Part II
[Federal Register: July 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 140)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40193-40214]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23jy07-17]
[[Page 40193]]
Part II
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings; Proposed Rule
[[Page 40194]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AV12
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) is proposing to establish the 2007-08 early-season hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds. We annually prescribe frameworks, or outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the maximum number of birds that may be taken and possessed in early seasons. Early seasons may open as early as September 1, and include seasons in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. These frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of specific final seasons and limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels compatible with population status and habitat conditions.
DATES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to consider and develop proposed regulations for late-season migratory bird hunting and the 2008 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence seasons in Alaska on August 1 and 2, 2007. All meetings will commence at approximately 8:30 a.m. You must submit comments on the proposed migratory bird hunting-season frameworks for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other early seasons by August 2, 2007, and for the forthcoming proposed late-season frameworks by August 30, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Send your comments on the proposals to the Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the public record. You may inspect comments during normal business hours at the Service's office in room 4107, 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Blohm, Chief, or Ron W. Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations Schedule for 2007
On April 11, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 18328) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and dealt with the establishment of seasons, limits, proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2007-08 duck hunting season, and other regulations for hunting migratory game birds under Sec. Sec. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 2007-08 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register notifications were also identified in the April 11 proposed rule. Further, we explained that all sections of subsequent documents outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines were organized under numbered headings. As an aid to the reader, we reiterate those headings here:
-
Ducks
-
General Harvest Strategy
-
Regulatory Alternatives
-
Zones and Split Seasons
-
Special Seasons/Species Management
i. September Teal Seasons
ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
iii. Black Ducks
iv. Canvasbacks
v. Pintails
vi. Scaup
vii. Mottled Ducks
viii. Youth Hunt 2. Sea Ducks 3. Mergansers 4. Canada Geese
-
Special Seasons
-
Regular Seasons
-
Special Late Seasons 5. White-fronted Geese 6. Brant 7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese 8. Swans 9. Cranes 10. Coots 11. Moorhens and Gallinules 12. Rails 13. Snipe 14. Woodcock 15. Band-Tailed Pigeons 16. Mourning Doves 17. White-Winged and White-Tipped Doves 18. Alaska 19. Hawaii 20. Puerto Rico 21. Virgin Islands 22. Falconry 23. Other
Subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.
On June 8, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 31789) a second document providing supplemental proposals for early- and late- season migratory bird hunting regulations and the regulatory alternatives for the 2007-08 duck hunting season. The June 8 supplement also provided detailed information on the 2007-08 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.
This document, the third in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents for migratory bird hunting regulations, deals specifically with proposed frameworks for early-season regulations. It will lead to final frameworks from which States may select season dates, shooting hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the 2007-08 season. We have considered all pertinent comments received through July 6, 2007, on the April 11 and June 8, 2007, rulemaking documents in developing this document. In addition, new proposals for certain early-season regulations are provided for public comment. Comment periods are specified above under DATES. We will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons in the Federal Register on or about August 20, 2007.
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings
Participants at the June 20-21, 2007, meetings reviewed information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed 2007-08 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; and extended falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and discussed preliminary information on the status of waterfowl. Participants at the previously announced August 1-2, 2007, meetings will review information on the current status of waterfowl and develop recommendations for the 2007-08 regulations pertaining to regular
[[Page 40195]]
waterfowl seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the early-season meetings. In accordance with Department of the Interior policy, these meetings are open to public observation and you may submit comments to the Director on the matters discussed.
Population Status and Harvest
The following paragraphs provide preliminary information on the status of waterfowl and information on the status and harvest of migratory shore and upland game birds excerpted from various reports. For more detailed information on methodologies and results, you may obtain complete copies of the various reports at the address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site at http://fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports .
May Breeding Waterfowl and Habitat Survey
Federal, provincial, and State agencies conduct surveys each spring to estimate the size of breeding populations and to evaluate the conditions of the habitats. These surveys are conducted using fixed- wing aircraft and helicopters and encompass principal breeding areas of North America, and cover over 2.0 million square miles. The Traditional survey area comprises Alaska, Canada, and the northcentral United States, and includes approximately 1.3 million square miles. The Eastern survey area includes parts of Ontario, Quebec, Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, New York, and Maine, an area of approximately 0.7 million square miles.
Overall, habitat conditions for breeding waterfowl in 2007 are fairly similar or slightly improved compared to conditions in 2006. Canadian Prairies
For the third year in a row, habitat conditions were good-to- excellent in the northern grasslands and parklands of southern Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba. Three years of plentiful precipitation has generally maintained or improved the quality of the wetland and upland vegetation in this region. However, some areas of the parklands of southern Saskatchewan experienced severe flooding due to record amounts of spring runoff. This runoff may have flooded some nests. The southern grasslands of Saskatchewan and Manitoba were dry, and in fair or poor condition. Conditions in southern Alberta, which have generally been fair or poor for much of the last decade, improved for the second consecutive year. Improvements this year came largely as a result of melting of large snowpacks and wet soil conditions, which caused above-average natural runoff volume in many river basins. U.S. Prairies
Habitat conditions in U.S. prairies are highly variable, and mostly ranged from good to poor. The drought conditions seen last year in the Eastern Dakotas were improved by abundant fall and winter precipitation, especially in eastern South Dakota. Exceptionally heavy rain events during May helped to improve conditions in eastern Montana and parts of the Dakotas. Unfortunately, the area covered by the May rains did not include the high quality duck habitat of the Missouri Coteau region in the Eastern Dakotas. Although the May rains occurred after many ducks had moved through the survey area, the precipitation should benefit renesting birds and improve the quality of vegetation in wetlands and uplands, thereby aiding brood survival. Bush (Alaska, Northern Manitoba, Northern Saskatchewan, Western Ontario)
Habitat in the bush regions of the traditional survey area were mostly classified as good due to a normal spring break-up and generally good water conditions in the beaver ponds, river deltas, and small lakes and ponds that are characteristic of this region. Spring phenology and water levels varied slightly in local areas. For example spring was slightly late in the Old Crow Flats, slightly early in the Yukon Delta, and it was slightly drier in the Yukon Flats compared to other regions in Alaska, but habitat conditions were still generally good across the bush region. The exceptions were the slightly drier conditions in northwest Saskatchewan and central Alberta. There is also the potential for some flooding in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Eastern Survey Area
The boreal forests of the eastern survey area were generally in good or excellent condition this spring, except for a few drier patches in Northern Quebec, that were in fair condition. Spring arrived early in the James and Hudson Bay Lowlands for the third consecutive year, and habitat conditions were classified as excellent. In eastern and southern Ontario, the winter snowpack was below normal, however, a good frost seal, spring runoff, and spring storms left this region in good condition at the time of the survey. Storms following the survey period produced local flooding of some nesting habitat. Wetland basins in Quebec were adequately charged and spring temperatures were near normal. There was some potential for flooding of nests in Maine and the Maritimes due to heavy rain during mid-May, but this was not as problematic as it has been during the past few years. Newfoundland and Labrador experienced a late spring compared to the last 5 years, with northernmost part of the survey region in Labrador still frozen in late May. However, this region was still considered to be in good condition.
Status of Teal
The estimate of blue-winged teal numbers from the Traditional Survey Area is 6.7 million. This represents a 14 percent increase from 2006 and is 48 percent above the 1955-2006 average.
Sandhill Cranes
Compared to increases recorded in the 1970s, annual indices to abundance of the Mid-Continent Population (MCP) of sandhill cranes have been relatively stable since the early 1980s. The Central Platte River Valley, Nebraska, spring index for 2007, uncorrected for visibility bias, was 302,600 sandhill cranes. The photo-corrected, 3-year average for 2004-06 was 378,420, which is within the established population- objective range of 349,000-472,000 cranes. All Central Flyway States, except Nebraska, allowed crane hunting in portions of their States during 2006-07. About 10,120 hunters participated in these seasons, which was similar to the number that participated in the previous year season. Hunters harvested 17,631 MCP cranes in the U.S. portion of the Central Flyway during the 2006-07 seasons, which was 3 percent lower than the estimated harvest for the previous year. The retrieved harvest of MCP cranes in hunt areas outside the Central Flyway (Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, Canada, and Mexico combined) was estimated at 13,048 during 2006-07. The preliminary estimate for the North American MCP sport harvest, including crippling losses, was 35,341 birds, which is 3 percent lower than the previous year's estimate. The long-term (1982- 2004) trends for the MCP indicate that harvest has been increasing at a higher rate than population growth.
The fall 2006 pre-migration survey for the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) was not completed due to engine problems with the survey aircraft. The 3-year average for 2003-05 was 19,633 sandhill cranes, which is within established population objectives of 17,000- 21,000 for the RMP. Hunting
[[Page 40196]]
seasons during 2006-07 in portions of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, resulted in a harvest of 907 RMP cranes, a 29 percent increase from the harvest of 702 the year before, and a record high harvest for this population.
Woodcock
Singing-ground and Wing-collection Surveys were conducted to assess the population status of the American woodcock (Scolopax minor). The Singing-ground Survey is intended to measure long-term changes in woodcock population levels. Singing-ground Survey data indicated that the numbers of displaying American woodcock in the Eastern Region in 2007 declined 11.6 percent from 2006; however, the Central Region was unchanged. We note that measurement of short-term (i.e., annual) trends tend to give estimates with larger variances and is more prone to be influenced by climatic factors that may affect local counts during the survey. For example, it is possible that the decrease observed in the Eastern Region this year may have been due in part to late season snowfalls that portions of the Northeast received after woodcock arrived on the breeding grounds.
There was no significant trend in woodcock heard in either the Eastern or Central Regions during 1997-2007. This represents the fourth consecutive year since 1992 that the 10-year trend estimate for either region did not indicate a significant decline. There were long-term (1968-2007) declines of 2.0 percent per year in the Eastern Region and 1.8 percent per year in the Central Region. Wing-collection survey data indicate that the 2006 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.5 immatures per adult female) was 7 percent lower than the 2005 index, and 8 percent lower than the long-term average. The recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.6 immatures per adult female) was 11 percent higher than the 2005 index, and 2 percent higher than the long-term average.
Band-Tailed Pigeons and Doves
A rangewide survey for the Pacific Coast Band-tailed Pigeon Population was initiated on an experimental basis in 2001 and became operational in 2004. Pigeons are counted at selected mineral sites throughout their range in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. Results are used as an index to determine the population trend over time. Rangewide trend estimates showed an increase in Pacific Coast pigeons during 2001-2006 of over 10 percent/year. Pigeon counts at more than half of mineral sites (54 percent) increased in 2006. In 2006, there were 44 sites counted.
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data are used to monitor the Interior Band-tailed Pigeon Population. Analyses of BBS data over the most recent 10 years (1997-2006) showed a significant decline, while there was no trend indicated between 1968 and 2006. For the Pacific Coast Population, the preliminary 2006 harvest estimate from the Harvest Information Program (HIP) was 16,600 pigeons. For the Interior Population, the preliminary harvest estimate was 1,600 pigeons.
Analyses of Mourning Dove Call-count Survey data over the most recent 10 years indicated no significant trend for doves heard in either the Eastern or Western Management Units, while the Central Unit showed a significant decline. Over the 42-year period 1966-2007, all 3 units exhibited significant declines in mourning doves heard. In contrast, for doves seen over the 10-year period, no significant trends were found in any of the three Management Units. For doves seen over 42 years, no trend was found in the Eastern and Central Units, while a significant decline was indicated for the Western Unit. The preliminary 2006 harvest estimate for the United States was 19,245,300 doves, a 13 percent decrease from 2005. A banding project is underway to obtain current information in order to develop mourning dove population models for each unit to provide guidance for improving our decision-making process with respect to harvest management.
The two key states with a white-winged dove population are Arizona and Texas. California and New Mexico have much smaller populations. In Arizona, the white-winged dove population showed a significant decline between 1962 and 1980. To adjust harvest with population size, the bag limits, season length, and shooting hours have been reduced over the years, most recently in 1988. These regulations changes appear to have slowed the decline, and in recent years, the harvest has stabilized at around 110,000 birds per year. Arizona is currently experiencing the greatest drought in recorded history. In 2007, the Call-count index was 24.6. According to HIP surveys, the 2006 harvest estimate was 107,400 doves.
In Texas, white-winged doves continue to expand their breeding range and are even extending into the northeast part of the state. Nesting is essentially confined to urban areas, but appears to be expanding to exurban areas. Concomitant with this range expansion has been a dramatic increase in whitewing abundance. Moreover, because until recently, whitewing populations were not surveyed outside south Texas, the population increase has probably been even more dramatic. A new distance sampling protocol was implemented for Central and South Texas for 2007. It is anticipated that this protocol will be implemented statewide in 2008, which should give the ability to obtain a good estimate of white-winged dove abundance in Texas. The 2007 data were not available at the time of this report. However, 2006 surveys in Central Texas indicated a population in this region of 991,103 to 1,394,300 whitewings. Preliminary harvest estimates suggest that, during the 2006-07 season, 2,165,128 white-winged doves were harvested statewide. This includes approximately 278,000 whitewings harvested during the special white-winged dove season in the Special White-winged Dove Zone, and approximately 319,000 white-wings harvested during the same period outside the Special Zone. Total statewide harvest represents a slight, but not necessarily significant, change from the previous season of 1,840,536 whitewings.
In California, BBS data indicate that there has been a significant increase in the population between 1968 and 2006 while no trend was indicated over the most recent 10 years. According to HIP surveys, the preliminary harvest estimate for 2006 was 55,200. In New Mexico, both the long- and short-term trends show a significant increase. In 2006, the estimated harvest was 66,100 doves.
White-tipped doves are maintaining a relatively stable population in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. They are most abundant in cities and, for the most part, are not available to hunting. White- winged dove distance sampling in the Valley included white-tipped doves for the first time in 2007. However, these data were not available at the time of this report. Once available, they should provide, for the first time, an estimate of actual white-tipped dove abundance in Texas. During the 2006-07 season, an estimated total of 150,521 white-tipped doves were killed in Texas. This is essentially unchanged from the 2005-06 estimate of 144,302 doves.
Review of Public Comments
The preliminary proposed rulemaking (April 11 Federal Register) opened the public comment period for migratory game bird hunting regulations and announced the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2007-08 duck hunting season. Comments concerning
[[Page 40197]]
early-season issues and the proposed alternatives are summarized below and numbered in the order used in the April 11 Federal Register document. Only the numbered items pertaining to early-seasons issues and the proposed regulatory alternatives for which written comments were received are included. Consequently, the issues do not follow in consecutive numerical or alphabetical order.
We received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils. Some recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are summarized below.
We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items in the April 11 Federal Register document.
-
-
Ducks
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B) Regulatory Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season lengths, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split Seasons; and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management. The categories correspond to previously published issues/discussions, and only those containing substantial recommendations are discussed below.
-
General Harvest Strategy
Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that regulations changes be restricted to one step per year, both when restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that the proposal developed by the Service for a revised protocol for managing the harvest of mallards in Western North America be implemented in 2008. The Council stated that this delay is needed to fully understand and pick a management objective, to incorporate explicit consideration of mallards derived from those portions of Alberta that contribute mallards to the Pacific Flyway, to determine how this strategy relates to Alaska's early season regulations, and to investigate the addition of alternative models.
Service Response: As we stated in the April 11 Federal Register, we intend to continue use of adaptive harvest management (AHM) to help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2007-08 season. AHM is a tool that permits sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain regulatory impacts, as well as providing a mechanism for reducing that uncertainty over time. The current AHM protocol is used to evaluate four alternative regulatory levels based on the population status of mallards (special hunting restrictions are enacted for certain species, such as canvasbacks, scaup, and pintails).
In recent years, the prescribed regulatory alternative for the Pacific, Central, and Mississippi Flyways has been based on the status of mallards and breeding-habitat conditions in central North America (Federal survey strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the April 11 Federal Register, we also stated our intent for the 2007 hunting season to consider setting hunting regulations in the Pacific Flyway based on the status and dynamics of a newly defined stock of ``western'' mallards. For now, western mallards would be defined as those breeding in Alaska (as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in California and Oregon (as based on State-conducted surveys). However, upon further review of the issue, we agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to delay implementation of the revised protocol for managing the harvest of mallards in Western North America until 2008 for the reasons identified by the Council. Delaying implementation of the revised protocol until 2008 should allow us and the Council to more effectively consider these management concerns.
Finally, since 2000, we have prescribed a regulatory alternative for the Atlantic Flyway based on the population status of mallards breeding in eastern North America (Federal survey strata 51-54 and 56, and State surveys in New England and the mid-Atlantic region). We will continue this protocol for the 2007-08 season.
Regarding incorporation of a one-step constraint into the AHM process, as we stated in the June 24, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 36794), and last year in the May 30, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 30786), our incorporation of a one-step constraint into the AHM process was addressed by the AHM Task Force of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) in its report and recommendations. This recommendation will be included in considerations of potential changes to the set of regulatory alternatives at a yet to be determined later date.
We will propose a specific regulatory alternative for each of the Flyways during the 2007-08 season after survey information becomes available later this summer. More information on AHM is located at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mgmt/AHM/AHM-intro.htm.
-
Special Seasons/Species Management
i. September Teal Seasons
Utilizing the criteria developed for the teal season harvest strategy, this year's estimate of 6.7 million blue-winged teal from the Traditional Survey Area indicates that a 16-day September teal season is appropriate in 2007. iii. Black Ducks
Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council endorsed the draft International Harvest Strategy for Black Ducks developed by the Black Duck AHM Working Group until such time that a full AHM model is available and requested a dialogue with the Service on options for implementing harvest restrictions, assuming harvest restrictions are warranted.
Service Response: In the April 11 Federal Register we announced our intent to propose the specifics of a joint black duck harvest strategy with Canada in this rule. The draft strategy consisted of a maximum harvest rate for the continental black duck population, as well as criteria for maintaining approximate parity in harvest between the two countries. However, although the Mississippi Flyway Council approved the draft strategy, the Atlantic Flyway Council did not, due to concerns over several technical issues. Thus, further consultations are required between all parties to determine an acceptable upper limit to the overall harvest rate, procedures for determining whether the realized harvest rate is below this limit, procedures for determining whether the distribution of harvest between the countries is acceptable, and rules for changing regulations if the harvest-rate and parity criteria are not met. We will continue to work with the Black Duck Adaptive Harvest Management Working Group to refine the black duck strategy to address outstanding concerns. We hope to present a revised strategy to the Flyway
[[Page 40198]]
Councils prior to their summer Flyway meetings. v. Pintails
Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that the proposal developed by the Service for the addition of a compensatory model for Northern Pintail harvest management be incorporated in 2007 and that work continue on improving the harvest management decision-making process for pintail. Additionally, the Council urged the Service to complete its banding needs assessment and to work with the Flyways and the Canadian Wildlife Service to improve the basic biological data to more fully inform decision making.
Written Comments: An individual expressed support for liberalizing pintail limits as we continue to refine the pintail harvest strategy.
Service Response: We concur with the Pacific Flyway Council's proposal to incorporate a compensatory model of harvest into the existing pintail harvest strategy and agree that this strategy will benefit by including this alternative model. We also believe that further technical improvements should be pursued with the objective of achieving a more fully adaptive strategy in the future. Lastly, we appreciate the Council's continued support for improving this strategy and remain committed to making the best regulatory decisions possible based on application of the best scientific approaches we can cooperatively develop. vi. Scaup
Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended not implementing a scaup harvest strategy that uses an objective function based on Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY). They suggested that scaup regulatory alternatives for the Central Flyway in 2009 be based on the most recent 3-year running mean of the May Breeding Population estimates (BPOP) as follows:
a. BPOP mean > 4.0 million, daily bag limit of 3.
b. BPOP mean 3.25-4.0 million, daily bag limit of 2.
c. BPOP mean 2.5-3.25 million, daily bag limit of 1.
d. BPOP mean
-
