[Federal Register: April 30, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 83)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21298-21306]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ap01-24]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AH79
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2001-02 Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal
Proposals
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter
Service or we) proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for
certain migratory game birds for the 2001-02 hunting season. We
annually prescribe outside limits (frameworks) within which States may
select hunting seasons. We also request proposals from Indian tribes
that wish to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations on
Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. Migratory game bird
hunting seasons provide hunting opportunities for recreation and
sustenance; aid Federal, State, and tribal governments in the
management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels
compatible with migratory bird population status and habitat
conditions.
DATES: You must submit comments for proposed early-season
frameworks by July 30, 2001, and for proposed late-season frameworks by
September 7, 2001. Tribes should submit proposals and related comments
by June 1, 2001.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the proposals to the Chief,
Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20240. All comments received, including names and
addresses, will become part of the public record. You may inspect
comments during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington Square
Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel at: Division of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240,
(703) 358-1714.
[[Page 21299]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Overview
Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in
conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for
the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to determine when ``hunting, taking, capture, killing,
possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or
export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest or egg'' of migratory game
birds can take place and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These
regulations must be written based on ``the zones of temperature and the
distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and
lines of migratory flight of such birds'' and must be updated annually.
This responsibility has been delegated to the Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) of the Department of the Interior as the lead Federal agency
for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States.
The Service develops migratory bird hunting regulations by
establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag
limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. Acknowledging
regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has
administratively divided the nation into four Flyways for the primary
purpose of managing waterfowl and obtaining assistance in the
formulation of these regulations. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi,
Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization
generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that
Flyway. The Flyway Councils also assist in researching and providing
management techniques for Federal, State, and Provincial Governments,
as well as private conservation agencies and the general public.
The migratory bird hunting regulations, located at 50 CFR 20, are
constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative
considerations dictate how long the rulemaking process will last. Most
importantly though, the biological cycle of migratory birds controls
the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the date on which
results are available for consideration. The process includes two
separate regulations-development schedules, based on early-and late-
hunting season regulations. Early seasons pertain to all migratory game
bird species in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands,
migratory game birds other than waterfowl (i.e., dove, woodcock, etc.)
and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada
geese. The early season generally begins prior to October 1. Late
seasons generally start on or after October 1 and include most
waterfowl seasons not already established.
There are basically no differences in the processes for
establishing either early- or late-hunting seasons. For each cycle,
Service biologists gather, analyze, and interpret survey data and
provide this information to all those involved in the process through a
series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils
and other interested parties. Because the Service is required to take
abundance of migratory birds and other factors into consideration, the
Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in
conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the Canadian Wildlife
Service, and State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies. Factors
such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual
breeding effort, the condition of breeding, wintering habitat, the
number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest are considered to
determine the appropriate frameworks for each species.
After frameworks, or outside limits, are established for season
lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting,
migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of State
and Federal governments. The Service works together with the States by
allowing them certain authority to regulate hunting of migratory birds.
After Service establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons,
the States may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory
options for the hunting seasons. States may be more conservative in
their selections than the Federal frameworks but never more liberal.
Consolidation of Notices
For administrative purposes, this document consolidates the notice
of intent to establish open migratory bird hunting seasons and the
request for tribal proposals with the preliminary proposals for the
annual hunting regulations-development process. We will publish the
remaining proposed and final rulemaking documents separately. For
inquiries on tribal guidelines and proposals, tribes should contact the
following personnel:
Region 1--Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 N.E.
11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164
Region 2--Jeff Haskins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; (505) 248-7885
Region 3--Steve Wilds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal
Building, One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056;
(612) 713-5432
Region 4--Frank Bowers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century
Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; (404) 679-4000
Region 5--George Haas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate
Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589; (413) 253-8576
Region 6--John Cornely, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, Colorado 80225; (303) 236-
8145
Region 7--Robert Leedy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East
Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; (907) 786-3423
Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons
This notice announces our intent to establish open hunting seasons
and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated groups or
species of migratory game birds for 2001-02 in the contiguous United
States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, under
Sec. Sec. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50
CFR part 20.
For the 2001-02 migratory game bird hunting season, we will propose
regulations for certain designated members of the avian families
Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons);
Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and gallinules);
and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these proposals
under Proposed 2001-02 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations
(Preliminary) in this document. We published definitions of waterfowl
flyways and mourning dove management units, as well as a description of
the data used in and the factors affecting the regulatory process, in
the March 14, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR 9618).
Regulatory Schedule for 2001-02
This document is the first in a series of proposed, supplemental,
and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting
regulations. In supplemental proposed rulemakings, we will make
proposals relating to the harvest of migratory game birds initiated
after this publication is available for public review. Also, we will
publish additional supplemental proposals for public comment in the
Federal Register as population, habitat, harvest, and other
information become available.
[[Page 21300]]
Because of the late dates when certain portions of these data
become available, we anticipate abbreviated comment periods on some
proposals. Special circumstances limit the amount of time we can allow
for public comment on these regulations. Specifically, two
considerations compress the time for the rulemaking process: The need,
on one hand, to establish final rules early enough in the summer to
allow resource agencies to select and publish season dates and bag
limits prior to the beginning of hunting seasons and, on the other
hand, the lack of current status data on most migratory game birds
until later in the summer. Because the regulatory process is strongly
influenced by the times when information is available for
consideration, we divide the regulatory process into two segments:
early seasons and late seasons.
Major steps in the 2001-02 regulatory cycle relating to open public
meetings and Federal Register notifications are illustrated in
the diagram at the end of this proposed rule. All publication dates of
Federal Register documents are target dates.
All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining hunting
frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These
headings are:
1. Ducks
2. Sea Ducks
3. Mergansers
4. Canada Geese
5. White-fronted Geese
6. Brant
7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
8. Swans
9. Sandhill Cranes
10. Coots
11. Moorhens and Gallinules
12. Rails
13. Snipe
14. Woodcock
15. Band-tailed Pigeons
16. Mourning Doves
17. White-winged and White-tipped Doves
18. Alaska
19. Hawaii
20. Puerto Rico
21. Virgin Islands
22. Falconry
23. Other
Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to
numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to
note that we will omit those items requiring no attention and remaining
numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.
Requests for Tribal Proposals
Background
Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed
guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50
FR 23467) to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations on
Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and
ceded lands. We developed these guidelines in response to tribal
requests for our recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for
some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both
tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. The
guidelines include possibilities for:
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members,
with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place
within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those
selected by the surrounding State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of
usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily
bag and possession limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands,
outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added
flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines
must be consistent with the annual March 10 to September 1 closed
season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and
Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds
(Convention). The guidelines are capable of application to those tribes
that have reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations
(including off-reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also are
capable of application to the establishment of migratory bird hunting
regulations for nontribal members on all lands within the exterior
boundaries of reservations where tribes have full wildlife management
authority over such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States
otherwise have reached agreement over hunting by nontribal members on
non-Indian lands.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird
hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our
approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations
that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the
surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations
governing migratory bird hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such
cases, we encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on
regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When
appropriate, we will consult with a tribe and State with the aim of
facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and
State officials in the affected States where tribes may wish to
establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded
lands. As explained in previous rulemaking documents, it is incumbent
upon the tribe and/or the State to request consultation as a result of
the proposal being published in the Federal Register. We will
not presume to make a determination, without being advised by either a
tribe or a State, that any issue is or is not worthy of formal
consultation.
One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal
members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such
harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest,
provided it does not take place during the closed season required by
the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the
status of the migratory bird resource. For several years, we have
reached annual agreement with tribes for migratory bird hunting by
tribal members on their lands or on lands where they have reserved
hunting rights. We will continue to consult with tribes that wish to
reach a mutual agreement on hunting regulations for on-reservation
hunting by tribal members.
Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. Nevertheless,
we believe that they provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the
reserved hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while
ensuring that the migratory bird resource receives necessary
protection. The conservation of this important international resource
is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes
to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which
the reservation is located.
Details Needed in Tribal Proposals
Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting
regulations for the 2001-02 hunting season should submit a proposal
that includes:
(1) The requested hunting season dates and other details
regarding regulations;
(2) Harvest anticipated under the requested regulations;
(3) Methods that will be employed to measure or monitor harvest
(mail-questionnaire survey, bag checks, etc.);
(4) Steps that will be taken to limit level of harvest, where it
could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would seriously
impact the migratory bird resource; and
[[Page 21301]]
(5) Tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory bird
hunting regulations.
A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the waterfowl
season should specify this request in their proposal, rather than
request a date that might not be within the final Federal frameworks.
Similarly, unless a tribe wishes to set more restrictive regulations
than Federal regulations will permit, the proposal should request the
same daily bag and possession limits and season length for ducks and
geese that Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the
Flyway in which the reservation is located.
Tribal Proposal Procedures
We will publish details of tribal proposals for public review in
later Federal Register documents. Because of the time required
for our and public review, Indian tribes that desire special migratory
bird hunting regulations for the 2001-02 hunting season should submit
their proposals as soon as possible, but no later than June 1, 2001.
Tribes should direct inquiries regarding the guidelines and proposals
to the appropriate Service Regional Office listed under the caption
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. Tribes that request special
migratory game bird hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded
lands should send a courtesy copy of the proposal to officials in the
affected State(s).
Public Comments Solicited
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable,
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking
process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed
regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will take into consideration all comments received.
Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to
final regulations that differ from these proposals. We invite
interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments to the address indicated under the caption
ADDRESSES.
You may inspect comments received on the proposed annual
regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office in
room 634, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. For each
series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment
periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to,
each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments received
during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in
any final rules.
NEPA Consideration
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document,
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988.
We published Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on
June 16, 1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on
August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985
environmental assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird
Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is
available from the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Prior to issuance of the 2001-02 migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will consider provisions of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act) to
ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or
destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation
programs for those species. Consultations under Section 7 of this Act
may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental
proposed rulemaking documents.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This rule is economically significant and was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866
requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand.
We invite comments on how to make this rule easier to understand,
including answers to questions such as the following:
(1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
(2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
interferes with its clarity?
(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
(4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided
into more (but shorter) sections?
(5) Is the description of the rule in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of the preamble helpful in understanding the
rule?
(6) What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
Regulatory Flexibility Act
These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial
numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the
annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail, and
the Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) in
1998. The Analysis documented the significant beneficial economic
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The primary source of
information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting
is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-
year intervals. The Analysis utilized the 1996 National Hunting and
Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business
Patterns from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would
spend between $429 million and $1,084 million at small businesses in
1998. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the
Division of Migratory Bird Management.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above,
this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan
to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C.
808(1).
Paperwork Reduction Act
We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. The various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed
under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, Subpart K, are
utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations.
Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements
of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and assigned
clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 09/30/2001). This information is
used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to
improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to
better manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information
collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest Questionnaire and
assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 07/30/2003). The
information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude and the
geographical and
[[Page 21302]]
temporal distribution of the harvest, and the portion it constitutes of
the total population.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq.,
that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in
any given year on local or State government or private entities.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that these regulations meet the applicable standards found in Sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Takings Implication Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule,
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant
takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected
property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking
of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise
otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on
the use of private and public property.
Federalism Effects
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from
which the States make selections and employ guidelines to establish
special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands.
This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to
determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or tribe
may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The
frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and
the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the
development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby
having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a
substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or
responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State
policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order
13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and
do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2001-02
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.
Dated: April 19, 2001.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Proposed 2001-02 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations
(Preliminary)
Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat
conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway
Councils, we may defer specific framework proposals (including opening
and closing dates, season lengths, and bag limits). Unless otherwise
specified, we are proposing no change from the final 2000-01 frameworks
of August 23 and September 27, 2000 (65 FR 51496 and 58152). Specific
preliminary proposals that vary from the 2000-01 frameworks and issues
requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or
tribes are contained below:
1. Ducks
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest
management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. The categories correspond to previously published
issues/discussion, and only those containing substantial
recommendations are discussed below.
A. General Harvest Strategy
All of our success in duck-harvest management notwithstanding, we
continue to be faced with uncertainty about the biological and
sociological impacts of hunting regulations. In 1995, we embarked on a
regulatory approach known as adaptive harvest management (AHM), which
is intended to help address that uncertainty. The AHM approach
recognizes that we cannot predict the consequences of hunting
regulations with certainty, and provides a means for making objective
decisions despite this uncertainty. In addition, a tightly integrated
cycle of monitoring, assessment, and decision-making is required under
AHM to better understand the relationships among hunting regulations,
harvests, and waterfowl abundance. More detailed information about AHM
can be found on the Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/r9mbmo/homepg.html.
Since 1995, AHM regulatory strategies have been based on the status
of midcontinent mallards, which are defined as those breeding from
South Dakota to Alaska (Federal survey strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77),
and in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. An optimal regulatory
alternative for midcontinent mallards is based on breeding population
size and water conditions in the Canadian prairies, and on empirical
weights assigned to four competing models of population dynamics. The
same regulatory alternative is applied in all four Flyways, although
season lengths and bag limits are Flyway-specific.
The first application of the AHM process involved midcontinent
mallards because of their ubiquitous distribution, their importance in
the harvest, and because the data and understanding associated with
mallards surpassed that of all other species. In the last few years,
however, we have begun to examine other populations of mallards, as
well as other species, in a search for an appropriate AHM approach to
these stocks.
A growing concern relates to how all these stock-specific
applications ultimately will fit together in a coherent approach to
duck harvest management. For example:
How much biological variation among duck stocks should
we account for in the design of regulatory strategies?
Should the traditional Flyway-based approach to duck
harvest management be modified to take advantage of new information
and capabilities?
What monitoring and assessment capabilities will be
needed to support these refinements?
What are realistic expectations of our ability to
reduce uncertainty through the experience of management?
Even more fundamentally, should sustainable harvest be
the sole or even principal currency by which we measure success?
These questions and others suggest that the time has arrived to
contemplate the basic goals and overall framework of duck harvest
management, and how we might use the AHM process to help us steer an
appropriate course. Moreover, the last Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) on migratory bird hunting was issued in 1988,
and
[[Page 21303]]
our approach to duck harvest management has evolved beyond the
preferred alternative identified at that time. Therefore, it is our
intent to begin the process of preparing a new EIS that will describe
new alternatives brought to light by our experience with AHM.
In beginning the dialogue, we suggest the need to focus on three
key themes:
(1) Goal setting--AHM can produce optimal regulatory decisions in
the face of uncertainty, but, if and only if, there is agreement about
the goals and objectives of harvest management. Clearly, the goals of
duck harvest management extend well beyond simple measures of hunter
success and population size, and many of the difficulties in duck
harvest management today probably relate more to ambiguity in
objectives, rather than to uncertainty about biological impacts. Tacit
disagreement over management objectives poses a serious threat to the
long-term viability of AHM.
(2) Limits to system control--There are both theoretical and
practical limits to our ability to predict, control, and measure the
size of waterfowl populations and harvests and, as a consequence,
operational constraints on short-term hunting opportunity and on the
learning needed to increase long-term performance. The waterfowl
management community needs to better explore, understand, and
acknowledge these limits, and to develop regulatory alternatives and
strategies that avoid the most undesirable consequences of those
limits, while meeting reasonable demands for hunting opportunity.
(3) Management scale--The history of duck harvest management has
been characterized by efforts to account for increasingly more spatial,
temporal, and organizational variability in waterfowl demographics. We
have begun to question the wisdom of this approach, given the
inevitable tradeoff between harvest benefits and the direct and
indirect costs of managing at progressively finer scales. It remains to
be seen what level of resolution ultimately will be most appropriate in
the AHM process, but we are increasingly concerned about what we see as
unrealistic expectations for accommodating small-scale variation in
waterfowl population dynamics.
We look forward to exploring these and other duck-harvest
management issues with the Flyway Councils and other stakeholders in
the coming year. We hope these discussions will culminate in the
issuance of a new EIS for migratory bird hunting sometime in 2004.
AHM for Eastern Mallards
For the purposes of harvest regulation, eastern mallards are
defined as those breeding in southern Ontario and Quebec (Federal
survey strata 51-54 and 56), and in New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. In 2000, with assistance from
the Atlantic Flyway Council, we proposed mechanisms by which the status
of eastern mallards could be considered in the development of a
regulatory strategy for the Atlantic Flyway. However, the Service has
not made a final decision about whether the Atlantic Flyway regulatory
strategy also should be solely based on the status of eastern mallards.
This decision was deferred pending further analyses of the implications
of this decision for midcontinent mallards and other species. We also
have concerns about the timing of this decision in the face of previous
comments about the future of duck harvest management. Therefore, we
consider the approach used last year to consider only eastern mallard
status in the selection of Atlantic Flyway regulations as provisional.
It is our recommendation, however, to continue this approach for the
2001-02 hunting season.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
In 1990, because of concerns about the proliferation of zones and
split seasons for duck hunting, a cooperative review and evaluation of
the historical use of zone/split options was conducted. This review did
not show that the proliferation of these options had increased harvest
pressure; however, the ability to detect the impact of zone/split
configurations was poor because of unreliable response variables, the
lack of statistical tests to differentiate between real and perceived
changes, and the absence of adequate experimental controls.
Consequently, guidelines were established to provide a framework for
controlling the proliferation of changes in zone/split options. The
guidelines identified a limited number of zone/split configurations
that could be used for duck hunting and restricted the frequency of
changes in these configurations to 5-year intervals. In 1996, the
guidelines were revised to provide States greater flexibility in using
their zone/split arrangements. Open seasons for changes occurred in
1991 for the 1991-1995 period and in 1996 for 1996-2000. The third open
season will occur this year when zone/split configurations will be
established for the 2001-2005 period.
In response to recommendations from the Flyway Councils, we
considered changes to the current zone/split guidelines during last
year's late-season regulations cycle. We believe that the guidelines
implemented in 1996 (61 FR 38000) have achieved their intended
objectives while allowing States sufficient flexibility to address
differences in physiography, climate, and other factors. Accordingly,
as announced in last year's Federal Register (65 FR 51176), we
made no changes in the 1996 guidelines. A copy of the guidelines is
included herein for information and use in selecting zone/split
configuration for 2001-2005.
As indicated in the guidelines, States that made changes during the
last open season should provide us a review of pertinent data (e.g.,
estimates of harvest, hunter numbers, hunter success, etc.) by April
15, 2001. However, it would be in the interest of each affected State
to complete this report as soon as possible for internal consideration
of any changes they might wish to make for the next 5-year period. We
reiterate that this review does not have to be the result of a rigorous
experimental design, but nonetheless should assist us in ascertaining
whether major changes in harvest or hunter activity occurred as a
result of zone/split regulations.
We also request that by April 15, 2001, States notify us whether or
not they plan to change their zone/split configurations for the next 5-
year period (2001-2005). Those States wishing to change their
configuration should submit a proposal for the change by this date.
Guidelines for Duck Zones and Split Seasons, 2001-2005
The following zone/split-season guidelines apply only for the
regular duck season:
1. A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a
contiguous boundary, for which independent dates may be selected for
the regular duck season.
2. Consideration of changes for management-unit boundaries is not
subject to the guidelines and provisions governing the use of zones and
split seasons for ducks.
3. Only minor (less than a county in size) boundary changes will be
allowed for any grandfather arrangement, and changes are limited to the
open season.
4. Once a zone/split option is selected during an open season, it
must remain in place for the following 5 years.
For the 2001-2005 period, any State may continue the configuration
used in
[[Page 21304]]
1996-2000. If changes are made, the zone/split-season configuration
must conform to one of the following options:
1. Three zones with no splits,
2. Split seasons (no more than 3 segments) with no zones, or
3. Two zones with the option for 2-way split seasons in one or both
zones.
At the end of 5 years after any changes in splits or zones, States
will be required to provide the Service with a review of pertinent data
(e.g., estimates of harvest, hunter numbers, hunter success, etc.).
This review does not have to be the result of a rigorous experimental
design, but nonetheless should assist the Service in ascertaining
whether major undesirable changes in harvest or hunter activity
occurred as a result of split and zone regulations. The next open
season for changes in zone/split configurations will be in 2006.
Grandfathered Zone/Split Arrangements
When the zone/split guidelines were first implemented in 1991,
several States had completed experiments with zone/split arrangements
different from Options 1-3 above. Those States were offered a one-time
opportunity to continue those arrangements, with the stipulation that
only minor changes could be made to zone boundaries; and if they ever
wished to change their zone/split arrangement, the new arrangement
would have to conform to one of the 3 options identified above. If a
grandfathered State changed its zoning arrangement, it could not go
back to the grandfathered arrangement it previously had. Current
grandfathered arrangements are:
Atlantic Flyway:
Massachusetts, New Jersey--3 zones with 2-segment splits in
each zone
New York--5 zones with 2-segment splits in each zone
Pennsylvania--4 zones with 2-segment splits in each zone
Mississippi Flyway:
Michigan, Indiana, Ohio--3 zones with 2-segment splits in each
zone
Central Flyway:
Nebraska--5 zones with 2-segment splits in each zone
South Dakota--4 zones with 2-segment splits in each zone
Pacific Flyway:
Alaska--5 zones with 2-segment splits in 1 zone
California--5 zones with 2-segment splits in each zone
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
iii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
The Wood Duck Population Monitoring Initiative showed that current
wood duck monitoring efforts resulted in information that was capable
of being used to manage wood ducks at no finer resolution than the
Flyway level. Current databases do not allow proper evaluation of
special September wood duck seasons on a State-by-State basis. In 1998,
we stated that, after September 2000, the special wood duck seasons in
Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee would be discontinued (August 28,
1998; 63 FR 46126); the year 2000 was the last permitted for these
seasons. The Service, in cooperation with the Atlantic and Mississippi
Flyway Councils, is in the process of developing wood duck population
models that will guide regular-season harvest management in the future.
These models, and the accompanying evaluations of potential Flyway-wide
expansions in harvest opportunity, will be developed prior to Spring
2001.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 21305]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP01.037
[[Page 21306]]
[FR Doc. 01-10696 Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C