Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Frameworks for Late-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations, 58250-58275 [2010-23751]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58250-58275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23751]



[[Page 58249]]

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

Part V





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 20



Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Frameworks for Late-Season Migratory Bird 
Hunting Regulations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2010 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 58250]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0040; 91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
RIN 1018-AX06


Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Frameworks for Late-Season 
Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) prescribes final 
late-season frameworks from which States may select season dates, 
limits, and other options for the 2010-11 migratory bird hunting 
seasons. These late seasons include most waterfowl seasons, the 
earliest of which commences on September 25, 2010. The effect of this 
final rule is to facilitate the States' selection of hunting seasons 
and to further the annual establishment of the late-season migratory 
bird hunting regulations.

DATES: This rule takes effect on September 23, 2010.

ADDRESSES: States should send their season selections to: Chief, 
Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
ms MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may 
inspect comments received on the migratory bird hunting regulations 
during normal business hours at the Service's office in room 4107, 
Arlington Square Building, 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. You 
may obtain copies of referenced reports from the street address above, 
or from the Division of Migratory Bird Management's Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/, or at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket 
No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0040.

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 2010

    On May 13, 2010, we published in the Federal Register (75 FR 27144) 
a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a background 
and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations process, and 
addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, 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 2010-11 
regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register 
notifications were also identified in the May 13 proposed rule. 
Further, we explained that all sections of subsequent documents 
outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines were organized under 
numbered headings.
    On June 10, 2010, we published in the Federal Register (75 FR 
32872) a second document providing supplemental proposals for early- 
and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations. The June 10 
supplement also provided detailed information on the 2010-11 regulatory 
schedule and announced the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee 
(SRC) and Flyway Council meetings.
    On June 23 and 24, 2010, we held open meetings with the Flyway 
Council Consultants at which the participants reviewed information on 
the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and 
developed recommendations for the 2010-11 regulations for these species 
plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and 
the 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 as it relates to the development 
and selection of the regulatory packages for the 2010-11 regular 
waterfowl seasons. On July 29, 2010, we published in the Federal 
Register (75 FR 44856) a third document specifically dealing with the 
proposed frameworks for early-season regulations. On August 30, 2010, 
we published in the Federal Register (75 FR 52873) a final rule which 
contained final frameworks for early migratory bird hunting seasons 
from which wildlife conservation agency officials from the States, 
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands selected early-season hunting 
dates, hours, areas, and limits. Subsequently, on August 31, 2010, we 
published a final rule in the Federal Register (75 FR 53226) amending 
subpart K of title 50 CFR part 20 to set hunting seasons, hours, areas, 
and limits for early seasons.
    On July 28-29, 2010, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council 
Consultants at which the participants reviewed the status of waterfowl 
and developed recommendations for the 2010-11 regulations for these 
species. Proposed hunting regulations were discussed for late seasons. 
On August 25, 2010, we published in the Federal Register (75 FR 52398) 
the proposed frameworks for the 2010-11 late-season migratory bird 
hunting regulations. This document establishes final frameworks for 
late-season migratory bird hunting regulations for the 2010-11 season. 
There are no substantive changes from the August 25 proposed rule. We 
will publish State selections in the Federal Register as amendments to 
Sec. Sec.  20.101 through 20.107, and 20.109 of title 50 CFR part 20.

Population Status and Harvest

    A brief summary of information on the status and harvest of 
waterfowl excerpted from various reports was included in the August 25 
supplemental proposed rule. For more detailed information on 
methodologies and results, complete copies of the various reports are 
available at the street address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our 
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html.

Review of Public Comments and Flyway Council Recommendations

    The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the May 13, 
2010, Federal Register, opened the public comment period for migratory 
game bird hunting regulations. The supplemental proposed rule, which 
appeared in the June 10, 2010, Federal Register, discussed the 
regulatory alternatives for the 2010-11 duck hunting season. Late-
season comments are summarized below and numbered in the order used in 
the May 13 and June 10 Federal Register documents. We have included 
only the numbered items pertaining to late-season issues for which we 
received written comments. Consequently, the issues do not follow in 
successive 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. Wherever possible, they are discussed under headings 
corresponding to the numbered items in the May 13 and June 10, 2010, 
Federal Register documents.

[[Page 58251]]

General

    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended 
increasing the possession limit for all migratory birds from twice the 
daily bag limit to three times the daily bag limit for the 2011-12 
hunting seasons.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended increasing the possession 
limit for ducks and geese from twice the daily bag limit to three times 
the daily bag limit, beginning with the 2010-11 season.
    Written Comments: The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) urged us to 
reduce bag limits and institute a hunting moratorium for those species 
potentially affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
    An individual questioned the annual variation we see in the 
population status of various species and requested that we keep all 
daily bag limits unchanged until several years of trends are evident.
    Service Response: We are generally supportive of the Flyways' 
interest in increasing the possession limits for migratory game birds 
and appreciate the recent discussions to frame this important issue. 
However, we believe that there are many unanswered questions regarding 
how this interest can be fully articulated in a proposal that satisfies 
the harvest management community, while fostering the support of the 
law enforcement community and informing the general hunting public. 
Further, because of the current schedule and processes for establishing 
migratory bird hunting seasons (i.e., early and late season processes), 
any changes to current possession limits would not be available for the 
2010-11 seasons. Consequently, we are proposing the creation of a 
cross-agency working group, chaired by the Service, and comprised of 
staff from the Service's Migratory Bird Program, State Wildlife Agency 
representatives, and Federal and State law enforcement staff, to begin 
to frame a recommendation that fully articulates a potential change in 
possession limits. This effort would include a description of the 
current status and use of possession limits, which populations and/or 
species/species groups should not be included in any proposed 
modification of possession limits, potential law enforcement issues, 
and a reasonable timeline for the implementation of any such proposed 
changes. Results of the working group efforts would be reported at the 
January SRC meeting in 2011, and then forwarded to Flyway Technical 
Committee and Council meetings next winter for further review and 
refinement. We would present any resulting proposal next spring, with 
possible implementation during the 2011-12 hunting seasons.
    Regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, as we stated in the 
August 30, 2010 Federal Register (75 FR 52873) and reiterate here, the 
release of oil into the Gulf of Mexico following the explosion and 
sinking of the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit and 
impacts to Gulf wetlands and wildlife has led to concerns about the 
potential for increased mortality in waterfowl and other migratory game 
birds, particularly in the fall and winter when local populations 
increase. This potential for increased mortality of migrating and 
wintering game birds has led to further questions regarding the need to 
impose precautionary regulatory restrictions in anticipation of 
increased spill-related mortality. However, it is important to remember 
that waterfowl migration and habitat use are highly variable from year 
to year, not only at the Flyway level but at regional and local levels, 
and dependent on any number of environmental factors. It is also 
important to recognize that populations of many species of North 
American waterfowl naturally undergo large population fluctuations in 
response to variability in breeding habitat conditions across their 
range, especially within the important prairie-parkland region. In 
fact, during the drought-stricken years of the 1980s and early 1990s, 
many North American waterfowl species declined to population sizes less 
than one-half those recently experienced as a result of natural 
declines in productivity and ongoing mortality. Fortunately, waterfowl 
management has a rich and successful history of monitoring and 
assessment programs which provide annual updates on the status and 
health of waterfowl populations. Programs such as the May aerial 
breeding population survey, the continental bird banding program, the 
mid-winter waterfowl surveys, and the hunter harvest surveys, among 
others, all provide important pieces of information on the population 
status, productivity, and distribution of important waterfowl species. 
These data are integral in the process of establishing hunting 
regulations for waterfowl and other migratory game birds. Through the 
Adaptive Harvest Management process we currently utilize to establish 
waterfowl seasons, and other associated species-specific harvest 
strategies, monitoring and assessment data are explicitly linked to 
regulatory decision making, ensuring that appropriate regulatory 
actions will be taken if warranted by changes in continental population 
status. Therefore, from both a National and Flyway harvest-management 
perspective, we intend to respond to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as 
we would any other non-hunting factor with potentially substantial 
effects on mortality or reproduction (e.g., hurricane, disease, prairie 
drought, habitat loss), by monitoring abundance and vital rates of 
waterfowl and other migratory game birds and adjusting harvest 
regulations as needed on the basis of existing harvest strategies. We 
believe this is the most prudent course of action, and further, firmly 
believe that our existing monitoring and assessment programs are 
sufficient to help safeguard the long-term conservation of any 
potentially-affected waterfowl or other migratory game birds.
    Recently obtained results of annual spring waterfowl population 
surveys indicate that population sizes of most duck species and 
breeding habitat conditions are good this year. While we believe that 
regulatory restrictions are currently unnecessary, we remain very 
concerned about both the short and long-term impacts of the oil spill 
on migratory birds, their habitats, and the resources upon which birds 
depend. There remains considerable uncertainty regarding the short-term 
and long-term impacts this spill will have on waterfowl and other 
migratory game birds that utilize the impacted region during all or 
part of their annual life cycle. We have been heavily engaged in the 
immediate response to the BP oil spill. The intent of these efforts is 
to document and minimize impacts to natural resources including 
migratory birds and their habitats. Large-scale efforts to influence 
bird migration and distribution at the flyway-level are likely 
fruitless given the importance of weather and photoperiod on the timing 
and speed of bird migrations. It is possible that re-distribution of 
birds at smaller scales could help reduce some oil exposure. Working 
with conservation partners, we are preparing to implement a range of 
on-the-ground habitat conservation or management measures near the oil-
impact area intended to minimize the entrance of oil into managed 
habitats along the Gulf and to enhance the availability of food 
resources outside the oil impact area. The provision of additional, 
reliable food sources could also help buffer against the worst-case 
scenario of an early winter in northern portions of the Mississippi and 
Central Flyways and dry habitat conditions in the northern Mississippi 
Alluvial Valley that would

[[Page 58252]]

result in large wintering waterfowl populations along the Gulf Coast. 
We are working with partners to determine what portion of these 
projects should be available as ``sanctuary'' (areas closed to hunting) 
to encourage bird use of these areas and minimize redistribution due to 
disturbance.
    Simultaneous with immediate response efforts, we are also working 
with partners to assess potential pathways for long-term acute and sub-
lethal effects of the BP oil spill on the full suite of migratory birds 
utilizing Gulf (or other impacted) habitats during some portion of 
their life cycle. Effects may result from direct exposure of birds to 
oil or to the long-term accumulation of polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons or other toxins at levels sufficient to cause 
physiological disorders impacting productivity or survival. The intent 
of this assessment is to assist in identifying potential mitigation and 
conservation measures as well as long-term monitoring and assessment 
needs for migratory birds.
    Regardless of the eventual impact of the BP oil spill on migratory 
game birds, we recognize the importance of working with the States as 
well as other governmental and non-governmental conservation partners 
to ensure that reasonable and science-based measures are implemented in 
the face of the ongoing crisis in the Gulf, and that the rationale for 
decisions regarding harvest regulations or other actions are clearly 
communicated to the public. We will continue to do so.
    Regarding the annual variation we see in species' population 
status, our long-term objectives continue to include providing 
opportunities to harvest portions of certain migratory game bird 
populations and to limit harvests to levels compatible with each 
population's ability to maintain healthy, viable numbers. Having taken 
into account the zones of temperature and the distribution, abundance, 
economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of flight of 
migratory birds, we believe that the hunting seasons provided herein 
are compatible with the current status of migratory bird populations 
and long-term population goals.

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management are: (A) Harvest Strategy Considerations, (B) Regulatory 
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. The categories correspond to previously published 
issues/discussion, and only those containing substantial 
recommendations are discussed below.
A. Harvest Strategy Considerations
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended the adoption of the ``liberal'' 
regulatory alternative.
    Service Response: We are continuing development of an Adaptive 
Harvest Management (AHM) protocol that would allow hunting regulations 
to vary among Flyways in a manner that recognizes each Flyway's unique 
breeding-ground derivation of mallards. In 2008, we described and 
adopted a protocol for regulatory decision-making for the newly defined 
stock of western mallards (73 FR 43290). For the 2010 hunting season, 
we continue to believe that the prescribed regulatory choice for the 
Pacific Flyway should be based on the status of this western mallard 
breeding stock, while the regulatory choice for the Mississippi and 
Central Flyways should depend on the status of the recently redefined 
mid-continent mallard stock. We also recommend that the regulatory 
choice for the Atlantic Flyway continues to depend on the status of 
eastern mallards.
    For the 2010 hunting season, we are continuing to consider the same 
regulatory alternatives as those used last year. The nature of the 
``restrictive,'' ``moderate,'' and ``liberal'' alternatives has 
remained essentially unchanged since 1997, except that extended 
framework dates have been offered in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal'' 
regulatory alternatives since 2002. Also, in 2003, we agreed to place a 
constraint on closed seasons in the western three Flyways whenever the 
midcontinent mallard breeding-population size (as defined prior to 
2008; traditional survey area plus Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin) 
was >=5.5 million.
    Optimal AHM strategies for the 2010-11 hunting season were 
calculated using: (1) Harvest-management objectives specific to each 
mallard stock; (2) the 2010 regulatory alternatives; and (3) current 
population models and associated weights for midcontinent, western, and 
eastern mallards. Based on this year's survey results of 8.60 million 
midcontinent mallards (traditional survey area minus Alaska plus 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan), 3.73 million ponds in Prairie 
Canada, 1,049,000 western mallards (443,000 and 606,000 respectively in 
California-Oregon and Alaska), and 763,000 eastern mallards, the 
prescribed regulatory choice for all four Flyways is the ``liberal'' 
alternative.
    Therefore, we concur with the recommendations of the Atlantic, 
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils regarding selection 
of the ``liberal'' regulatory alternative and adopt the ``liberal'' 
regulatory alternative, as described in the July 29, 2010, Federal 
Register.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils recommended that the Service allow 3 zones, with 2-way splits 
in each zone, and 4 zones with no splits as additional zone/split-
season options for duck seasons during 2011-15.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the Service allow 3 zones 
with the season split into 2 segments in each zone, 4 zones with no 
splits, and 2 zones with the season split into 3 segments in each zone 
as additional zone/split-season options for duck seasons during 2011-
15.
    In addition, all four Flyway Councils recommended that States with 
existing grandfathered status be allowed to retain that status.
    Service Response: In 1990, because of concerns about the 
proliferation of zones and split seasons for duck hunting, we conducted 
a cooperative review and evaluation of the historical use of zone/split 
options. This review did not show that the proliferation of these 
options had increased harvest pressure; however, the ability to detect 
the impact of zone/split configurations was poor because of unreliable 
response variables, the lack of statistical tests to differentiate 
between real and perceived changes, and the absence of adequate 
experimental controls. Consequently, we established guidelines to 
provide a framework for controlling the proliferation of changes in 
zone/split options. The guidelines identified a limited number of zone/
split configurations that could be used for duck hunting and restricted 
the frequency of changes in these configurations to 5-year intervals.
    In 1996, we revised the guidelines to provide States greater 
flexibility in using their zone/split arrangements. In 2005, in further 
response to recommendations from the Flyway Councils, we considered 
changes to the zone/split guidelines. After our review, however, we 
concluded that the current guidelines need not be changed. We further 
stated that the guidelines would be used for future open seasons (70 FR 
55667).

[[Page 58253]]

    However, while we continue to support the use of guidelines for 
providing a stable framework for controlling the number of changes to 
zone/split options, we note the consensus position among all the Flyway 
Councils on their proposal and are sensitive to the States' desires for 
flexibility in addressing concerns of the hunting public which, in 
part, provided the motivation for this recommendation. Furthermore, we 
remain supportive of the recommendations from the 2008 Future of 
Waterfowl Management Workshop that called for a greater emphasis on the 
effects of management actions on the hunting public. Thus, later this 
fall in a subsequent Federal Register, we plan to propose that two 
specific additional options be added to the existing zone and split 
season criteria governing State selection of waterfowl zones and 
splits. The additional options would include four zones with no splits 
and three zones with the option for 2-way (2-segment) split seasons in 
one or both zones. Otherwise, the criteria and rules governing the 
application of those criteria would remain unchanged.
    While we are announcing our intention to propose adding the Flyway 
Councils' recommended two options to the existing zone and split season 
guidelines, we are not providing all the specifics of our proposal here 
for several reasons. First, because of the sensitive timing of the 
annual regulations process, and the necessary abbreviated public 
comment periods, we want to allow sufficient time for the Flyway 
Councils, the States, and the public to review and comment on our 
proposal. Second, because any new zone and split season criteria would 
not be used until the 2011-12 hunting season, we believe there is no 
pressing reason to finalize them in the next several months. However, 
we are also sensitive to providing the States sufficient time to 
interact with their affected hunting publics on any possible changes to 
existing zone and split season configurations they may wish to explore 
and to conduct any public processes needed to implement such changes. 
Finally, we need additional time to explore all the possible 
implications and impacts of such changes in the zone and split season 
guidelines in order to provide the public with all the necessary 
information for their consideration and comment.
    We also note that existing human dimensions data on the 
relationship of harvest regulations, specifically zones and splits, to 
hunter recruitment, retention, and/or satisfaction are equivocal or 
lacking. In the face of uncertainty over the effects of management 
actions, the waterfowl management community has broadly endorsed 
adaptive management and the principles of informed decision-making as a 
means of accounting for and reducing that uncertainty. The necessary 
elements of informed decision-making include: Clearly articulated 
objectives, explicit measurable attributes for objectives, 
identification of a suite of potential management actions, some means 
of predicting the consequences of management actions with respect to 
stated objectives, and, finally, a monitoring program to compare 
observations with predictions as a basis for learning, policy 
adaptation, and more informed decision-making. Currently, none of these 
elements are used to support decision-making that involves human 
dimensions considerations. Accordingly, we see this as an opportunity 
to advance an informed decision-making framework that explicitly 
considers human dimensions issues.
    To that end, we will request that the National Flyway Council 
marshal the expertise and resources of the Human Dimensions Working 
Group to develop explicit human dimensions objectives related to 
expanding zone and split options and a study plan to evaluate the 
effect of the proposed action in achieving those objectives. It is our 
hope that the study plan would include hypotheses and specific 
predictions about the effect of changing zone/split criteria on stated 
human dimensions objectives, and monitoring and evaluation methods that 
would be used to test those predictions.
    We believe that insights gained through such an evaluation would be 
invaluable in furthering the ongoing dialogue regarding fundamental 
objectives of waterfowl management and an integrated and coherent 
decision framework for advancing those objectives. We will review the 
objectives and study plan at our January 2011 SRC meeting. We will 
consider this plan, along with public and Flyway comments on the 
proposed change to the zones and splits criteria, along with any 
required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) analysis, in making a final decision on a course of action next 
year. We anticipate our final decision sometime this winter.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
iii. Black Ducks
    In 2008, U.S. and Canadian waterfowl managers developed an interim 
harvest strategy that will be employed by both countries until a formal 
strategy based on the principles of AHM is completed. We detailed this 
interim strategy in the July 24, 2008, Federal Register (73 FR 43290). 
The interim harvest strategy is prescriptive, in that it calls for no 
substantive changes in hunting regulations unless the black duck 
breeding population, averaged over the most recent 3 years, exceeds or 
falls below the long-term average breeding population by 15 percent or 
more. The strategy is designed to share the black duck harvest equally 
between the two countries; however, recognizing incomplete control of 
harvest through regulations, it will allow realized harvest in either 
country to vary between 40 and 60 percent.
    Each year in November, Canada publishes its proposed migratory bird 
hunting regulations for the upcoming hunting season. Thus, last fall 
the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) used the interim strategy to 
establish its proposed black duck regulations for the 2010-11 season, 
based on the most current data available at that time: Breeding 
population estimates for 2007, 2008, and 2009, and an assessment of 
parity based on harvest estimates for the 2004-08 hunting seasons. 
Although updates of both breeding population estimates and harvest 
estimates are now available, the United States will base its 2010-11 
black duck regulations on the same data CWS used, to ensure comparable 
application of the strategy. The long-term (1998-2007) breeding 
population mean estimate is 717,450 and the 2007-09 3-year running mean 
estimate is 719,133. Based on these estimates, no restriction or 
liberalization of black duck harvest is warranted. The average 
proportion of the harvest during the 5-year period, 2004-08, was 0.56 
in the United States and 0.44 in Canada, and this falls within the 
established parity bounds of 40 and 60 percent.
iv. Canvasbacks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a full season for canvasbacks 
with a 1-bird daily bag limit. Season lengths would be 60 days in the 
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, 74 days in the Central Flyway, and 
107 days in the Pacific Flyway.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council also recommended that we update the harvest 
estimates used to predict the canvasback harvest under the ``liberal''

[[Page 58254]]

AHM regulatory alternative, as used in the existing canvasback harvest 
strategy, and utilize the most recent 5-year average U.S. canvasback 
harvest plus a constant accounting for the most recent available 
Canadian harvest estimates. They further recommended that our updates 
include canvasback harvest estimates for both full (1-bird bag limit) 
and partial seasons.
    Service Response: Since 1994, we have followed a canvasback harvest 
strategy that if canvasback population status and production are 
sufficient to permit a harvest of one canvasback per day nationwide for 
the entire length of the regular duck season, while still attaining a 
projected spring population objective of 500,000 birds, the season on 
canvasbacks should be opened. A partial season would be permitted if 
the estimated allowable harvest was within the projected harvest for a 
shortened season. If neither of these conditions can be met, the 
harvest strategy calls for a closed season on canvasbacks nationwide. 
In 2008 (73 FR 43290), we announced our decision to modify the 
Canvasback Harvest Strategy to incorporate the option for a 2-bird 
daily bag limit for canvasbacks when the predicted breeding population 
the subsequent year exceeds 725,000 birds.
    This year's spring survey resulted in an estimate of 585,000 
canvasbacks. This was 12 percent below the 2009 estimate of 662,000 
canvasbacks and 3 percent above the 1955-2009 average. The estimate of 
ponds in Prairie Canada was 3.7 million, which was 5 percent above last 
year and 9 percent above the long-term average. The canvasback harvest 
strategy predicts a 2011 canvasback population of 521,000 birds under a 
``liberal'' duck season with a 1-bird daily bag limit and 485,000 with 
a 2-bird daily bag limit. Because the predicted 2011 population under 
the 1-bird daily bag limit is greater than 500,000, while the 
prediction under the 2-bird daily bag limit is less than 725,000, the 
canvasback harvest strategy stipulates a full canvasback season with a 
1-bird daily bag limit for the upcoming season.
    With regard to the Mississippi Flyway Council's request to update 
estimates used to predict canvasback harvest in the Service's harvest 
strategy, we agree that this feature of the canvasback strategy should 
be updated. Canvasback harvest estimates from recent hunting seasons 
are now available to be used in an update of the strategy. We hope to 
complete the update of the canvasback strategy in time for use in the 
2011-12 hunting season, and will provide an update on this work at the 
next SRC meeting in January.
v. Pintails
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a full season for pintails, 
consisting of a 2-bird daily bag limit with a 60-day season in the 
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, a 74-day season in the Central 
Flyway, and a 107-day season in the Pacific Flyway.
    Service Response: The current derived pintail harvest strategy was 
adopted by the Service and Flyway Councils in 2010 (75 FR 44856). For 
this year, optimal regulatory strategies were calculated with: (1) An 
objective of maximizing long-term cumulative harvest, including a 
closed-season constraint of 1.75 million birds, (2) the regulatory 
alternatives and associated predicted harvest, and (3) current 
population models and their relative weights. Based on this year's 
survey results of 3.5 million pintails and a mean latitude of 54.4 
degrees (latitude corrected breeding population of 4.30 million 
pintails), the optimal regulatory choice for all four Flyways is the 
``liberal'' alternative with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
vi. Scaup
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended use of the ``moderate'' 
regulation package, consisting of a 60-day season with a 2-bird daily 
bag in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, a 74-day season with a 2-
bird daily bag limit in the Central Flyway, and an 86-day season with a 
3-bird daily bag limit in the Pacific Flyway.
    Service Response: In 2008, we adopted and implemented a new scaup 
harvest strategy (73 FR 43290 and 73 FR 51124) with initial 
``restrictive,'' ``moderate,'' and ``liberal'' regulatory packages 
adopted for each Flyway. Further opportunity to revise these packages 
was afforded prior to the 2009-10 season and modifications by the 
Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils were endorsed by the Service in 
July 2009 (74 FR 36870). These packages will remain in effect for at 
least 3 years prior to their re-evaluation.
    The 2010 breeding population estimate for scaup is 4.24 million, up 
2 percent from, but similar to, the 2009 estimate of 4.17 million. 
Total estimated scaup harvest for the 2009-10 season was 277,000 birds. 
Based on updated model parameter estimates, the optimal regulatory 
choice for scaup is the ``moderate'' package recommended by the 
Councils in all four Flyways.
vii. Mottled Ducks
    Written Comments: The ALDF stated that the combination of liberal 
bag limits, documented low survivorship, low reproductive rates, 
ongoing habitat loss, and observed population declines indicate that 
hunting for mottled ducks at current levels is probably not 
sustainable, especially considering the impacts of habitat destruction 
and direct mortality from exposure to oil from the Deepwater Horizon 
blowout. They urged us not to allow any harvest of mottled ducks until 
the short-term and long-term impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 
are determined.
    Service Response: For many years, we have expressed concern about 
the long-term status of mottled ducks, especially the Western Gulf 
Coast Population. Last year, after consideration of long-term trends 
for this population, recent harvest levels, and breeding habitat 
conditions, we believed that a reduction in harvest levels for this 
population was necessary (September 24, 2009 Federal Register, 74 FR 
48822). Thus, in the Mississippi Flyway, we reduced the daily bag limit 
of mottled ducks to one bird (projected to result in a harvest 
reduction of about 20 percent) and in the Central Flyway delayed the 
opening of the mottled duck season (expected to result in a similar 
harvest reduction). We stated then that we believe that this level of 
reduction was necessary across the entire range of the Western Gulf 
Coast Population. Further, we stated that an assessment should be 
conducted of whether desired reductions in harvest are achieved as a 
result of the harvest restrictions, and that the status of mottled 
ducks and their breeding habitat should be closely monitored and a 
determination made whether further restrictions are warranted. Should 
additional restrictions be needed, we will consider all regulatory 
options, including the potential for a closed season. We see no reason 
to deviate from this course of action.

4. Canada Geese

B. Regular Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended a 
107-day regular Canada goose hunting season, between the Saturday 
nearest September 24 and March 10, with a daily bag limit of 8 geese, 
in the Western Long Island Resident Population (RP) area of New York. 
The season could be split into three segments. The Council recommends 
this framework in lieu of

[[Page 58255]]

the current 30-day September season and 80-day regular season (between 
October 1 and February 15) offered for that area.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended several changes in goose 
frameworks. In Minnesota and Missouri, the Committees recommended an 
85-day Canada goose season with a daily bag limit of 3 geese. In Iowa, 
they recommend a 107-day Canada goose season with a daily bag limit of 
3 geese. In Arkansas, they recommended an 82-day Canada goose season in 
the Northwest Zone, and a 72-day season in the remainder of the State. 
The daily bag limit would be 2 Canada geese. All the recommended 
changes in Canada goose season lengths and bag limits, except in 
Arkansas, were made in response to changes in the Eastern Prairie 
Population (EPP) harvest strategy, which the Council approved this 
summer.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended two changes to Canada goose 
frameworks. In the east-tier States, the Council recommended increasing 
the Canada goose daily bag limit from 3 to 5 geese. In the west-tier 
States of Colorado and Texas, the Council recommended raising the dark 
goose daily bag limit from 4 to 5 geese in the aggregate, with the 
exception of the Western Goose Zone of Texas, where no more than 1 
could be a white-fronted goose (no change).
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended several changes to dark 
goose season frameworks. In Oregon's Northwest (NW) Permit Goose Zone, 
the Council recommended extending the framework ending date for dark 
geese from the Sunday nearest March 1 to March 10. In the Tillamook 
County Management Area of Oregon's NW Permit Goose Zone, they 
recommended increasing the dark goose daily bag limit from 2 to 3, with 
not more than 2 cackling or Aleutian geese per day. In California's 
Balance-of-State Zone, they recommended increasing the dark goose 
season framework from 100 to 107 days.
    Service Response: We support the Atlantic Flyway's recommendation 
regarding season framework changes to the Western Long Island RP area 
of New York. We recognize that resident Canada geese are causing 
serious conflicts with human interests and activities in western Long 
Island, including threats to public health and safety (including 
airport safety) and property damage concerns. Currently, the State of 
New York (New York) employs a variety of control methods in this area, 
but resident Canada geese numbers remain abundant in that area. 
Further, the Council notes that negligible harvest of geese has 
occurred during September seasons in western Long Island, primarily due 
to most of the birds remaining in areas where hunting is not allowed or 
not feasible, and hunters wanting to avoid conflicts with other outdoor 
activities at that time of year. However, New York believes, and we 
agree, that opportunities and interest in hunting for resident geese in 
this area are greatest in mid to late winter, when geese are most 
likely to be forced out of inland ponds and lakes to more hunter-
accessible coastal areas, and potential conflicts with other outdoor 
activities would be lowest. Hunting and harvest of RP geese in late 
winter would help provide some relief and control of geese that are 
most likely to nest and contribute to local population problems and 
conflicts. Since this area is already classified as an RP area, we 
believe that the potential harvest of Atlantic Population (AP) or North 
Atlantic Population (NAP) geese would be negligible.
    In the Mississippi Flyway, we support the recommended changes to 
season frameworks in Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, and Arkansas. The 
changes in Canada goose season lengths and bag limits, except in 
Arkansas, were made in response to changes in the EPP harvest strategy 
recently approved by the Council.
    Regarding the Central Flyway Council's recommendation to increase 
the dark goose daily bag limit in the west-tier States of Colorado and 
Texas from 4 to 5 geese, we concur. Currently, all other west-tier 
States have a 5 dark goose daily bag limit and the Council's proposed 
modification is in the relevant goose management plans. Further, the 
2008-10 averages of midwinter counts for Hi-Line Population Canada 
geese (244,107) and Short Grass Prairie Population (SGP) Canada geese 
(241,132), found mainly in the west tier, remain well above population 
objective levels (>80,000 and 150,000-200,000, respectively).
    However, we do not support the Central Flyway's request to increase 
the dark goose daily bag limit in the east-tier States from 3 to 5 
geese. While we agree that the Flyway's proposed bag limit increase 
would likely result in an increased harvest of resident Canada geese 
(Great Plains Population), there are other Canada goose populations 
that would also be subjected to additional harvest pressure, including 
the Tall Grass Prairie (TGP), Western Prairie (WP), and EPP 
populations. One of our primary concerns with the proposed increase 
relates to our current collective inability to adequately monitor the 
population status and harvest of all these various populations. We 
currently have no surveys that provide reliable estimates of population 
abundance for Great Plains resident geese in Kansas, Nebraska, 
Oklahoma, or Texas. Population abundance indices for the TGP 
(Richardson's Canada geese) are based on midwinter surveys that include 
unknown proportions of other Canada goose populations and yield highly 
variable estimates. Additionally, there is little information available 
about the abundance or harvest of WP geese. Without having this 
important information, we cannot reliably determine appropriate harvest 
levels or harvest regulations for the resident Canada goose population 
and meet management objectives for all the populations likely affected 
by the proposal. Furthermore, this liberalization would result in 
markedly disparate harvest regulations between the Central and 
Mississippi Flyways, which share the TGP and EPP populations. We 
believe that more coordination with the Mississippi Flyway, which 
shares the TGP with the Central Flyway, should be pursued prior to the 
proposed regulatory change. This coordination should include work 
toward a revision of the management plan for the TGP population, and 
improved abundance and harvest monitoring for all populations of Canada 
geese that would be impacted by this proposal.
    Lastly, we encourage the States in the Central Flyway to fully 
utilize available tools provided to manage resident Canada geese, 
including special Canada goose hunting seasons, take of geese in August 
using management take, other control and depredation orders 
specifically relevant to resident Canada geese, and Statewide special 
Canada goose permits, to reduce the growth of resident Canada goose 
populations.
    We do agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to 
extend the framework closing date in Oregon's NW Permit Goose Zone to 
March 10. This change would allow Oregon's NW Permit Goose season to 
close 7-14 days later than currently allowed and is intended to help 
alleviate agricultural depredations caused by wintering geese in this 
area during this slightly later period when the Council believes that 
grazing by geese may be especially detrimental to crops. The Council 
does not expect the change to measurably increase harvest since goose 
harvest per week, as measured at the mandatory check stations in this 
zone, remains relatively constant during the season. We agree.

[[Page 58256]]

    Similarly, we also agree with the Council's recommendation to 
increase the dark goose daily bag limit in the Tillamook County 
Management Area of Oregon's NW Permit Goose Zone from 2 to 3, with not 
more than 2 cackling or Aleutian Canada geese per day. This change is 
expected to have only a negligible impact on the harvest level of 
migrant Canada geese and an even smaller effect on the harvest of 
cackling and Aleutian Canada geese since it maintains the current NW 
Permit Zone restriction regarding cackling and Aleutian Canada geese. 
Harvest data collected during the first 3 seasons in which goose 
hunting was allowed in Tillamook County since 1982 indicates that the 
overall goose harvest has remained moderate, with 238, 297, and 285 
geese taken during the last three seasons, respectively. The vast 
majority of these birds have been classified as either western Canada 
geese (52 percent) or lesser Canada geese (25 percent). It is the 
Council's and our belief that agricultural depredations in this area 
will likely be reduced due to the direct removal of some additional 
geese and the increased hazing effect of additional hunting.
    Lastly, we agree with the minor increase in the dark season 
framework in California's Balance-of-State Zone, from 100 to 107 days. 
While most of California's Balance-of-State Zone is outside the 
historic nesting range of Canada geese, Canada goose breeding 
populations there have grown significantly in the last 20 years, 
causing increasing conflicts with humans. Since 1984, daily bag limits 
for large Canada geese have increased from 2 to 6, and season lengths 
have increased from 79 days to 100 days. The Council states that 
increasing the framework season length in this zone will allow for 
California to use up to 5 days in an early October Canada goose 
season--an option preferred over a September season because of 
typically hot September weather in the Central Valley.
C. Special Late Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended changing 
Indiana's experimental late Canada goose season (February 1-15) from 
experimental to operational in the following 30 counties: Adams, Allen, 
Boone, Clay, De Kalb, Elkhart, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, 
Huntington, Johnson, Kosciusko, La Porte, Lagrange, Madison, Marion, 
Marshall, Morgan, Noble, Parke, St. Joseph, Shelby, Steuben, Starke, 
Sullivan, Vermillion, Vigo, Wells, and Whitley.
    Service Response: In large part, we concur with the Mississippi 
Flyway Council's recommendation to grant operational status for 
Indiana's late Canada goose season. However, results from the 
experiment indicate that the percentage of migrant geese harvested in 
the 6-county region surrounding Terre Haute exceeds the 20 percent 
threshold identified in the criteria for special late Canada goose 
seasons. When we developed the criteria for special late Canada goose 
seasons, we indicated that States must agree to close any areas to 
hunting where evidence from band recoveries or other sources indicates 
unacceptable harvest of non-target populations during the special 
season (60 FR 45020). Because the Terre Haute region does not meet 
established criteria, we cannot grant operational status for these 6 
counties (Clay, Greene, Parke, Sullivan, Vermillion, and Vigo 
Counties). For the remaining 24 of the 30 counties involved in the 
experiment, we do agree with the Mississippi Flyway Council's 
recommendation and grant them operational status.
    We recognize that the recently published Draft Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) on migratory bird hunting 
contains a proposal to remove evaluation criteria for special Canada 
goose seasons (75 FR 39577). In light of this proposal, we would be 
amenable to allowing the special late season to continue in the Terre 
Haute region on an experimental basis until the status of evaluation 
criteria for such seasons has been resolved. In the interim, we will 
require the same intensity of data collection in the Terre Haute region 
with regard to morphometric measurements on harvested birds, and 
analysis of band-recovery and harvest data.

5. White-Fronted Geese

    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended 
increasing the daily bag limit for white-fronted geese from 2 to 4 for 
hunting days occurring after the last Sunday in January in the Klamath 
County Zone of Oregon. They also made several other dark goose 
recommendations affecting white-fronted geese (see 4. Canada Geese, B. 
Regular Seasons for further discussion).
    Service Response: Specific to white-fronted geese, we concur with 
the Pacific Flyway Council's recommended changes in the Klamath County 
Zone of Oregon. The Pacific Population of greater white-fronted geese 
is currently above population goal and the index for the population 
increased substantially this year. The 3-year average is now greater 
than twice the management goal and we expect excellent production this 
summer. The Council notes that agricultural depredations caused by 
spring staging geese in the Klamath Basin continue to be a serious 
issue and believes that increasing the daily bag limits in Oregon's 
Klamath Zone will help contribute to addressing this conflict. We note 
that potential concerns over Tule geese were addressed by the Oregon 
Department of Fish and Wildlife and California Department of Fish and 
Game, in cooperation with the Service, completing three seasons of 
harvest monitoring and flock distribution monitoring during the late-
winter in Oregon's Klamath County Zone. Monitoring indicated that very 
few harvested white-fronted geese (as measured by biologists) were 
determined to be Tule geese from morphological measurements (4 of 329 
geese). Additionally, monitoring of radio-marked Tule geese has shown 
their preference for habitats in the California portion of the Klamath 
Basin where they are unavailable for harvest in Oregon. The harvest of 
Canada geese after the last Sunday in January would continue to be 
prohibited under the change.

6. Brant

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
continuation of a 50-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit for 
Atlantic brant.
    Service Response: We concur with the Atlantic Flyway Council's 
recommendation. The 2010 Mid-Winter Index (MWI) for Atlantic brant was 
139,400, about 8 percent lower than the 2009 estimate of 151,300. 
However, conditions appeared to be favorable in most of the breeding 
range this spring; thus, average to above average brant production is 
expected this year. The Atlantic Flyway Management Plan calls for a 50-
day season and a 2-bird daily bag limit at the current mid-winter 
index, and we support the season length and bag limit prescribed by the 
management plan.

7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended a 
107-day regular season with a 25-bird daily bag limit and no possession 
limit for light geese in the Atlantic Flyway.
    The Pacific Flyway Council made several recommendations concerning 
light geese. In the Klamath County Zone of Oregon, the Council 
recommended increasing the daily bag limit for light geese from 4 to 6 
for hunting days occurring after the last Sunday in

[[Page 58257]]

January. The Council also recommended in Oregon's newly created Malheur 
County Zone, increasing the daily bag limit for light geese from 6 to 
10 and specifying that all hunt days occurring after the last Sunday in 
January should be concurrent with Idaho's Zone 2.
    Service Response: We support the Atlantic Flyway Council's 
recommendation to increase the daily bag limit for light geese from 15 
to 25. Greater snow geese are above both the Atlantic Flyway and North 
American Waterfowl Management Plan desired population objectives. 
Additionally, we have declared light geese (including greater snow 
geese) an overabundant species and implemented special Conservation 
Order measures to increase the take of light geese (73 FR 65926 and 73 
FR 65954). Given their current population status and our desire to 
reduce populations, we believe that there is no reason to constrain the 
daily bag limit to 15 birds and believe that this change may help 
contribute to higher light goose harvest during regular hunting 
seasons.
    In Oregon, we agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's light goose 
proposals intended to assist landowners with depredation issues, reduce 
goose numbers, and enhance goose hazing effects. Taken together, these 
proposals would allow Oregon the flexibility to hold differential 
seasons for light geese in the newly proposed Malheur County Zone and 
the modified Harney and Lake County Zone, and institute a late-winter 
light goose season in the Malheur County Zone to help address 
agricultural depredations caused by light geese. By requiring that the 
Oregon hunt coincide with the current late-winter light goose season in 
adjacent areas of Idaho, the Council believes that this should help 
alleviate agricultural depredations caused by staging light geese in 
adjacent areas of Oregon and Idaho by not allowing geese to simply move 
into closed areas. We agree. While past light goose harvest has 
historically been minimal in this area, the Council expects their 
proposals to significantly increase light goose harvest in Malheur 
County. They note that during the late winter and early spring, light 
geese are abundant in portions of Malheur County, especially near 
agricultural lands in proximity to the Snake River, as the geese stage 
during migration en route to breeding areas in the Arctic. We note that 
all 3 populations of light geese in the Pacific Flyway are currently 
above their respective population goals.

NEPA Consideration

    NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document 
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual 
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. 
We published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on June 
16, 1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 
18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental 
assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations 
on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available from the 
address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
    In a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register 
(70 FR 53376), we announced our intent to develop a new Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the migratory bird hunting 
program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as 
detailed in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 12216). We 
released the draft SEIS on July 9, 2010 (75 FR 39577). The draft SEIS 
is available by either writing to the address indicated under ADDRESSES 
or by viewing our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that, ``The Secretary shall review 
other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in 
furtherance of the purposes of this Act'' (and) shall ``insure that any 
action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of [critical] habitat. * * *.'' Consequently, we conducted formal 
consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations 
would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of their critical habitat. Findings from these consultations are 
included in a biological opinion, which concluded that the regulations 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 
or threatened species. Additionally, these findings may have caused 
modification of some regulatory measures previously proposed, and the 
final frameworks reflect any such modifications. Our biological 
opinions resulting from this section 7 consultation are public 
documents available for public inspection at the address indicated 
under ADDRESSES.

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule 
is significant and has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866. 
OMB bases its determination of regulatory significance upon the 
following four criteria: (a) Whether the rule will have an annual 
effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an 
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of 
the government; (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with 
other Federal agencies' actions; (c) Whether the rule will materially 
affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights 
and obligations of their recipients; and (d) Whether the rule raises 
novel legal or policy issues.
    An economic analysis was prepared for the 2008-09 season. This 
analysis was based on data from the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing 
Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see 
discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). This analysis 
estimated consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting 
(estimates for other species are not quantified due to lack of data). 
The alternatives are (1) Issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer 
days than those issued during the 2007-08 season, (2) Issue moderate 
regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) 
Issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2007-08 
season. For the 2008-09 season, we chose alternative 3, with an 
estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $205-$270 million. 
Based on population status information, there were no significant 
changes to the season frameworks for the 2010-11 season, and as such, 
we again considered these three alternatives. For these reasons, we 
have not conducted a new economic analysis, but the 2008-09 analysis is 
part of the record for this rule and is available at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0040.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial 
numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual 
hunting regulations on small business entities in detail as part of the 
1981 cost-benefit analysis. This analysis was revised

[[Page 58258]]

annually from 1990-95. In 1995, the Service issued a Small Entity 
Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently updated in 
1996, 1998, 2004, and 2008. The primary source of information about 
hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the National 
Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year intervals. The 
2008 Analysis was based on the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing Survey 
and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from 
which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend 
approximately $1.2 billion at small businesses in 2008. Copies of the 
Analysis are available upon request from the Division of Migratory Bird 
Management (see ADDRESSES) or from our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at https://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0040.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, 
this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 
However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan 
to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 
808(1).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The various recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, 
subpart K, are utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird 
hunting regulations. Specifically, OMB has approved the information 
collection requirements of our Migratory Bird Surveys and assigned 
control number 1018-0023 (expires 2/28/2011). This information is used 
to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to improve 
our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to better 
manage these populations. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor 
and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this 
rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given 
year on local or State government or private entities. Therefore, this 
rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    The Department has determined that this rule will not unduly burden 
the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule, authorized by 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings 
implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected 
property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of 
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking 
of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise 
otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on 
the use of private and public property.

Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not 
expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. 
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we 
have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes 
and have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust 
resources. However, in the May 13 Federal Register, we solicited 
proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for certain 
Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and 
ceded lands for the 2010-11 migratory bird hunting season. The 
resulting proposals were contained in a separate proposed rule (75 FR 
47682). By virtue of these actions, we have consu