24260 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018–AG08

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed

2000–01 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 2000–01 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 28, 2000, and for proposed lateseason frameworks by September 8,

2000. Tribes should submit proposals

and related comments by June 2, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the

proposals to the Chief, Office 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: Office 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 2000–01 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.

‘‘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. Hunting of

all other birds designated as migratory

(under § 10.13 of Subpart B of 50 CFR

part 10) is not permitted.

For the 2000–01 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 2000–

01 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 2000–01

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.

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. Early seasons are those

seasons that generally open prior to

October 1, and include seasons in

Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands. Late seasons are those

seasons opening in the remainder of the

United States about October 1 and later,

and include most of the general

waterfowl seasons.

Major steps in the 2000–01 regulatory

cycle relating to open public meetings

and Federal Register notifications are

illustrated in the accompanying

diagram. 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 24261

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 apply 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 harvest of migratory

game birds by tribal members 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 2000–01 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 (mailquestionnaire 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

(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 2000–01 hunting season should

submit their proposals as soon as

possible, but no later than June 2, 2000.

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).

24262 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 2000–01

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 Office

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

09/30/2000). The information from this

survey is used to estimate the

magnitude and the geographical and

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 24263

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 2000–01 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 24, 2000.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

Proposed 2000–01 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 1999–2000

frameworks of August 27 and September

27, 1999 (64 FR 47072 and 52124).

Specific preliminary proposals that vary

from the 1999–2000 frameworks and

issues requiring early discussion, action,

or the attention of the States or tribes are

contained below:

1. Ducks

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

We propose to continue the use of

Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM)

to guide the establishment of duck

hunting regulations. 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.

Efforts are underway to extend the

AHM process to account for mallards

breeding westward and eastward of the

midcontinent survey area. 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. Western mallards currently are

defined as those breeding in

Washington, Oregon, and California.

These mallard stocks make significant

contributions to the total mallard

harvest, particularly in the Atlantic and

Pacific Flyways.

Extension of the current process to

account for multiple mallard stocks and

Flyway-specific regulatory choices

involves: (1) Augmentation of the

decision criteria to include population

and environmental variables relevant to

eastern and western mallards; (2)

revision of the objective function to

account for harvest management

objectives for mallards outside the

midcontinent region; and (3)

modification of the decision rules to

allow independent regulatory choices in

the Flyways. An optimal harvest

strategy for each Flyway then can be

derived, which in effect would

represent an average of the optimal

strategies for each breeding stock,

weighted by the relative contribution of

each stock to the respective Flyways.

Modifying the AHM protocol to

account for multiple duck populations

is one of the most challenging technical

issues facing harvest managers. Never

before have we tried to consider the

status of multiple populations in such a

formal way, nor have we attempted to

give Flyways the ability to choose

regulations that are predicated on their

particular derivation of birds. We expect

the efforts with eastern and western

mallards to be precedent-setting and,

thus, must be done carefully and in a

way that provides a sound conceptual

framework for considering additional

duck populations in the future.

Recently, the Service, in cooperation

with the Atlantic Flyway Council,

completed a technical assessment

regarding modification of the current

AHM protocol to account for eastern

mallards. That report is available at:

http://www.fws.gov/r9mbmo/reports/

reports.html. We will consider the

implications discussed in that

assessment, as well as all public

comment, in proposing a regulatory

alternative for the Atlantic Flyway for

the 2000–2001 hunting season.

G. Special Seasons/Species

Management

i. Scaup

In 1999, we reduced the scaup daily

bag limit to 3 in the Atlantic,

Mississippi, and Central Flyways and 4

in the Pacific Flyway, based on the

status of and trends in scaup

populations and information from

recent hunting seasons. A harvest

management strategy for scaup was

under development at that time but was

not adopted because Flyway Council

reviews of the draft strategy indicated

further refinement was needed. We

hoped to have a strategy completed

prior to the 2000 hunting season;

however, at this time it appears unlikely

that sufficient progress can be made to

do so. We are continuing to work with

the Flyway Councils to complete the

strategy, but if it cannot be completed in

24264 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

time, scaup bag limits for this year’s

hunting season will again be based on

scaup population status and harvest

information.

ii. Canvasbacks

We continue to support the

canvasback harvest strategy adopted in

1994. Overall, we believe the strategy

has performed adequately, and have not

found sufficient reason to alter it.

However, results from the Service’s

Harvest Surveys indicate that

canvasback harvests generally have been

greater in both the U.S. and Canada than

those predicted in the strategy. We note

that harvest predictions used in the

strategy were based largely on data

collected several decades ago, and

believe that more contemporary

estimates would better reflect current

harvest pressure. Therefore, we propose

to replace the current predicted harvest

values with the average harvests

observed during recent (1994–97)

hunting seasons. We will continue to

monitor the strategy’s performance as

annual information from population and

habitat surveys become available.

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. In 1997, we stated that after

September 2000, the special wood duck

seasons in Florida, Kentucky and

Tennessee would be discontinued; the

year 2000 will be the last permitted for

these seasons. The Service, in

cooperation with the Atlantic and

Mississippi Flyway Councils, is in the

process of developing population

models that will guide 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.

8. Swans

In March, we developed and made

available for public review a Draft

Supplemental Environmental

Assessment (Assessment) on the

continuation of general swan hunting

seasons in parts of the Pacific Flyway.

The Assessment includes a review of

the past 5-year experimental general

swan hunting seasons in parts of the

Pacific Flyway and alternatives for

establishment of future operational

swan hunting seasons in the same area.

The Assessment was prompted by

requests from individuals, States, and

various conservation organizations for a

thorough examination of alternatives for

swan hunting in the Pacific Flyway in

light of continuing concerns for the

Rocky Mountain Population of

trumpeter swans. The Assessment deals

with establishment of an operational

approach for swan hunting and related

efforts to address status and

distributional concerns regarding the

Rocky Mountain Population of

trumpeter swans. Four alternatives,

including the proposed action, are

considered. Copies of the Assessment

are available upon request from the

Office of Migratory Bird Management.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 24265

[FR Doc. 00–10069 Filed 4–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C