Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number 1018-0023; Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and Migratory Bird Surveys, 27863-27866 [2017-12724]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices
commercial uses within national
wildlife refuges which are compatible
with the purpose for which an
individual refuge was established and
the purposes of the NWRS.’’
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
IV. Request for and Availability of
Public Comments
Agency Information Collection
Activities: OMB Control Number 1018–
0023; Migratory Bird Harvest
Information Program and Migratory
Bird Surveys
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.
V. Authorities
The authorities for this action are the
National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd–668ee), as amended by the
National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997; Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k–
460k–4); Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et
seq.); and the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Dated: June 14, 2017.
Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–HQ–MB–2017–N077;
FXMB12310900WHO–178–FF09M26000]
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) will ask the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to
approve the information collection (IC)
described below. As required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
as part of our continuing efforts to
reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, we invite the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on this IC. This
IC is scheduled to expire on June 30,
2017. We 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.
DATES: You must submit comments on
or before July 19, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and
suggestions on this information
collection to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at OMB–
OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_
Submission@omb.eop.gov (email).
Please provide a copy of your comments
to the Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803 (mail), or Info_Coll@fws.gov
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0023’’ in
the subject line of your comments. You
may review the ICR online at https://
www.reginfo.gov. Follow the
instructions to review Department of the
Interior collections under review by
OMB.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2017–12728 Filed 6–16–17; 8:45 am]
Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at info_coll@fws.gov
(email) or (703) 358–2503 (telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
I. Abstract
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16
U.S.C. 703–711) and the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742d)
designate the Department of the Interior
as the key agency responsible for (1) the
wise management of migratory bird
populations frequenting the United
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27863
States, and (2) setting hunting
regulations that allow appropriate
harvests that are within the guidelines
that will allow for those populations’
well-being. These responsibilities
dictate that we gather accurate data on
various characteristics of migratory bird
harvest. Based on information from
harvest surveys, we can adjust hunting
regulations as needed to optimize
harvests at levels that provide a
maximum of hunting recreation while
keeping populations at desired levels.
Under 50 CFR 20.20, migratory bird
hunters must register for the Migratory
Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP)
in each State in which they hunt each
year. State natural resource agencies
must send names and addresses of all
migratory bird hunters to Branch of
Harvest Surveys, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Division of Migratory Bird
Management, on an annual basis.
The Migratory Bird Hunter Survey is
based on the Migratory Bird Harvest
Information Program. We randomly
select migratory bird hunters and ask
them to report their harvest. The
resulting estimates of harvest per hunter
are combined with the complete list of
migratory bird hunters to provide
estimates of the total harvest for the
species surveyed.
The Parts Collection Survey estimates
the species, sex, and age composition of
the harvest, and the geographic and
temporal distribution of the harvest.
Randomly selected successful hunters
who responded to the Migratory Bird
Hunter Survey the previous year are
asked to complete and return a postcard
if they are willing to participate in the
Parts Collection Survey. We provide
postage-paid envelopes to respondents
before the hunting season and ask them
to send in a wing or the tail feathers
from each duck or goose that they
harvest, or a wing from each mourning
dove, woodcock, band-tailed pigeon,
snipe, rail, or gallinule that they harvest.
We use the wings and tail feathers to
identify the species, sex, and age of the
harvested sample. We also ask
respondents to report on the envelope
the date and location of harvest for each
bird. We combine the results of this
survey with the harvest estimates
obtained from the Migratory Bird
Hunter Survey to provide speciesspecific national harvest estimates.
The combined results of these surveys
enable us to evaluate the effects of
season length, season dates, and bag
limits on the harvest of each species,
and thus help us determine appropriate
hunting regulations.
The Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey is
an annual questionnaire survey of
people who obtained a sandhill crane
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
27864
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices
hunting permit. At the end of the
hunting season, we randomly select a
sample of permit holders and ask them
to report the date, location, and number
of birds harvested for each of their
sandhill crane hunts. Their responses
provide estimates of the temporal and
geographic distribution of the harvest as
well as the average harvest per hunter,
which, combined with the total number
of permits issued, enables us to estimate
the total harvest of sandhill cranes.
Based on information from this survey,
we adjust hunting regulations as
needed.
II. Data
OMB Control Number: 1018–0023.
Title: Migratory Bird Information
Program and Migratory Bird Surveys, 50
CFR 20.20.
Service Form Number: FWS Forms 3–
165, 3–165A through E, 3–2056J through
N.
Number of
respondents
Activity
Type of Request: Revision to a
currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents: States
and migratory game bird hunters.
Respondent’s Obligation: Mandatory
for HIP registration information;
voluntary for participation in the
surveys.
Frequency of Collection: Annually or
on occasion.
Number of
responses
Completion
time per
response
Total annual
burden hours *
Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program
49
784
157 hours ....
123,088
37,000
23,100
8,900
12,000
37,000
23,100
8,900
12,000
5
4
4
3
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
....
....
....
....
3,083
1,540
593
600
4,200
1,000
3,600
400
1,100
900
92,400
5,500
3,600
400
1,100
1,350
5
5
1
1
1
5
minutes ....
minutes ....
minute ......
minute ......
minute ......
minutes ....
7,700
458
60
7
18
113
Form 3–2056N ...................................................................................................
4,000
4,000
Totals ..........................................................................................................
96,249
190,134
Migratory Bird Hunter Survey
Form
Form
Form
Form
3–2056J ....................................................................................................
3–2056K ...................................................................................................
3–2056L ....................................................................................................
3–2056M ...................................................................................................
Parts Collection Survey
Form
Form
Form
Form
Form
Form
3–165 ........................................................................................................
3–165A .....................................................................................................
3–165B .....................................................................................................
3–165C .....................................................................................................
3–165D .....................................................................................................
3–165E .....................................................................................................
Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey
3.5 minutes
.....................
233
137,493
* Burden hours are rounded
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
III. Comments
On February 24, 2017, we published
in the Federal Register (82 FR 11603) a
notice of our intent to request that OMB
renew approval for this information
collection. In that notice, we solicited
comments for 60 days, ending on
April 25, 2017. We received five
comments in response to the notice.
One commenter objected to the surveys,
but did not address the information
collection requirements. Therefore, we
did not provide a response. The
remaining four comments are
summarized below, along with the
Service responses.
Comment 1: Received April 7, 2017,
from the Atlantic Flyway Council via
email:
The Atlantic Flyway Council
provided comments in response to the
four topics listed below (we have
provided our responses following each
separate comment from the Atlantic
Flyway Council; see ‘‘Service
Response’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:20 Jun 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
Comment 1A: Whether or not the
collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information
will have practical utility.
The Atlantic Flyway commented that the
surveys are absolutely critical to the
management of migratory birds and
maintaining hunting seasons, and that
without reliable data on harvest parameters
derived from these surveys, our ability to
make decisions could result in less than
optimal levels of migratory bird populations
and decrease in hunting opportunity. They
commented that the surveys provide
substantial evidence that game bird species
are wisely managed, thus preventing
meaningful legal challenges against migratory
game bird hunting seasons.
Service Response to Comment 1A: No
response required.
Comment 1B: The accuracy of our estimate
of the burden for this collection of
information.
The Atlantic Flyway stated that, while the
methodology used to estimate the time
burden was not clear, the estimates did not
appear to be unreasonable, and that they did
not believe the surveys caused a significant
burden on respondents. Further, they stated
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
that the necessity to collect the information
outweighed the time burden of the survey.
Service Response to Comment 1B: No
response required.
Comment 1C: Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected.
The Atlantic Flyway Council stated that
they believed these surveys are conducted in
a reliable and efficient fashion and employ a
methodology that provides accurate and
reliable data. They also stated that the use of
electronic surveys may allow for an increase
in sample size which might increase the
reliability and accuracy of the survey and
reduce overall costs, as well as reduce the
burden on respondents. They encouraged
examination of those techniques and were
anxious to work with the Service to improve
or change the surveys.
Service Response to Comment 1C: We are
working with the USFWS’s Information
Resources and Technology Management
(IRTM) to develop an online survey response
platform to allow hunters to respond to the
diary survey over the Internet, as an
alternative to a paper form. This change to
our survey platform will not be implemented
until the 2018–2019 harvest season at the
earliest. We intend to involve the flyways
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices
and other stakeholders in the development of
this online form to make sure the
implementation is smooth and does not
increase the burden on survey respondents or
impact the integrity of the data we collect.
Comment 1D: Ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on
respondents:
The Atlantic Flyway reiterated their
comment that they did not believe the
surveys caused a significant burden on
respondents, but encouraged examination of
methods such as electronic surveys, which
they said could reduce the burden.
Service Response to Comment 1D: See
Service response to comment 1C.
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Comment 2: Received April 17, 2017,
from the New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish (hereafter NMDGF) via
email:
The New Mexico Department of Game
and Fish provided comments in
response to the four topics listed below
(see Service response following each
comment).
Comment 2A: Regarding whether or not the
collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information
will have practical utility; whether there are
any questions they felt were unnecessary:
The NMDGF stated their full support of the
continuation of the Migratory Bird Harvest
Information Program, the Migratory Bird
Hunter Survey, Parts Collection Survey, and
the Sandhill Crane Survey. NMDGF stated
that the estimates of hunters and harvests
from these surveys allow for informed
decision making in setting harvest
regulations and avoiding overharvest of
migratory game birds that could lead to
decreased population numbers as well as
decreased hunting opportunities and local
economic expenditures by hunters within
NM.
Service Response to Comment 2A: No
response required.
Comment 2B: Regarding the accuracy of
our estimate of burden for this collection of
information:
The NMDGF noted that the surveys are
voluntary, and does not believe they cause
significant burden, and that our estimate of
the burden is accurate.
Service Response to Comment 2B: No
response required.
Comment 2C: Regarding ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected:
The NMDGF believes that the surveys are
conducted appropriately, allowing for
accurate and usable estimates of the number
of hunters and harvests, and allowing New
Mexico to evaluate decisions regarding
hunting season selections within the Federal
hunting frameworks.
Service Response to Comment 2C: No
response required.
Comment 2D: Regarding ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information
on respondents:
The NMDGF stated that, while they do not
believe the surveys cause a significant
burden, NMDFG encourages critical
examination of the current methods to reduce
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
burden wherever possible. However, they
noted that any changes to the methodology
would require appropriate funding and
resources for sampling design and
development and proper implementation of
changes to ensure reliability and usability of
the resulting data.
Service Response to Comment 2D: In the
next several years, we intend to undertake a
critical review of the sampling design of this
survey, as part of an effort to modernize our
overall data management processes. As stated
previously in this document, we will also be
moving to an online harvest diary form,
which should reduce the burden on
respondents by making it easier to fill out
and submit the form. We fully intend to
involve State agency partners in this
modification to the survey.
Comment 3: Received April 24, 2017,
from the Pacific Flyway Council, via
email:
The Pacific Flyway Council provided
comments in response to the 4 topics
listed below (see Service Response
following each comment).
Comment 3A: Whether or not the
collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information
will have practical utility:
The Pacific Flyway Council stated that the
data obtained from these surveys are
absolutely critical to the proper management
of migratory game birds, and that, without
this information, their ability to make
appropriate decisions could result in less
than optimal migratory bird populations and
a decrease in hunting recreation. They also
stated that the surveys provide substantial
evidence regarding wise management of
migratory birds that prevents meaningful
legal challenges against migratory bird
hunting seasons.
Service Response to Comment 3A: No
response required.
Comment 3B: Regarding the accuracy of
our estimate of burden for this collection of
information:
The Pacific Flyway Council believed the
estimates did not appear to be unreasonable,
and that the surveys do not cause a
significant burden on respondents. Further,
they stated that the necessity to collect the
information far outweighs the time and effort
to collect it.
Service Response to Comment 3B: No
response required.
Comment 3C: Regarding ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected:
The Pacific Flyway Council stated they
believed the surveys are conducted in an
appropriate fashion, but stated that there
could be improvements in the approaches
and techniques used to increase efficiency
and reliability or use new and changing
technologies, specifically, that the use of
electronic surveys might allow for increase in
sample size and increased reliability and
accuracy. The flyway council encouraged
examination of these techniques and
expressed willingness to work with the
Service to improve or change the surveys, but
noted that these explorations would require
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27865
appropriate funding for development and
implementation.
Service Response to Comment 3C: As
stated in Service response 2D above, in the
next several years, we intend to undertake a
critical review of the sampling design of this
survey, as part of an effort to modernize our
overall data management processes. We will
also be moving to an online harvest diary
form which should reduce the burden on
respondents by making it easier to fill out
and submit the form. We fully intend to
involve flyway partners in this modification
to the survey, which should allow us to
increase sample sizes where needed while
maintaining reliability and accuracy of the
survey.
Comment 3D: Ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on
respondents:
The Pacific Flyway Council reiterated that
they did not believe the surveys caused a
significant burden on respondents, but
suggested the use of electronic surveys as a
possible way to reduce the burden on
respondents.
Service Response to Comment 3D: See 3B
above.
Comment 4: Received April 27, 2017,
from the Central Flyway Council, via
email:
The Central Flyway Council provided
comments in response to the four topics
listed below (see Service response
following each comment). The Council
stated that they fully support
continuation of the harvest surveys with
their current protocol and methodology.
Comment 4A: Whether or not the
collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information
will have practical utility:
The Central Flyway Council stated that the
data obtained from these surveys are critical
to the scientifically based management of
migratory game birds under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, and that the four flyway
councils (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and
Pacific) make informed decisions in setting
and adjusting harvest regulations with this
information. Without this information
collection, the Flyway feels that less than
optimal hunting regulations could be
selected, resulting in a decrease in hunting
recreation and local economic expenditures.
They also stated that in the Central Flyway
140,000 goose hunters, 200,000 duck hunters,
and 370,000 dove hunters spend
approximately 3 million days afield, thanks
in part to the information collected in these
surveys and other Service migratory bird
monitoring programs.
Service Response to Comment 4A: No
response required.
Comment 4B: Regarding the accuracy of
our estimate of burden for this collection of
information:
The Central Flyway Council believes the
accuracy of the estimates is appropriate
based on their experience with migratory
bird hunters across 10 States, and that the
surveys do not cause a significant burden on
respondents.
Service Response to Comment 4B: No
response required.
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
27866
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 116 / Monday, June 19, 2017 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Comment 4C: Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected:
The Central Flyway Council stated that
they believe the surveys are conducted in an
appropriate fashion that provides accurate
and precise estimates of migratory bird
hunter and harvest. They also stated that
until alternative methodologies have been
developed and vetted, mailing surveys is the
sole method for obtaining high-quality
information with migratory bird surveys.
They noted that this information collection
allows individual States to evaluate humandimension decisions (e.g., timing of seasons,
boundaries of hunting zones) related to the
States’ hunting season selections within the
Federal framework for migratory bird
seasons.
Service Response to Comment 4C: No
response required.
Comment 4D: Ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on
respondents:
The Central Flyway Council reiterated that
they did not believe the surveys caused a
significant burden on respondents, but
encouraged the examination of methods to
reduce the burden of the surveys on
respondents, and stated they were willing to
work with the Service on any improvements
or changes in the future. They further noted
that these changes would require appropriate
funding for their development and
implementation, and also said there is a need
to ensure comparability with previous
methods.
Service Response to Comment 4D: As
stated in Service response 2D above, in the
next several years, we intend to undertake a
critical review of the sampling design of this
survey, as part of an effort to modernize our
overall data management processes. We will
also be moving to an online harvest diary
form, which should reduce the burden on
respondents by making it easier to fill out
and submit the form. We fully intend to
involve flyway partners in this modification
to the survey, which should allow us to
increase sample sizes where needed, while
maintaining reliability and accuracy of the
survey.
IV. Request for and Availability of
Public Comments
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:09 Jun 16, 2017
Jkt 241001
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.
V. Authorities
The authorities for this action are the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.
703 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a–742j), and the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Dated: June 14, 2017.
Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017–12724 Filed 6–16–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R7–ES–2017–N057;
FF07CAMM00.FX.ES111607MRG02]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: OMB Control Number 1018–
0066; Marine Mammal Marking,
Tagging, and Reporting Certificates,
and Registration of Certain Dead
Marine Mammal Hard Parts
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
AGENCY:
We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service) have sent an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to OMB for
review and approval. We summarize the
ICR below and describe the nature of the
collection and the estimated burden and
cost. This information collection is
scheduled to expire on June 30, 2017.
We 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. However, under OMB
regulations, we may continue to
conduct or sponsor this information
collection while it is pending at OMB.
DATES: You must submit comments on
or before July 19, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and
suggestions on this information
collection to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior at OMB–
OIRA at (202) 395–5806 (fax) or OIRA_
DOCKET@OMB.eop.gov (email). Please
provide a copy of your comments to the
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS BPHC, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803 (mail), or info_coll@fws.gov
(email). Please include ‘‘1018–0066’’ in
the subject line of your comments. You
may review the ICR online at https://
www.reginfo.gov. Follow the
instructions to review Department of the
Interior collections under review by
OMB.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at info_coll@fws.gov
(email) or (703) 358–2503 (telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
Under section 101(b) of the Marine
Mammal Protection Act of 1972
(MMPA), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361–
1407), Alaska Natives residing in Alaska
and dwelling on the coast of the North
Pacific or Arctic Oceans may harvest
polar bears, northern sea otters, and
Pacific walruses for subsistence or
handicraft purposes. Section 109(i) of
the MMPA authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to prescribe marking,
tagging, and reporting regulations
applicable to the Alaska Native
subsistence and handicraft take.
On behalf of the Secretary, we
implemented regulations at 50 CFR
18.23(f) for Alaska Natives harvesting
polar bears, northern sea otters, and
Pacific walruses. These regulations
enable us to gather data on the Alaska
Native subsistence and handicraft
harvest and on the biology of polar
bears, northern sea otters, and Pacific
walruses in Alaska to determine what
effect such take may be having on these
populations. The regulations also
provide us with a means of monitoring
the disposition of the harvest to ensure
that any commercial use of products
created from these species meets the
criteria set forth in section 101(b) of the
MMPA. We use three forms to collect
the information: FWS Form 3–2414
(Polar Bear Tagging Certificates), FWS
Form 3–2415 (Walrus Tagging
Certificates), and FWS Form 3–2416
(Sea Otter Tagging Certificates). The
information we collect includes, but is
not limited to:
• Date of kill;
• Sex of the animal;
• Kill location;
• Age of the animal (i.e., adult,
subadult, cub, or pup);
• Form of transportation used to
make the kill of polar bears;
• Amount of time (i.e., hours/days
hunted) spent hunting polar bears;
• Type of take (live-killed or beachfound) for walrus;
E:\FR\FM\19JNN1.SGM
19JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27863-27866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12724]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-HQ-MB-2017-N077; FXMB12310900WHO-178-FF09M26000]
Agency Information Collection Activities: OMB Control Number
1018-0023; Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and Migratory
Bird Surveys
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will ask the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the information collection (IC)
described below. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
as part of our continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, we invite the general public and other Federal agencies to take
this opportunity to comment on this IC. This IC is scheduled to expire
on June 30, 2017. We 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.
DATES: You must submit comments on or before July 19, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments and suggestions on this information
collection to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at
OMB-OIRA at (202) 395-5806 (fax) or OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov
(email). Please provide a copy of your comments to the Service
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
(mail), or Info_Coll@fws.gov (email). Please include ``1018-0023'' in
the subject line of your comments. You may review the ICR online at
https://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of
the Interior collections under review by OMB.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Service Information Collection
Clearance Officer, at info_coll@fws.gov (email) or (703) 358-2503
(telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-711) and the Fish and
Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742d) designate the Department of the
Interior as the key agency responsible for (1) the wise management of
migratory bird populations frequenting the United States, and (2)
setting hunting regulations that allow appropriate harvests that are
within the guidelines that will allow for those populations' well-
being. These responsibilities dictate that we gather accurate data on
various characteristics of migratory bird harvest. Based on information
from harvest surveys, we can adjust hunting regulations as needed to
optimize harvests at levels that provide a maximum of hunting
recreation while keeping populations at desired levels.
Under 50 CFR 20.20, migratory bird hunters must register for the
Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program (HIP) in each State in which
they hunt each year. State natural resource agencies must send names
and addresses of all migratory bird hunters to Branch of Harvest
Surveys, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird
Management, on an annual basis.
The Migratory Bird Hunter Survey is based on the Migratory Bird
Harvest Information Program. We randomly select migratory bird hunters
and ask them to report their harvest. The resulting estimates of
harvest per hunter are combined with the complete list of migratory
bird hunters to provide estimates of the total harvest for the species
surveyed.
The Parts Collection Survey estimates the species, sex, and age
composition of the harvest, and the geographic and temporal
distribution of the harvest. Randomly selected successful hunters who
responded to the Migratory Bird Hunter Survey the previous year are
asked to complete and return a postcard if they are willing to
participate in the Parts Collection Survey. We provide postage-paid
envelopes to respondents before the hunting season and ask them to send
in a wing or the tail feathers from each duck or goose that they
harvest, or a wing from each mourning dove, woodcock, band-tailed
pigeon, snipe, rail, or gallinule that they harvest. We use the wings
and tail feathers to identify the species, sex, and age of the
harvested sample. We also ask respondents to report on the envelope the
date and location of harvest for each bird. We combine the results of
this survey with the harvest estimates obtained from the Migratory Bird
Hunter Survey to provide species-specific national harvest estimates.
The combined results of these surveys enable us to evaluate the
effects of season length, season dates, and bag limits on the harvest
of each species, and thus help us determine appropriate hunting
regulations.
The Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey is an annual questionnaire survey
of people who obtained a sandhill crane
[[Page 27864]]
hunting permit. At the end of the hunting season, we randomly select a
sample of permit holders and ask them to report the date, location, and
number of birds harvested for each of their sandhill crane hunts. Their
responses provide estimates of the temporal and geographic distribution
of the harvest as well as the average harvest per hunter, which,
combined with the total number of permits issued, enables us to
estimate the total harvest of sandhill cranes. Based on information
from this survey, we adjust hunting regulations as needed.
II. Data
OMB Control Number: 1018-0023.
Title: Migratory Bird Information Program and Migratory Bird
Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20.
Service Form Number: FWS Forms 3-165, 3-165A through E, 3-2056J
through N.
Type of Request: Revision to a currently approved collection.
Description of Respondents: States and migratory game bird hunters.
Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory for HIP registration
information; voluntary for participation in the surveys.
Frequency of Collection: Annually or on occasion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Completion time per Total annual
Activity respondents responses response burden hours *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49 784 157 hours................ 123,088
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Migratory Bird Hunter Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form 3-2056J......................... 37,000 37,000 5 minutes................ 3,083
Form 3-2056K......................... 23,100 23,100 4 minutes................ 1,540
Form 3-2056L......................... 8,900 8,900 4 minutes................ 593
Form 3-2056M......................... 12,000 12,000 3 minutes................ 600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts Collection Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form 3-165........................... 4,200 92,400 5 minutes................ 7,700
Form 3-165A.......................... 1,000 5,500 5 minutes................ 458
Form 3-165B.......................... 3,600 3,600 1 minute................. 60
Form 3-165C.......................... 400 400 1 minute................. 7
Form 3-165D.......................... 1,100 1,100 1 minute................. 18
Form 3-165E.......................... 900 1,350 5 minutes................ 113
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandhill Crane Harvest Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form 3-2056N......................... 4,000 4,000 3.5 minutes.............. 233
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................... 96,249 190,134 ......................... 137,493
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Burden hours are rounded
III. Comments
On February 24, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR
11603) a notice of our intent to request that OMB renew approval for
this information collection. In that notice, we solicited comments for
60 days, ending on April 25, 2017. We received five comments in
response to the notice. One commenter objected to the surveys, but did
not address the information collection requirements. Therefore, we did
not provide a response. The remaining four comments are summarized
below, along with the Service responses.
Comment 1: Received April 7, 2017, from the Atlantic Flyway Council
via email:
The Atlantic Flyway Council provided comments in response to the
four topics listed below (we have provided our responses following each
separate comment from the Atlantic Flyway Council; see ``Service
Response'').
Comment 1A: Whether or not the collection of information is
necessary, including whether or not the information will have
practical utility.
The Atlantic Flyway commented that the surveys are absolutely
critical to the management of migratory birds and maintaining
hunting seasons, and that without reliable data on harvest
parameters derived from these surveys, our ability to make decisions
could result in less than optimal levels of migratory bird
populations and decrease in hunting opportunity. They commented that
the surveys provide substantial evidence that game bird species are
wisely managed, thus preventing meaningful legal challenges against
migratory game bird hunting seasons.
Service Response to Comment 1A: No response required.
Comment 1B: The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this
collection of information.
The Atlantic Flyway stated that, while the methodology used to
estimate the time burden was not clear, the estimates did not appear
to be unreasonable, and that they did not believe the surveys caused
a significant burden on respondents. Further, they stated that the
necessity to collect the information outweighed the time burden of
the survey.
Service Response to Comment 1B: No response required.
Comment 1C: Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected.
The Atlantic Flyway Council stated that they believed these
surveys are conducted in a reliable and efficient fashion and employ
a methodology that provides accurate and reliable data. They also
stated that the use of electronic surveys may allow for an increase
in sample size which might increase the reliability and accuracy of
the survey and reduce overall costs, as well as reduce the burden on
respondents. They encouraged examination of those techniques and
were anxious to work with the Service to improve or change the
surveys.
Service Response to Comment 1C: We are working with the USFWS's
Information Resources and Technology Management (IRTM) to develop an
online survey response platform to allow hunters to respond to the
diary survey over the Internet, as an alternative to a paper form.
This change to our survey platform will not be implemented until the
2018-2019 harvest season at the earliest. We intend to involve the
flyways
[[Page 27865]]
and other stakeholders in the development of this online form to
make sure the implementation is smooth and does not increase the
burden on survey respondents or impact the integrity of the data we
collect.
Comment 1D: Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents:
The Atlantic Flyway reiterated their comment that they did not
believe the surveys caused a significant burden on respondents, but
encouraged examination of methods such as electronic surveys, which
they said could reduce the burden.
Service Response to Comment 1D: See Service response to comment
1C.
Comment 2: Received April 17, 2017, from the New Mexico Department
of Game and Fish (hereafter NMDGF) via email:
The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish provided comments in
response to the four topics listed below (see Service response
following each comment).
Comment 2A: Regarding whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including whether or not the information
will have practical utility; whether there are any questions they
felt were unnecessary:
The NMDGF stated their full support of the continuation of the
Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, the Migratory Bird
Hunter Survey, Parts Collection Survey, and the Sandhill Crane
Survey. NMDGF stated that the estimates of hunters and harvests from
these surveys allow for informed decision making in setting harvest
regulations and avoiding overharvest of migratory game birds that
could lead to decreased population numbers as well as decreased
hunting opportunities and local economic expenditures by hunters
within NM.
Service Response to Comment 2A: No response required.
Comment 2B: Regarding the accuracy of our estimate of burden for
this collection of information:
The NMDGF noted that the surveys are voluntary, and does not
believe they cause significant burden, and that our estimate of the
burden is accurate.
Service Response to Comment 2B: No response required.
Comment 2C: Regarding ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected:
The NMDGF believes that the surveys are conducted appropriately,
allowing for accurate and usable estimates of the number of hunters
and harvests, and allowing New Mexico to evaluate decisions
regarding hunting season selections within the Federal hunting
frameworks.
Service Response to Comment 2C: No response required.
Comment 2D: Regarding ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on respondents:
The NMDGF stated that, while they do not believe the surveys
cause a significant burden, NMDFG encourages critical examination of
the current methods to reduce burden wherever possible. However,
they noted that any changes to the methodology would require
appropriate funding and resources for sampling design and
development and proper implementation of changes to ensure
reliability and usability of the resulting data.
Service Response to Comment 2D: In the next several years, we
intend to undertake a critical review of the sampling design of this
survey, as part of an effort to modernize our overall data
management processes. As stated previously in this document, we will
also be moving to an online harvest diary form, which should reduce
the burden on respondents by making it easier to fill out and submit
the form. We fully intend to involve State agency partners in this
modification to the survey.
Comment 3: Received April 24, 2017, from the Pacific Flyway
Council, via email:
The Pacific Flyway Council provided comments in response to the 4
topics listed below (see Service Response following each comment).
Comment 3A: Whether or not the collection of information is
necessary, including whether or not the information will have
practical utility:
The Pacific Flyway Council stated that the data obtained from
these surveys are absolutely critical to the proper management of
migratory game birds, and that, without this information, their
ability to make appropriate decisions could result in less than
optimal migratory bird populations and a decrease in hunting
recreation. They also stated that the surveys provide substantial
evidence regarding wise management of migratory birds that prevents
meaningful legal challenges against migratory bird hunting seasons.
Service Response to Comment 3A: No response required.
Comment 3B: Regarding the accuracy of our estimate of burden for
this collection of information:
The Pacific Flyway Council believed the estimates did not appear
to be unreasonable, and that the surveys do not cause a significant
burden on respondents. Further, they stated that the necessity to
collect the information far outweighs the time and effort to collect
it.
Service Response to Comment 3B: No response required.
Comment 3C: Regarding ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected:
The Pacific Flyway Council stated they believed the surveys are
conducted in an appropriate fashion, but stated that there could be
improvements in the approaches and techniques used to increase
efficiency and reliability or use new and changing technologies,
specifically, that the use of electronic surveys might allow for
increase in sample size and increased reliability and accuracy. The
flyway council encouraged examination of these techniques and
expressed willingness to work with the Service to improve or change
the surveys, but noted that these explorations would require
appropriate funding for development and implementation.
Service Response to Comment 3C: As stated in Service response 2D
above, in the next several years, we intend to undertake a critical
review of the sampling design of this survey, as part of an effort
to modernize our overall data management processes. We will also be
moving to an online harvest diary form which should reduce the
burden on respondents by making it easier to fill out and submit the
form. We fully intend to involve flyway partners in this
modification to the survey, which should allow us to increase sample
sizes where needed while maintaining reliability and accuracy of the
survey.
Comment 3D: Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents:
The Pacific Flyway Council reiterated that they did not believe
the surveys caused a significant burden on respondents, but
suggested the use of electronic surveys as a possible way to reduce
the burden on respondents.
Service Response to Comment 3D: See 3B above.
Comment 4: Received April 27, 2017, from the Central Flyway
Council, via email:
The Central Flyway Council provided comments in response to the
four topics listed below (see Service response following each comment).
The Council stated that they fully support continuation of the harvest
surveys with their current protocol and methodology.
Comment 4A: Whether or not the collection of information is
necessary, including whether or not the information will have
practical utility:
The Central Flyway Council stated that the data obtained from
these surveys are critical to the scientifically based management of
migratory game birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and that
the four flyway councils (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and
Pacific) make informed decisions in setting and adjusting harvest
regulations with this information. Without this information
collection, the Flyway feels that less than optimal hunting
regulations could be selected, resulting in a decrease in hunting
recreation and local economic expenditures. They also stated that in
the Central Flyway 140,000 goose hunters, 200,000 duck hunters, and
370,000 dove hunters spend approximately 3 million days afield,
thanks in part to the information collected in these surveys and
other Service migratory bird monitoring programs.
Service Response to Comment 4A: No response required.
Comment 4B: Regarding the accuracy of our estimate of burden for
this collection of information:
The Central Flyway Council believes the accuracy of the
estimates is appropriate based on their experience with migratory
bird hunters across 10 States, and that the surveys do not cause a
significant burden on respondents.
Service Response to Comment 4B: No response required.
[[Page 27866]]
Comment 4C: Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected:
The Central Flyway Council stated that they believe the surveys
are conducted in an appropriate fashion that provides accurate and
precise estimates of migratory bird hunter and harvest. They also
stated that until alternative methodologies have been developed and
vetted, mailing surveys is the sole method for obtaining high-
quality information with migratory bird surveys. They noted that
this information collection allows individual States to evaluate
human-dimension decisions (e.g., timing of seasons, boundaries of
hunting zones) related to the States' hunting season selections
within the Federal framework for migratory bird seasons.
Service Response to Comment 4C: No response required.
Comment 4D: Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents:
The Central Flyway Council reiterated that they did not believe
the surveys caused a significant burden on respondents, but
encouraged the examination of methods to reduce the burden of the
surveys on respondents, and stated they were willing to work with
the Service on any improvements or changes in the future. They
further noted that these changes would require appropriate funding
for their development and implementation, and also said there is a
need to ensure comparability with previous methods.
Service Response to Comment 4D: As stated in Service response 2D
above, in the next several years, we intend to undertake a critical
review of the sampling design of this survey, as part of an effort
to modernize our overall data management processes. We will also be
moving to an online harvest diary form, which should reduce the
burden on respondents by making it easier to fill out and submit the
form. We fully intend to involve flyway partners in this
modification to the survey, which should allow us to increase sample
sizes where needed, while maintaining reliability and accuracy of
the survey.
IV. Request for and Availability of Public Comments
We again invite comments concerning this information collection on:
Whether or not the collection of information is necessary,
including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this
collection of information;
Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your address, phone number, email
address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire comment, including your personal
identifying information, may be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask OMB in your comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that it
will be done.
V. Authorities
The authorities for this action are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-
742j), and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
Dated: June 14, 2017.
Madonna L. Baucum,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-12724 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
