45964 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 HiLine. 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45966 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 a Atlantic Flyway Mississippi 

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 objective Atlantic 

Flyway b

Mississippi 

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. 

bAtlantic Flyway Council Section 1999. 

cOnly U.S. States provided population objectives (Gabig 2000). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 broodrearing, 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45968 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 standalone 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45970 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Stateconducted 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 nonIndians 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, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 computergenerated 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45972 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 densitydependent 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 shortterm 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45974 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (localbased 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45976 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 onthe-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 longterm 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 caseby-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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 caseby-case basis. We realize that some midlatitude 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 nontraditional 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-bycase 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45978 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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-togovernment 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonhunting 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, localbased 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45980 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 midlatitude 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 

§ 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 longrange 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 ecologicallybased 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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45982 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 foreignbased 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45984 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 Federallyprotected 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, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45986 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

■ 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] 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 20.11 by adding paragraph 

(n) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 3. Revise paragraphs (b) and (g) of 

§ 20.21 to read as follows: 

§ 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 onepiece 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] 

■ 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. 

■ 5. Amend § 21.3 by revising the 

definition for ‘‘Resident Canada geese’’

to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend subpart D by revising the 

title to read as follows: 

Subpart D—Control of Depredating 

and Otherwise Injurious Birds 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Add § 21.49 to subpart D to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 tollfree 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 § 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, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45988 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 §§ 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 § 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. 

■ 8. Add § 21.50 to subpart D to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 §§ 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 

§ 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. 

■ 9. Add § 21.51 to subpart D to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 wildlifedamage 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 § 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45990 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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 tollfree 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 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. 

■ 10. Add § 21.52 to subpart D to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 § 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. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 tollfree 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 § 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 §§ 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 § 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
45992 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

■ 11. Add § 21.61 to subpart E to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 onehalf 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 §§ 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 154 / Thursday, August 10, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 lowfloating 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 motordriven 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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, tungstenpolymer, tungsten-matrix, tungstennickel iron, or other shots that are 

authorized in § 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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES