-iron, tungsten-polymer, tungsten-matrix, tungsten-nickel iron, 
or other shots that are authorized in Sec.  20.21(j) of this part.
    (f) Under what conditions would we suspend the managed take 
program? Following authorization by the Director, we will annually 
assess the overall impact and effectiveness of the program on resident 
Canada goose populations to ensure compatibility with long-term 
conservation of this resource. If at any time evidence is presented 
that clearly demonstrates that resident Canada geese populations no 
longer need to be reduced in order to allow resolution or prevention of 
injury to people, property, agricultural crops, or other interests, the 
Director, in writing, will suspend the program for the resident Canada 
goose population in question. However, resumption of injuries caused by 
growth of the population and not otherwise addressable by the methods 
available in part 21 may warrant reinstatement of such regulations. A 
State must reapply for approval, including the same information and 
discussions noted in 21.61(d). Depending on the location of the injury 
or threat or injury, the Director, in writing, may suspend or reinstate 
this authorization for one or more resident Canada goose populations, 
but not others.
    (g) What population information is the State or Tribe required to 
collect concerning the resident Canada goose managed take program? 
Participating States and Tribes must provide an annual estimate of the 
breeding population and distribution of resident Canada geese in their 
State. The States and Tribes must submit this estimate on or before 
August 1 of each year, to the Chief, Division of Migratory Bird 
Management, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., MBSP-4107, Arlington, Virginia 22203.
    (h) What are the general program conditions and restrictions? The 
program is subject to the conditions elsewhere in this section, and, 
unless otherwise specifically authorized, the following conditions:
    (1) Nothing in this section applies to any Federal land within a 
State's or Tribe's boundaries without written permission of the Federal 
agency with jurisdiction.
    (2) States may not undertake any actions under this section if the 
activities adversely affect other migratory birds or species designated 
as endangered or threatened under the authority of the Endangered 
Species Act. Persons operating under this section must immediately 
report the take of any species protected under the Endangered Species 
Act to the Service. Further, to protect certain species from being 
adversely affected by management actions, States must:
    (i) Follow the Federal State Contingency Plan for the whooping 
crane;
    (ii) Conduct no activities within 300 meters of a whooping crane or 
Mississippi sandhill crane nest; and
    (iii) Follow all Regional (or National when available) Bald Eagle 
Nesting Management guidelines for all management activities.
    (i) Has the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the 
information collection requirements of the program? OMB has approved 
the information collection and recordkeeping requirements of the 
program under OMB control number 1018-0133. We may not conduct or 
sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of 
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 
You may send comments on the information collection and recordkeeping 
requirements to the Service's Information Collection Clearance Officer, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222--ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20240.

    Dated: July 6, 2006.
Matt Hogan,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-6739 Filed 8-9-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P`