Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; Regulations for Managing Resident Canada Goose Populations, 45964-45993 [06-6739]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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



[[Page 45963]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Parts 20 and 21



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

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

[[Page 45964]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

RIN 1018-AI32


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule and notice of record of decision.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority and Responsibility

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

Background

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

Population Delineation and Status

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

[[Page 45965]]

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

Flyway Management Plans and Population Goals

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

[[Page 45966]]

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

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


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

[[Page 45967]]

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

Potential Causes of Population Growth and Past Attempts To Slow Growth

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

Conflicts and Impacts

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

Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action

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

Environmental Consequences of the Selected Action

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

[[Page 45968]]

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

Final Resident Canada Goose Regulations

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

[[Page 45969]]

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

Changes From the Proposed Rule

Administration and Organization of Proposed Action

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

Airport Control Order

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

Nests and Egg Depredation Order

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

Public Health Control Order

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

Population Control/Reduction Components

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

[[Page 45970]]

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

Pacific Flyway

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

Management Take in September

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

Tribal Entities

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

References

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

Public Comments and Responses to Significant Comments

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

[[Page 45971]]

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

Comments on the DEIS

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

[[Page 45972]]

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

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

    Nowhere in the MBTA is the implementation of migratory bird 
management activities limited to the Federal Government. In fact, the 
statute specifically gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority 
to determine when take of migratory birds may be allowed and to adopt 
regulations for this purpose. In accordance with the Act, we are 
adopting regulations that are compatible with the applicable 
Conventions (Treaty).
(11) Is the level of analysis conducted in the DEIS sufficient 
according to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act? 
Did the Service properly evaluate the environmental impacts of the 
selected action?
    Yes on both counts. The analysis included, as required by NEPA, a 
discussion of the environmental impacts associated with the various 
alternatives, unavoidable adverse environmental effects associated with 
the selected action, the relationship between short-term uses and long-
term productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of 
resources associated with the selected action. New information since 
publication of the DEIS was used to augment the discussion in the FEIS.
(12) In violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, has the 
Service ``failed to justify the purpose and need for action''?
    No. NEPA does not require ``justification,'' but instead requires 
that the purpose and need for the action be identified. As stated in 43 
CFR 1502.1, the purpose of an EIS is ``to serve as an action-forcing 
device to insure that the policies and goals defined in the Act are 
infused into the ongoing programs and actions of the Federal 
Government.'' We are confident that we fulfilled this purpose in the 
DEIS and FEIS.
(13) Did the Service fail to disclose or evaluate the environmental 
impacts of the selected action on threatened or endangered species?
    No. In the DEIS, the Service listed species that ``may be 
affected'' by resident Canada goose management as a precursor to its 
completion of the Section 7 consultation. The consultation evaluated 
any impacts on listed species and was completed for the FEIS.
(14) Isn't the selected alternative essentially an ``unfunded ma