Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; Regulations for Managing Harvest of Light Goose Populations, 65926-65953 [E8-26171]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 5, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65926-65953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26171]



[[Page 65925]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



46 CFR Parts 20 and 21



Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; Regulations for Managing Harvest of 
Light Goose Populations; Final Rule and Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 5, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 65926]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 20 and 21

[FWS-R9-MB-2008-0113; 91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
RIN 1018-AI07


Migratory Bird Hunting and Permits; Regulations for Managing 
Harvest of Light Goose Populations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule and Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: Various populations of light geese (greater and lesser snow 
geese and Ross's geese) have undergone rapid growth during the past 30 
years, and have become seriously injurious to their habitat, habitat 
important to other migratory birds, and agricultural interests. The 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service believes that several of these 
populations have exceeded the long-term carrying capacity of their 
breeding and/or migration habitats and must be reduced. This final rule 
sets forth regulations that authorize measures to increase harvest of 
certain populations of light geese. In addition, the rule revises the 
regulations for the management of overabundant light goose populations 
and modifies the conservation order that will increase take of birds 
from such populations. The Record of Decision is also published here.

DATES: This final rule will go into effect on December 5, 2008. The 
force and effect of the rules made applicable by the Arctic Tundra 
Habitat Emergency Conservation Act ceases upon the effective date of 
the final rules adopted here (Pub. L. 106-108, Sec. 3).

ADDRESSES: 1. Copies of the Final EIS are available by writing to the 
Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, MBSP-4107, Arlington, VA 22203.
    2. The public may inspect comments during normal business hours in 
Room 4107, 4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA.
    3. You may obtain copies of the Final EIS by downloading it from 
our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/issues/snowgse/
tblcont.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Blohm, Chief, Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714; or James Kelley (612) 713-
5409 (see ADDRESSES).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We regulate the taking of migratory birds 
under the four bilateral migratory bird treaties the United States 
entered into with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Japan, and 
Russia. Regulations allowing the take of migratory birds are authorized 
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711), and the Fish and 
Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712). The Acts authorize 
and direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow hunting, taking, 
killing, etc., of migratory birds subject to the provisions of, and in 
order to carry out the purposes of, the four migratory bird treaties.
    The 1916 treaty with Great Britain was amended in 1999 by the 
governments of Canada and the United States. Article II of the amended 
U.S.-Canada migratory bird treaty (Treaty) states that, in order to 
ensure the long-term conservation of migratory birds, migratory bird 
populations shall be managed in accord with conservation principles 
that include (among others): To manage migratory birds internationally; 
to sustain healthy migratory bird populations for harvesting needs; and 
to provide for and protect habitat necessary for the conservation of 
migratory birds. Article III of the Treaty states that the governments 
should meet regularly to review progress in implementing the Treaty. 
The review shall address issues important to the conservation of 
migratory birds, including the status of migratory bird populations, 
the status of important migratory bird habitats, and the effectiveness 
of management and regulatory systems. The governments agree to work 
cooperatively to resolve identified problems in a manner consistent 
with the principles of the Treaty and, if the need arises, to conclude 
special arrangements to conserve and protect species of concern. 
Article IV of the Treaty states that each government shall use its 
authority to take appropriate measures to preserve and enhance the 
environment of migratory birds. In particular, the governments shall, 
within their constitutional authority, seek means to prevent damage to 
such birds and their environments and pursue cooperative arrangements 
to conserve habitats essential to migratory bird populations. Article 
VII of the Treaty authorizes permitting the take, kill, etc., of 
migratory birds that, under extraordinary conditions, become seriously 
injurious to agricultural or other interests.

Population Delineation and Surveys

    Greater snow geese, lesser snow geese, and Ross's geese are 
referred to as ``light'' geese due to the light coloration of the 
white-phase plumage morph, as opposed to true ``dark'' geese such as 
the white-fronted or Canada goose. We include both plumage variations 
of lesser snow geese (white, or ``snow'' and dark, or ``blue'') under 
the designation light geese. Dark phase Ross's geese exist but are 
uncommon.
    Waterfowl managers frequently base management activities on the 
delineation of populations. In most instances, populations are 
delineated according to where they winter, whereas others are 
delineated based on location of their breeding grounds. For management 
purposes, populations can comprise one or more species of geese. 
Administrative flyway boundaries also are used to describe population 
ranges. In our October 12, 2001, proposed rule (66 FR 52077) and the 
Final EIS, we provided detailed descriptions of light goose species, 
delineation of various populations, and surveys that we use to monitor 
the status of the following populations: Greater snow geese, Mid-
Continent Population (MCP) of light geese, Western Central Flyway 
Population (WCFP) of light geese, Western Population of Ross's geese 
(WPRG), Pacific Flyway Population of lesser snow geese (PFSG), and 
Wrangel Island Population of lesser snow geese. We refer to the 
combination of MCP and WCFP birds in the mid-continent region as 
Central/Mississippi Flyway (CMF) light geese. Procedures for obtaining 
a copy of the EIS are described in the ADDRESSES section of this 
document.

Population Status and Goals

    Population goals for various light goose populations are outlined 
in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP; U.S. Department 
of the Interior et al. 1998). In addition, Flyway Councils have set 
population goals for light geese they manage within their geographic 
boundaries. We compare current population levels to NAWMP population 
goals to demonstrate that most light goose populations have increased 
substantially over what is considered to be a healthy population level. 
We are not suggesting that light goose populations be reduced for the 
sole purpose of meeting NAWMP population goals.
    Greater snow geese--The spring population estimate of greater snow 
geese increased from approximately 25,400 birds in 1965 to 1,019,000 
birds in 2007 (Reed et al. 1998, Reed et al. 2000; U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service

[[Page 65927]]

2007). The population growth rate during 1965-2007 was 8.0% per year, 
which if sustained will result in a population over 2 million by 2015, 
and nearly 3 million by 2020. The Atlantic Flyway Council population 
objective, as well as the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 
(NAWMP) spring population goal for greater snow geese is 500,000 birds 
(U.S. Dept. of the Interior et al. 1998). Therefore, the population 
estimate of 1,019,000 birds in 2007 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2007) is 103% higher than the Atlantic Flyway Council and NAWMP goals.
    Lesser snow geese--Lesser snow geese are frequently encountered 
together with Ross's geese on breeding, migration and wintering areas, 
thus complicating survey efforts. Winter indices of MCP and WCFP light 
geese include both of these species. Field studies indicate that MCP 
light geese are composed of approximately 94% lesser snow geese and 6% 
Ross's geese (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). The WCFP of light 
geese is composed of approximately 79% lesser snow geese and 21% Ross's 
geese. The winter index of MCP light geese (lesser snow and Ross's 
geese, combined) increased at a rate of 3.5% per year from 
approximately 777,000 birds in 1970, to a peak of nearly 3 million 
birds in 1998. Following implementation of regulations to increase 
light goose harvest in 1999, the MCP winter index declined to 2.2 
million in 2006, but rebounded to 2.9 million in 2007 (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 2007). The NAWMP winter index goal for MCP lesser snow 
geese is 1 million birds. The Central and Mississippi Flyway Councils 
have set an upper management threshold (winter index) of 1.5 million 
for MCP lesser snow geese. The lesser snow goose portion of the peak 
MCP winter index in 1998 was 198% higher than the NAWMP goal, and 98% 
higher than the management threshold adopted by the Flyway Councils. 
Following implementation of regulations to increase harvest in 1999, 
the MCP winter index for lesser snow geese declined to approximately 
2.1 million birds in 2006, but rebounded to 2.7 million in 2007. The 
2007 index of lesser snow geese is still 80% higher than the Flyway 
Council management threshold and 70% higher than the NAWMP goal. The 
2000 winter index of WCFP lesser snow geese was 77% higher than the 
NAWMP winter index goal of 110,000 birds. Flyway Councils have not set 
a threshold for WCFP lesser snow geese. Following implementation of 
regulations to increase harvest in 1999, the winter index of the number 
of WCFP lesser winter geese declined to approximately 111,000 birds in 
2006 but rebounded to 135,000 in 2007; still 23% higher than the NAWMP 
goal.
    The NAWMP does not contain a winter index goal for lesser snow 
geese in the Pacific Flyway (PFSG), but does contain a goal of 200,000 
birds for breeding lesser snow geese in the western Arctic. 
Approximately 76% of lesser snow geese that nest in the western Arctic 
migrate to PFSG wintering areas (Hines et al. 1999). The number of 
breeding lesser snow geese on surveyed colonies in 1976 was 169,600 
birds (Kerbes et al. 1999). During the period 1976-2002, the number of 
breeding lesser snow geese increased at an annual rate of 5.2%, to the 
most recent estimate of 579,700 birds (Canadian Wildlife Service, 
unpublished data). This estimate is 190% higher than the NAWMP goal for 
breeding lesser snow geese in the western Arctic. Including additional 
non-breeding birds, the minimum total number of lesser snow geese in 
the western Arctic was approximately 753,700 birds in 2002. In 1999, 
Hines et al. suggested a proactive approach to management of western 
Arctic lesser snow geese by stabilizing the population at its (then) 
current level of approximately 500,000 birds, before it escapes control 
via normal harvest.
    Ross's geese--The NAWMP does not contain separate population goals 
for MCP and WCFP Ross's geese. However, the NAWMP and Pacific Flyway 
Council (Pacific Flyway Council 1992) utilize a total continental goal 
of 100,000 breeding Ross's geese. The estimate of 619,100 breeding 
Ross's geese in the central and eastern Arctic in 1998 was 519% higher 
than the NAWMP and Pacific Flyway goal. The Pacific Flyway Council also 
has adopted a continental winter index goal of 150,000 Ross's geese 
(Pacific Flyway Council 1992). In 2000, the combined winter index total 
of 408,750 Ross's geese in the MCP, WCFP, and WPRG geographic ranges 
was 172% higher than the Pacific Flyway Council goal (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 2007).

Goose Impacts on Habitats and Other Species

    We described the impact of light geese on natural and agricultural 
systems for various breeding, migration, and wintering areas in our 
DEIS and FEIS on light goose management and in the October 12, 2001, 
proposed rule (66 FR 52077). Also, we described the impacts of habitat 
damage on some local nesting populations of birds, as well as the 
potential role that light geese may play in outbreaks of avian 
botulism. Due to the volume of technical information on these issues, 
we refer the reader to the FEIS and proposed rule for specific details. 
Procedures for obtaining a copy of the FEIS are described in the 
ADDRESSES section of this document.

Management Recommendations

    The Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group of the Arctic Goose Joint 
Venture recommended a short-term management goal of stabilizing the 
greater snow goose population at between 800,000 to 1 million birds 
(Giroux et al. 1998a). However, a reduction of the population below 
this level was recommended if natural habitats continue to deteriorate, 
or if measures taken to reduce crop depredation do not achieve desired 
results (Giroux et al. 1998a). The Canadian Stakeholders Committee in 
Quebec adopted a population goal of 500,000 birds to address continued 
habitat degradation and agricultural depredations in the St. Lawrence 
valley (Arctic Goose Joint Venture Technical Committee 2001).
    In 1997, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group recommended a 
management goal of reducing the number of light geese in the mid-
continent region (primarily MCP and WCFP lesser snow and Ross's geese) 
by 50% (Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group 1997). This suggests a 
reduction of the combined winter index of MCP and WCFP light geese from 
the winter 1996/1997 value of 3.1 million to approximately 1.6 million 
birds.

Light Goose Harvest

    Prior to 1999, we attempted to curb the growth of light goose 
populations by increasing bag and possession limits and extending the 
open hunting season length for light geese to 107 days, the maximum 
allowed by the Treaty. Despite liberalizations in regular-season 
regulations, the harvest rate (the percentage of the population that is 
harvested) for light goose populations traditionally had been low. Low 
hunting mortality has contributed to population growth, which further 
reduced the harvest rate. The decline in harvest rates prior to 1999 
indicated that traditional harvest management strategies were not 
sufficient to stabilize or reduce population growth rates. On February 
16, 1999 (64 FR 7507; 64 FR 7517), we authorized new methods of take 
and a conservation order for light geese in the Central and Mississippi 
Flyways. These regulations were temporarily withdrawn (June 17, 1999; 
64 FR 32778) to prevent further litigation, but were soon reinstated by 
passage of the Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act (Pub. 
L. 106-108) in November

[[Page 65928]]

1999. During 1999-2006, the total harvest of light geese in the Central 
and Mississippi Flyways during the regular hunting season and 
conservation orders (combined) has ranged from 1.2 to 1.5 million 
birds. We believe this magnitude of harvest is sufficient to reduce 
light goose population levels to desired management levels.

Environmental Consequences of Taking No Action

    We fully analyzed the No Action alternative with regard to light 
goose management in our FEIS, to which we refer the reader (U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service 2007). Implementation of the No Action alternative 
would require that special light goose regulations authorized by the 
Arctic Tundra Habitat Emergency Conservation Act be revoked. Therefore, 
light goose populations would resume growth under the No Action 
alternative. In summary, most light goose populations will continue to 
increase at rates anywhere from 5-15% per year, depending on the 
population. We expect breeding colonies to expand spatially as habitat 
becomes destroyed in core areas. Birds will begin to exploit new areas 
and repeat the pattern of habitat destruction and colony expansion. In 
the case of greater snow geese, we expect the population to exceed the 
ability of migration habitats to support them. Concurrently, we expect 
goose damage to agricultural crops to increase.
    Even if natural causes result in declines of goose populations, it 
will take habitats a prolonged time period to recover, especially in 
the Arctic. A variety of other bird species will be negatively impacted 
as the habitats they depend on become destroyed by light geese. As 
population densities increase, the incidence of avian cholera among 
light geese and other species is likely to increase. Significant losses 
of other species, such as pintails, white-fronted geese, sandhill 
cranes, and whooping cranes, from avian cholera may occur. This may 
result in reduced hunting, birdwatching, and other recreational 
opportunities.
    Habitat damage in the Arctic will eventually trigger density-
dependent regulation of the population, which likely will result in 
increased gosling mortality and may cause the population to decline 
precipitously. Impacts such as physiological stress, malnutrition, and 
disease in goslings have been documented, and observations of such 
impacts are increasing. However, it is not clear when natural 
population regulation will occur and what habitat, if any, will remain 
to support the survivors. Such a decline may result in a population too 
low to permit any hunting, effectively closing light goose hunting 
seasons. The length of the closures will largely depend on the recovery 
rate of the breeding habitat, which likely will take decades.
    In the near term, existing light goose hunting seasons would 
continue under the No Action Alternative. We have attempted to curb the 
growth of light goose populations by increasing bag and possession 
limits and extending the open hunting season length for light geese to 
107 days, the maximum allowed by the Migratory Bird Treaty. However, 
due to the rapid rise in light goose numbers, the harvest rate (the 
percentage of the population that is harvested) would decline even 
though the actual number of geese harvested has increased. The decline 
in harvest rate indicates that traditional harvest management 
strategies, which would continue under the No Action alternative, are 
not sufficient to reduce population growth rates.

Environmental Consequences of Preferred Action

    We fully analyzed our preferred action in the FEIS on light goose 
management, to which we refer the reader for specific details (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). In summary, implementation of 
regulations to increase harvest of light geese will reduce various 
light goose populations to levels we believe are more compatible with 
the ability of habitats to support them. Furthermore, habitats upon 
which other species depend will be preserved. Experts feel that 
nonlethal techniques would be ineffective at significantly reducing the 
populations within a reasonable timeframe to preserve and protect 
habitat (Batt 1997). We prefer to implement alternative regulatory 
strategies designed to increase light goose harvest afforded by the 
Migratory Bird Treaty and avoid the use of more drastic population 
control measures.
    Implementation of this rule will reduce the number of light geese 
in the Central and Mississippi Flyways (primarily MCP and WCFP light 
geese) by 50%. This suggests a reduction of the combined winter index 
of MCP and WCFP light geese from 3.1 million in 1997 (the year the 
management objective was established) to slightly less than 1.6 
million. During 1999-2002, we acquired experience with regulations 
similar to those contained in this rule. We determined that 
implementation of new light goose regulations increased harvest of 
light geese in the Central and Mississippi Flyways by 41% during 1999-
2002 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). We did not include harvest 
estimates after 2002 in this analysis due to changes in harvest survey 
procedures. Population modeling indicated that an annual harvest of 1.4 
million birds is required to reduce the number of CMF light geese by 
50% (Rockwell and Ankney 2000). The estimated harvest of CMF light 
geese in the U.S. during 1999-2002 ranged from 0.9 to 1.4 million 
birds. The estimated harvest of light geese in Ontario, Manitoba and 
Saskatchewan (combined) during 1999-2002 has ranged from 123,000 to 
152,000 birds. Therefore, the total harvest of CMF light geese during 
1999-2002 ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 million birds. Although a certain 
proportion of geese harvested in Saskatchewan would have migrated to 
the Pacific Flyway, the harvest of CMF light geese in North America 
during 1999-2002 approached, and sometimes exceeded, the annual harvest 
of 1.4 million birds that is required to reduce the population by 50%. 
Any harvest in excess of 1.4 million birds in a given year reduces the 
amount of time required to reach population reduction goals (Rockwell 
and Ankney 2000). Implementation of these regulations would maintain an 
annual continental harvest of approximately 1.4 million CMF light geese 
until management goals are achieved.
    Because the winter index of CMF light geese does not represent the 
entire population, the true population size will be much higher than 
1.6 million following a reduction program. Using an adjustment factor 
of 1.6 (Boyd et al. 1982), we estimate that a winter index of 1.6 
million would correspond to nearly 2.6 million breeding birds in 
spring. Adding 30% for nonbreeding birds brings the total population to 
a minimum of 3.3 million birds following a population reduction 
program. We believe a population level of 3.3 million birds is more 
than adequate to ensure the long-term health of MCP and WCFP light 
goose populations, while still providing for nonconsumptive and 
consumptive uses of the light goose resource by humans.
    The greater snow goose population will be reduced from its peak 
level of nearly 1,017,000 birds, to the management goal of 500,000 
birds. The harvest rate for greater snow geese in the Atlantic Flyway 
during 1999-2002 ranged from 17% to 24% (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2004). Based on information from the Central and Mississippi Flyways 
during 1999-2002 (see above), we estimate that authorization of new 
methods of take (regular season) and a conservation order in the U.S. 
portion of the Atlantic

[[Page 65929]]

Flyway would result in a 41% increase in U.S. harvest of greater snow 
geese. A 41% increase in U.S. harvest would result in only a 10-12% 
increase in the continental harvest rate, because the majority of the 
harvest occurs in Canada. We estimate that implementation of new 
regulations in the United States would result in a continental harvest 
rate of 26% for greater snow geese (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2007). Starting with the spring population of 1,016,900 birds in 2006 
and applying a harvest rate of 27%, we estimate that the greater snow 
goose population would be reduced to the goal of 500,000 birds by 
approximately 2013 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). The magnitude 
of the impact of this rule is subject to change, depending on the 
actual population size immediately prior to implementation of any new 
regulations, size of regular season harvest, and the magnitude of 
special spring harvest measures in Quebec.
    At this time, we do not anticipate population reduction actions for 
either Pacific Flyway lesser snow geese, or the Western Population of 
Ross's geese. However, Hines et al. (1999) suggested a proactive 
approach to management of lesser snow geese that breed in the western 
Arctic that would stabilize the population at its (then) current level 
before it escapes control via normal harvest. We will implement special 
regulations to increase take of light geese in the Pacific Flyway if it 
becomes evident that damage to habitats in the western Arctic 
necessitates control of light geese that breed there. Any population 
control actions for light geese in the Pacific Flyway should be 
designed to minimize negative impacts to Wrangel Island lesser snow 
geese, which historically have not fared as well as other light goose 
populations.
    Although our intention is to significantly reduce some light goose 
populations in order to relieve pressures on breeding and/or migration 
habitats, we have designed it so that these efforts will not threaten 
the long-term status of these populations. We will carefully analyze 
and assess the status of light goose populations on an annual basis, 
using the winter index, periodic photo surveys in the Arctic, banding 
data, and other surveys, to ensure that the populations are not over-
harvested.
    We believe that a reduction of certain light goose populations will 
relieve negative habitat pressures on other migratory bird populations 
that occur on light goose breeding and wintering grounds and other 
areas along migration routes. By arresting habitat damage by light 
geese, other species will not be forced to seek habitats elsewhere, 
thus avoiding potential decreases in their reproductive success. 
Further, we expect that, by decreasing the numbers of light geese on 
wintering and migration stopover areas, the risk of transmission of 
avian cholera to other species will be reduced.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is contained in our Final EIS 
document, and is also available upon request from the Division of 
Migratory Bird Management (see ADDRESSES).

Public Comments and Responses to Significant Comments

    We received public comments from 414 private individuals, 24 
Federal, State or Provincial agencies, 1 State Representative, 6 Tribal 
groups, 4 Flyway Councils, and 8 nongovernmental organizations. The 
majority of comments submitted did not stipulate whether the comments 
pertained to our proposed rule or the DEIS. Instead, comments tended to 
focus on certain aspects of our light goose management program in 
general. Therefore, we have treated comments to both documents 
together. Below, we provide our responses to comments on the DEIS and 
proposed rule. Because of the highly interrelated public processes with 
the proposed rule, DEIS, and FEIS, as an aid to the reader, we have in 
large part replicated comments we received on the DEIS and our 
responses contained in the June 2007 FEIS. Due to space considerations, 
we have provided responses here only to major comments received and 
refer the reader to the FEIS for responses to all public comments we 
received. Copies of the public comments are available upon request from 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird 
Management. Where appropriate, we summarized comments that revolved 
around a central theme and itemized them as single comments. For some 
technical or lengthy comments, we have included direct quotes from the 
comment in order to avoid mischaracterization of the comment.
    We received public comments from 414 private individuals. Forty of 
the individuals made comments during public hearings. A majority (57%) 
of individuals supported some method of control of light goose 
populations. Of the 238 individuals that supported population 
reduction, very few advocated direct agency control. Approximately one-
half of those individuals supporting population reduction submitted a 
form letter containing the following statements: They are concerned 
hunters and conservationists who care about the burgeoning population 
of snow geese, which are in need of help to save them from massive 
population decline; the population has exploded to alarmingly high 
levels due to changes in agricultural practices and the birds are now a 
menace to farmers; the population is destroying fragile arctic tundra 
habitat beyond repair; the management option of letting nature run its 
course is a no-win situation because the population will crash and 
millions of farming dollars will be lost and hundreds of thousands of 
acres of irreplaceable tundra will be destroyed; direct agency control 
would be costly and inefficient; and, finally, the conservation order 
approach (including legalization of electronic calls, unplugged 
shotguns, and extended shooting hours) should be used as a cost-
effective way to reduce the population. Another 43 individuals 
submitted comments simply stating that they supported Alternative B for 
managing light geese. The remaining comments that indicated support for 
population reduction centered primarily on making recommendations for 
changes in methods of take allowed for harvesting light geese, 
liberalization of regulations during the regular goose season, and 
expansion of hunting opportunity on government lands.
    Most individuals that advocated the No Action alternative opposed 
any liberalization in regulations that would result in increased 
harvest of light geese. Many of the comments from individuals opposing 
management action consisted of a form letter, or portion of the same 
form letter, containing the following statements: They are strongly 
opposed to liberalized regulations for snow geese and Ross's geese, 
which include extending the hunting season, opening wildlife refuges to 
increased hunting opportunities, and permitting normally illegal 
hunting methods such as electronic calls and unplugged shotguns; the 
geese are being blamed for ``damaging'' their ``winter breeding 
grounds'' (sic), when in reality the geese continue to play a normal 
role in their ecosystems, modifying vegetation as they normally would; 
goose reproduction in many areas of the Arctic has already declined in 
response to reduced food as part of natural population regulation; and 
finally, that only non-lethal methods of population control should be 
implemented.
    (1) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the DEIS and 
stated that they did not identify any environmental concerns with our 
preferred alternative (Alternative B),

[[Page 65930]]

and that the document provides adequate documentation of the potential 
environmental impacts. The EPA recommended that, following selection of 
a management approach, the Service should carefully monitor its 
implementation and remain open to exploring other options as necessary 
and appropriate. The EPA assigned a rating of Lack of Objection to the 
DEIS.
    We will carefully monitor light goose populations and their 
habitats following implementation of new management approaches.
    (2) The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) commented that they, and a 
clear majority of scientists and managers who have provided information 
to them, feel that intervention is required to reduce overabundant 
populations of greater and lesser snow geese. CWS stated that non-
intervention would not be a responsible choice. CWS acknowledges that 
Ross's geese are numerous in comparison to historical numbers and 
contribute proportionately to the habitat damage observed in 
conjunction with snow geese. CWS stated that, although Canada has not 
included Ross's geese in special conservation measures at this time, 
they would consider regulations to include this species if further 
experience shows that it is necessary.
    We agree that intervention is required and will consult with Canada 
upon implementation of our management actions. We also agree that 
Ross's geese are at record high levels and that they are contributing 
to habitat damage. Consequently, we have chosen to include Ross's geese 
in our current proposal for management action.
    (3) CWS stated that Alternative B is consistent with actions 
currently being taken in Canada and should be pursued first in order to 
increase harvest rates in the United States before looking at options 
involving direct population control. However, CWS indicated that, if 
Alternative B did not prove successful, direct control may be necessary 
at some time in the future. Furthermore, assuming success in our 
approach, the two Federal agencies need to jointly consider approaches 
for backing away from extraordinary special methods of control as soon 
as possible.
    We have chosen Alternative B as our preferred alternative. If this 
alternative proves to be unsuccessful at reducing light goose 
populations, we will consult with Canada to evaluate other management 
options. We agree that, once population goals are achieved, an exit 
strategy should be implemented. As we have indicated in Section 4.2.2, 
certain maintenance regulations may need to remain in place in order to 
prevent populations from rebounding after population goals are 
achieved. For example, the conservation order may be suspended once the 
goal for a particular population is reached. However, additional 
harvest beyond what would normally be expected with regular goose 
seasons may be required to prevent the population from rebounding. In 
such a case, special regulations (e.g., use of unplugged shotguns, 
electronic calls) can be implemented during the regular season to 
increase harvest. However, use of such regulations would still require 
that other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, excluding falconry, be 
closed.
    (4) The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) commented that the weight of 
scientific evidence indicates that several populations of lesser snow 
geese have increased to such an extent that they present a threat to 
Arctic breeding habitats. In addition to lesser snow geese, other light 
goose species (greater snow and Ross's geese) have exhibited similar 
trends in exponential growth. Some of their populations may currently 
be contributing to the degradation of Arctic habitats. Scientific 
evidence indicates that several populations of light geese should be 
considered overabundant and management actions are required to reduce 
these populations. The USGS recommends adoption of Alternative B as the 
most appropriate for short-term management. The available scientific 
evidence indicates that Alternative A would be ineffective and the 
other alternatives would be extremely costly and logistically 
difficult.
    Thank you for your comments.
    (5) The USGS commented that current science is insufficient to 
support the statement that lesser snow and Ross's geese are ``known 
carriers'' of the bacterium that causes avian cholera (DEIS page 64). 
Preliminary scientific evidence supports this conclusion, but further 
research is required.
    We have modified our characterization of the status of lesser snow 
and Ross's geese from ``known carriers'' of the bacterium to suspected 
carriers. As the USGS states, preliminary scientific evidence supports 
the theory that these species are indeed carriers of the bacterium. We 
continue to believe that growing populations of light geese increase 
the likelihood of cholera outbreaks.
    (6) The USGS commented that additional scientific information is 
needed to determine the migration and wintering carrying capacity and 
habitat degradation impacts of greater snow geese on habitats described 
in section 3.2.2 of the DEIS.
    We agree that additional research will improve our knowledge of the 
carrying capacity of such habitats. The information provided by Giroux 
et al. (1998) suggests that the carrying capacity of such habitat 
(whatever it is) has been exceeded.
    (7) The USGS commented that preliminary scientific evidence 
suggests that harvesting greater snow geese during spring in Quebec may 
negatively affect their body condition and thus reproduction. This 
raises the question of whether similar patterns may occur in nontarget 
species that are subjected to this disturbance. Further research may be 
required to address this concern in all the alternatives.
    Conducting further scientific research to obtain information not 
currently available is beyond the scope of this EIS process. In the 
Final EIS we have incorporated the findings of recent research on the 
effects of the spring conservation harvest on greater snow geese. We 
note that the observed decline in body reserves of greater snow geese 
on spring staging areas in Quebec was thought to be a result of 
increased disturbance and reduced access to agricultural foods due to 
the spring harvest. This supports our contention that light goose 
populations have increased due to an agricultural food subsidy, which 
has caused increases in winter/spring survival and reproductive success 
in light goose populations. We do not view reductions in spring body 
condition or reproduction of light geese as undesirable. If such 
factors can help to reduce the population, they should be encouraged 
until population goals are achieved. Feret et al. (2003) indicated that 
greater snow geese sometimes form mixed feeding flocks (e.g., with 
Canada geese), and hypothesized that the negative impact of the spring 
harvest could also potentially affect other species. The number of 
breeding pairs in the Atlantic Population of Canada geese has increased 
14% per year during 1997-2006 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006), 
including years in which the spring harvest of greater snow geese has 
occurred. We note that Canada geese would be the species most likely to 
be affected by light goose hunting activities, and there is no evidence 
that this nontarget species has been affected by spring harvest of snow 
geese. Changes in habitat management and hunting programs on Service 
refuges take into account the potential effects on nontarget species. 
Some refuges have chosen not to implement changes in light goose 
hunting because the refuge manager believed that disturbance to 
nontarget species possibly would occur. Because hunting for light geese 
usually takes place in field situations, we

[[Page 65931]]

believe that nontarget waterbirds would be unaffected by such 
activities.
    (8) The Central Flyway Council (CFC) expressed opposition to the 
original four alternatives as written because they are mutually 
exclusive. The CFC supported Alternative B with modifications through 
2005, but felt that Alternatives C and D should be implemented in an 
additive fashion if progress was not made towards habitat recovery and 
reducing Central/Mississippi Flyway light goose populations. The CFC 
stated that a new alternative should be developed if Alternative B 
cannot be modified to include additional control strategies. The 
Atlantic (AFC), Mississippi (MFC) and Pacific Flyway Councils (PFC) 
supported implementation of Alternative B. However, the AFC and MFC 
urged the Service to plan on implementing Alternatives C and D if 
management goals are not achieved.
    We have retained Alternative B as our preferred alternative. 
However, we have developed and analyzed Alternative E, which is a new 
alternative that contains aspects of Alternatives B, C, and D, as 
suggested by the CFC. This two-phased approach would implement aspects 
of Alternative B first. Phase two of Alternative E contains aspects of 
Alternatives C and D and would be implemented if deemed necessary. 
Under this alternative, actions implemented during phase one would 
continue if phase two is implemented.
    (9) The CFC recommended that decision criteria and a timetable for 
implementing Alternatives C and D should be developed in advance. These 
criteria should include habitat trends, light goose population trends, 
and the effects of overabundant light geese on other species of 
wildlife.
    In developing each of the analyzed alternatives, we wrote them as 
if they would be implemented immediately upon completion of the EIS 
process, if chosen as the preferred alternative. Alternative E was 
written such that phase one would be in place for at least a 5-year 
period before an evaluation would be made about the necessity of 
implementing phase two. That evaluation would consider the trajectory 
of the light goose populations being targeted for reduction. 
Unfortunately, there are insufficient data available at this time to 
allow development of specific decision criteria with regard to habitat 
trends. Habitat studies specified in the Science Needs Documents of the 
Arctic Goose Joint Venture must be implemented in order to generate 
data that can be used in developing decision criteria.
    (10) The CFC commented that the EIS should be clarified to provide 
for implementation of actions to resolve geographic or site-specific 
problems with light goose populations. Potentially, Central/Mississippi 
Flyway populations may be reduced to overall goals, yet specific 
populations may remain above desired levels in certain areas of their 
range.
    Our preferred alternative advocates reduction of the number of 
Central/Mississippi Flyway light geese by 50%. It is clear that in some 
breeding areas such as La Perouse Bay the ability of the habitat to 
support geese has been exceeded. However, geese from northern breeding 
colonies utilize such sites on their northward migration and, 
therefore, add to habitat damage caused by geese that breed at the 
site. A general reduction of the number of Central/Mississippi Flyway 
light geese will help alleviate damage to sites being impacted most 
severely. The only method of further reducing the number of birds that 
use such sites is to implement direct control on the breeding grounds 
in Canada (Alternatives D or E). However, direct control in Canada 
would have to be implemented by the Canadian Government.
    (11) The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources commented that 
adoption of the no action alternative is not a responsible approach to 
the management of these species and habitats. The Ministry also stated 
that alternatives involving direct agency control are not viewed as the 
most effective approach at this juncture. With respect to Alternative 
D, there is significant concern regarding the capacity of the 
appropriate agencies to deliver a management program that is of 
sufficient scope and intensity to achieve the desired results.
    We agree that the no action alternative is not a responsible 
approach to light goose management. Alternatives involving direct 
control will be costly, and it is not likely that agencies can acquire 
sufficient resources to implement such programs in sufficient scope or 
intensity.
    (12) Many State agencies suggested that methods of take for light 
geese should be expanded to include a variety of methods, such as use 
of live decoys, rallying, herding, hazing, model airplanes, rifles, and 
pistols.
    Authorization of new methods of take for light geese in 1999 (i.e., 
electronic calls, unplugged shotguns, shooting hours one-half hour 
after sunset) represented a radical departure from decades of strict 
regulation of waterfowl harvest. Substantial support was expressed 
during our public scoping process for use of these methods to reduce 
light goose populations. However, such authorizations were also met 
with substantial negative public sentiment as well. Arguments for and 
against various methods often include one's personal view of ethical 
and non-ethical methods of take, which is not amenable to objective 
analysis. We believe that our proposed balance of authorizing new, and 
continued prohibition of other, methods of take is a reasonable 
compromise. Although authorization of additional methods of take may 
increase the harvest of light geese somewhat, we believe that such an 
expansion would be outweighed by erosion of public support for our 
light goose management program. Furthermore, temporary authorization of 
numerous methods of take will make it more difficult to enforce 
prohibition of such methods when they are no longer needed.
    (13) The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) commented that 
the Service must be prepared to justify impacts on nontarget species 
if/when direct control management actions are implemented. They 
supported the use of those direct control measures that minimize the 
impact to other species, but believe that collateral damage is 
unavoidable in actual operations. The NGPC also commented on this issue 
and stated that the Service should be prepared to accept significant 
loss of other wildlife species during control operations in order to 
reduce light goose numbers. Where possible, attempts should be made to 
minimize impacts to other species.
    In our description of alternatives, we stated that direct control 
activities should be undertaken such that they do not adversely affect 
other migratory birds or any species designated under the Endangered 
Species Act as threatened or endangered. Doing so will require 
inspection of control activity sites for the presence of nontarget 
species to determine whether activities should proceed. In situations 
where live-trapping is used, nontarget species can be released 
unharmed. If sharpshooters are employed, we believe that impacts on 
nontarget species will be avoided. At this time we do not believe it is 
acceptable to undertake control activities that would also result in 
significant loss of other wildlife species.
    (14) A State representative from Delaware commented that snow geese 
have caused serious damage to crops on his farm and those in the 
surrounding area. The representative also expressed concern for damage 
that snow geese are causing to local salt marshes, and the

[[Page 65932]]

effects of overabundant geese on the well-being of many other plants, 
animals, and fish. A concern was also expressed for the possibility of 
the spread of avian cholera from geese to the chicken industry. The 
representative fully supports Alternative B and called on the Service 
to open more of Prime Hook NWR and Bombay Hook NWR to snow goose 
hunting.
    We believe that implementation of Alternative B will reduce the 
greater snow goose population to desired levels and alleviate damage to 
agricultural crops and reduce the likelihood of a cholera outbreak. 
Prime Hook NWR allows ample opportunities to hunt snow geese in 26 
marsh blinds during the waterfowl season. Also, field hunting is 
allowed on 5 different zones on the refuge during the late goose 
season. The refuge feels they are providing hunting opportunity in 
areas where it is feasible to hunt snow geese, and in a fashion that is 
compatible with other hunting programs on the refuge. Bombay Hook NWR 
staff report that they have provided snow goose hunting opportunity 
that far exceeds demand at this time. The refuge is close to the 
maximum of acreage that can be opened to hunting while still providing 
for the needs of other migratory bird species.
    (15) The Assembly of First Nations, representing 633 First Nations 
across Canada, supported Alternative B as the most humane and least 
wasteful option, and expressed their concern for light goose threats to 
other animals and plants, as well as light geese themselves, owing to 
the destruction of their habitat and food sources in the north. The AFN 
also commented that the options of allowing for a commercial hunt by 
Aboriginal people and altering U.S. farm practices (e.g., reducing 
waste grain) and policies should not be dismissed from consideration. 
The AFN believes that a commercial hunt by Aboriginal people would 
support economic development, encourage young people to stay on the 
land and would support their traditional lifestyle.
    With regard to a commercial hunt by Aboriginal people, we point out 
that the Canadian Wildlife Service does not support development of 
general commercial activities and take for the purpose of light goose 
control. They do not wish to establish a short-lived commercial 
opportunity that could have serious long-term effects on community 
support for and compliance with regulations. We support the position of 
CWS and also do not support establishment of commercial activities for 
light goose control in the United States. With regard to U.S. farm 
practices and policy, we reiterate that we have no control over U.S. 
farm policy and believe that attempts to consult with the Department of 
Agriculture to effect changes solely for the purpose of addressing the 
light goose issue would have such a minimal chance of success that it 
is precluded from being a viable management alternative.
    (16) The Wampanoag Tribe of Gayhead (WTG) suggested that other 
indigenous nations of Canada should be contacted to enlist their 
assistance in the population control program.
    We have no authority to enlist the help of indigenous nations of 
Canada in a light goose population control program. Only the Canadian 
Wildlife Service, or other Canadian government entity, can undertake 
such action. The CWS has encouraged native groups, such as the Arviat 
Hunters and Trappers Organization, to increase their harvest of light 
geese.
    (17) The WTG commented that the number of allowable days for 
hunting light geese should be expanded to the fullest extent allowed 
under the MBTA. Splits between other waterfowl hunting seasons should 
be utilized as light goose only seasons.
    Current light goose hunting frameworks already provide the maximum 
number of days for light goose hunting allowed by the MBTA. 
Furthermore, light goose only seasons between other season splits are 
allowed, providing that all other waterfowl and crane hunting seasons, 
excluding falconry, are closed.
    (18) The WTG commented that the requirement to close all other 
waterfowl and crane hunting seasons when new methods of take are 
authorized for light geese is disruptive to sportsmen and subsistence 
users of waterfowl species.
    We believe that a closure of all other waterfowl and crane hunting 
seasons, excluding falconry, is necessary to minimize the take of 
nontarget species when light goose regulations are implemented.
    (19) The WTG commented that, under the USFWS Native American Policy 
and Executive Orders of the President of the United States, the Service 
is compelled to consult with Tribal governments on a government-to-
government basis. How has the Service complied with these directives in 
this process?
    The Service has a long history of working with Native American 
governments in managing fish and wildlife resources (USFWS 1994). A 
list of Native American tribal governments was obtained through our 
Tribal liaison and was used to distribute the DEIS to tribal 
governments for formal review and comment.
    (20) The hunting season on light geese should not be extended.
    The Service is not proposing to extend the light goose hunting 
season. We do not have the authority to extend the normal hunting 
season beyond the March 10 season ending date stipulated by the 
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We are proposing implementation of a 
conservation order for the control of overabundant light geese in 
accordance with Article VII of the Migratory Bird Treaty.
    (21) Several individuals expressed opposition to new regulations 
that allow taking of light geese on wildlife refuges, which they feel 
should be a safe haven for all wildlife.
    The proposed regulations do not open refuges or new areas on 
refuges to hunting. That type of action would be proposed on a specific 
refuge by refuge basis. The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 
Act of 1997 amended the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 
Act of 1966 to establish that compatible wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
photography, and environmental education and interpretation are the 
priority public uses of the Refuge System. The National Wildlife Refuge 
System Administration Act of 1966 stipulates that up to 40% of the area 
of refuges acquired, reserved, or set apart as inviolate sanctuaries 
may be opened to migratory bird hunting. The Fish and Wildlife 
Improvement Act of 1978 amended the 1966 Act to permit the opening of 
greater than 40% of the area of these refuges to migratory gamebird 
hunting when it is determined to be beneficial to the species hunted. 
Therefore, the portion of our light goose management proposal that 
encourages, where appropriate, increased hunt programs on National 
Wildlife Refuges is consistent with the purposes of the refuge system.
    (22) One citizen commented that public hearings held during the EIS 
process were held only in rural areas, thus preventing any 
metropolitan, city, or suburban dwellers from ever commenting on any 
plans. Therefore, the Service is engaging in biased hearings, 
soliciting comments only from hunters and farmers.
    We held a number of public scoping meetings throughout the United 
States prior to publication of the DEIS (see Federal Register Notice of 
Meetings in Appendix 2). In addition to Washington, DC, the majority of 
these meetings were held in large metropolitan areas and often were 
held in State capitals: Sacramento, CA, Bismarck, ND, Baton Rouge, LA, 
Dover, DE, Bloomington,

[[Page 65933]]

MN (suburb of Minneapolis/St. Paul), and Kansas City, MO. Only 2 of the 
9 meeting locations were held outside of large metropolitan areas 
(Pomona, NJ, and Rosenberg, TX); however they were easily accessible to 
large population centers. Therefore, we do not believe that meeting 
locations produced any type of bias in comments submitted by citizens. 
Another series of public meetings on the DEIS were held in most of the 
same locations as the scoping meetings. We provided an extensive public 
comment period during the EIS process that provided all citizens a 
means to submit written comments on our proposals, either through the 
mail or electronically to our e-mail address, regardless of the 
citizen's geographic location.
    (23) Several individuals commented that the Service proposal 
appears to be the result of lobbying by the gun, hunting, and guide/
tourist industries.
    No lobbyist from any gun, hunting, or guide/tourist industry 
contacted the Service to urge development of our proposal. Our 
management plan was based on results from work conducted by research 
scientists, population and habitat surveys, and on recommendations by 
scientists from the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group of the Arctic 
Goose Joint Venture.
    (24) The Service reports that six times as many people participate 
in nonhunting activities related to migratory birds as compared to 
hunting them. Times have changed and so must the Service and wildlife 
agencies.
    We examined socioeconomic considerations in section 3.5 of the EIS 
and reported that more citizens participate in non-hunting than hunting 
activities related to migratory birds. However, the impacts of 
overabundant light goose populations will negatively affect a variety 
of bird species that non-hunters as well as hunters enjoy viewing. 
Furthermore, revenues generated by Duck Stamp sales go towards 
acquisition of habitats that support many non-game and game species. 
The fact that many citizens do not hunt does not negate the fact that 
increasing harvest is a legitimate wildlife management tool. 
Furthermore, this issue does not pertain to hunting seasons; the 
proposed program is designed to protect nesting, migration, and/or 
wintering areas.
    (25) Claims of habitat destruction are based on habitats where no 
systematic scientific data had been gathered. There were small fenced 
areas to document effects of heavy goose grazing on plants, but that is 
not representative of normal ecosystems.
    In section 3.2.1 we cited the study by Jano et al. (1998) that 
systematically documented the loss of vegetation at La Perouse Bay 
using satellite imagery. We also cited the study conducted by Kotanen 
and Jefferies (1997), who utilized fenced vegetation sampling plots, as 
well as adjacent un-fenced plots, along a transect at La Perouse Bay to 
document habitat damage. Fenced and un-fenced plots were sampled during 
1986, 1989, and 1995 to systematically document vegetation changes in 
response to goose grazing. The un-fenced plots were indeed 
representative of the ``normal ecosystem,'' which in reality was being 
degraded by geese. We also cited the study conducted by Kerbes et al. 
(1990) that systematically sampled vegetation along the west coast of 
Hudson Bay during 1993-95 to demonstrate the impact of geese on plant 
communities. Intensive studies by Iacobelli and Jefferies (1991) and 
Srvivastava and Jefferies (1996) were cited as they described the 
effects of goose grubbing on soil salinity and degradation of 
vegetation stands. Therefore, the comment that claims of habitat 
destruction are not based on systematically collected scientific data 
is unwarranted.
    (26) The use of a generalized management strategy for all snow 
geese ignores scientific distinctions and is contrary to historical 
tradition of managing snow geese.
    We have developed population goals for several populations of light 
geese that incorporate geographic and biological characteristics of 
each population. Most of these goals have been developed independently 
through either interactions with Flyway Councils or through the North 
American Waterfowl Management Plan. Both of these avenues have 
continued to recognize historical designations of populations and taxa. 
Light goose regulations will be flyway-specific, and thus have the 
ability to manage light goose populations with due regard to their 
status.
    (27) The current population goal of 500,000 greater snow geese is 
much lower than the competing goal set by the Arctic Study Group of 
800,000 to 1 million birds, and is based on incomplete information.
    Our population goal of 500,000 birds is in agreement with the 
Atlantic Flyway Council and North American Waterfowl Management Plan 
population objectives. In 1997, the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group 
recommended a short-term management goal of stabilizing the greater 
snow goose population at between 800,000 to 1 million birds. However, 
the Working Group recommended a reduction of the population below this 
level if natural habitats continue to deteriorate, or if measures taken 
to reduce crop depredation do not achieve desired results. Recently, 
the Canadian Stakeholders Committee in Quebec adopted a population goal 
of 500,000 birds to address continued habitat degradation and 
agricultural depredations in the St. Lawrence valley. The Arctic Goose 
Joint Venture Technical Committee has adopted the lower population 
goal. Managers believe the population must be reduced to reduce 
agricultural depredations, prevent further degradation of migration 
habitats, and prevent potential degradation of breeding habitats that 
could occur under high population levels.
    (28) Dispersing and fragmenting the flocks can result in a 
reduction of nonconsumptive use and cause economic loss. Diminishing 
the flock may incite political action/complaints by millions of bird 
watchers who journey to see geese. Nonconsumptive users may demand a 
revision of how the United States treats wildlife.
    We examined the socioeconomic impacts of our preferred alternative 
in section 4.6.2. Implementation of this alternative would preserve the 
long-term health of light goose populations by slowing the rate of 
habitat degradation and avoiding a potential population crash, 
especially in the mid-continent region. Damage to agricultural crops 
would also be reduced. Nonconsumptive users of light geese may be 
slightly affected by lower overall populations. However, light geese 
would continue to migrate in relatively large flocks and visit 
traditional migration and wintering areas. Therefore, we believe the 
short-term economic impact of this alternative on nonconsumptive users 
would be minimal, and the long-term economic impact would be positively 
enhanced due to maintenance of healthy populations. By maintaining 
healthy populations we are fulfilling our trust responsibility to U.S. 
citizens, rather than allowing populations to further damage habitats, 
cause agricultural depredations, and potentially crash.
    (29) The concern about marsh eat-outs by greater snow geese is 
based on incomplete and incorrect information about historical 
processes. Kortright gave accounts of eat-outs during the 1930s and 
1940s.
    Although we stated that the impact of greater snow geese on coastal 
marshes of the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast appeared to be relatively small 
prior to the 1960s,

[[Page 65934]]

we did not state that eat-outs were nonexistent during that time. 
Clearly the occurrence and impacts of eat-outs have increased as the 
population has increased.
    (30) The Service is using scare tactics with regard to the issue of 
avian cholera, as if we are all going to die because of avian cholera. 
How many people have died of avian cholera?
    Avian cholera is a disease that does not affect humans. Our concern 
with avian cholera is the potential for outbreak of the disease, which 
could kill thousands of light geese as well as many individuals of 
other bird species.
    (31) One individual commented that the revised treaties relied upon 
in this EIS are in violation of the existing treaties in force with 
Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union and in violation of the 1918 treaty 
negotiated with Canada.
    The comment is confusing and unclear, as revised treaties are the 
treaties in force. Regardless, this is a very important comment as it 
gives us a chance to explain in more detail why this action is in 
accordance with the authority provided to the Secretary by law. It 
raises the issue of compatibility with the migratory bird conventions 
applicable to the birds (light geese) that are the subject of this 
regulation. The Secretary of the Interior (having due regard for a 
number of factors that are addressed in this EIS) is authorized and 
directed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to determine when it is 
compatible with the conventions to issue regulations to allow the take 
of these birds and their nests and eggs. Of the four migratory bird 
conventions, three are applicable to the adoption of these regulations: 
the Convention Between the United States and the Union of Soviet 
Socialist Republics (now Russia) Concerning the Conservation of 
Migratory Birds and Their Environment (1978), the Convention for the 
Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals with Mexico (1937), and 
the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds with Canada 
(1916). With respect to the fourth, the Convention Between the 
Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan 
for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of 
Extinction, and Their Environment (1974), there is no positive evidence 
that the birds that are the subject of these regulations migrate 
between Japan and the United States (see Article I, Section 1.).
    When two or more conventions are applicable to our adoption of 
regulations, we must ensure the action is compatible with each or, 
where conventions have provisions on the same specific issue, the more 
stringent of the provisions. Each of the conventions, negotiated at 
different times with four different countries, address particular 
issues important to each country and, because of differing perspectives 
and needs, contain agreements on similar actions that are presented in 
uniquely different ways.
    The convention with Canada, in addition to including requirements 
regarding the authorization of the hunting of migratory game birds, the 
taking of migratory birds for scientific, educational, propagative, and 
other purposes, and the harvesting of migratory birds and eggs by 
indigenous inhabitants of Alaska, allows for permitting the killing of 
migratory birds that are seriously injurious to agricultural or other 
interests in any particular community (see Article VII). It is our 
conclusion from all of the information available to us, and which is 
summarized and referenced in this Environmental Impact Statement, that 
several light goose populations have exhibited extraordinary growth. 
Due to their feeding actions, overabundant light geese have become 
seriously injurious to habitats on various breeding, migration, and 
wintering areas and in some situations have also caused damage to 
agricultural crops. Consistent with the same article of the convention, 
the regulations also provide for the suspension of the permission 
granted by the regulations to take these birds when such permission is 
no longer needed to prevent the injuries to the habitat. In furtherance 
of the overall objectives of the convention, these regulations will 
help ensure the preservation of these and other migratory birds covered 
by this convention.
    The convention with Me