Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2010/08/30/2010-21375/migratory-bird-hunting-final-frameworks-for-early-season-migratory-bird-hunting-regulations
Timestamp: 2017-08-21 13:19:27
Document Index: 644587648

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 20', '§\u200920', '§\u200920', '§\u200920', 'art 20', 'art 20']

A Rule by the Fish and Wildlife Service on 08/30/2010
This rule takes effect on August 30, 2010.
52873-52890 (18 pages)
Final Regulations Frameworks for 2010-11 Early Hunting Seasons on Certain Migratory Game Birds
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2010-21375 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2010-21375
This rule prescribes final early-season frameworks from which the States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands may select season dates, limits, and other options for the 2010-11 migratory bird hunting seasons. Early seasons are those that generally open prior to October 1, and include seasons in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The effect of this final rule is to facilitate the selection of hunting seasons by the States and Territories to further the annual establishment of the early-season migratory bird hunting regulations.
States and Territories 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 during normal business hours at the Service's office in room 4107, 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia, or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0040.
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 §§ 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. Subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we omit those items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items might be discontinuous or appear incomplete.
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 information on the 2010-11 regulatory schedule and announced the Service Regulations Committee (SRC) and summer Flyway Council meetings.
On June 23 and 24, 2010, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants where 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. We published the proposed frameworks for late-season regulations (primarily hunting seasons that start after October 1 and most waterfowl seasons not already established) in an August 25, 2010, Federal Register.
This document is the fifth in a series of proposed, supplemental, and final rulemaking documents. It establishes final frameworks from which States may select season dates, shooting hours, and daily bag and possession limits for the 2010-11 season. These selections will be published in the Federal Register as Start Printed Page 52874amendments to §§ 20.101 through 20.107, and § 20.109 of title 50 CFR part 20.
The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the May 13 Federal Register, opened the public comment period for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We have considered all pertinent comments received. Comments are summarized below and numbered in the order used in the May 13 proposed rule. We have included only the numbered items pertaining to early-season issues for which we received comments. Consequently, the issues do not follow in successive numerical or alphabetical order. We received recommendations from all Flyway Councils. Some recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due to the comprehensive nature of the Councils' annual review of the frameworks, we assume Council support for continuation of last year's frameworks for items for which we received no recommendation. Council recommendations for changes are summarized below.
Written Comments: Several individual commenters protested the entire migratory bird hunting regulations process, the killing of all migratory birds, the Flyway Council process and the abbreviated public comment periods associated with these rules.
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.
Regarding the use of abbreviated public comment periods for these rules, the rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, we intend that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published in May, we established what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment. In doing this, we recognized that when the comment period closed, time would be of the essence. Any delays in either extending public comment periods or in the effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking would seriously compromise the States abilities to implement these decisions. States would have insufficient time to select season dates and limits; to communicate those selections to us; and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions.
Regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, 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 Start Printed Page 52875spill. 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 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.
The Mississippi Flyway Council's request to include an assessment of potential teal harvest opportunities for production States in the ongoing teal assessment, and the additional work associated with this request, would likely delay the completion of our original task. As we noted above, the original purpose of this assessment was to assess the harvest potential of the three teal species. The Council's request would entail not only an evaluation of the potential effects of production States' teal harvest on those species, but the possibility of impacts to nontarget species as well. However, we understand the production States' concern about teal harvest opportunities. Therefore, we will compile information and analyses from historic reports that address teal seasons and, particularly, issues related to duck harvests from production and non-production States, and provide them to the Flyways for consideration during the upcoming winter flyway meetings. The intent of this review would be to summarize historical analyses and dialogue regarding the issue of early-season teal harvest opportunities in production States and provide a common understanding of the issues that would have to be reconsidered to fully address the Mississippi Flyway Council's recommendation. With this information, the Flyways could more fully assess how they may want to approach teal harvest opportunities for their States in the future, following completion of the current teal assessment.
Service Response: We agree with the Mississippi Flyway Council's recommendation to extend Minnesota's framework closing date for their September Canada goose season to September 22. In 2007, Minnesota began a 3-year experiment to assess the proportion of migrant geese harvested during September 16-22 in the Northwest Goose Zone. The remainder of Minnesota already has an operational September goose season that extends from September 1 through 22. Results from the 3-year experimental season evaluation showed that migrant geese comprised 7 percent of the Canada goose harvest in the Northwest Goose Zone during September 16-22, below the 10 percent threshold level established by the Service for allowing special early Canada goose seasons. This result is consistent with the proportion of migrant geese harvested in other areas of Minnesota (< 5 percent) during September 16-22. Further, goose harvest (an average of 1,369 additional geese) in the Northwest Goose Zone during the experimental season extension Start Printed Page 52876(September 16-22) represents 1.5 percent of the total Statewide September season goose harvest. We note that the Minnesota giant Canada goose population remains at high levels throughout the State with spring breeding population estimates averaging 313,425 over the past 5 years. Thus, we concur with the Council that the season extension in the Northwest Goose Zone meets our special September Canada goose season criteria; allows for uniform, Statewide season dates in Minnesota (September 1-22) in order to simplify current hunting regulations; and appears to have negligible impacts on migrant Canada geese.
We also agree with the Central Flyway Council's request to increase the Canada goose daily bag limit in South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. The Special Early Canada Goose hunting season is generally designed to reduce or control overabundant resident Canada geese populations. Increasing the daily bag limit from 5 to 8 may help these States reduce or control existing high populations of resident Canada geese.
Service Response: We concur. Michigan, beginning in 1998, and Wisconsin, beginning in 1989, have opened their regular Canada goose seasons prior to the Flyway-wide framework opening date to address resident goose management concerns in these States. As we have previously stated (73 FR 50678, August 27, 2008), we agree with the objective to increase harvest pressure on resident Canada geese in the Mississippi Flyway and will continue to consider the opening dates in both States as exceptions to the general Flyway opening date, to be reconsidered annually.
Service Response: In 2006, the Management Plan for MCP sandhill cranes was revised and endorsed by the Central, Mississippi, and Pacific Flyway Councils. Guidelines in the Plan recommended that the MCP continue to be managed as a single population and management at a smaller scale (i.e., breeding affiliation or subpopulation level) was not warranted at that time. We note that the Plan clearly recognized sandhill cranes breeding and staging in NW Minnesota as part of the mid-continent population. Further, the current population index for MCP cranes was 498,400 in 2009, above the current population objective range of 349,000-472,000 cranes. As the proposed new hunt in northwest Minnesota would conform to guidelines from the Management Plan and sandhill crane hunting frameworks to be established for MCP cranes in the Mississippi Flyway, we agree with the Councils' recommendations to establish this new season. Based on sandhill crane hunter numbers and harvest in other States in the Central Flyway, the small size of the hunting zone proposed in Minnesota, and the low hunter density in this region of Minnesota, we expect hunter numbers and crane harvest to be relatively low (< 500 of each).
Regarding the proposed limited hunt for LCRVP cranes in the Arizona hunt, in 2007, the Pacific Flyway Council recommended, and we approved, the establishment of a limited hunt for the LCRVP sandhill cranes in Arizona (72 FR 49622, August 28, 2007). However, the population inventory on which the LCRVP hunt plan is based was not completed that year. Thus, the Arizona Game and Fish Department chose to not conduct the hunt in 2007 and sought approval from the Service again in 2008 to begin conducting the hunt. We again approved the limited hunt (73 FR 50678, August 27, 2008). However, due to complications encountered with the proposed onset of this new season falling within ongoing efforts to open new hunting seasons on federal National Wildlife Refuges, the experimental limited hunt season was not opened in 2008. As such, last year the State of Arizona requested that 2009-12 be designated as the new experimental season and designated an area under State control where the experimental hunt will be conducted. Given that the LCRVP survey results indicate an increase from 1,900 birds in 1998 to 2,264 birds in 2009, and that the 3-year average of 2,847 LCRVP cranes is above the population objective of 2,500, we continue to support the establishment of the 3-year experimental framework for this hunt, conditional on successful monitoring being conducted as called for in the Flyway hunt plan for this population. Our final environmental assessment (FEA) on this new hunt can be obtained by writing Robert Trost, Pacific Flyway Representative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird management, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181, or it may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0040 or via the Service's home page at http://www.fws.gov/​migratorybirds/​CurrentBirdIssues/​Management/​BirdManagement.html.
Service Response: In 2008, we completed a review of available woodcock population databases to assess their utility for developing a woodcock harvest strategy. Start Printed Page 52877Concurrently, we requested that the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils appoint members to a working group to cooperate with us on developing a woodcock harvest strategy. In February 2010, the working group completed a draft interim harvest strategy for consideration by the Flyway Councils at their March 2010 meetings.
In the May 13 Federal Register, we stated that following review and comment by the Flyway Councils, we would announce our intentions whether to propose the draft strategy. Given the unanimous Flyway Council approval of the working group's draft interim harvest strategy, we concurred with the three Flyway Councils and proposed adoption of the strategy in the July 29 Federal Register beginning in the 2011-12 hunting season for a period of 5 years (2011-15). Based on public comment, we see no reason not to formally complete the adoption of the new interim harvest strategy. Thus, we plan to implement the strategy beginning with the 2011-12 hunting season. Specifics of the interim harvest strategy can be found at http://www.fws.gov/​migratorybirds/​NewsPublicationsReports.html.
Service Response: In 2008, we accepted and endorsed the interim harvest strategies for the Central, Eastern, and Western Management Units (73 FR 50678, August 27, 2008). As we stated then, the interim mourning dove harvest strategies are a step towards implementing the Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Plan (Plan) that was approved by all four Flyway Councils in 2003. The Plan represents a new, more informed means of decision-making for dove harvest management besides relying solely on traditional roadside counts of mourning doves as indicators of population trend. However, recognizing that a more comprehensive, national approach would take time to develop, we requested the development of interim harvest strategies, by management unit, until the elements of the Plan can be fully implemented. In 2004, each management unit submitted its respective strategy, but the strategies used different datasets and different approaches or methods. After initial submittal and review in 2006, we requested that the strategies be revised, using similar, existing datasets among the management units along with similar decision-making criteria. In January 2008, we recommended that, following approval by the respective Flyway Councils in March, they be submitted in 2008 for endorsement by the Service, with implementation for the 2009-10 hunting season. Last year, for the first time, the interim harvest strategies were successfully employed and implemented in all three Management Units (74 FR 36870, July 24, 2009). This year, based on the interim harvest strategies and current population status, we agree with the recommended selection of the “moderate” season frameworks for doves in the Eastern, Central, and Western Management Units.
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.Start Printed Page 52878
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.
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 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or from our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/​migratorybirds/​NewReportsPublications/​SpecialTopics/​SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2010-0040.
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.
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-Start Printed Page 52879reservation 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 consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.
Therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711), we prescribe final frameworks setting forth the species to be hunted, the daily bag and possession limits, the shooting hours, the season lengths, the earliest opening and latest closing season dates, and hunting areas, from which State conservation agency officials will select hunting season dates and other options. Upon receipt of season selections from these officials, we will publish a final rulemaking amending 50 CFR part 20 to reflect seasons, limits, and shooting hours for the conterminous United States for the 2010-11 season.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2010-11 hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and delegated authorities, the Department of the Interior approved the following frameworks, which prescribe season lengths, bag limits, shooting hours, and outside dates within which States may select hunting seasons for certain migratory game birds between September 1, 2010, and March 10, 2011.
In the Atlantic Flyway States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, where Sunday hunting is Start Printed Page 52880prohibited Statewide by State law, all Sundays are closed to all take of migratory waterfowl (including mergansers and coots).
Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset, except that during September 1-15 shooting hours may extend to one-half hour after sunset if Start Printed Page 52881all other waterfowl seasons are closed in the specific applicable area.
Bag limits: Not to exceed 1 per season.
Outside Dates: States included herein may select seasons between September 1 and the last Sunday in January (January 30) on clapper, king, sora, and Virginia rails.Start Printed Page 52882
Arizona may select a hunting season of not more than 30 consecutive days, Start Printed Page 52883running concurrently with the first segment of the mourning dove season. The daily bag limit may not exceed 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 6 may be white-winged doves.
C. In Units 6-B, 6-C and on Hinchinbrook and Hawkins Islands in Unit 6-D, a special, permit-only Canada goose season may be offered. Hunters must have all harvested geese checked and classified to subspecies. The daily bag limit is 4 daily and 8 in possession. The Canada goose season will close in all of the permit areas if the total dusky goose (as defined above) harvest reaches 40.
D. In Units 9, 10, 17, and 18, dark goose limits are 6 per day, 12 in possession; however, no more than 2 may be Canada geese in Units 9(E) and 18; and no more than 4 may be Canada geese in Units 9(A-C), 10 (Unimak Island portion), and 17.
Daily Bag and Possession Limits: Not to exceed 10 Zenaida doves.Start Printed Page 52884
South Zone—The remainder of the State.Start Printed Page 52885
North Zone—That portion of the State outside the Northeast Canada Goose Zone and north of a line extending west from the Indiana border along Peotone-Beecher Road to Illinois Route 50, south along Illinois Route 50 to Wilmington-Peotone Road, west along Wilmington-Peotone Road to Illinois Route 53, north along Illinois Route 53 to New River Road, northwest along New River Road to Interstate Highway 55, south along I-55 to Pine Bluff-Lorenzo Road, west along Pine Bluff-Lorenzo Road to Illinois Route 47, north along Illinois Route 47 to I-80, west along I-80 to I-Start Printed Page 5288639, south along I-39 to Illinois Route 18, west along Illinois Route 18 to Illinois Route 29, south along Illinois Route 29 to Illinois Route 17, west along Illinois Route 17 to the Mississippi River, and due south across the Mississippi River to the Iowa border.
Northwest Goose Zone—That portion of the State encompassed by a line extending east from the North Dakota border along U.S. Highway 2 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 32, north along STH 32 to STH 92, east along STH 92 to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 2 Start Printed Page 52887in Polk County, north along CSAH 2 to CSAH 27 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 27 to STH 1, east along STH 1 to CSAH 28 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 28 to CSAH 54 in Marshall County, north along CSAH 54 to CSAH 9 in Roseau County, north along CSAH 9 to STH 11, west along STH 11 to STH 310, and north along STH 310 to the Manitoba border.
Lake Champlain Zone—The U.S. portion of Lake Champlain and that area east and north of a line extending along NY 9B from the Canadian border to U.S. 9, south along U.S. 9 to NY 22 south of Start Printed Page 52888Keesville; south along NY 22 to the west shore of South Bay, along and around the shoreline of South Bay to NY 22 on the east shore of South Bay; southeast along NY 22 to U.S. 4, northeast along U.S. 4 to the Vermont border.
Southern San Joaquin Valley Temporary Zone—All of Kings and Tulare Counties and that portion of Start Printed Page 52889Kern County north of the Southern Zone.
(B) That portion of the State lying within the boundaries of a line beginning at the Kleberg-Nueces County line and the shore of the Gulf of Mexico, then west along the County line to Park Road 22 in Nueces County, then north and west along Park Road 22 to its junction with State Highway 358 in Corpus Christi, then west and north along State Highway 358 to its junction with State Highway 286, then north along State Highway 286 to its junction with Interstate Highway 37, then east along Interstate Highway 37 to its junction with U.S. Highway 181, then north and west along U.S. Highway 181 to its junction with U.S. Highway 77 in Sinton, then north and east along U.S. Highway 77 to its junction with U.S. Highway 87 in Victoria, then south and Start Printed Page 52890east along U.S. Highway 87 to its junction with State Highway 35 at Port Lavaca, then north and east along State Highway 35 to the south end of the Lavaca Bay Causeway, then south and east along the shore of Lavaca Bay to its junction with the Port Lavaca Ship Channel, then south and east along the Lavaca Bay Ship Channel to the Gulf of Mexico, and then south and west along the shore of the Gulf of Mexico to the Kleberg-Nueces County line.
LCRV Crane Hunt Area (Gillespie Dam Hunt Area in Unit 39)—That portion of the Gila River corridor in Unit 39 south of Gillespie Dam and north of Gila Bend located within the following townships and ranges: T2S R4W, T2S R5W, T3S R4W, T3S R5W, T4S R4W, and T5S R4W.
[FR Doc. 2010-21375 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]