19876 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2011–0014; 

91200–1231–9BPP–L2] 

RIN 1018–AX34 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 

2011–12 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

Regulations (Preliminary) With 

Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals 

and Requests for 2013 Spring and 

Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence 

Harvest Proposals in Alaska 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of 

supplemental information. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (hereinafter the Service or we) 

proposes to establish annual hunting 

regulations for certain migratory game 

birds for the 2011–12 hunting season. 

We annually prescribe outside limits 

(frameworks) within which States may 

select hunting seasons. This proposed 

rule provides the regulatory schedule, 

describes the proposed regulatory 

alternatives for the 2011–12 duck 

hunting seasons, requests proposals 

from Indian Tribes that wish to establish 

special migratory game bird hunting 

regulations on Federal Indian 

reservations and ceded lands, and 

requests proposals for the 2013 spring 

and summer migratory bird subsistence 

season in Alaska. Migratory game bird 

hunting seasons provide 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 game bird 

population status and habitat 

conditions. 

DATES: You must submit comments on 

the proposed changes to the zone and 

split season guidelines for duck hunting 

and the associated draft environmental 

assessment on or before May 15, 2011. 

You must submit comments on the 

proposed regulatory alternatives for the 

2011–12 duck hunting seasons on or 

before June 24, 2011. Following 

subsequent Federal Register 

publications, you will be given an 

opportunity to submit comments for 

proposed early-season frameworks by 

July 29, 2011, and for proposed lateseason frameworks and subsistence 

migratory bird seasons in Alaska by 

August 31, 2011. Tribes must submit 

proposals and related comments on or 

before June 1, 2011. Proposals from the 

Co-management Council for the 2013 

spring and summer migratory bird 

subsistence harvest season must be 

submitted to the Flyway Councils and 

the Service on or before June 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on the proposals by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2011– 

0014. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9– 

MB–2011–0014; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mailed or faxed 

comments. We will post all comments 

on http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Comments section below 

for more information). 

Send your proposals for the 2013 

spring and summer migratory bird 

subsistence season in Alaska to the 

Executive Director of the Comanagement Council, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, AK 99503; or fax to (907) 

786–3306; or e-mail to ambcc@fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron 

W. Kokel, at: Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, MS 

MBSP–4107–ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, 

NW., Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358– 

1714. For information on the migratory 

bird subsistence season in Alaska, 

contact Fred Armstrong, (907) 786– 

3887, or Donna Dewhurst, (907) 786– 

3499, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

1011 E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, 

Anchorage, AK 99503. 

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 are written after giving due 

regard to ‘‘the zones of temperature and 

to the distribution, abundance, 

economic value, breeding habits, and 

times and lines of migratory flight of 

such birds’’ and are updated annually 

(16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility 

has been delegated to the Service as the 

lead Federal agency for managing and 

conserving migratory birds in the 

United States. 

The Service develops migratory game 

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 migratory game birds. 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, established through the 

International Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), also assist 

in researching and providing migratory 

game bird management information for 

Federal, State, and Provincial 

Governments, as well as private 

conservation agencies and the general 

public. 

The process for adopting migratory 

game bird hunting regulations, located 

at 50 CFR 20, is constrained by three 

primary factors. Legal and 

administrative considerations dictate 

how long the rulemaking process will 

last. Most importantly, however, the 

biological cycle of migratory game birds 

controls the timing of data-gathering 

activities and thus the dates on which 

these results are available for 

consideration and deliberation. 

The process includes two separate 

regulations-development schedules, 

based on early and late hunting season 

regulations. Early hunting 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. Early hunting 

seasons generally begin before October 

1. Late hunting 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 biological 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19877 

Service is required to take abundance of 

migratory game 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. To determine the appropriate 

frameworks for each species, we 

consider factors such as population size 

and trend, geographical distribution, 

annual breeding effort, the condition of 

breeding and wintering habitat, the 

number of hunters, and the anticipated 

harvest. 

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. 

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 always 

be more conservative in their selections 

than the Federal frameworks but never 

more liberal. 

Notice of Intent To Establish Open 

Seasons 

This document 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 2011–12 in the 

contiguous United States, Alaska, 

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands, under §§ 20.101 through 20.107, 

20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50 

CFR part 20. 

For the 2011–12 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 2011– 

12 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 2011–12 

This document is the first in a series 

of proposed, supplemental, and final 

rulemaking documents for migratory 

game bird hunting regulations. We will 

publish additional supplemental 

proposals for public comment in the 

Federal Register as population, habitat, 

harvest, and other information become 

available. 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 before 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 (further 

described and discussed above in the 

Background and Overview section). 

Major steps in the 2011–12 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 

A. General Harvest Strategy 

B. Regulatory Alternatives 

C. Zones and Split Seasons 

D. Special Seasons/Species Management 

i. September Teal Seasons 

ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons 

iii. Black Ducks 

iv. Canvasbacks 

v. Pintails 

vi. Scaup 

vii. Mottled Ducks 

viii. Wood Ducks 

ix. Youth Hunt 

2. Sea Ducks 

3. Mergansers 

4. Canada Geese 

A. Special Seasons 

B. Regular Seasons 

C. Special Late Seasons 

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. 

We will publish final regulatory 

alternatives for the 2011–12 duck 

hunting seasons in mid-July. We will 

publish proposed early season 

frameworks in mid-July and late season 

frameworks in mid-August. We will 

publish final regulatory frameworks for 

early seasons on or about August 16, 

2011, and those for late seasons on or 

about September 15, 2011. 

Request for 2013 Spring and Summer 

Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest 

Proposals in Alaska 

Background 

The 1916 Convention for the 

Protection of Migratory Birds between 

the United States and Great Britain (for 

Canada) established a closed season for 

the taking of migratory birds between 

March 10 and September 1. Residents of 

northern Alaska and Canada 

traditionally harvested migratory birds 

for nutritional purposes during the 

spring and summer months. The 1916 

Convention and the subsequent 1936 

Mexico Convention for the Protection of 

Migratory Birds and Game Mammals 

provide for the legal subsistence harvest 

of migratory birds and their eggs in 

Alaska and Canada during the closed 

season by indigenous inhabitants. 

On August 16, 2002, we published in 

the Federal Register (67 FR 53511) a 

final rule that established procedures for 

incorporating subsistence management 

into the continental migratory bird 

management program. These 

regulations, developed under a new comanagement process involving the 

Service, the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, and Alaska Native 

representatives, established an annual 

procedure to develop harvest guidelines 

for implementation of a spring and 

summer migratory bird subsistence 

harvest. Eligibility and inclusion 

requirements necessary to participate in 

the spring and summer migratory bird 

subsistence season in Alaska are 

outlined in 50 CFR part 92. 

This proposed rule calls for proposals 

for regulations that will expire on 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19878 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

August 31, 2013, for the spring and 

summer subsistence harvest of 

migratory birds in Alaska. Each year, 

seasons will open on or after March 11 

and close before September 1. 

Alaska Spring and Summer Subsistence 

Harvest Proposal Procedures 

We will publish details of the Alaska 

spring and summer subsistence harvest 

proposals in later Federal Register 

documents under 50 CFR part 92. The 

general relationship to the process for 

developing national hunting regulations 

for migratory game birds is as follows: 

a. Alaska Migratory Bird CoManagement Council. The public may 

submit proposals to the Co-management 

Council during the period of November 

1–December 15, 2011, to be acted upon 

for the 2013 migratory bird subsistence 

harvest season. Proposals should be 

submitted to the Executive Director of 

the Co-management Council, listed 

above under the caption ADDRESSES. 

b. Flyway Councils. 

1. The Co-management Council will 

submit proposed 2013 regulations to all 

Flyway Councils for review and 

comment. The Council’s 

recommendations must be submitted 

before the Service Regulations 

Committee’s last regular meeting of the 

calendar year in order to be approved 

for spring and summer harvest 

beginning April 2 of the following 

calendar year. 

2. Alaska Native representatives may 

be appointed by the Co-management 

Council to attend meetings of one or 

more of the four Flyway Councils to 

discuss recommended regulations or 

other proposed management actions. 

c. Service Regulations Committee. The 

Co-management Council will submit 

proposed annual regulations to the 

Service Regulations Committee (SRC) 

for their review and recommendation to 

the Service Director. Following the 

Service Director’s review and 

recommendation, the proposals will be 

forwarded to the Department of the 

Interior for approval. Proposed annual 

regulations will then be published in 

the Federal Register for public review 

and comment, similar to the annual 

migratory game bird hunting 

regulations. Final spring and summer 

regulations for Alaska will be published 

in the Federal Register in the preceding 

winter after review and consideration of 

any public comments received. 

Because of the time required for 

review by us and the public, proposals 

from the Co-management Council for 

the 2013 spring and summer migratory 

bird subsistence harvest season must be 

submitted to the Flyway Councils and 

the Service by June 15, 2012, for 

Council comments and Service action at 

the late-season SRC meeting. 

Review of Public Comments 

This proposed rulemaking contains 

the proposed regulatory alternatives for 

the 2011–12 duck hunting seasons. This 

proposed rulemaking also describes 

other recommended changes or specific 

preliminary proposals that vary from the 

2010–11 final frameworks (see August 

30, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 

52873) for early seasons and September 

23, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 

58250) for late seasons) and issues 

requiring early discussion, action, or the 

attention of the States or Tribes. We will 

publish responses to all proposals and 

written comments when we develop 

final frameworks for the 2011–12 

season. We seek additional information 

and comments on this proposed rule. 

Consolidation of Notices 

For administrative purposes, this 

document consolidates the notice of 

intent to establish open migratory game 

bird hunting seasons, the request for 

Tribal proposals, and the request for 

Alaska migratory bird subsistence 

seasons with the preliminary proposals 

for the annual hunting regulationsdevelopment 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: 

Regions 1 and 8 (California, Idaho, 

Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, 

and the Pacific Islands)—Brad 

Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, 

Portland, OR 97232–4181; (503) 231– 

6164. 

Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, 

Oklahoma, and Texas)—Jeff Haskins, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. 

Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; 

(505) 248–7885. 

Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, 

and Wisconsin)—Jane West, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Federal 

Building, One Federal Drive, Fort 

Snelling, MN 55111–4056; (612) 713– 

5432. 

Region 4 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto 

Rico and Virgin Islands, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee)—U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century 

Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, GA 

30345; (404) 679–4000. 

Region 5 (Connecticut, Delaware, 

Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, Virginia, and West 

Virginia)—U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, 

Hadley, MA 01035–9589; (413) 253– 

8576. 

Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)—U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 

25486, Denver Federal Building, 

Denver, CO 80225; (303) 236–8145. 

Region 7 (Alaska)—Russ Oates, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East 

Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; 

(907) 786–3423. 

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 game 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 

applicable to those Tribes that have 

reserved hunting rights on Federal 

Indian reservations (including offreservation trust lands) and ceded lands. 

They also may be applied to the 

establishment of migratory game bird 

hunting regulations for nontribal 

members on all lands within the 

exterior boundaries of reservations 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19879 

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. 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 game bird resource. Since the 

inception of these guidelines, we have 

reached annual agreement with Tribes 

for migratory game 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. We believe that they 

provide appropriate opportunity to 

accommodate the reserved hunting 

rights and management authority of 

Indian Tribes while also ensuring that 

the migratory game 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 2011–12 migratory game bird 

hunting season should submit a 

proposal that includes: 

(1) The requested migratory game bird 

hunting season dates and other details 

regarding the proposed regulations; 

(2) Harvest anticipated under the 

proposed regulations; 

(3) Methods employed to 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 

game bird resource; and 

(5) Tribal capabilities to establish and 

enforce migratory game bird hunting 

regulations. 

A Tribe that desires the earliest 

possible opening of the migratory game 

bird season for nontribal members 

should specify this request in its 

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 for nontribal members, the 

proposal should request the same daily 

bag and possession limits and season 

length for migratory game birds 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 review by us and 

the public, Indian Tribes that desire 

special migratory game bird hunting 

regulations for the 2011–12 hunting 

season should submit their proposals as 

soon as possible, but no later than June 

1, 2011. 

Tribes should direct inquiries 

regarding the guidelines and proposals 

to the appropriate Service Regional 

Office listed above under the caption 

Consolidation of Notices. 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 

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 we 

receive. Such comments, and any 

additional information we receive, may 

lead to final regulations that differ from 

these proposals. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. We will not accept 

comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an 

address not listed in the ADDRESSES

section. Finally, we will not consider 

hand-delivered comments that we do 

not receive, or mailed comments that 

are not postmarked, by the date 

specified in the DATES section. 

We will post all comments in their 

entirety—including your personal 

identifying information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Before including 

your address, phone number, e-mail 

address, or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can ask us in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Room 4107, 4501 North 

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203. 

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 we receive 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19880 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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 FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

In a notice published in the 

September 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 

FR 53376), we announced our intent to 

develop a new Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) 

for the migratory bird hunting program. 

Public scoping meetings were held in 

the spring of 2006, as detailed in a 

March 9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 

12216). We released the draft SEIS on 

July 9, 2010 (75 FR 39577). The draft 

SEIS is available either by writing to the 

address indicated under ADDRESSES or 

by viewing our Web site at http:// 

www.fws.gov/migratorybirds. 

Because the draft EIS does not 

specifically cover the composition and 

details of the zone and split season 

guidelines, we have also prepared a 

separate environmental assessment on 

the proposed changes to the zone and 

split season guidelines for duck 

hunting. It is available either by writing 

to the address indicated under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or by 

viewing on our Web site at http:// 

www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Endangered Species Act Consideration 

Before issuance of the 2011–12 

migratory game bird hunting 

regulations, we will comply with 

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 the Act 

may cause us to change proposals in 

this and future supplemental proposed 

rulemaking documents. 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

has determined that this proposed rule 

is significant and has reviewed this rule 

under Executive Order 12866. OMB 

bases its determination of regulatory 

significance upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 

An economic analysis was prepared 

for the 2008–09 season. This analysis 

was based on data from the 2006 

National Hunting and Fishing Survey, 

the most recent year for which data are 

available (see discussion in Regulatory 

Flexibility Act section below). This 

analysis estimated consumer surplus for 

three alternatives for duck hunting 

(estimates for other species are not 

quantified due to lack of data). The 

alternatives are (1) Issue restrictive 

regulations allowing fewer days than 

those issued during the 2007–08 season, 

(2) Issue moderate regulations allowing 

more days than those in alternative 1, 

and (3) Issue liberal regulations 

identical to the regulations in the 2007– 

08 season. For the 2008–09 season, we 

chose alternative 3, with an estimated 

consumer surplus across all flyways of 

$205–$270 million. We also chose 

alternative 3 for the 2009–10 and the 

2010–11 seasons. At this time, we are 

proposing no changes to the season 

frameworks for the 2011–12 season, and 

as such, we will again consider these 

three alternatives. However, final 

frameworks will be dependent on 

population status information available 

later this year. For these reasons, we 

have not conducted a new economic 

analysis, but the 2008–09 analysis is 

part of the record for this rule and is 

available at http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/ 

NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/ 

SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R9–MB–2011–0014. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The annual migratory bird hunting 

regulations have a significant economic 

impact on substantial numbers of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed 

the economic impacts of the annual 

hunting regulations on small business 

entities in detail as part of the 1981 costbenefit analysis. This analysis was 

revised annually from 1990–95. In 1995, 

the Service issued a Small Entity 

Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which 

was subsequently updated in 1996, 

1998, 2004, and 2008. The primary 

source of information about hunter 

expenditures for migratory game bird 

hunting is the National Hunting and 

Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 

5-year intervals. The 2008 Analysis was 

based on the 2006 National Hunting and 

Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department 

of Commerce’s County Business 

Patterns, from which it was estimated 

that migratory bird hunters would 

spend approximately $1.2 billion at 

small businesses in 2008. Copies of the 

Analysis are available upon request 

from the Division of Migratory Bird 

Management (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) or from our Web 

site at http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/ 

NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/ 

SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–R9–MB–2011–0014. 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 12988 and by the 

Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES

section. To better help us revise the 

rule, your comments should be as 

specific as possible. For example, you 

should tell us the numbers of the 

sections or paragraphs that are unclearly 

written, which sections or sentences are 

too long, the sections where you feel 

lists or tables would be useful, etc. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

This proposed 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 would have an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more. However, because this rule 

would establish 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 proposed 

regulations under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). The various recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements imposed under 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19881 

regulations established in 50 CFR part 

20, subpart K, are utilized in the 

formulation of migratory game bird 

hunting regulations. Specifically, OMB 

has approved the information collection 

requirements of our Migratory Bird 

Surveys and assigned control number 

1018–0023 (expires 3/31/2011). This 

information is used to provide a 

sampling frame for voluntary national 

surveys to improve our harvest 

estimates for all migratory game birds in 

order to better manage these 

populations. 

OMB has also approved the 

information collection requirements of 

the Alaska Subsistence Household 

Survey, an associated voluntary annual 

household survey used to determine 

levels of subsistence take in Alaska, and 

assigned control number 1018–0124 

(expires 4/30/2013). 

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 proposed 

rulemaking would not impose a cost of 

$100 million or more in any given year 

on local or State government or private 

entities. Therefore, this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order 

12988 

The Department, in promulgating this 

proposed rule, has determined that this 

proposed rule will not unduly burden 

the judicial system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of Executive Order 12988. 

Takings Implication Assessment 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, this 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 

would not result in the physical 

occupancy of property, the physical 

invasion of property, or the regulatory 

taking of any property. In fact, these 

rules would allow hunters to exercise 

otherwise unavailable privileges and, 

therefore, reduce restrictions on the use 

of private and public property. 

Energy Effects—Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare Statements of 

Energy Effects when undertaking certain 

actions. While this proposed rule is a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, it is not 

expected to adversely affect energy 

supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 

this action is not a significant energy 

action and no Statement of Energy 

Effects is required. 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive 

Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have 

evaluated possible effects on Federallyrecognized Indian Tribes and have 

determined that there are no effects on 

Indian trust resources. However, in this 

proposed rule, we solicit proposals for 

special migratory bird hunting 

regulations for certain Tribes on Federal 

Indian reservations, off-reservation trust 

lands, and ceded lands for the 2011–12 

migratory bird hunting season. The 

resulting proposals will be contained in 

a separate proposed rule. By virtue of 

these actions, we have consulted with 

Tribes affected by this rule. 

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 regarding the 

hunting of migratory birds, and we 

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 Indian 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. 

Authority 

The rules that eventually will be 

promulgated for the 2011–12 hunting 

season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 

703–711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C. 

742 a–j. 

Dated: March 11, 2011. 

Will Shafroth, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife 

and Parks. 

Proposed 2011–12 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 

regulatory proposals. We are proposing 

a change to the existing guidelines for 

the establishment of zone and split 

seasons for duck hunting (see C. Zones 

and Splits Seasons). No other changes 

from the final 2010–11 frameworks 

established on August 30 and 

September 23, 2010 (75 FR 52873 and 

75 FR 58250) are being proposed at this 

time. Other 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. Only those 

containing substantial recommendations 

are discussed below. 

A. General Harvest Strategy 

We propose to continue using 

adaptive harvest management (AHM) to 

help determine appropriate duckhunting regulations for the 2011–12 

season. AHM permits sound resource 

decisions in the face of uncertain 

regulatory impacts and provides a 

mechanism for reducing that 

uncertainty over time. We use AHM to 

evaluate four alternative regulatory 

levels for duck hunting based on the 

population status of mallards. (We enact 

special hunting restrictions for species 

of special concern, such as canvasbacks, 

scaup, and pintails). 

Pacific, Central and Mississippi Flyways 

Until 2008, we based the prescribed 

regulatory alternative for the Pacific, 

Central, and Mississippi Flyways on the 

status of mallards and breeding-habitat 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19882 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

conditions in central North America 

(Federal survey strata 1–18, 20–50, and 

75–77, and State surveys in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan). In 2008, we 

based hunting regulations upon the 

breeding stock that contributes 

primarily to each Flyway. In the Pacific 

Flyway, we set hunting regulations 

based on the status and dynamics of a 

newly defined stock of ‘‘western’’ 

mallards. Western mallards are those 

breeding in Alaska (as based on Federal 

surveys in strata 1–12), and in California 

and Oregon (as based on Stateconducted surveys). In the Central and 

Mississippi Flyways, we set hunting 

regulations based on the status and 

dynamics of mid-continent mallards. 

Mid-continent mallards are those 

breeding in central North America not 

included in the Western mallard stock, 

as defined above. 

For the 2011–12 season, we 

recommend continuing to use 

independent optimization to determine 

the optimum regulations. This means 

that we would develop regulations for 

mid-continent mallards and western 

mallards independently, based upon the 

breeding stock that contributes 

primarily to each Flyway. We detailed 

implementation of this new AHM 

decision framework in the July 24, 2008, 

Federal Register (73 FR 43290). 

Atlantic Flyway 

Since 2000, we have prescribed a 

regulatory alternative for the Atlantic 

Flyway based on the population status 

of mallards breeding in eastern North 

America (Federal survey strata 51–54 

and 56, and State surveys in New 

England and the mid-Atlantic region). 

We recommend continuation of this 

protocol for the 2011–12 season. 

Final 2011–2012 AHM Protocol 

We will detail the final AHM protocol 

for the 2011–12 season in the earlyseason proposed rule, which we will 

publish in mid-July (see Schedule of 

Regulations Meetings and Federal 

Register Publications at the end of this 

proposed rule for further information). 

We will propose a specific regulatory 

alternative for each of the Flyways 

during the 2011–12 season after survey 

information becomes available in late 

summer. More information on AHM is 

located at http://www.fws.gov/ 

migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/ 

Management/AHM/AHM-intro.htm. 

B. Regulatory Alternatives 

The basic structure of the current 

regulatory alternatives for AHM was 

adopted in 1997. In 2002, based upon 

recommendations from the Flyway 

Councils, we extended framework dates 

in the ‘‘moderate’’ and ‘‘liberal’’ 

regulatory alternatives by changing the 

opening date from the Saturday nearest 

October 1 to the Saturday nearest 

September 24; and changing the closing 

date from the Sunday nearest January 20 

to the last Sunday in January. These 

extended dates were made available 

with no associated penalty in season 

length or bag limits. At that time we 

stated our desire to keep these changes 

in place for 3 years to allow for a 

reasonable opportunity to monitor the 

impacts of framework-date extensions 

on harvest distribution and rates of 

harvest before considering any 

subsequent use (67 FR 12501, March 19, 

2002). 

For 2011–12, we are proposing to 

maintain the same regulatory 

alternatives that were in effect last year 

(see accompanying table for specifics of 

the proposed regulatory alternatives). 

Alternatives are specified for each 

Flyway and are designated as ‘‘RES’’ for 

the restrictive, ‘‘MOD’’ for the moderate, 

and ‘‘LIB’’ for the liberal alternative. We 

will announce final regulatory 

alternatives in mid-July. We will accept 

public comments until June 25, 2011, 

and you should send your comments to 

an address listed under the caption 

ADDRESSES. 

C. Zones and Split Seasons 

In the August 25, 2010, proposed rule 

(75 FR 52398) and the September 23, 

2010, final rule (75 FR 58250), we 

announced our intention to propose 

changes to the existing zone and split 

season guidelines for possible 

implementation in 2011 for use in State 

selections for the 2011–12 hunting 

seasons. This proposed rule for the 

2011–12 hunting season continues that 

intention and discussion. 

Background 

We annually issue regulations 

permitting the sport hunting of 

migratory birds. Zones and split seasons 

are ‘‘special regulations’’ designed to 

distribute hunting opportunities and 

harvests according to temporal, 

geographic, and demographic variability 

in waterfowl and other migratory game 

bird populations. For ducks, States have 

been allowed the option of dividing 

their allotted hunting days into two (or 

in some cases, three) segments to take 

advantage of species-specific peaks of 

abundance or to satisfy hunters in 

different areas who want to hunt during 

the peak of waterfowl abundance in 

their area. However, the split-season 

option does not fully satisfy many States 

who wish to provide a more equitable 

distribution of harvest opportunities. 

Therefore, we also have allowed the 

establishment of independent seasons in 

two or more zones within States for the 

purpose of providing more equitable 

distribution of harvest opportunity for 

hunters throughout the State. 

In 1978, we prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) on the 

use of zones to set duck hunting 

regulations. A primary tenet of the 

1978 EA was that zoning would be for 

the primary purpose of providing 

equitable distribution of hunting 

opportunity within a State or region and 

not for the purpose of increasing total 

annual waterfowl harvest in the zoned 

areas. In fact, harvest levels were to be 

adjusted downward if they exceeded 

traditional levels as a result of zoning. 

Subsequently, we conducted a review of 

the use of zones and split seasons in 

1990. 

Currently, every 5 years, States are 

afforded the opportunity to change the 

zoning and split season configuration 

within which they set their annual duck 

hunting regulations. While the schedule 

of ‘‘open seasons’’ for making changes to 

splits and zones is being evaluated in 

the recently released draft supplemental 

environmental impact statement (SEIS) 

for the migratory bird hunting program 

(see NEPA Considerations for further 

information), the specific guidelines for 

choosing splits and zones are not a part 

of that evaluation. The current 

guidelines have remained unchanged 

since 1996. 

Public Comments 

The Flyway Council 

recommendations and public comments 

discussed below are from the 2010–11 

regulatory process and were also 

included in the August 25, 2010, 

proposed rule (75 FR 52398) and the 

September 23, 2010, final rule (75 FR 

58250). 

Council Recommendations: The 

Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 

Councils recommended that the Service 

allow 3 zones, with 2-way splits in each 

zone, and 4 zones with no splits as 

additional zone/split-season options for 

duck seasons during 2011–15. 

The Upper- and Lower-Region 

Regulations Committees of the 

Mississippi Flyway Council 

recommended that the Service allow 3 

zones with the season split into 

2 segments in each zone, 4 zones with 

no splits, and 2 zones with the season 

split into 3 segments in each zone as 

additional zone/split-season options for 

duck seasons during 2011–15. 

In addition, all four Flyway Councils 

recommended that States with existing 

grandfathered status be allowed to 

retain that status. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19883 

Written Comments: The National 

Flyway Council requested that the 

Service allow 3 zones, with 2-way splits 

in each zone, and 4 zones with no splits 

as additional zone/split-season options 

for duck seasons during 2011–15. 

The Illinois Department of Natural 

Resources and the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

requested that the Service allow 3 

zones, with 2-way splits in each zone, 

and 4 zones with no splits as additional 

zone/split-season options for duck 

seasons during 2011–15. 

The Delta Waterfowl Foundation, the 

Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, the 

LaCrosse County Conservation Alliance, 

the Governor of Illinois, and several 

individuals expressed support for the 

Flyway Councils’ recommended 

changes to the existing zone and split 

season guidelines. 

Service Response and Proposal 

In 1990, because of concerns about 

the proliferation of zones and split 

seasons for duck hunting, we conducted 

a cooperative review and evaluation of 

the historical use of zone/split options. 

This review did not show that the 

proliferation of these options had 

increased harvest pressure; however, the 

ability to detect the impact of zone/split 

configurations was poor because of 

unreliable response variables, the lack 

of statistical tests to differentiate 

between real and perceived changes, 

and the absence of adequate 

experimental controls. Consequently, 

we established guidelines to provide a 

framework for controlling the 

proliferation of changes in zone/split 

options. The guidelines identified a 

limited number of zone/split 

configurations that could be used for 

duck hunting and restricted the 

frequency of changes in these 

configurations to 5-year intervals. 

In 1996, we revised the guidelines to 

provide States with greater flexibility in 

using their zone/split arrangements. In 

2005, in further response to 

recommendations from the Flyway 

Councils, we considered changes to the 

zone/split guidelines. After our review, 

however, we concluded that the current 

guidelines need not be changed. We 

further stated that the guidelines would 

be used for future open seasons 

(70 FR 55667, September 22, 2005). 

However, while we continue to 

support the use of guidelines for 

providing a stable framework for 

controlling the number of changes to 

zone/split options, we note the 

consensus position among all the 

Flyway Councils on their proposal and 

are sensitive to the States’ desires for 

flexibility in addressing concerns of the 

hunting public, which, in part, provided 

the motivation for this recommendation. 

Furthermore, we remain supportive of 

the recommendations from the 2008 

Future of Waterfowl Management 

Workshop that called for a greater 

emphasis on the effects of management 

actions on the hunting public. Thus, we 

are proposing that two specific 

additional options be added to the 

existing zone and split season criteria 

governing State selection of waterfowl 

zones and splits. The additional options 

would include four zones with no splits 

and three zones with the option for 2- 

way (2-segment) split seasons in one or 

both zones. Otherwise, the criteria and 

rules governing the application of those 

criteria would remain unchanged. 

In making this proposal and in our 

review of the Flyway Council comments 

and recommendations, we note that 

existing human dimensions data on the 

relationship of harvest regulations, and 

specifically zones and splits, to hunter 

recruitment, retention, and/or 

satisfaction are equivocal or lacking. In 

the face of uncertainty over the effects 

of management actions, the waterfowl 

management community has broadly 

endorsed adaptive management and the 

principles of informed decision-making 

as a means of accounting for and 

reducing that uncertainty. The 

necessary elements of informed 

decision-making include: clearly 

articulated objectives, explicit 

measurable attributes for objectives, 

identification of a suite of potential 

management actions, some means of 

predicting the consequences of 

management actions with respect to 

stated objectives, and, finally, a 

monitoring program to compare 

observations with predictions as a basis 

for learning, policy adaptation, and 

more informed decision-making. 

Currently, none of these elements are 

used to support decision-making that 

involves human dimensions 

considerations. Accordingly, we see this 

as an opportunity to advance an 

informed decision-making framework 

that explicitly considers human 

dimensions issues. 

To that end, we requested that the 

National Flyway Council marshal the 

expertise and resources of the Human 

Dimensions Working Group to develop 

explicit human dimensions objectives 

related to expanding zone and split 

options and a study plan to evaluate the 

effect of the proposed action in 

achieving those objectives. It is our hope 

that the study plan would include 

hypotheses and specific predictions 

about the effect of changing zone/split 

criteria on stated human dimensions 

objectives, and monitoring and 

evaluation methods that would be used 

to test those predictions. 

We believe that insights gained 

through such an evaluation would be 

invaluable in furthering the ongoing 

dialogue regarding fundamental 

objectives of waterfowl management 

and an integrated and coherent decision 

framework for advancing those 

objectives. We reviewed the objectives 

and study plan at our February 2, 2011, 

SRC meeting. We will consider this 

plan, along with public and Flyway 

comments on the proposed change to 

the zones and splits criteria, and with 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis 

on this proposal (see discussion in 

Impacts of Proposed Change), in making 

a final decision on a course of action 

this year. It remains our hope that any 

changes to the existing guidelines for 

duck zones and split seasons would be 

implemented in 2011 and would affect 

State selections for early and late 

migratory bird hunting seasons for the 

2011–12 seasons. However, we are 

cognizant of necessary Flyway Council, 

State, and public review of this 

proposal, and implementation of any 

changes may not be possible this year, 

especially considering the additional 

time necessary for States to adequately 

conduct their own public review of 

possible zone and split season scenarios 

and ultimate formulation of a decision. 

Thus, we are open to either delaying 

implementation of any finalized 

changes in the guidelines to next year or 

possibly allowing States to have up to 

2 years to decide on a course of action 

for the next 5 years. We welcome 

comment on this aspect of our proposal. 

Proposed Guidelines for Duck Zones 

and Split Seasons 

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 grandfathered 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. 

Any State may continue the 

configuration used in the previous 5- 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19884 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

year period. If changes are made, the 

zone/split-season configuration must 

conform to one of the following options: 

(1) No more than four zones with no 

splits, 

(2) Split seasons (no more than 3 

segments) with no zones, or 

(3) No more than three zones with the 

option for 2-way (2-segment) split 

seasons in one, two, or all zones. 

Grandfathered Zone/Split Arrangements 

When we first implemented the zone/ 

split guidelines in 1991, several States 

had completed experiments with zone/ 

split arrangements different from our 

original options. We offered those States 

a one-time opportunity to continue 

(‘‘grandfather’’) those arrangements, with 

the stipulation that only minor changes 

could be made to zone boundaries. If 

any of those States now wish to change 

their zone/split arrangement: 

(1) The new arrangement must 

conform to one of the 3 options 

identified above; and 

(2) The State cannot go back to the 

grandfathered arrangement that it 

previously had in place. 

Management Units 

We will continue to utilize the 

specific limitations previously 

established regarding the use of zone 

and split seasons in special management 

units, including the High Plains Mallard 

Management Unit. We note that the 

original justification and objectives 

established for the High Plains Mallard 

Management Unit provided for 

additional days of hunting opportunity 

at the end of the regular duck season. In 

order to maintain the integrity of the 

management unit, current guidelines 

prohibit simultaneous zoning and/or 3- 

way split seasons within a management 

unit and the remainder of the State. 

Removal of this limitation would allow 

additional proliferation of zone/split 

configurations and compromise the 

original objectives of the management 

unit. 

Impacts of Proposed Change 

We prepared an EA on the proposed 

zone and split season guidelines and 

provide a brief summary of the 

anticipated impacts of the preferred 

alternative (specifics are detailed in 

Service Response and Proposal) with 

regard to the guidelines. Specifics of 

each of the four alternatives we 

analyzed can be found on our Web site 

at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or 

at http://www.regulations.gov. 

In summary, we anticipate that the 

proposed changes to the guidelines, 

specifically adopting the preferred 

alternative, would result in an increase 

in the number of exposure days (days in 

which ducks are exposed to hunting) 

throughout a hunting season. We 

estimate that the addition of one duck 

zone in all States could increase the 

number of duck exposure days by 5 to 

25 percent, depending on Flyway. 

Further, regression analysis of the 

number of duck exposure days and 

number of duck zones within a State 

indicated that the addition of one zone 

in all States (excluding grandfathered 

States) could result in up to a 17 percent 

increase in the national duck harvest (or 

approximately 2.2 million birds) above 

the ‘‘no change’’ alternative (13.8 million 

ducks). It is important to note that this 

estimate is for total duck harvest 

nationwide, and we would expect the 

potential percentage increases to vary 

between Flyways, States, and species. 

While limitations in data preclude us 

from making any reliable estimates on 

other than a Flyway scale for all ducks, 

we estimate that the percentage increase 

in the Mississippi Flyway could be 25 

percent, while the percent increase in 

the Pacific Flyway would likely be less 

than 3 percent. However, it is highly 

unlikely that all States (especially 

grandfathered States) would take 

advantage of these proposed changes 

and choose to add a zone; thus, the 

magnitude of any potential increase in 

harvest would likely be lower than the 

estimated 17 percent. 

Additionally, we annually prepare a 

biological opinion under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) prior 

to establishing annual hunting 

regulations for migratory birds. 

Regulations promulgated as a result of 

this consultation remove or alleviate 

chances of conflict between seasons for 

migratory game birds and endangered 

and threatened species and their critical 

habitats (see Endangered Species Act 

Consideration section of the preamble of 

this proposed rule for further 

information and discussion). 

We also do not believe the preferred 

alternative would recruit new hunters, 

and therefore hunter numbers would 

probably remain similar to 2008 levels, 

when the last economic analysis was 

conducted. However, if increasing the 

possible number of zones and split 

season configurations encourages 

current hunters to spend more days 

afield, we would expect a slight increase 

in expenditures. Therefore, the national 

estimate of the consumer surplus 

expected under this alternative may be 

slightly higher than the estimate of $317 

million annually (range of $274 million 

to $362 million [2007$]) that we would 

expect under the ‘‘no change’’ 

alternative. In general, the non-hunting 

public has not expressed an opinion 

about zoning and split seasons in the 

past. Within this large group, 

individuals opposed to hunting will 

likely object to increased zoning and/or 

split seasons if they believe it will 

enhance or encourage hunting. Others 

generally favor more restrictive 

regulations, and some further believe 

that all hunting should be discontinued. 

We note that the four Flyway Councils 

support the preferred alternative. Duck 

hunter numbers would likely be similar 

to that of 2008, which would maintain 

the current level of revenues to the 

States and Service through sales of 

waterfowl hunting licenses and duck 

stamps. While this alternative 

potentially could increase hunter 

expenditures above the current level of 

$1.2 billion (2007$), we have no specific 

information available that would allow 

an accurate estimation of this increase. 

However, we believe any potential 

increase would likely be negligible. 

The EA is available by either writing 

to the address indicated under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the 

preamble of this proposed rule or by 

viewing on our Web site at http:// 

www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

After the comment period ends, we 

will analyze comments received and 

determine whether to: (1) Prepare a final 

EA and Finding of No Significant 

Impact and authorize [the preferred 

alternative], (2) reconsider our preferred 

alternative, or (3) determine that an 

Environmental Impact Statement should 

be prepared. 

14. Woodcock 

In 2008, we completed a review of 

available woodcock population 

databases to assess their utility for 

developing a woodcock harvest strategy. 

Concurrently, we requested that the 

Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central 

Flyway Councils appoint members to a 

working group to cooperate with us on 

developing a woodcock harvest strategy. 

In February 2010, the working group 

completed a draft interim harvest 

strategy for consideration by the Flyway 

Councils at their March 2010 meetings. 

The working group’s draft interim 

harvest strategy provides a transparent 

framework for making regulatory 

decisions for woodcock season length 

and bag limit while we work to improve 

monitoring and assessment protocols for 

this species. While the strategy’s 

objective is to set woodcock harvest at 

a level commensurate with population, 

data limitations preclude accurately 

assessing harvest potential at this time. 

Thus, the strategy’s thresholds for 

changing regulations are based on the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19885 

premise that further population declines 

would result in decreased harvest, while 

population increases would allow for 

additional harvest. The working group 

recommended that the interim harvest 

strategy be implemented for the 2011– 

12 hunting season, that the Service and 

Flyway Councils evaluate the strategy 

after 5 years, and that we continue to 

assess the feasibility of developing a 

derived harvest strategy. 

In the May 13, 2010, Federal Register 

(75 FR 27144), we stated that following 

review and comment by the Flyway 

Councils, we would announce our 

intentions whether to propose the draft 

strategy. Given the unanimous Flyway 

Council approval of the working group’s 

draft interim harvest strategy, we 

concurred with the three Flyway 

Councils and proposed adoption of the 

strategy in the July 29, 2010, Federal 

Register (75 FR 44856) beginning in the 

2011–12 hunting season for a period of 

5 years (2011–15). Based on public 

comment, we finalized adoption of the 

strategy in the August 30, 2010, Federal 

Register (75 FR 52873) and stated that 

we planned to implement the strategy 

beginning with the 2011–12 hunting 

season. Specifics of the interim harvest 

strategy can be found at http:// 

www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ 

NewsPublicationsReports.html. 

16. Mourning Doves 

In 2006 (see July 28, 2006, Federal 

Register, 71 FR 43008), we approved 

guidelines for the use of zone/split 

seasons for doves with implementation 

beginning in the 2007–08 season. While 

the initial period was for 4 years (2007– 

10), we further stated that beginning in 

2011, zoning would conform to a 5-year 

period. 

The next open season for changes to 

dove zone/split configurations will be 

this year for the 2011–15 period. The 

guidelines are as follows: 

Guidelines for Dove Zones and Split 

Seasons in the Eastern and Central 

Mourning Dove Management Units 

(1) A zone is a geographic area or 

portion of a State, with a contiguous 

boundary, for which independent 

seasons may be selected for dove 

hunting. 

(2) States may select a zone/split 

option during an open season. The 

option must remain in place for the 

following 5 years except that States may 

make a one-time change and revert to 

their previous zone/split configuration 

in any year of the 5-year period. Formal 

approval will not be required, but States 

must notify the Service before making 

the change. 

(3) Zoning periods for dove hunting 

will conform to those years used for 

ducks, e.g., 2006–10. 

(4) The zone/split configuration 

consists of two zones with the option for 

3-way (3-segment) split seasons in one 

or both zones. As a grandfathered 

arrangement, Texas will have three 

zones with the option for 2-way (2- 

segment) split seasons in one, two, or all 

three zones. 

(5) States that do not wish to zone for 

dove hunting may split their seasons 

into no more than 3 segments. 

For the 2011–15 period, any State 

may continue the configuration used in 

2007–10. If changes are made, the zone/ 

split-season configuration must conform 

to one of the options listed above. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2
19886 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08AP11.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 19887 

[FR Doc. 2011–8404 Filed 4–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP08AP11.008</GPH>