Environmental assessment proposal to establish operational/experimental general swan hunting seasons in the Pacific flyway

              ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH OPERATIONAL/EXPERIMENTAL GENERAL SWAN
HUNTING SEASONS IN THE PACIFIC FLYWAY
I. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
A. BACKGROUND
Flyway Management Approach
In developing management actions for migratory game birds, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) has publicly supported the goals, objectives, and management
strategies identified in the various Flyway management plans for both Tundra (C.
columbianus) and Trumpeter (C. buccinator) swans (Hartwig 1989, Gritman 1991,
Schmidt 2000). It has encouraged cooperative, multi-State-sponsored, Flyway Council-endorsed
projects for restoring migratory flocks of Trumpeter swans within their historic
range and has supported Flyway Council-endorsed hunting seasons on Tundra swans
within prescribed guidelines that meet overall objectives for all swan populations.
The Service has previously recognized that there would be unauthorized killing of
Trumpeter swans and others would be killed by hunters accidentally and incidental to
regulated hunting seasons. Such accidental hunting losses are likely to remain
proportional to size and distribution of Trumpeter swan populations. The Service
believes that ongoing or new hunting programs, whether for Tundra swans or other
waterfowl, should be neither curtailed nor prohibited because of the chance-killing of a
Trumpeter swan when such taking has negligible impacts on achieving management
objectives. Conversely, Tundra swan hunting should be restricted or not permitted at
times of the season or in places where it would irreparably affect the status of a
particular population of Trumpeter swans.
As policy (Hartwig 1989, Schmidt 2000), the Service supports the concept of Flyway
management of waterfowl and gives strong consideration for Flyway Council-endorsed
programs and recommendations. Therefore, the Flyway Councils have been urged to
carefully examine impacts of waterfowl hunting programs on Trumpeter swan
restoration efforts and vice versa and resolve conflicts early-on before making
recommendations to the Service. Also, the Service will and must give consideration to
the broad interests of all of the public in management of its migratory bird resources.
When there are irreconcilable differences among States, Flyway Councils, and the
public regarding appropriate management for Trumpeter and Tundra swans, the Service
policy will be to deal with such issues on a case by case basis, investigate the biological
implications and document the results of those investigations.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
B. NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
A legal season that also permitted the take of a limited number of Trumpeter swans in
the Pacific Flyway was instituted in 1995. Prior to that time and beginning in 1962 a
Tundra swan season had been in effect. During the Tundra swan seasons it was
known that some number of Trumpeter swans were taken by swan hunters who mistook
them for Tundra swans. This limited take was authorized in an attempt to reconcile
potentially conflicting strategies for managing two swan species in the Pacific Flyway.
The potentially conflicting strategies are: (1) to enhance the winter range distribution of
the less abundant Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) of Trumpeter swans by severely
restricting or eliminating swan hunting in portions of the Pacific Flyway currently open to
hunting these species, and (2) to continue to provide harvest opportunities of the more
numerous and widely distributed Western Population (WP) of Tundra swans in the
Pacific Flyway.
The Service issued a finding of no significant impact in August of 1995 and again in July
of 2000 after assessing impacts in two previous Environmental Assessments on this
issue (Bartonek et al. 1995, Trost et al. 2000). The proposed actions in these
Environmental Assessments represented a balance between the two competing
management strategies by establishing a general swan season in portions of Montana,
Utah, and Nevada that allowed the taking of any species of swan (Cygnus sp.) subject
to certain conditions:
(1) a limited quota on the take of Trumpeter swans, which, upon being reached
would trigger the cessation of all swan hunting in the designated area,
(2) modification of the already limited take and restricted seasons on Tundra swans
to enhance the likelihood that Trumpeter swans would be successful in
expanding their winter range, and,
(3) the development and implementation of a program to monitor the effectiveness of
this action.
A review of the biological information from the five-year experimental period was
recently completed and is included in the 2000 Supplemental Environmental
Assessment (Trost et al. 2000). That review and subsequent Supplemental
Environmental Assessment provided a summary of population, harvest and
management activities derived from the experimental period available at that time. This
review and assessment was relative to the original Environmental Assessment:
Proposal to establish general swan hunting seasons in parts of the Pacific Flyway for
the 1995-99 seasons (Bartonek et al. 1995). Since completion of the 2000
Supplemental Environmental Assessment, additional information regarding the
population status of Trumpeter swans has become available. The Service believes this
information is significant in assessing current management with regard to this issue and
thus has chosen to develop this new Environmental Assessment to incorporate
information gained during the most recent hunting season as well as the recent survey
results from the periodic Continental Trumpeter swan survey and other sources.
This Environmental Assessment addresses public comments and concerns, including
new and supplemental information gathered by the Service and cooperators during the
past hunting season and during breeding and wintering surveys. There is now a need
- 2 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
to assess this new information and make a determination regarding the 2001-2002 and
2002-2003 swan hunting season in the Pacific Flyway.
C. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of this proposed action is to establish regulatory options and management
direction for Trumpeter and Tundra swans based on past experience with the
authorization of a limited take of Trumpeter swans in the Pacific Flyway.
In addition, new information gathered over the past year will be used to reassess
Trumpeter swan population status and the potential impact of a limited take of
Trumpeter swans in the Pacific Flyway.
D. SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The geographic scope of the swan resource affected by this proposed action includes
RMP Trumpeter swans, WP Tundra swans, and potentially feral mute swans (C. olor)
should they occur in a hunt area. The geographic scope is restricted to portions of the
States of Montana (only the Pacific Flyway portion), Utah, and Nevada where swans
would be hunted. All States of the Pacific Flyway within the potential range of RMP
Trumpeter swans (Fig. 1) would be included in potential management actions designed
to enhance the status and distribution of this species.
The Service views the RMP of Trumpeter swans as a single management entity.
However, due to concerns raised by the public, potential impacts on smaller groups of
Trumpeter swans associated with specific areas, such as Yellowstone National Park
and/or the Tristate Area (as defined below), will be discussed in this Environmental
Assessment.
On August 22, 2000, the Service was petitioned to list a portion of the RMP of
Trumpeter swans. The petitioners requested that the Service consider emergency
listing of the Tristate flock. The Service acknowledged receipt of the petition and
informed the petitioners that listing funds are not currently available for processing of
administrative petition findings. Additionally, the Service stated that the population trend
data for the RMP of Trumpeter swans indicated that there was no compelling evidence
to indicate that emergency listing was appropriate.
The temporal scope of this proposed action is the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 hunting
seasons. The Service plans to review results with respect to both Tundra swan and
Trumpeter swan harvests annually and proposed changes would be considered as a
normal part of the annual hunting regulations process. The Service views the seasons
in Montana and Nevada as operational seasons that are subject to the normal annual
review of status and harvest of the affected populations. Adjustments to these seasons
will be made, if needed, as part of the normal annual regulatory process for hunting
migratory birds. As proposed here the season in Utah is experimental and will thus be
fully reviewed at the conclusion of the 2002-2003 hunting season when a determination
as to the acceptability of continuing the hunt will be made. At the conclusion of the
experimental period, an assessment report will be prepared and the Service will
determine the appropriate course of action for either continuation or suspension of this
experimental season. Procedures for issuance of annual regulations are found in SEIS
- 3 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
88, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of annual
regulations permitting the sport hunting of migratory birds (USDI 1988).
E. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
In the United States the preeminent authority and responsibility for migratory game birds
lies with the Secretary of the Interior and is derived from international treaties to which
the Constitution specifies that only the Federal Government can be signatory. The key
instrument defining Federal authority is the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (as
amended). Among those species designated as "migratory game birds" for which there
is Federal management authority is the taxonomic family Anatidae, which includes
ducks, geese, brant, and swans. Authority for establishing hunting seasons for both
Tundra and Trumpeter swans is provided in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
appropriate Federal regulations (50 CFR). Regulations governing the establishment of
annual regulations for the hunting of migratory birds are specified in Title 50 Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 20, Subpart K. Any authorization of hunting or taking of
swans or other migratory birds will be done in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and associated regulations.
II. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
Actions Common to All Alternatives
Although not directly related to the issue of hunting seasons, the Service will continue to
provide a leadership role in attempting to enhance Trumpeter swan status and breeding
distribution within the Pacific Flyway through increased efforts directed at
reestablishment of breeding Trumpeter swans in suitable habitats throughout the Pacific
Flyway. The Service is currently funding the propagation of about 40 cygnets for future
release into suitable habitat in the Tristate area.
The Service would also continue to support cooperative efforts to address the winter
distribution issues by working with State, Non-governmental organizations (NGO) and
individual partners. The Service would support limited winter capture and translocation
on a case by case basis when circumstances developed that warrant such activity. The
Service does not plan to employ winter translocations as the primary method to address
the winter distribution problem of RMP Trumpeter swans. Rather translocation will be
employed as a method to limit risk to swans from direct over-winter mortality, on an as
needed basis.
Continued progress toward development and implementation of the requested
implementation plan (Trost et al. 2000, FR Vol. 65, No. 188, pg 58517) has occurred.
The Service has completed it’s portion of this plan (Appendix A) and believes the
actions outlined in this plan can help address concerns regarding the number of swans
nesting in the Tristate area and help establish new winter distribution patterns.
Evidence suggests current and past management activities have made progress toward
improving the winter distribution situation (Bouffard 2000). We expect that further
actions will continue to improve the status and distribution of RMP Trumpeter swans.
Implementation efforts will be continued by the Service under each of the alternatives to
the greatest extent possible.
A. ALTERNATIVE 1 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) - ALLOW A LIMITED TAKE
OF TRUMPETER SWANS DURING RESTRUCTURED SWAN HUNTING
SEASONS:
- 4 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
The Service would continue to establish a hunting season for tundra swans with an
authorization of a small take of trumpeter swans in designated portions of Montana,
Utah and Nevada, within the Pacific Flyway. Constraints imposed upon swan hunting
seasons described in the Supplemental Environmental Assessment on this issue (Trost
et al. 2000) would be continued. Specific areas open to swan hunting in Montana, Utah
and Nevada would remain as defined under the preferred alternative in the
Supplemental Environmental Assessment on this issue (Trost et al. 2000). In general,
the proposed action reduces and/or alters the areas open to swan hunting from the area
that existed prior to the 1995 Environmental Assessment in Montana, Utah and Nevada
as follows:
Montana: Beginning in 1995, those portions of Teton and Pondera Counties
lying west of US Highway 287 from Augusta to Chouteau and west
of US Highway 89 to the Blackfoot Indian Reservation were closed
to all swan hunting. Chouteau County was added to the swan hunt
area of the Pacific Flyway portion of Montana at this time. This
area is proposed for continuation as the area open to swan hunting
in Montana under this alternative.
Utah: Beginning in 1995, the swan hunt area in Utah was reduced from
Statewide to a portion of the Great Salt Lake Basin and further
reduced for the 2000-2001 hunting season. The area proposed for
swan hunting is: Those portions of Box Elder, Weber, Davis, Salt
Lake, and Toole Counties lying west of I-15, north of I-80, and
south of a line beginning from the Forest Street exit to the Bear
River Migratory Bird Refuge (BRMBR) boundary, then north and
west along the BRMBR boundary to the farthest west boundary of
the Refuge, then west along a line to Promontory Road, then north
on Promontory Road to the intersection of SR-83, then north on
SR-83 to I-84, then north and west on I-84 to State Hwy 30, then
west on State Hwy 30 to the Nevada-Utah state line, then south on
the Nevada-Utah state line to I-80.
Nevada: The area open to swan hunting in Nevada is Churchill, Pershing
and Lyon Counties. This area was not altered in either of the
preceding Environmental Assessments and is the area proposed
for continuation of swan hunting under this alternative.
In addition to alterations in the areas open to swan hunting, changes in the number of
Tundra swan permits and season closing dates were described in the previous
Environmental Assessments (Bartonek et al.1995, Trost et al. 2000) and the Service
proposes their continuation under this alternative as follows:
Montana: Season dates adjusted from the first Saturday in October to the
Sunday closest to January 20 to the first Saturday in October to 1
December. Total swan permits to be issued remain unchanged at
500.
Utah: Season dates were adjusted from the first Saturday in October to
the Sunday closest to January 20 to the first Saturday in October to
the second Sunday in December. Permits were reduced from
- 5 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
2,500 to 2,000. [Note: the 1995 Environmental Assessment actually
increased the permit number to 2,750, but mandated the season
closure as the first Sunday in December, these provisions were
modified in the 2000 Supplemental Environmental Assessment
along with the additional area restrictions and the reduction in
quota].
Nevada: Season dates were adjusted from the first Saturday in October to
the Sunday closest to January 20 to the first Saturday in October to
the Sunday following January 1. Permit numbers remained at 650.
This alternative proposes to maintain these regulations.
Additionally, the Service would continue to require the monitoring of swan harvests, by
mail in Montana, and by examination in Nevada and Utah, with appropriate provisions
for season closure to be implemented by States should take of Trumpeters reach the
assigned quotas. Quotas would be 10 in Utah and 5 in Nevada. The quota in Utah
was reduced in the 2000 EA (from 15 to 10) in recognition of the fact that a total
accounting of all dead Trumpeter swans could not be achieved and that based on
reasonable estimates of reporting rates and losses to wounding, this reduction insured
that these factors were taken into account in determining at what point to close the
season to ensure protection of RMP Trumpeter swans. The number of swan hunting
permits would not be altered from numbers issued in the 2000-2001 hunting season.
Swan hunters will be required to have all harvested swans physically examined in Utah
and Nevada within 72 hours of harvest. In Montana, hunters must submit required
harvest information within seventy-two hours of harvesting a swan. The seventy-two
hour time period is to allow for a reasonable time period for hunters to contact the
necessary State or Federal staff to have a harvested swan examined. The Service will
require Utah to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Service that
agrees with the following further stipulations with regard to swan harvest monitoring in
Utah: (1) Swans must be physically checked within seventy-two hours of harvest, (2) A
commitment to enforce this regulation must be made by the State of Utah, (3) Utah
hunters must hunt with their permit in their possession, and said permit must be
validated with time and place a swan is killed prior to removing the swan from the field,
(4) Adequate State provisions must be in place to effect a prompt season closure
should the quota be reached, and (5) at a minimum, a weekly summary of swan
harvests will be made to the Service and the Service will be immediately notified should
the harvest quota be reached. The Service will not authorize a swan hunting season in
Utah without such an MOU.
B. ALTERNATIVE 2 - NO ACTION:
Under the No Action Alternative, the management scenario used prior to 1994 would be
re-instituted. The Service would continue to establish open seasons on Tundra swans
in all of Utah and parts of Montana and Nevada, while not allowing take of Trumpeter
swans. There would be no closure of areas where Tundra and Trumpeter swans
overlap in their fall/winter distribution.
Permits issued for take of Tundra swans would be set at 2,500 for Utah, 500 for Nevada
and 650 for Montana. Season open and close dates would revert to those in place prior
to the 1995 Environmental Assessment (Bartonek et al. 1995). These would be an
opening framework date of the Saturday nearest October 1 and a closing date of the
Sunday nearest January 20.
- 6 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
Quotas and monitoring efforts described in Alternative 1 would not be in place since
only Tundra swans would be authorized to be taken. Some general monitoring of the
hunt would be conducted but not for purposes of quota management. Law enforcement
efforts would continue as part of the Tundra swan season with protection for Trumpeters
accomplished through education, deterrence and, if necessary, apprehension of
individuals who illegally harvest a Trumpeter.
C. ALTERNATIVE 3 - CLOSE TUNDRA SWAN HUNTING IN TRUMPETER
HABITAT:
Under Alternative 3, the Service would close areas to Tundra swan hunting in those
parts of Montana, Utah, and/or Nevada that are likely to be used by Trumpeter swans.
Permits issued would depend on areas that remained open and would likely be further
reduced, if any Tundra swan hunting was permitted. Under this alternative, based on
existing information, the Service would close both Montana and Utah to all swan
hunting, and also consider further restrictions in Nevada. However, the Service would
consider proposals from the affected States for times and places where the States could
document that they could still conduct Tundra swan hunts with a negligible risk of
harvesting Trumpeter swans. Season framework dates, if offered, would be timed to
avoid any take of Trumpeter swans.
Quotas and monitoring efforts described in Alternative 1 would not be in place since
only Tundra swans would be authorized to be taken. Some general monitoring of the
hunt would be conducted but not for purposes of quota management. Law enforcement
efforts would continue as part of the Tundra swan season with protection for Trumpeters
accomplished through education, deterrence and, if necessary, apprehension of
individuals who illegally harvest a Trumpeter.
SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES AMONG ALTERNATIVES
EFFECTS Alt. 1. Maintain
Restructured Swan Hunting
Season
Alt. 2. No Action Alt. 3. Close Swan
Hunting in Trumpeter
Habitat
Swan Species Allowed in
Harvest
All swan species, but not
more than 15 may be
Trumpeter swans in
Nevada (5) and Utah (10).
Tundra swans. If season is allowed, only
Tundra swans.
Hunter Liability for Shooting a
Trumpeter Swan
None. Would be subject to
prosecution for illegal take
of a species for which
there is no open season.
Would be subject to
prosecution for illegal take
of a species for which
there is no open season.
Earliest Season Opening
Date
Saturday closest to
October 1, which ranges
between September 27
and October 3.
Saturday closest to
October 1, which ranges
between September 27
and October 3.
If season is allowed, date
would be modified to
prevent potential take of
Trumpeter swans.
- 7 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
Latest Season
Closing Date
MT -December 1.
UT -2nd Sunday in
December, which ranges
between December 8-14.
NV -1st Sunday following
January 1(January 2-8).
Sunday closest to January
20, which ranges between
January 17-23.
If season is allowed, date
would be modified to
prevent potential take of
Trumpeter swans.
Season Length in Days Maximum allowed within
outside framework dates
but less than 100 days.
100 days. If season is allowed, length
would be determined by
outside dates but would be
less than 100 days.
Trumpeter Swan Quota and
Season Closure
Quota not required in
Montana. 15 Trumpeters
to be allocated between
Utah and Nevada, with
season closure should
quota be attained.
No quota. No authorized
season on Trumpeter
swans.
No quota. No authorized
season on Trumpeter
swans.
Winter Range Distribution Active participation by the
Service. Participation by
Pacific Flyway States
dependent on interest,
status of swan populations,
and whether conflicts with
hunt programs would be
minimal or mitigated.
Active participation by the
Service. Participation by
states without swan hunts
dependent on interest and
status of swan populations.
Other states may be
reluctant to participate
because of potential
conflicts with hunt
programs.
Active participation by the
Service. Participation by
States without swan hunts
dependent on interest and
status of swan populations.
Support in other States
may vary depending on
perception of long-term
impacts on harvest
opportunities and habitat
constraints.
Harvest Information
All hunters are required to
report harvest and effort
information via mail survey.
Species composition would
be by post-card bill
measurement reporting in
Montana and examination
of all or part of bird by
biologists in Utah and
Nevada.
All hunters are required to
report harvest and effort
information via mail survey.
Law enforcement efforts
would continue as part of
the Tundra swan season
with protection for
Trumpeters accomplished
through apprehension of
individuals who illegally
harvest a Trumpeter.
If season is allowed, all
hunters are required to
report harvest and effort
information via mail survey.
Law enforcement efforts
would continue as part of
the Tundra swan season
with protection for
Trumpeters accomplished
through apprehension of
individuals who illegally
harvest a Trumpeter.
III. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. THE SWAN BASE
Three swan species are native to North America: Tundra, Trumpeter, and whooper
swans (C. cygnus). Except as vagrants, whooper swans occur only during winter and
- 8 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
then mainly in the western Aleutian Islands; and they would be unaffected by this action.
Ranges of the Trumpeter (Fig. 1) and Tundra swans (Fig. 2) include extensive areas
throughout Canada and the United States. A fourth species, the mute swan, was
introduced from Europe and feral populations are present throughout parts of northern
North America and would potentially be affected by this action.
1. Trumpeter Swans
Trumpeter swans are segregated for management purposes, not biological differences,
into three populations: (1) the RMP, focus of this proposal, consists of a migratory flock
from interior Canada, a largely sedentary flock from the Tristate area (portions of
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming), both of which winter primarily in the Tristate area, and
restoration flocks elsewhere in Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Nevada (Fig. 1); (2) the Pacific
Coast Population, which breeds mainly in Alaska and winters along the northern Pacific
Coast (Fig. 1); and (3) the Interior Population, which is an amalgamation of independent
restoration efforts in South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa,
Ontario, Ohio, and New York (Fig. 1).
Terminology related to various geographic components of the RMP of Trumpeter swans
has been a source of confusion to many agencies and individuals who have expressed
an interest in the stewardship of this population. Over the years the geographic
components of the RMP have been called segments, subpopulations, populations, and
flocks. There is little biological information upon which to decide if one term is more
appropriate than the other. For clarity and consistency the Service has adopted the
terminology from the 1998 Pacific Flyway Management Plan (Pacific Flyway Council
1998) and this terminology is used throughout this Environmental Assessment:
The “Tristate Area” refers to southeast Idaho, southwest Montana, and northwest
Wyoming. The “Core Tristate Area” refers to Harriman State Park (HSP), Island
Park Reservoir, Teton Basin, Henry’s and South Forks of the Snake River and
Camas NWR of Idaho; Red Rocks Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (RRLNWR),
Centennial Valley, Hebgen Lake and Madison River and tributaries of Montana,
and Yellowstone National Park and Jackson Hole of Wyoming (Fig. 3). The
“Tristate Region” refers to the entire States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
RMP Trumpeter swans that summer in the U.S. are referred to as the “RMP/U.S.
Flocks”. “Tristate Flocks” refers specifically to swans that summer in the “Core
Tristate Area”. “RMP/Canadian flocks” refers to Trumpeters that summer in
Canada and winter in the United States.
Trumpeter swan numbers are estimated by a number of surveys throughout North
America. The population index most relied upon by managers is the coordinated
summer survey instituted in 1968 and conducted at 5-year intervals since 1975
(Caithamer 2001).
The most recent survey was conducted in 2000. Based upon seven continental surveys
during 1968-2000, Trumpeter swans have increased at about 6 percent per year over
the survey period and now total more than 23,000 birds as of the late-summer of 2000.
This total represents an increase of about 535% between the 1968 survey and the most
recent survey in 2000. More than 1,000 additional Trumpeters are now in captivity and
being held by aviculturists and zoos. All three management populations have been
growing at approximately the same rates since these surveys were instituted. The
RMP, as a whole, is exhibiting exponential growth over the time span covered by these
surveys and totaled more than 3,600 in 2000 (Caithamer 2001, Fig. 4). This number
- 9 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
represents an increase of more than 350% since 1968 and 45% since the 1995 survey.
It should be noted that the 1995 survey was conducted prior to the implementation of
the experimental swan regulations allowing the limited take of Trumpeter swans in the
Pacific Flyway. The 2000 survey represents the population status at the end of the first
5-year experimental hunt period.
RMP Trumpeter swans are also surveyed annually during the winter (Olson 2001), and
the U.S. portion of the RMP is also inventoried annually in the fall, prior to the arrival of
Canadian migrants (Reed 2000). Based upon winter counts during February, 2001,
RMP Trumpeter swans numbered 3,975 (Olson 2001). This figure supports the
conclusion of continued population growth and is in reasonably close agreement with
the results of the 2000 range-wide survey (Caithamer 2001). Based on the midwinter
survey for the period 1972-2001, the RMP continues to increase at about 6 percent
each year and averages about 20 percent young in the winter population.
As indicated above, managers recognize that the RMP of Trumpeter swans originates
from a variety of breeding areas, as is true of most migratory bird populations in North
America. These areas are sometimes divided into groups: those that nest in Canada;
those that nest in the Tristate region of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho; and those that
have been established through expansion efforts in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah,
Nevada, and Oregon (see previous section on terminology). Trends in the population
indices for these three groups, as measured by winter counts that are not precise in
apportioning flock composition, have not been consistent. Similarly, management
activities undertaken in recent years apparently have not had the same impact on all
components of this population. Numbers of RMP Trumpeter swans breeding in Canada
have continued to increase steadily, while numbers of Trumpeter swans breeding in the
United States declined substantially following the cessation of the winter feeding
program at RRLNWR and associated management actions in the winter of 1992/93.
These actions predated the time when harvest of both swan species was permitted in
the Pacific Flyway. Since that time, swan numbers in the conterminous United States
have been recovering, although they have not reached levels present during the active
winter feeding program (Fig. 4).
In summary, since 1995, numbers of RMP Trumpeter swans have continued to increase
substantially, despite the authorization of a limited take associated with the existing
Tundra swan seasons beginning in that year. Numbers of RMP Trumpeter swans
breeding within the United States have only partially recovered from the recent low
number estimated in 1993. They have not reached levels that were present in the
United States before the cessation of feeding programs at RRLNWR and the institution
of other intensive management activities that were undertaken to address the winter
distribution concerns of this population.
Trumpeters are classified as a migratory game bird. Prior to 1995, Trumpeter swans
had not been hunted, since Federal protection was authorized first in 1913 and then
successfully in 1918. They are not classified as being either "threatened" or
"endangered" under the Endangered Species Act; although, in the 1960s, the species
was listed under the Service's "Red Book" based on the limited understanding of it’s
status at that time. The Red Book is an international compilation of globally threatened
or endangered species prepared under the auspices of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature. In 1989, the Service was petitioned to list the RMP as
threatened, but the petition presented information insufficient to conclude that such
listing was warranted (55(81)Federal Register: 17646-17648, April 16, 1990).
- 10 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
On August 22, 2000 the Service was petitioned to list a portion of the RMP of Trumpeter
swans. The petitioners requested that the Service consider emergency listing of the
Tristate flock. The Service acknowledged receipt of the petition and informed the
petitioners that listing funds are not currently available for processing of administrative
petition findings. Additionally, the Service stated that the population trend data for the
RMP swans indicated that there was no compelling evidence to indicate that emergency
listing was appropriate. On February 5, 2001, the petitioners provided a 60-day notice
of intent to sue over our failure to prepare a 90-day finding on the petition. The Service
responded to this notice on April 5, 2001, and indicated that all listing funds for FY 2001
have already been allocated to court settlements and court ordered deadlines, so it will
not be possible to prepare any additional administrative petition findings. Additionally,
the Service stated that the population trend data for RMP Trumpeter swans indicated
that there was no compelling evidence to show that emergency listing was appropriate
and further noted that the portion of the RMP recommended for listing in the petition has
also been stable to increasing since the winter of 1992-1993.
The winter distribution of Trumpeter swans in the Pacific Flyway remains concentrated
primarily in Southeastern Idaho and the potential for winter losses continues. Heavy
wintering use is made of the Henry's Fork of the Snake River by RMP Trumpeter swans,
causing significant damage to habitat of a world-class trout fishery. Perhaps, more than
a hundred swans died from starvation on the Henry's Fork in the winter of 1988-89,
although exact numbers are not known. The die-off drew considerable media attention
and prompted the 1989-petitioning for Endangered Species Act listing. However, since
1989 there have been few winter losses recorded and the hazing program has helped
limit further growth of this wintering concentration in this specific area. During the winter
of 2000-2001, numbers of Trumpeter swans associated with HSP totaled only about 20
percent of the total midwinter population. The Service notes that waterfowl distributions
and migratory behavior are often impacted by weather events. Migratory birds are
among the most resilient groups of animals in their ability to react to such changing
conditions. The Service fully expects that variable weather conditions (such as freezing
conditions or drought) will be encountered in the future and believes such natural
occurrences should be considered as part of the birds natural environment and, as
such, weather events should not precipitate management actions unless or until
evidence of significant direct mortality can be demonstrated. Should weather events
lead to an appreciable movement of Trumpeter swans into existing hunt zones, the
Service believes that the quota system in place will preclude any population level
effects.
The Pacific Flyway Management Plan for RMP Trumpeter Swans (Subcommittee on
RMP Trumpeter Swans 1998), endorsed by the Pacific Flyway Council and supported
by the Service, calls for aggressive action to broaden the breeding and winter
distribution of swans and restore a tradition for migration, in part, to alleviate chronic
wintering problems. Since 1990, the Service, States, Bureau of Reclamation, and
others have spent more than $1 million in trapping, translocating, hazing, and
monitoring activities. Efforts to re-establish migratory behavior have shown limited
success to date.
2. Tundra Swans:
Tundra swans are segregated for management purposes into two populations: (1) the
WP, object of this proposal, which breeds in western Alaska, migrates mainly through
- 11 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
the Tristate area, Utah, and Nevada, as well as along the west coast, to winter mainly in
California (Fig. 2); and (2) the Eastern Population (EP), which breeds mainly in Arctic
Canada and winters mainly on the eastern U.S. coast.
Numbers of Tundra swans are indexed annually by the midwinter survey conducted in
major waterfowl concentration areas across North America. Indices for both Eastern
and Western Populations display long-term upward trends. The WP has increased at
an annual rate of about two-percent per year since 1955, reaching record high numbers
during the last 4 years. The most recent midwinter index suggested about 90,000
Tundra swans in the WP in January of 2001 (Fig. 5).
The Pacific Flyway Council and the Service cooperatively developed management
plans for WP Tundra swans (Subcommittee on Whistling Swans 1983). Objectives
include:
! Maintain a 3-year average population index of at least 38,000 swans as
estimated by the midwinter waterfowl survey;
! Maintain current patterns of distribution throughout the swan's range;
! Provide breeding, migration, and wintering habitats of sufficient quantity and
quality to maintain the desired numbers and distribution of swans; and
! Provide for aesthetic, educational, scientific, and hunting uses of these swans.
A companion hunt plan for WP Tundra swans (Pacific Flyway Study Committee 1989)
developed a strategy that would allow for an annual harvest commensurate with
maintaining a long-term winter population of at least 38,000 birds. The hunt plan also
recognized that in order to protect Trumpeter swans zone closures and season
modifications to Tundra swan seasons should be considered.
Federally authorized hunting seasons on Tundra swans were first allowed in Utah in
1962. WP Tundra swan seasons are now allowed in portions of Alaska, Montana, Utah,
and Nevada. Seasons on EP Tundra swans are authorized for Montana (Central
Flyway portion), North Dakota, South Dakota, Virginia, North Carolina, and New Jersey.
Sport hunting programs are endorsed by all Flyway Councils with a harvest objective of
generally less than 10 percent of the winter population. Harvest is allocated among
States by permits. State-administered permit systems provide good estimates of
harvest. Sport harvest of the WP and EP is less than 2 and 4 percent of their respective
midwinter swan population indices; but the combined subsistence harvest (8 percent)
and sport harvest (2 percent) of the WP total about 10 percent. Trost et al. (2000)
provide a summary of permit allocation, hunter participation, harvest, and age-composition
of the harvest, by State, as related to WP Tundra swans (Tables 1a-1d).
3. Mute Swans:
Mute swans became established in North America through escapes and intentional
releases from captivity. In the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways where they breed in the
wild, more than 7,000 birds on average were counted during winter surveys in 1985-94.
In the Pacific Flyway, feral mute swans were first recorded in the midwinter inventory in
1975, averaged 3 swans per year during 1975-95, ranging upwards to 14 individuals.
The Pacific Flyway distribution of mute swans in the wild is largely dependent upon
- 12 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
where they escaped or were released from captivity, with most being reported in
Washington and Oregon; however, they were reported in Nevada and California during
2 winters. Mute swans are not among those species protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act of 1918 (see "List of Migratory Birds" at 50 CFR 10.13) and are considered
an invasive exotic species in some portions of their range, e.g., Chesapeake Bay of
Maryland and Virginia.
B. THE SWAN HABITATS
1. Trumpeter Swans:
Trumpeter swans historically occurred over much of northern North America, excluding
arctic areas, with populations wintering along the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico
coasts. Trumpeters nested in the prairies and bottomlands of the mid-continent where
they were among the first waterfowl to be negatively impacted by settlement. Today,
RMP Trumpeters nest in small wetlands and lakes in subarctic taiga, boreal forest, and
aspen parklands in southern Yukon, northeastern British Columbia, southern Mackenzie
District, Alberta, and southeastern Saskatchewan. In addition to the Canadian nesting
areas, RMP Trumpeter swans nest in lakes and other wetlands in the mountainous
portions of the Tristate area of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and in some of the Great
Basin marshes found in Nevada and Oregon generally seeking undisturbed habitats
with aquatic foods. The Centennial Valley, Teton Basin, Yellowstone Park, Harney
Basin, Summer Lake, and Ruby Lake are some of the more important Trumpeter
nesting areas in the western United States for the RMP of Trumpeter swans.
Aside from restoration flocks in Oregon and Nevada, which are largely non-migratory
and primarily of Tristate origin, a majority of RMP Trumpeter swans stage in fall or
winter in the Tristate area. This large concentration of migrating and wintering RMP
Trumpeter swans in and near HSP on the Henry's Fork of the Snake River in
southeastern Idaho and at RRLNWR in southwestern Montana is the chief management
concern for this population. Swans and other waterfowl using the HSP sanctuary have,
in some winters, so depleted the submerged aquatic vegetation that they are at risk of
starvation. Starvation losses and poor nutrition prior to onset of nesting may limit
prospects for Trumpeter swan population growth and range expansion, however, this
does not appear to have occurred as yet.
Translocated swans use sites in the American Falls Reservoir in southeastern Idaho.
Migrant swans from the Canadian flock have been observed as far south as the Central
Valley of California; and they likely arrived there after following Tundra swan migration
corridors through Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Nevada. In general, wintering swans are
dependent on naturally-occurring aquatic plants in sufficient abundance and nutritional
quality. They have not yet adapted to feeding in agricultural fields as have many other
species of waterfowl.
2. Tundra Swans:
WP Tundra swans breed in western Alaska and, as their name implies, in tundra
habitat. They are found during summer from the Koyukuk River south to the Alaska
Peninsula. Some birds nest on Kodiak Island, but the vast majority occur on the Yukon-
Kuskokwim Delta (Fig. 2). In migration, WP swans follow both coastal (minor) and
interior (major) routes and use a diversity of habitat types ranging from estuarine, fresh-water,
alkaline, natural, agricultural and wildlife-managed sites. Tundra swans rely
- 13 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
extensively upon aquatic vegetation throughout the year. In migration and wintering
areas, sago pondweed is a favored food plant, but they will frequent upland areas to
graze on grasses, sedges, and berries. They have learned to glean grain from both dry
and flooded agricultural fields and forage on pasture to supplement their natural aquatic
diet.
3. Mute Swans:
Mute swans occupy the same habitats used by other swans and waterfowl and
potentially compete with them for food and space.
C. AFFECTED AND INTERESTED PARTIES
The proposed action predominately and directly affects residents of Montana, Utah, and
Nevada. People living elsewhere, but having an active interest and/or direct
involvement in management of swans may also be affected.
1. RECREATIONAL HUNTERS
The proposed action would directly affect the approximately 5,400 hunters who applied
for the 3,150 total permits available in Utah (2,000), Montana (500), and Nevada (650)
for the 2000-2001 hunting season. This number is also approximately the long-term
average number of hunters who have applied for swan hunting permits in these States.
2. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE PUBLIC
The proposed action predominately and directly affects residents of Montana, Utah, and
Nevada. People living elsewhere but having an active interest and/or direct involvement
in management of swans may also be affected. The proposed action would directly
affect NGOs actively involved with Trumpeter swan restoration, specifically The
Trumpeter Swan Society (approaching 500 members in 1995) which promotes the well
being and restoration of Trumpeter swans, and the Henry's Fork Foundation (700
members) which promotes dispersal of Trumpeter swans and other waterfowl on the
Henry's Fork River in order to restore the damaged world-class trout fisheries.
Additional NGOs that have expressed an interest in this issue include the Humane
Society of the United States, The Fund for Animals, Inc., the Animal Protection Institute,
and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation. Many members of the general public have also
directly contacted Service representatives concerning this issue.
1. BUSINESS
The proposed action would affect businesses that are partially dependent upon meeting
the needs of hunters and services associated with trumpeter swan restoration efforts.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This section is comprised of a summary of the environmental consequences of
implementing each of the alternatives on swan populations, their habitat, recreational
activities and other factors identified during preparation and review of previous
Environmental Assessments on this issue. A summary of these issues and the Service
- 14 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
response is provided in previous Service documents on this issue (Draft EA, Appendix
B). The assessment and analysis included in Appendix B was prepared to summarize
our evaluation of implementing the various alternatives and was used extensively in
preparing this section. Most recent comments received have been very similar to these
previous comments and much of this previous discussion is reiterated in the Summary
of comments included here. A summary of impacts is also presented in Table form at
the end of this section.
A. ALTERNATIVE 1 (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE) - ALLOW A LIMITED TAKE
OF TRUMPETER SWANS DURING GENERAL SWAN HUNTING SEASONS:
The proposed action would authorize a small take of trumpeter swans during
established tundra swan seasons in designated portions of Montana, Utah and Nevada,
within the Pacific Flyway provided that quotas are not exceeded for Trumpeter Swans.
Possession, transportation, and disposition of all swan species would be governed by
regulations applicable to all other waterfowl species (see 50 CFR Part 20).
The Tundra swan hunting season that existed prior to 1995 was significantly modified
by both the 1995 and the 2000 Environmental Assessments and subsequent
regulations on this issue. This proposal would maintain all of these alterations,
specifically the area restrictions that were then imposed, the number of permits to be
allocated in Montana, Utah and Nevada, and the harvest monitoring requirements.
The area restrictions were imposed to afford greater protection to Trumpeter swans and
the earlier season closure dates were also implemented with the idea that if Trumpeter
swans were moving in the Pacific Flyway, they would be more likely be moving later in
the season and an earlier closure would afford additional protection to any dispersing
Trumpeter swans.
In addition to season area, permit and time modifications, the Service will expand it’s
role in cooperative efforts to enhance the breeding and wintering distribution of
Trumpeter swans throughout the Pacific Flyway under this alternative. The Service will
seek concurrence of State, other Federal Agency and NGO partners by requesting
participation in the development of a detailed implementation plan to achieve the goals
and objectives of the Pacific Flyway’s 1998 RMP Trumpeter Swan Management Plan.
The Service will attempt to achieve this action through introduction of additional
Trumpeter swans into suitable habitat throughout the Pacific Flyway, and by continuing
management efforts to discourage use of the Tristate wintering concentration area.
a. THE SWAN BASE
Trumpeter Swan: The Service would: (1) actively participate in efforts to enhance the
breeding and winter distribution of Trumpeter swans, and (2) maintain the biologically
acceptable, but conservative harvest quota of 15 Trumpeter swans in Utah and Nevada.
The Service notes that during the past six years, RMP Trumpeter swans exhibited a
substantial population increase as measured by both the 5-year periodic survey and the
annual midwinter estimates (Caithamer 2001, Olson 2001). This population increase
occurred during the period when the legal take of Trumpeter swans was permitted. This
increase occurred despite losses to the population caused by direct management
activities (i.e. the translocation program). Further, the increase was seen in both the US
- 15 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
and Canadian flocks (Caithamer 2001). The Service recognizes that not all
components of the population appear to be increasing at the same rate, however, as
noted in the status review, increases in the Tristate area are not expected to equal
those in the more northern areas because of existing habitat limitations. The Service
believes that the six years of experience with the limited Trumpeter swan hunting option
clearly demonstrates that neither the population nor any geographic component of the
population is likely to be adversely impacted following implementation of this alternative.
Under the provisions of this alternative the take of one Trumpeter Swan was
documented in the previous hunting season in Utah and none were known to have been
taken in Nevada. Anticipated take in future seasons is therefore expected to be very
low.
Tundra Swan: The number and distribution of Tundra swans in Montana, Utah and
Nevada has been largely unaffected by previous implementation of the actions
contained in this alternative. The number of permits authorizing the take of swans
would be maintained at the levels established in the 2000-2001 hunting season for
Montana, Nevada and Utah. The anticipated harvest of Tundra swans would remain
within harvest management guidelines for the population. Tundra swan populations
are currently above population objective levels.
Mute Swan: The number and distribution of mute swans would be largely unaffected by
this action since very few birds occur in Utah, Montana or Nevada. The species would
remain unprotected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended.
b. THE SWAN HABITATS
Hazing, elimination of supplemental feeding, and other cooperative efforts to make
current wintering habitats less hospitable (such as attempting to maintain high flow rates
in the Henry’s Fork) would continue. Due to concerns and doubts about the
effectiveness of translocations, the Service will only support this activity on a limited,
case by case basis and not as the preferred means of addressing the winter distribution
problem. Further, the Service will request State, NGO, and other Federal agency
cooperators to join in development of a detailed implementation plan to achieve the
goals and objectives of the 1998 Flyway Management Plan. This plan should contain
guidelines for translocation activities for use in the Pacific Flyway. The Service has
completed a draft of it’s portion of the implementation plan with suggestions for activities
on National Wildlife Refuges within RMP range (Appendix A). In summary,
implementation of the portions of Alternative 2 dealing with swan harvest are not
expected to have a significant affect on the habitats used by Trumpeter, Tundra or Mute
swans.
c. RECREATIONAL HUNTING IMPACTS
In Montana, hunters will not be able to hunt swans in the western portions of Pondera &
Teton Counties (areas formally open to Tundra swan hunting). However, the new
opportunities afforded those hunting in the larger Chouteau County that were instituted
in 1995 will be maintained.
The Nevada swan season will be closed upon attainment of their assigned quota
(established at 5 Trumpeter swans). Areas open to hunting in Nevada and season
dates will remain unchanged from those established in the 1995 Environmental
Assessment.
- 16 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
In Utah, the additional constraints placed on swan hunting opportunities in the 2000-
2001 hunting season would be continued. These constraints reduced the number of
permits issued from 2,750 to 2,000; reduced the quota on Trumpeter swan take from 15
to 10; and reduced the area open to swan hunting by the closure of all areas north of
the northern boundary of the BRMBR to all swan hunting.
a. AESTHETIC IMPACTS
Under this alternative Persons and NGOs interested in viewing swans will be impacted
during the period of the swan season due to curtailed viewing opportunities. This will be
for a relatively short period of time and opportunities for swan viewing will still be
available in some locations. The additional restrictions on hunting opportunity
implemented in the 1999-2000 season would provide greater opportunity for viewing
swans. In summary, impacts will be short term and the number of Trumpeters
harvested is expected to be low causing minimal impact on viewing opportunity. The
number of Tundra swans authorized to be taken is also low and would probably not be
noticeable in terms of viewing opportunity or other aesthetic concerns.
NGOs and persons either opposed to swan hunting or interested in an expedited winter-range
expansion effort for Trumpeter swans would continue to be dissatisfied with the
Tundra swan seasons because of the potential loss of pioneering Trumpeter swans.
b. LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Business would continue to provide equipment and services to hunters and agencies
involved in swan restoration efforts. Otherwise, impacts on the local economy are
expected to be minimal.
2. ALTERNATIVE 2 - NO ACTION:
Under the "No Action" alternative, the status quo, i.e., frameworks for seasons that were
in effect during 1988-93, would be maintained. Areas, seasons and numbers of permits
for Tundra swan hunting in Montana, Utah, and Idaho, would be unmodified from those
in place between 1983 and 1994. The entire State of Utah would be open to Tundra
swan hunting. The Service would continue to establish open seasons on Tundra swans
in parts of Montana and Nevada and throughout Utah while maintaining a "closed
season" on Trumpeter swans. Seasons could continue through the Sunday closest to
January 20 and not exceed 100 days.
a. THE SWAN BASE
Trumpeter Swan: The Service would continue to participate in cooperative efforts to
improve winter-range distribution of Trumpeter swans within parts of the Pacific Flyway
as described in Alternative 1. Should Trumpeter swans enter Tundra swan hunt areas,
because of hazing or through pioneering, they would not be afforded additional
protection associated with time or area restrictions on hunting opportunity. Those
swans arriving in late winter would therefore experience an increased risk of being killed
during a Tundra swan season. Such an unregulated harvest could possibly slow the
rate of pioneering and winter range distribution if enough Trumpeters were taken. The
overall Trumpeter swan population would continue to increase but at a slower rate.
- 17 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
Impacts on Trumpeter swans would be potentially the highest among all alternatives
and it would be difficult to track population impacts absent a monitoring program.
Tundra Swan: The number and distribution of Tundra swans would be largely
unaffected by this action with impacts anticipated to be similar to that described under
Alternative 1.
Mute Swan: The number and distribution of mute swans would be largely unaffected by
this action since very few birds occur in Utah, Montana or Nevada. The species would
remain unprotected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended.
b. THE SWAN HABITATS
Hazing, elimination of supplemental feeding, and other cooperative efforts to make
current wintering habitats less hospitable (such as attempting to maintain high flow rates
in the Henry’s Fork) would continue. Due to concerns and doubts about the
effectiveness of translocations, the Service will only support this activity on a limited,
case by case basis and not as the preferred means of addressing the winter distribution
problem. Further, the Service will request State, NGO, and other Federal agency
cooperators to join in development of a detailed implementation plan to achieve the
goals and objectives of the 1998 Flyway Management Plan. This plan should contain
guidelines for translocation activities for use in the Pacific Flyway. The Service has
completed a draft of it’s portion of the implementation plan with suggestions for activities
on National Wildlife Refuges within RMP range (Appendix A). In summary,
implementation of the portions of Alternative 2 dealing with swan harvest are not
expected to have a significant affect on the habitats used by Trumpeter, Tundra or Mute
swans.
c. RECREATIONAL HUNTING IMPACTS
Not more than 500, 2,500, and 650 permittee’s in Montana, Utah, and Nevada,
respectively, would still be able to hunt. In Utah, the State-wide hunt would result in
some hunting activity in places where swans are significantly less abundant, both
spatially and temporally, than in the Great Salt Lake Basin.
The Service and State agencies could issue citations and prosecute Tundra swan
hunters who accidentally took Trumpeter swans during an open season on Tundra
swans.
Hunters would have a significant disincentive to comply with harvest surveys
requirements as detection of a Trumpeter swan by such methods would make them
liable to prosecution.
a. AESTHETIC IMPACTS
Under this alternative Persons and NGOs interested in viewing swans will be impacted
during the period of the swan season due to curtailed viewing opportunities. This will be
for a relatively short period of time and opportunities for swan viewing will still be
available in some locations. Areas potentially impacted would be greater than that
described under Alternative 1 since there would be no specific area closures in habitats
with significant Trumpeter swan use. In summary, impacts will be short term and,
although the number of Trumpeters harvested may increase, impacts on viewing
- 18 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
opportunity are expected to be low. The number of Tundra swans authorized to be
taken is also low and would probably not be noticeable in terms of viewing opportunity
or other aesthetic concerns.
NGOs and persons either opposed to swan hunting or interested in an expedited winter-range
expansion effort for Trumpeter swans would continue to be dissatisfied with the
Tundra swan seasons because of the potential loss of pioneering Trumpeter swans.
Swans would continue to be discouraged from using wintering sites with limited food
resources by hazing, and they would not be fed. Additionally, States may be reluctant
to accept wintering swans because of uncertainties related to ongoing waterfowl
seasons.
b. LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Businesses would continue to provide equipment and services to hunters and agencies
involved in swan restoration efforts.
3. ALTERNATIVE 3 - SEVERELY RESTRICT OR CLOSE TUNDRA SWAN
HUNTING:
Under Alternative 3 the Service would either severely restrict or not allow open seasons
on Tundra swans in those parts of Montana, Utah, or Nevada that are likely to be used
by Trumpeter swans. This may occur in situations where range expansion efforts prove
successful, or where there is recent information on the occurrence of Trumpeter swans.
Seasons, if allowed, would be structured specifically to prevent any incidental take of
Trumpeters swans during Tundra swan seasons. Depending on current and future
swan distribution this could lead to a situation where waterfowl hunting could be similar
to that experienced by hunters in Utah prior to 1962, in Nevada prior to 1969, and in
Montana prior to 1970, when waterfowl seasons were closed to the taking of any swan
species.
a. THE SWAN BASE
Trumpeter Swan: The Service would continue to participate in cooperative efforts to
improve winter-range distribution of Trumpeter swans within parts of the Pacific Flyway.
The risk of Trumpeter swans being shot during a general waterfowl season would be
significantly reduced because there likely would be no open season in Tundra swan
concentration areas which are also the areas likely to be used by Trumpeter swans.
Overall, the Trumpeter swan population would likely increase at a slightly greater rate
and perhaps become more widely distributed in winter than under Alternatives 1 or 2.
Nevertheless, the Service does not believe that curtailing or eliminating hunting
opportunity will result in a significant increase in population status or distribution. This is
largely due to the very low number of Trumpeter swans that have been harvested
historically and the rapidly increasing population trends which have been documented
during the previous experimental period.
Tundra Swan: The number and distribution of Tundra swans would be largely
unaffected by this action. Relative to the overall population status and trends of the WP
of Tundra swans only minor impacts on the population are anticipated. Some minor
increase in numbers may occur since hunting opportunity would be reduced to eliminate
impacts on Trumpeter swans.
- 19 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
Mute Swan: The number and distribution of mute swans would be largely unaffected by
this action since very few birds occur in Utah, Montana or Nevada. The species would
remain unprotected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended.
b. THE SWAN HABITATS
Hazing, elimination of supplemental feeding, and other cooperative efforts to make
current wintering habitats less hospitable (such as attempting to maintain high flow rates
in the Henry’s Fork) would continue. Due to concerns and doubts about the
effectiveness of translocations, the Service will only support this activity on a limited,
case by case basis and not as the preferred means of addressing the winter distribution
problem. Further, the Service will request State, NGO, and other Federal agency
cooperators to join in development of a detailed implementation plan to achieve the
goals and objectives of the 1998 Flyway Management Plan. This plan should contain
guidelines for translocation activities for use in the Pacific Flyway. The Service has
completed a draft of it’s portion of the implementation plan with suggestions for activities
on National Wildlife Refuges within RMP range (Appendix A).
Hazing Trumpeter swans from crowded wintering sites on the Henry's Fork of the Snake
River has potential to allow habitats to recover from recent, excessive use by waterfowl.
However, potentially increasing numbers of Tundra swans could in some localities
compete with Trumpeter swans for winter-limited resources.
In summary, implementation of the portions of any Alternative dealing with swan harvest
are not expected to have a significant affect on the habitats used by Trumpeter, Tundra
or Mute swans.
c. RECREATIONAL HUNTING IMPACTS
If swan hunting was not allowed, it is expected that some swans would occasionally be
illegally taken concurrent with waterfowl seasons. When detected, violators would be
issued citations, prosecuted, and the dead swans confiscated. Due to difficulty in
determining the difference between Tundra and Trumpeter swans and the need to close
areas used by Trumpeter swans recreational hunting opportunity would be greatly
curtailed. Potentially, 3,650 hunters would be denied an opportunity to hunt swans.
d. AESTHETIC IMPACTS
This alternative would provide the greatest benefit to NGOs and persons opposed to
swan hunting and NGOs supportive of Trumpeter swan restoration efforts. Swan
viewing opportunities would be enhanced since many areas used by swans would be
closed to hunting.
In Idaho and Montana hazing swans from over-crowded wintering sites would be
continued as would the suspension of artificial feeding. Should the hazing program
result in displacement of some swans to neighboring states there would likely be some
reluctance to accept hazed swans because of the impact of the program on traditional
hunting opportunities.
- 20 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
e. LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Business partially dependent upon swan hunters would have diminished sales. Some
benefit might be derived from enhanced opportunities to view swans.
SUMMARY OF EFFECTS AMONG ALTERNATIVES
EFFECTS Alt. 1. Restructured Swan
Hunting Season
Alt. 2. No Action Alt. 3. Severely Restrict or
Close Swan Hunting
Winter Distribution of
Trumpeter Swans
Risk to Trumpeter swans
potentially moving along
Tundra swan migration
corridors in the Pacific
Flyway would be
controlled. Protection for
Trumpeters would be
enhanced due to early
season closures and
expanded area closures in
Utah.
Trumpeter swans will
expand their winter range,
but those moving into hunt
areas in late winter would
be at potential risk from up
to 100-day swan seasons.
Trumpeters following
Tundra swan migration
corridors would be at
minimal risk from
waterfowl hunting.
Trumpeter Swan Status Trumpeter swans would be
legally taken but their
number limited and
monitored. Tristate group
of swans would likely
increase due to
augmentation. They would
remain subject to a die-off
in SE Idaho but with less
impact on the population.
The Canadian group would
continue to increase.
Trumpeter swans would
be shot accidentally during
Tundra swan seasons but
the take mostly not
monitored. Tristate group
of swans would remain
stable or decrease, and
would be subject to a die-off
in SE Idaho. The
Canadian group would
continue to increase.
The Tristate group of
swans would remain
stable or increase, but
would be subject to a die-off
in SE Idaho. The
Canadian group would
continue to increase.
Tundra Swan Status Tundra swans would
continue to be harvested
with the maximum take
guided by a Flyway-approved
harvest strategy
but constrained by
safeguards for Trumpeter
swans. Tundra swan
numbers would likely
remain stable or increase
should harvest be
reduced.
Tundra swans would
continue to be harvested
with the maximum take
guided by a Flyway-approved
harvest strategy.
Tundra swan numbers
would likely remain stable
or continue to increase.
If season was allowed,
Tundra swans could be
taken but likely the total
harvest would be reduced.
Tundra swan numbers
likely would increase at a
faster rate unless
subsistence harvests were
to increase.
- 21 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
Swan Hunting Opportunity &
Success
Hunter numbers would be
further reduced (3,150).
Hunter days could be
reduced or remain
unchanged should hunters
redirect their activities.
Hunter success is likely to
increase because effort
will be concentrated in
both time and area where
Tundra swans are most
abundant. Season
potentially would be
terminated early by
achieving quota of
Trumpeter swans.
A maximum of 3,650
permits would be
authorized for hunters to
hunt potentially 100 days
between approximately
October 1 and January 20.
Montana hunters could
hunt in all of Pondera and
Teton counties but not
Chouteau County. Utah
hunters could hunt state-wide.
Hunting opportunity for
3,650 hunters would be
curtailed significantly and
potentially eliminated
depending on swan
distribution.
Hunter Liability Swan hunters taking a
Trumpeter swan could do
so legally. Season would
terminate should quota be
obtained preventing
additional take. Hunters
taking swans following
season closure would be
subject to prosecution.
Swan hunters taking
Trumpeter swans would
be subject to prosecution.
Should a season be
allowed, swan hunters
taking Trumpeter swans
would be subject to
prosecution.
Public Attitudes Hunters would be
displeased with
restrictions. Most NGOs
and the public who do not
support a balanced
approach to either hunting
or restoration would be
displeased.
Hunters would be pleased
with minimal restrictions
and inconvenience but risk
prosecution. Various
NGOs would be
dissatisfied with progress
at enhancing Trumpeter
swan redistribution.
Hunters would be
displeased. Various
NGOs would be satisfied
that progress was being
made to enhance
Trumpeter swan
redistribution; but some of
those would be dissatisfied
that it was done at the
expense of hunting.
Costs to Hunters to
Administer Programs
Potential added costs in
fees to administer a more
restricted program.
Hunters may need to travel
further to hunt; and they
will be required submit
birds for examination in
Utah and Nevada and
report via postcard in
Montana.
No additional costs in
money or time.
If a season allowed,
reduced costs and hunting
opportunity. If season is
closed, no costs and
hunting opportunity will be
eliminated.
- 22 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
Costs to Agencies to
Administer Programs
Additional costs for
obtaining hunter and
harvest information data
and enforcement related to
general swan seasons.
No additional costs in
hazing, translocating, and
monitoring Trumpeter
swans; but cost-effectiveness
of effort
potentially greater than
Alternative 2 but less than
Alternative 3.
Costs of obtaining hunter
and harvest information
data and enforcement of
Tundra swan seasons
would continue. Costs to
haze, and monitor
Trumpeter swans would
continue. Cost-effectiveness
of effort
would be potentially
negated by unrestricted
take of Trumpeter swans.
Costs related to hunt
dependent upon whether
or not season is allowed.
Costs to haze and monitor
Trumpeter swans would
continue. Cost-effectiveness
of effort
potentially will be
increased because the
accidental take of
Trumpeter swans should
be minimal.
4. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND MITIGATIVE MEASURES OF THE
ALTERNATIVES
Under Alternative 1 some take of Trumpeter swans would be authorized and such take
is likely to occur. Under Alternative 2, some illegal harvest would likely occur in
conjunction with Tundra swan hunting because of the difficulties in discrimination
between the two species. Under Alternative 1 take of Trumpeters would be monitored
and a quota established and enforced to avoid take of more than 15 birds in Utah and
Nevada. Mitigative measures such as closure of areas known to have experienced take
of Trumpeter swans, reduction in the number of permits and timing of the seasons have
been developed to lessen impacts on Trumpeter swans. Implementation of these
measures aids growth in the swan population and contributes to a positive working
relationship with the various States involved in management by balancing competing
needs for hunting and viewing Trumpeters. Continued growth in the Trumpeter swan
population throughout it’s range and the very low numbers of Trumpeters taken in the
past season are evidence that the current management approach is effective. This
management scheme when coupled with accelerated efforts to expand the breeding
range through reintroduction and habitat management (see Appendix A) is expected to
lead to continued growth in RMP Trumpeter swans.
I. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND SERVICE CONCLUSIONS
Most comments received fall into two broad general categories; those that believe the
Service proposal is too restrictive with regard to proposed hunting seasons under the
preferred alternative and those who believe that the Service should prohibit all swan
hunting in places where both Tundra and Trumpeter swans may occur or simply prohibit
all swan hunting. There were a few comments that were received that did not
recommend a specific alternative, but did raise questions or issues that were related to
the proposed action. We have provided a response to several of these points as well.
The States of Wyoming, Oregon, Utah, Nevada, Idaho (Department of Fish and Game),
the Pacific and Central Flyway Councils, the Conservation Force (on behalf of the
Dallas Safari Club, Dallas Ecological Foundation, Houston Safari Club, African Safari
Club of Florida, the Louisiana Chapter of the Safari Club International, the National
Taxidermist Association, and the Central Louisiana Chapter of Safari Club
- 23 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
International), the Nevada Waterfowl Association and 6 individuals wrote in support of
continuation and/or expansion of existing swan hunting opportunities. In contrast, the
State of Idaho (Department of Parks and Recreation), The Trumpeter Swan Society
(TTSS), The Friends of Animals (FOA), Schubert and Associates (on behalf of the Fund
for Animals (FFA), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and the
Biodiversity Legal Foundation (BLF)), the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Public
Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Utah Environmental Congress, the
Friends of the West, the Idaho Conservation League, the Salish and Kootenai Tribes,
and 143 individuals raised a number of issues that they felt warranted more restrictive,
or elimination of, swan hunting opportunities in the Pacific Flyway. Comments were
received from Yellowstone National Park, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Wildlife
Management Institute that did not recommend a specific alternative, but did raise
several points or issues that were considered by the Service. The following are the
Service responses to the specific points raised both in support of additional hunting
opportunity and those who recommended either further restrictions or elimination of
swan hunting opportunities in the Pacific Flyway and to those who did not recommend a
specific alternative.
Comments generally opposed to swan hunting and/or continuation of swan
hunting seasons allowing the take of Trumpeter swans.
A number of comments were received that would be categorized as opposed to swan
hunting in general, or more specifically opposed to allowing the legal take of Trumpeter
swans. These comments are addressed as follows:
As previously stated, the Service supports Tundra swan hunting where and when their
population status warrants such activity and Flyway management plans (including
harvest management guidelines) have been developed to ensure the long term welfare
of these populations. The continued growth of the western population of Tundra swans
during the past several decades supports the Service position that harvest and
population maintenance and enhancement are not inconsistent. The Service will
continue to authorize and support Tundra swan hunting seasons that meet these
guidelines.
Many comments referred to Trumpeter swans as either endangered or a threatened
species and use this status as the basis for recommending that no harvest of Trumpeter
swans be allowed. Trumpeter swans are not, nor have they ever been, listed as either
a threatened or endangered species. The three presently recognized populations
continue to grow steadily and their geographic range continues to expand under
cooperative programs conducted throughout North America to restore this species to it’s
historic range (Fig. 1). These statements regarding status are not intended to imply that
the Service considers Trumpeter swan restoration efforts complete. The Service will
continue to actively promote efforts to increase Trumpeter swan numbers throughout
North America and to work to establish new migratory Trumpeter swan populations
when possible. For example the Service has funded the propagation of approximately
40 cygnets for release in the Tristate area in the near future. The Service would not
concur with the position that all harvest of this species should be precluded based on
their present population status, but certainly intends to enforce strict limits on the take of
Trumpeter swans in Tundra swan seasons to ensure continued growth and expansion
of Trumpeter swans. The Service will address the issue of the petition for listing
Trumpeter swans nesting within the Tristate area of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming as a
distinct population segment separately below.
- 24 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
As Trumpeter swan restoration efforts continue, additional overlap between the two
species in areas open to Tundra swan hunting can reasonably be expected. The
Service does not believe that the occasional harvest of a Trumpeter swan in an existing
Tundra swan season should preclude such seasons since such harvest would have
very little impact on the health or population status of the population. Additionally, the
Service does not propose to establish any hunting seasons specifically for Trumpeter
swans anywhere in the United States. Rather, the Service will require monitoring that is
sufficient to determine specific locations where and when any harvest of Trumpeter
swans might occur in Tundra swan seasons, and to adjust Tundra swan seasons,
where necessary, to protect Trumpeter swan populations, but not individuals. Although
several comments suggest that the burden for protecting Trumpeter swans in Tundra
swan seasons should be placed on individual hunters, the Service does not feel such an
approach is either reasonable, feasible or necessary. Differentiating Tundra and
Trumpeter swans in the field has been described by Patten and Heindel (1994) as
“perhaps the most underrated field identification problem in North America”. The
Service does not feel regulations requiring hunters to make such judgements under field
conditions are likely to be effective. However, the Service strongly supports and
encourages hunter education efforts to improve hunter identification and to reduce
unintentional Trumpeter swan harvest. Likewise, the Service does not believe that
hunters should be held liable for the unintentional harvest of a Trumpeter swan. The
Service believes that required harvest monitoring programs, establishment of limited
quotas on Trumpeter swan harvest and Tundra swan hunting season adjustments can
provide sufficient protection to expanding Trumpeter swan populations while
maintaining traditional Tundra swan hunting opportunities. As previously stated by the
Service, where conflicts arise, the Service will examine and deal with such situations on
a case by case basis.
TTSS comments address most of the concerns raised by organizations and individuals
who expressed opposition to the implementation of the preferred alternative based on
factors other than a general opposition to swan hunting and/or the legal take of
Trumpeter swans. The letter submitted in response to the draft EA by TTSS makes 10
statements and then raises some specific points with regard to information presented in
the EA. The Service renumbered and combined these comments and offers the
following response:
1. TTSS States: “We strongly support the goal and objectives of the 1998 Pacific
Flyway Plan for RMP Trumpeter Swans. However, we are deeply concerned that
the Service and Pacific Flyway do not yet have a program in place to achieve
those objectives and reduce RMP vulnerability. We are hopeful that the
upcoming Implementation Plan process will lead to effective actions and intend to
contribute to that effort.”
The Service also supports the goals and objectives 1998 Pacific Flyway Management
plan. The Service has provided financial, administrative and personnel resources
directed at achieving these goals for the past several decades. Additionally, many other
Pacific Flyway States and affected government agencies (both Federal and State) have
contributed substantially toward achieving these goals. The Service appreciates the
contributions of private individuals and other non-governmental organizations, such as
TTSS, to working toward these goals as well. The Service notes that progress toward
population objectives has been substantial, although not uniform throughout the range
of the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter swans. The Service additionally notes
- 25 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
that this plan does establish goals and objectives for the Tristate area and supports the
maintenance and enhancement of the breeding distribution of Trumpeter swans in both
the Tristate and throughout the range of the currently recognized Rocky Mountain
Population of Trumpeter swans. However, as described in the draft EA and several
previous documents, efforts to achieve winter distributional objectives have not been as
successful, despite considerable expenditures and intensive attempts to achieve these
goals. The Service is contributing to the development of a new planning effort, in
conjunction with its State, other Federal Agency, and private partners to determine how
best to proceed to achieve these goals. Like TTSS, the Service is hopeful that the
ongoing Implementation Plan process will lead to implementation of effective actions
and some efforts are already underway.
2. TTSS states: “The winter vulnerability of the entire RMP has been described in
numerous Service and Flyway reports, including the current Pacific Flyway RMP
Management Plan. While the increase of Canadian trumpeters during recent
mild winters is most welcome, their increasing concentration in high-risk habitat
in eastern Idaho has compounded their vulnerability. Last year’s surveys
confirmed that virtually all (over 3,600) Canadian and Tristate trumpeters are
stacking up in the Tristate wintering area. The seriousness of the situation was
well described by Service Deputy Director Paul Schmidt during our TTSS
Conference in 1999 when he stated “Despite the promising increase in RMP
trumpeters, until we restore their migrations and help them return to more
suitable wintering areas, their recovery will remain questionable.” This coming
winter, the vulnerability of the RMP will be unusually great, due to the worst
regional drought since the1920s and the near total destruction of aquatic
vegetation last winter at Harriman State Park.”
The Service is concerned about and supportive of efforts to improve the wintering
distribution of RMP Trumpeter swans. The Service provides a discussion of this issue
in the EA (pg. 12). In essence, there is no disagreement about the desirability of
improving the winter distribution of RMP Trumpeter swans. The reference to potential
impacts of the current drought situation and the habitat conditions at Harriman State
Park are not unlike comments made last year to the Service’s proposed regulations and
is discussed in the EA as well (pg. 12). With regard to the potential impact of the
preferred alternative on the winter distribution problem, the Service re-iterates its
assessment from the draft EA below.
Estimated Harvest impacts: Distribution: The restricted winter distribution of RMP
Trumpeter swans continues, despite more than a decade of management actions
intended to alter this situation. The fact that this problem has existed for more than a
decade, that the population has continued to grow, and that no additional losses
specifically attributable to severe winter weather conditions suggests to the Service that
the threat to the population from the current winter distribution is perhaps overstated by
some. This is not intended to suggest that the Service views the current winter
distribution as desirable, nor that the Service is unaware that winter conditions have
perhaps been more favorable than those historically experienced in this region.
Regardless, the RMP has more than doubled in size since the 1989 winter die-off
(Caithamer 2001) and should now be much better able to withstand winter losses
without the threat of adverse impacts to the long-term welfare of the population as a
whole. We would assume such losses would be distributed proportionally between the
various components and thus winter losses of the magnitude that occurred in 1989
- 26 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
should be easily withstood by the population, and without jeopardy to the population as
a whole or any identified component of the population.
At present, the Service is not aware of any effective methodology that will dramatically
alter this winter distribution and notes that this problem is fairly common in waterfowl
management. However, limited progress has been made toward improving the winter
distribution (Bouffard 2000). The problem of wintering concentrations of both geese and
swans either establishing or moving their wintering distribution further north is well
documented. To date, it has proven beyond the capacity of managers to dramatically
alter the winter distributions of waterfowl, despite several intensive and expensive
efforts (Rusch et al. 1985; Shea and Drewien 1999). Therefore, the Service finds the
limited changes in distribution that have been achieved to date encouraging, and
suggests that perhaps such smaller, incremental improvements are really what is
reasonable for management agencies to achieve. The Service has outlined it’s plan for
continuing efforts to achieve both status and distribution objectives (Appendix A) and is
working with other partners to implement similar actions on lands not directly controlled
by the Service. The Service feels such efforts can lead to further improvements and
serve as mitigation for any limited negative impacts caused by maintaining an active
Tundra swan hunting program.
The Service notes that exact knowledge of historical distributions and migration
pathways is based on very limited evidence. The existing evidence is insufficient to
determine if migration through the Great Salt Lake Basin was the only, or even the
major migration pathway for Trumpeter swans associated with this area. There is little
evidence that the Bear River area has ever been an important migration and/or
wintering area for Trumpeter swans, and despite contentions to the contrary, the
Service is aware of only a few confirmed records that document Trumpeter swans in
this area throughout history. The Service would note that limited early banding of RMP
Trumpeter swans near Grand Prairie, Alberta established the connection between that
area and those Trumpeter swans wintering in the Tristate area, and also reported a
limited number of recoveries from Nebraska, suggesting a more easterly migration path
southward from the Tristate area (Mackay 1957). The Service also believes that
migration southward through the Great Salt Lake Basin and perhaps westward following
the Snake and then Columbia Rivers may well represent other historical migration
routes. Further, the Service notes that the only current sustained southerly migration of
RMP Trumpeter swans follows the Green River drainage through Wyoming and eastern
Utah and is the direct result of active management efforts by the State of Wyoming (Bill
Long, WY Game and Fish, pers. comm.). Therefore, the Service’s conclusion is that a
variety of potential southerly migration strategies through various areas are possible,
and that the best possibilities for improving the winter distribution of RMP Trumpeter
swans is further development and expansion of the approach used in Wyoming.
The issue that has been raised by some in discussions on the general impact of the
Utah swan season, is that it is not the expected population effect of any harvest that is a
matter of concern, but rather the potential impact of that limited harvest on redistribution
efforts. Some have suggested that because Tundra swans stage at and migrate
through Utah that this is the only reasonable avenue open to Trumpeter swans,
currently concentrated north of this general area, however, as discussed above the
Service does not subscribe to this view. Additionally, some have suggested that
because those Trumpeter swans in Utah represent Trumpeter swans with a more
desirable migration pattern, they should be protected from harvest at all cost.
- 27 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
It is the latter part of this contention that the Service feels is unjustified by the available
data and the status of RMP Trumpeter swans (both in general and for all geographic
components). There is no evidence, of which the Service is currently aware, to support
the contention that the small numbers of Trumpeter swans being harvested in the Great
Salt Lake Basin are serving as an impediment to a significant alteration in the migration
patterns of RMP Trumpeter swans. The Service notes that RMP Trumpeter swans
migrate through and are known to be present at Freezeout Lake in Montana, and
despite the occasional harvest of some individual Trumpeter swans, there has been no
discernable impact on either their migratory behavior or population status of Trumpeter
swans. The Service opinion is that simply stopping the limited harvest in Utah will have
little or no effect on the winter distribution of RMP Trumpeter swans, unless or until
active management efforts lead to a general increase in the number of Trumpeter
swans following this route. If such larger movements should happen, the Service is
confident that the quota approach in existence will provide sufficient protection for
dispersing swans to avoid undue adverse impacts at either the general population or
any geographic component level (see also EA pgs. 42-45).
The Service recognizes that there is a difference of opinion with regard to this particular
issue and would like to address a number of the contentions raised by those advocating
this view. The Service gives little credence to the contention that loss of a few
individual Trumpeter swans in Tundra swan seasons in Utah poses any threat to
redistribution efforts. Regardless, in acknowledgment of those parties who believe
differently, the Service imposed additional restrictions on the general swan season in
Utah in 2000. These restrictions closed that portion of Utah to all swan hunting where
50% (7) of Trumpeter swans had been killed in the 5-year experimental swan season.
In contrast BRMBR accounted for 21% (3) of the reported harvest during this period
(Data supplied by the State of Utah). The additional restrictions also reduced the total
number of swan hunting permits allocated to Utah from 2,750 to 2,000 and reduced the
Trumpeter swan quota from 15 to 10 for the State. This reduction in quota was in
recognition of the known difficulty in adjusting the number of swans checked for those
wounded and lost, and for non-reporting by hunters. The questionnaire survey
conducted after the close of the hunting season is used adjust for these two factors (see
point 5 below). As stated previously, the Service feels that the information gained to
date regarding the distribution of Trumpeter swans harvested in Utah suggests that
Trumpeter swans were more likely to be encountered north of the BRMBR and
associated with smaller wetland areas. The Service will continue to monitor the
distribution of the swan harvest, in addition to the actual number of swans harvested in
Utah.
3. TTSS states: “Our foremost concern is to see effective actions taken to increase
the winter distribution of the Canadian and Tristate trumpeters, and to reduce
their high vulnerability. In 1995, The Trumpeter Swan Society’s decision not to
oppose experimental harvest of trumpeters was based solely on implementation
of the entire proposed package of actions to benefit RMP winter range expansion
that was presented to the public. TTSS agreed to remove hunter liability by
legalizing quota harvest of trumpeters provided trumpeters were translocated into
swan hunt areas south of the Tristate area. Although the hunt was implemented
in 1995-2001, the other portions of the package to encourage the southward
expansion of the RMP and improve security at Bear River Refuge were not.
Despite implementation of the general hunt experiment, efforts to increase use of
more southerly winter habitat have been stalled since 1997. To date, the generic
swan hunting season has not benefitted southward expansion of the RMP, as
was the original premise.”
- 28 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
The Service is concerned about all aspects of the population health and welfare of the
Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter swans and does not rank the winter
distribution in advance of numeric status, for example. The Service and cooperators did
attempt a number of efforts to alter the winter distribution of this population (see
discussion to previous point), unfortunately these efforts met with only limited success
as discussed throughout the draft EA. These actions did include translocations to Bear
River Refuge, both during and after the swan hunting season. Although TTSS states
that their support of the generic swan season was based solely on the desire to address
the winter distribution issue, the Service and States also supported this approach for
both this aspect and as a practical way to address the hunter liability issue and as a
means to better monitor and control the harvest of Trumpeter swans in existing Tundra
swan seasons in the Pacific Flyway. As stated in the draft EA, as Trumpeter swan
populations continue to grow and expand throughout their range, this issue is expected
to only increase over time and does require development of a practical and feasible
approach for future harvest management of Tundra swan seasons. The Service does
believe that this approach has been successful in addressing the liability and monitoring
aspect, but would agree, and also states in the EA that harvest management alone will
not solve the winter distribution situation of the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter
swans.
4. TTSS states: Future RMP management strategies must recognize that to build
substantial migrations out of eastern Idaho, it is critical to either protect the
limited numbers of trumpeters that are currently migrating further south, or
augment their numbers and provide adequate feeding areas and security so they
can establish repeated use of new areas. Trumpeter Swan migration routes
develop slowly. When the number of southward migrants is small, harvest of
only a few pioneering birds each year can impede development of new traditions
for southward winter expansion.
The Service supports the concept that development and enhancement of migratory
traditions away from the current winter concentration area in southeastern Idaho are a
key component of both existing and future management plans for RMP Trumpeter
swans. The Service has also endorsed the concept of augmentation of the existing
breeding component of the RMP in the Tristate area in such a fashion as to encourage
the development of such migratory patterns and is currently supporting such efforts.
The Service believes that the example program in the Green River Drainage
implemented by the State of Wyoming is an approach that holds a promise for some
success in this regard. The Service is committed to working with it’s partner agencies
and private interests to include this approach in the broader implementation plan
currently in development. The harvest of small numbers of Trumpeter swans in existing
swan hunting seasons is not viewed by the Service as detrimental to such efforts. The
Service holds this view because of the expected low numeric impact (EA pgs. 42-45)
and lack of evidence that small losses can be reasonably expected to alter migratory
behavior (EA pg. 30).
5. TTSS states: “We are still concerned about monitoring procedures to ensure that
trumpeter harvest can be accurately documented and hunting can be closed
promptly when quotas are met. Information received recently from the Service
explained that: 1) There was no written Service Plan for monitoring and
enforcement of the harvest quota for trumpeters. 2) Monitoring methods were left
up to the states with no specific Service requirements or oversight, 3) One
- 29 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
checkstation was only run on parts of some days (“peak hunting hours”) at Bear
River Refuge, and 4) The 1932 Secretary’s Regulation that previously required
all hunters to check all birds harvested on the Refuge was changed
“administratively” in 1995, coincident with the initial trumpeter quota harvest
experiment, without disclosure in the 1995 swan hunt EA.”
Further, with regard to this issue, TTSS states: “The Service has not yet
explained, in this Draft EA or elsewhere, if any mandatory checkstations were
conducted anywhere else in Utah and Nevada during the general swan hunt or
what other methods were used to assure credible trumpeter harvest data in the
quota hunt areas. It has become obvious, however, that mandatory check
stations have only been rarely and, at best, intermittently implemented and well
over 2,000 swans have been shot without determination of species since 1995
(Table 1). The lack of mandatory checkstations throughout the general hunt has
been in marked contrast to Service policy in quota management for other species
and ignores the clear guidance provided by the Service when the initial
experiment was authorized. In the 1995 Federal Register summary, the Service
pointedly instructed the swan hunt states that “If monitoring costs are prohibitive,
consideration should be given to either increasing permit fees or having fewer
hunt days in a week so as to reduce costs of operating check stations as is
commonly done in several states that conduct controlled goose or crane hunts.”
Nevertheless, mandatory checkstations, with a prompt check requirement and
enforcement were not implemented. As a consequence, the Service’s Trumpeter
Swan harvest data lack credibility and the Draft EA cannot meaningfully evaluate
the impact of harvest on the pioneering trumpeters that are attempting to migrate
southward.”
The Service takes strong exception to the contention that the existing harvest data
provided in the Draft EA lacks credibility or that the Service cannot meaningfully
evaluate the impact of Trumpeter swan harvest. The Service manages all waterfowl
cooperatively with States and other jurisdictions that share legislative mandates for the
management of waterfowl. In establishing Federal Frameworks, the Service does also
occasionally establish guidelines for monitoring of such seasons as it has done in this
case . These guidelines have been clearly stated in both previous Environmental
Assessments of this issue and in Federal Regulations (FR Vol. 65, No. 188,
Wednesday, September 27, 2000:58152-58157). Individual refuge operations and
procedures are the purview of the refuge and are not addressed in Federal
Frameworks. All refuges develop and implement hunting regulations for their specific
areas based on a separate Federal rule-making process, that is open to public comment
and review. These regulations are consistent with or more restrictive than State
regulations. The Service generally defers to States, but in some cases works closely
with them, on implementation. This is done in recognition that States have the best
local knowledge and logistical capability to accomplish these ends. In this case, the
Service has evaluated the harvest data provided by the States and it’s assessment is
that reasonable diligence has been employed to this point, and that the data provided
by the States is adequate to (a) monitor the take of Trumpeter swans during the season
and (b) provide sufficient information to allow reasonable corrections for harvest losses
that are not reported. The Service believes TTSS analysis is flawed for the following
reasons. First, TTSS includes swans believed wounded and lost in their estimates of
unreported swans. By definition, these swans are not retrieved and thus could not be
checked by any known means. Wounding loss is an unfortunate reality of allowing
hunting and the Service and State waterfowl managers have always taken this factor
- 30 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
into account by expanding known losses by a factor for estimated wounding loss. Such
expansions are estimates and the EA reports and uses this expansion in it’s
assessment of harvest. Second, TTSS refers to the difference between known checked
birds and estimated (via a questionnaire survey) harvested birds as additional
unchecked swans. Again, the Service believes that this estimate is biased high due to
well documented deficiencies in questionnaire survey to estimate harvest (e.g. Rupp et
al. 2000, Taylor et al. 2000, Cada 1983). In essence, unsuccessful hunters, those that
fail to harvest a swan, are less likely to respond to a questionnaire survey, this leads to
inflated estimates of actual harvest. The Service notes that the comment letters from
the Pacific Flyway Council and the State of Utah provide actual data documenting this
effect in this case and that both the Pacific and Central Flyways, as well as most
individual States, recommended that further conditions on harvest monitoring not be
imposed in those Pacific Flyway States as current information was adequate for
management purposes.
The positions of the parties both for and against further Federal mandates for increased
harvest monitoring have been carefully considered by the Service. Based primarily on
the issue of whether or not current monitoring could act quickly to close the season
should the quota in Utah be reached (something that the above review supports has not
happened to date), coupled with the assessment below concluding that this is really
only an issue in Utah, the Service has concluded that further requirements for swan
harvest monitoring in Utah should be imposed, at least for the duration of the
experimental period. Therefore, the Service will require Utah to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Service that agrees with the following
further stipulations with regard to swan harvest monitoring in Utah: (1) Swans must be
physically checked within seventy-two hours of harvest, (2) A commitment to enforce
this regulation must be made by the State of Utah, (3) Utah hunters must hunt with their
permit in their possession, and said permit must be validated with time and place swan
is killed prior to removing the swan from the field, (4) Adequate State provisions must
be in place to effect a prompt season closure should the quota be reached, and (5) at a
minimum, a weekly summary of swan harvests will be made to the Service and the
Service will be immediately notified should the harvest quota be reached. The Service
will not authorize a swan hunting season in Utah without such an MOU.
The Service does state explicitly that it does not intend to require same day checks of
swans in Utah in this MOU. The Service notes that no system can reasonably be
considered entirely without error and the expectation that we can account for every
swan harvested every day is not a feasible expectation. However, the Service does
agree that a high level of real-time accountability is required of the harvest monitoring
system in Utah. The Service assessment based on the above discussion is in general
concurrence with the comments submitted by the State of Utah who stated that
approximately 85-90% compliance with reporting requirements is currently being
achieved. In addition there are procedures in place that allow a reasonable and likely
conservative estimate of non-reported harvest and additionally provide annual estimates
of wounding loss. Mandating same-day check-stations be operated at considerable
cost can really be expected to gain at best only 10-15% in additional accountability.
The Service reduction in Utah’s quota from 15 to 10 more than compensates for any
potential of this small level of non-reporting.
6. TTSS states: “Our Board believes that the fundamental thrust of future RMP
management efforts should be to expand fall/winter distribution of Trumpeter
Swans (both Tristate and Canadian) directly south from eastern Idaho into
- 31 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
northern Utah, and possibly beyond. As the EA suggests, there are other
possible routes, but these have been tried for a decade with little success.
Agencies have spent great effort and expense attempting to rebuild a secure
RMP winter distribution to less suitable habitats, and in less logical directions
than directly south into Utah, in order to reduce possible conflicts with Tundra
Swan hunting.”
Further TTSS continues: “Successful use of new wintering areas has only
occurred at the two release sites in Idaho and Wyoming that lie directly south of
the Tristate area, where carrying capacity was unfortunately quite limited. Winter
range expansion efforts should now progress further south and help trumpeters
establish secure use of Bear River Refuge and adjacent areas without further
delay. Bear River Refuge’s Comprehensive Management Plan specifically says
“In cooperation with the State of Utah and the Pacific Flyway Council, the Refuge
will serve as a translocation site for migrating trumpeter swans. Activities aimed
at moving Trumpeter Swans onto the Refuge will be done under an approved
and coordinated plan.” Bear River Refuge should be a cornerstone of any
program to expand the winter distribution of the Trumpeter Swans and active
involvement of this Refuge should proceed without further delay. We believe
swan hunting has had a very significant negative impact on RMP range
expansion efforts by preventing the effective use of this National Wildlife Refuge.”
TTSS concludes their discussion of the aspect with: “We emphasize the
importance of Bear River Refuge because of the Service’s management
authority, the Refuge’s geographical proximity directly south of current trumpeter
wintering areas, and its potential to provide secure and abundant sago
pondweed habitat during fall migration and part or all of winter. Once the swan
hunt ends in December south of the Refuge, migrant trumpeters could leave the
Refuge in relative safety and disperse within Utah or beyond. Although the Draft
EA is correct that records of historic trumpeter use at Bear River Refuge are
sparse, trumpeter use has been documented from bones in Indian camps and
live sightings, and early records were more frequent at Bear River than in any
other portion of the Intermountain West outside the Tristate area. If Trumpeters
Swans cannot be assisted to reestablish secure use of excellent historic habitat
on a National Wildlife Refuge, a mere 100 miles south of current wintering sites,
there is little chance that they will have better success in more distant habitats
where the Service lacks the ability to provide abundant food and security.”
The Service has stated above it’s concurrence with the concept of expanding the winter
distribution of RMP Trumpeter swans. The Service, however, views the focus on a
particular place and/or direction as likely beyond the ability of managers to dictate. As
the Service indicates in the draft EA, we know of no way to make these birds move,
much less in a particular direction or to a specific place. We also contend that we have
made considerable provisions, that should they move to Utah, they will have adequate
access to sanctuary by closing the bulk of the State of Utah to all swan hunting and by
providing extensive areas on Bear River Refuge that are closed to all hunting. The
Service notes that the Central and Pacific Flyway Councils and several individual States
have commented that the Service has gone too far to provide sanctuary for birds that
show little inclination to migrate into this area. The Service would be very pleased to
have significant numbers of Trumpeter swans migrate to Bear River Refuge. However,
to date, the majority of Trumpeter swans remain in southeastern Idaho in winter. The
Service also notes the previous discussion regarding where in Utah Trumpeter swans
- 32 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
are known to have been harvested. The Service continues to believe closing BRMBR is
not warranted based on the limited harvest data available. The Service again notes the
only successful migratory group of Trumpeter swans outside the Tristate area is the
result of the State of Wyoming’s introduction efforts. The Service re-iterates its position
that this approach is where the focus of future range expansion and population
enhancement efforts should be.
7. TTSS states: “Our Board is also concerned that the Draft EA fails to recognize
the discreteness and biological importance of the Tristate nesting population.
The Service has repeatedly emphasized that the RMP is a management-administrative
entity, not a biological population. We concur. Use of this
convenient administrative label, however, does not eliminate the need to also
recognize biological populations, particularly when they face serious problems.
Despite past casual use of names, the Tristate nesting trumpeters have been
surveyed, modeled, and managed as a discrete biological population since their
discovery over 80 years ago. Despite over 50 years of banding data, there is no
evidence of successful interbreeding with the Canadian trumpeters that also
winter in the Tristate area. The Tristate trumpeters are the only native nesting
population in the lower 48 states that escaped extirpation and today they are the
only viable nesting population in the western U.S. Outside of the Tristate region,
there were only an additional 9 scattered nesting pairs in the entire western U.S.
last year. Genetic studies during the 1990s by White and Marsolais (McMaster
University, Ontario) found statistically significant genetic differences between the
Tristate and Western Canadian trumpeters, which the EA does not mention.
These genetic concerns were in part responsible for the State of Wyoming’s
insistence that the Tristate stock not be mixed with other stocks in their captive
rearing facilities. While we hope that listing of the Tristate Population under the
distinct population segment criteria of the ESA will not be necessary, we urge the
Service to recognize the importance of this biological population and
aggressively address the threats to its security. Referring to this biological
population as a mere “flock” is inappropriate and obscures its discreteness and
importance.”
The Service addresses the issue of the petition to list a segment of the currently
recognized Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter swans as a distinct population
segment (EA pg. 3). The Service cannot comment on this issue further at this point.
However, the Service would note that whether or not this petition is found to be
warranted, it does not alter the fact that the winter distribution problem is common to all
components of the Rocky Mountain Trumpeter Swan Population (excepting those
nesting in Oregon and Nevada). Therefore, management needs and approaches to the
winter situation will remain essentially unchanged.
8. TTSS further states: However, we have found it very difficult to respond to this
Draft EA because of substantial omissions of important data and numerous
errors. These flaws confuse the discussion, lead to erroneous conclusions, and
make meaningful comment difficult. To convey some sense of the magnitude of
these problems, we cite some examples:
The Service appreciates the attention to detail given the draft EA in TTSS review. A
number of more specific points are offered in addition to the more general comments
addressed above. With regard to the more specific points, TTSS refers to ���substantial
- 33 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
omissions and numerous errors” in the draft. The Service response to this contention is
as follows:
8. a. TTSS contends that data from the 2000-2001 hunting season is missing.
The Service simply notes that all data available at the time the draft was prepared are
presented in the draft. Since that time, the Service has received the additional data from
Montana, Utah, and Nevada. This data documents a known harvest of four Trumpeter
swans during the 2000-2001 hunting season, three in Montana and one in Utah (Tables
1a-1d, 2).
8. b. TTSS contends that the Service did not disclose that it has not required
mandatory check stations.
This point has been previously addressed, see discussion of point 5 of TTSS above.
8. c. TTSS contends that there are errors in the population figures, the major reason
for producing the updated draft. TTSS further refers to confusion regarding
terminology for various population components within the Rocky Mountain
Population of Trumpeter swans.
The Service strongly disagrees with the contention that it has inaccurately portrayed
population data or trends (further discussion of this point under 8. d.). However, the
Service does acknowledge difficulties regarding terminology throughout this entire
process and believes that some contentions regarding population status are a function
of this, rather than any disagreement about actual survey results. In an effort to clarify
this aspect of the discussion, the Service adopted the terminology and definitions
originally presented in the 1998 Pacific Flyway Management Plan (EA pg.10). In
addition we have endeavored to clarify any points identified during the comment period
in the final document.
8. d. TTSS contends that RMP components and trends are inaccurately described.
The Service strongly disagrees with this contention. The 2000 survey (Caithamer 2001)
numbers are not in dispute. The Survey clearly shows the continuing exponential
growth of the Rocky Mountain Population of Trumpeter Swans and was contained by
reference in the draft. As for the various components, the Service believes that TTSS
comments are misleading and based on an arbitrary comparison of time periods that
are not biologically meaningful in light of the question addressed by this EA, and the
potential role of limited take of Trumpeter swans in Tundra swan seasons. The trend in
numbers for this component is accurately presented in the EA (pg. 11), Trumpeter swan
numbers declined during the winter of 1992/93 and have been recovering since,
although they have not reached the levels present during the active winter feeding
program. The Service does not believe that comparison to the 1968-85 period, when
there was active winter feeding and prior to other active management efforts designed
to alter the winter distribution, are meaningful in light of the fact that legal harvest of
Trumpeter swans did not begin until 1995. The Service concludes that there is a
significant possibility that winter habitat was substantially changed by discontinuation of
the feeding program and other management activities. The count of this component of
the RMP increased from 364 (1995) prior to the first experimental period in which the
take of Trumpeter swans was allowed to 426 (2000) in the most recent 5-year survey.
- 34 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
This error, is really nothing more than a difference of opinion between the Service
assessment and what TTSS believes is a meaningful time period for comparison.
There is an error in one sentence in the draft EA on page 11. The sentence should
read: “Similarly, management activities undertaken in recent years apparently have not
had the same impact on all components of this population.” The Service has corrected
this sentence and notes that the meaning should have been clear when the passage
was taken in context of the additional discussion on page 11.
8. e. TTSS contends that data and conclusions regarding past winter mortality are
incorrect.
The Service again feels that this contention is taken out of context from the draft. The
statement regarding winter mortality (EA pg. 5, Appendix B) made by the Service is:
“The fact that this problem has existed for more than a decade, that the population has
continued to grow, and that no additional losses specifically attributable to severe winter
weather conditions...”. The Service stands behind this statement, and to our knowledge
there were no appreciable numbers of dead swans found at HSP after the winter of
1989, although we acknowledge that some birds are found dead almost every year.
The Service also notes and discusses the apparent loss of substantial numbers of
swans associated with the core Tristate area during the winter of 1992/93. The cause
of this apparent mortality is unknown and cannot be attributed to severe winter weather
conditions to our knowledge. The Service does not believe that conjecture as to the
specific cause(s) of this decline is warranted.
8. f. TTSS contends that conclusions regarding attainment of Flyway Management
Plan objectives are incorrect.
There is some merit to this contention by TTSS, however, the Service would again note
the following. The Service took as the basis for this comparison the figures provided in
a Table on page 13 of the Pacific Flyway Management Plan entitled “1997 Population
levels and short-term (2002) objectives”. This Table does not include the modifier
minimum. However, the Service acknowledges 2 points, the first that there is verbiage
on page 12 related to numbers of nesting pairs stating: “Objective 2 is to rebuild U.S.
breeding flocks by year 2002 to at least 131 nesting pairs”, and additionally, there is a
footnote on the Table that does refer to limiting the population plan objectives labeled as
adults and subadults to white birds. The Service provided figures that included young of
the year in the draft (including them as subadults) and TTSS is correct that by this
criteria of the plan as defined in the Table footnote, the number should be 324 and the
appropriate percentage 68% of objective (324/480). The Service appreciates the
attention to detail paid by TTSS, but hopes that this focus does not detract from the
main point intended by the Service in this section, that there is a finite limit to what
population growth can be reasonably expected in this area and that numbers of
Trumpeter swans have increased in both the RMP and the Tristate breeding component
of this population during the period of the experimental hunt allowing the legal take of
Trumpeter swans. TTSS acknowledged this continued growth in it’s comment, although
they caution this acknowledgment by qualifying statements regarding recent years as
more favorable than average for recruitment. The Service would also emphasize the
point that population growth is most likely influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to
hunting programs. Therefore, the Service fully expects fluctuations in population growth
over time caused by such things as local habitat and weather conditions. The Service’s
point here is that during the period in which a limited take was allowed, growth did
- 35 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
occur, supporting the Service’s position that limited harvest is not inconsistent with
population growth.
9. TTSS contends that although the Draft EA states that “constraints imposed upon
swan hunting seasons described in the Supplemental Environmental
Assessment on this issue (Trost et al. 2000) would be continued”, later
statements contradict this. The Draft EA actually increases the period a hunter
has to check a swan (Utah had been allowing up to 72 hours, the Draft EA allows
up to 5 calendar days), and lengthens the season in Nevada by about a week.
Such modifications should have been made clear to the public.
The Service notes that: (1) the reporting time of 72 hours was one established by Utah,
not the Federal regulation last year and (2) the regulations proposed for Nevada are
intended to be the same as last year, as presented in the Table comparing alternatives.
The closing date restriction in the text has been corrected to the first Sunday following
January 1st in Nevada. The Service will formalize a specific MOU with the State of
Utah establishing the necessary monitoring requirements and procedures for season
closure should the Trumpeter swan quota be reached as described above.
10. In conclusion, TTSS makes two recommendations: (1) to withdraw from the
current EA process and to then implement a variation on Alternative 2, return to a
Tundra swan only hunt, however, with numerous additional conditions that were
not part of the hunt as it was conducted historically, or (2) add a new alternative
to the EA process for consideration (and selection as the preferred alternative),
the new alternative being essentially the same as is recommended in the first
alternative by TTSS.
The Service has no basis on which to withdraw from the current EA process and
continue to offer hunting seasons on Tundra and/or Trumpeter swans in the Pacific
Flyway and believes that this process has served well to provide sufficient alternatives
for future management of these seasons. The Service does not see the offered
alternative as providing any appreciable new courses of action to the existing
alternatives. Additionally, inclusion of a new alternative, essentially alternative 2 with
numerous new conditions, seems without merit in light of the recognized identification
problem.
The first issue applicable to the current swan season in the three affected States is
whether a return to Tundra swan only hunting seasons regardless of their structure,
would be of any benefit to either population or distribution concerns for Trumpeter
swans. The Service feels that we must acknowledge the reality that discrimination
between the two species by hunters in the field will never be absolute. The Service has
worked with the States to develop hunter education materials to help reduce the
misidentification problem, and will continue with these efforts. The Service specifically
notes the offer by the State of Utah in their comments to implement a mandatory swan
identification program for all first time swan hunters and will work with Utah to see such
a program is implemented. However, the Service position is that there will always be
some degree of misidentification, and that sound management must acknowledge this
issue and deal with it. Therefore, the Service continues to believe that promulgation of
regulations that it knows will be ineffective is not a reasonable course of action.
Additionally, the Service does not feel that hunters should be held liable for what almost
all biologists agree is an unreasonable expectation that they be able to discriminate
between these two species in hunting situations. The Service would further note the
- 36 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
following points as how it assessed these recommendations by TTSS on a State by
State basis (see also EA pgs. 4-5).
A. TTSS or others offer no reason why the preferred alternative should not be
adopted in Montana. There is no question that some Trumpeter swans are taken
in this season, but the Service position that these individuals are most likely
associated with the expanding segment that breeds in Canada and the hunt area
has no influence on the current winter distribution problem that TTSS identifies
as it’s major concern. Restriction of this season to Tundra swan hunting only
based on possible population impacts to Trumpeter swans or impacts on
Trumpeter swan winter distribution do not seem warranted and have not been
suggested by TTSS or others. Consequently the Service sees nothing in the
comments that suggest alteration of this season is needed at this time.
B. TTSS does suggest that potential harvest of Trumpeter swans in Nevada is a
problem, and the Service interpretation of this position is that this is because any
swans harvested in Nevada would (or could ) be dispersing swans from the
problem winter concentration area and should be protected at all costs to foster
this behavior. However, the Service notes that only one Trumpeter swan is
known to have been harvested in Nevada in 7 years. Additionally, compliance
rates have been extremely high to harvest surveys in Nevada and even
expanded for estimated wounding loss and non-compliance to harvest surveys
the Service must conclude that the number of Trumpeter swans at risk in this
season has been so low that any potential impact seems very remote. This
coupled with the fact that the Service and State of Nevada have introduced
Trumpeter swans to the State and thus these introduced swans are as, if not
more, likely the source of the swan(s) currently being harvested there leads the
Service to conclude that there is simply no evidence that suggests that the
preferred alternative is not the appropriate course of action in Nevada at this
time. In essence the question the Service would ask is: Should the State of
Nevada pay for it’s efforts to help Trumpeter swan restoration by further
restricting or closing it’s swan hunting season ?
C. Finally, the Service considered the situation in Utah. The Service believes that
this State’s hunting season, conducted immediately south of the problem winter
concentration area, is really the core issue in all of comments from groups and
organizations opposed to the Service’s preferred alternative, that do not base
such opposition on a general objection to swan hunting. The Service considered
this question from two aspects: (1) potential population impacts (see following),
and (2) potential impacts on redistribution efforts (see point 2 above).
Estimated Harvest impacts: Numeric: The Service believes that the continued
increase in the RMP of Trumpeter swans is clear evidence that the limited harvest
currently occurring is not a threat to continued growth in this population. During the five-year
period of the first experimental hunt (1995-1999), a total of 32 Trumpeter swans
were known to have been harvested by hunters in Montana, Utah, and Nevada (Table
2, revised to remove Trumpeters estimated from the Central Flyway portion of Montana
as per comments received from Flyway Councils and States). Four additional
Trumpeters are known to have been shot in the Pacific Flyway in the 2000-2001 season
(Table 2) and one was known to have been harvested in Montana in the 1994-1995
season, prior to the implementation of the original experiment. Thus a total of 37
Trumpeter swans are known to have been harvested during the period 1994-95 through
- 37 -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - June 15, 2001
2000-2001 (7 years). Expanding this number for both noncompliance (non-reporting)
and wounding loss, suggests that as many as 49 Trumpeter swans may have been
harvested in the Pacific Flyway (7 per year). Of these, 53% or 26 were estimated to
have been taken in Montana, with the remaining 23 estimated taken in Utah (22) and
Nevada (1).
The Service notes that the segment of the population th