23094 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–R9–MB–2012–0005; 

FF09M21200–123–FXMB1231099BPP0L2] 

RIN 1018–AX97 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 

2012–13 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 

Regulations (Preliminary) With 

Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals 

and Requests for 2014 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 2012–13 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 2012–13 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 2014 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 regulatory alternatives for 

the 2012–13 duck hunting seasons on or 

before June 22, 2012. Following 

subsequent Federal Register notices, 

you will be given an opportunity to 

submit comments for proposed earlyseason frameworks by July 27, 2012, and 

for proposed late-season frameworks 

and subsistence migratory bird seasons 

in Alaska by August 31, 2012. Tribes 

must submit proposals and related 

comments on or before June 1, 2012. 

Proposals from the Co-management 

Council for the 2014 spring and summer 

migratory bird subsistence harvest 

season must be submitted to the Flyway 

Councils and the Service on or before 

June 15, 2012. 

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–2012– 

0005. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R9– 

MB–2012–0005; 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 emailed 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 2014 

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 email 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 part 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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23095 

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 2012–13 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 2012–13 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 2012– 

13 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 2012–13 

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 2012–13 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 

x. Mallard Management Units 

xi. Other 

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 2012–13 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, 

2012, and those for late seasons on or 

about September 14, 2012. 

Request for 2014 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 

August 31, 2014, for the spring and 

summer subsistence harvest of 

migratory birds in Alaska. Each year, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
23096 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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, 2012, to be acted upon 

for the 2014 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 2014 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 2014 spring and summer migratory 

bird subsistence harvest season must be 

submitted to the Flyway Councils and 

the Service by June 15, 2013, 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 2012–13 duck hunting seasons. This 

proposed rulemaking also describes 

other recommended changes or specific 

preliminary proposals that vary from the 

2011–12 final frameworks (see August 

30, 2011, Federal Register (76 FR 

54052) for early seasons and September 

21, 2011, Federal Register (76 FR 

58682) 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 2012–13 

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: 

Region 1 (Idaho, Oregon, Washington, 

Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands)— 

Nanette Seto, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 911 NE. 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)—E.J. 

Williams, 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)—Chris Dwyer, 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)—Dave 

Olson, 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. 

Region 8 (California and Nevada)— 

Marie Strassburger, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, 

Sacramento, CA 95825–1846; (916) 

414–6727. 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23097 

establishment of migratory game 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. 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 2012–13 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 2012–13 hunting 

season should submit their proposals as 

soon as possible, but no later than June 

1, 2012. 

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 email 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, email 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
23098 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 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. 

Endangered Species Act Consideration 

Before issuance of the 2012–13 

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, the 2010– 

11, and the 2011–12 seasons. At this 

time, we are proposing no changes to 

the season frameworks for the 2012–13 

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–2012–0005. 

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–2012–0005. 

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 

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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23099 

1018–0023 (expires 4/30/2014). 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 2012–13 

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 2012–13 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 7, 2012. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife 

and Parks. 

Proposed 2012–13 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. No changes from 

the final 2011–12 frameworks 

established on August 30 and 

September 21, 2011 (76 FR 54052 and 

76 FR 58682) 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 2012–13 

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 

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 and the northern 

Yukon Territory (as based on Federal 

surveys in strata 1–12), and in California 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
23100 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 2012–13 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 annually using an eastern 

mallard AHM decision framework that 

is 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 the 

AHM process for the 2012–13 season. 

However, we are proposing several 

changes related to the population 

models used in the eastern mallard 

AHM protocol. 

The AHM process used to date to set 

harvest regulations for eastern mallards 

is based on an objective of maximizing 

long-term cumulative harvest and using 

predictions from six population models 

representing different hypotheses about 

the recruitment process and sources of 

bias in population predictions. The 

Atlantic Flyway Council and the Service 

have evaluated the performance of the 

model set used to support eastern 

mallard AHM and found that the 

current models used to predict survival 

(as a function of harvest) and 

recruitment (as a function of breeding 

population size) did not perform 

adequately, resulting in a consistent 

over-prediction of mallard population 

size in 5 of the last 6 years. 

Consequently, we believe that it is 

necessary to update those population 

models with more contemporary 

survival and recruitment information 

and revised hypotheses about the key 

factors affecting eastern mallard 

population dynamics. Further, the 

Flyway is also re-considering harvest 

management objectives and assessing 

the spatial designation of the eastern 

mallard breeding population. 

Recognizing that the development of a 

fully revised AHM protocol will likely 

take several years to complete, we have 

developed a revised model set to inform 

eastern mallard harvest decisions until 

all of the updates to the eastern mallard 

AHM protocol are completed. We 

propose to use this model set to inform 

eastern mallard harvest regulations until 

a fully revised AHM protocol is 

finalized. Further details on the revised 

models and results of simulations of this 

interim harvest policy are available on 

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

migratorybirds, or at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Final 2012–13 AHM Protocol 

We will detail the final AHM protocol 

for the 2012–13 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 2012–13 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 2012–13, 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 24, 2012, 

and you should send your comments to 

an address listed under the caption 

ADDRESSES. 

C. Zones and Split Seasons 

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 

segments to take advantage of speciesspecific peaks of abundance or to satisfy 

hunters in different areas who want to 

hunt during the peak of waterfowl 

abundance in their area. States are also 

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 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. 

Last year, we stated that while we 

continued to support the use of 

guidelines for providing a stable 

framework for controlling the number of 

changes to zone/split options, we 

revised the guidelines in response to a 

consensus position among all the 

Flyway Councils and the States’ desires 

for additional flexibility in addressing 

concerns of the hunting public. We also 

expressed our support for the 

recommendations from the 2008 Future 

of Waterfowl Management Workshop 

that called for a greater emphasis on the 

effects of management actions on the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23101 

hunting public. Specific details of those 

revisions are contained and discussed in 

the August 26, 2011, Federal Register 

(75 FR 53536). 

When making these revisions, we 

noted 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 decisionmaking 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 saw 

these revisions to the criteria 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 (NFC) 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. The 

study plan that the NFC agreed to 

implement includes 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, and look forward to the 

NFC’s report detailing the results of the 

evaluation. 

As we also stated last year, those 

States that were capable of 

implementing these new guidelines 

immediately were allowed to do so. 

However, for those States not able to 

implement changes last year, we were 

committed to extending the current 

open season into 2012. Thus, we asked 

that States provide us with any changes 

to their zone and split season 

configuration by May 1, 2012, for use 

during the 2012–13 season. After this 

open period, the next regularly 

scheduled open season for changes to 

zone and split season configurations 

will be in 2016, for use during the 2016– 

20 period. In order to allow sufficient 

time for States to solicit public input 

regarding their selections of zone and 

split season configurations in 2016, we 

will reaffirm the criteria during the 2015 

late-season regulations process. At that 

time we will notify States that changes 

to zone and split season configurations 

should be provided to the Service by 

May 1, 2016. 

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- 

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. 

The EA and Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) on the revised 

guidelines 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. 

D. Special Seasons/Species Management 

i. September Teal Seasons 

In 2009, we agreed to allow an 

additional 7 days during the special 

September teal season in the Atlantic 

Flyway (74 FR 43009). In addition, we 

requested that a new assessment of the 

cumulative effects of all teal harvest, 

including harvest during special 

September seasons be conducted. 

Furthermore, we indicated that we 

would not agree to any further 

modifications of special September teal 

seasons or other special September duck 

seasons until a thorough assessment of 

the harvest potential had been 

completed for both blue-winged and 

green-winged teal, as well as an 

assessment of the impacts of current 

special September seasons on these two 

species. Cinnamon teal were 

subsequently included in this 

assessment. We have been working in 

cooperation with the four Flyway 

Councils to conduct this technical work. 

The original goal was to have this work 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
23102 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

completed within 3 years; however, 

considerable population modeling work 

remains to be done. Thus, we expect 

this technical work to be completed by 

late 2012 and a final assessment report 

to be completed in early 2013. 

xii. Other 

Last year, the Central Flyway Council 

and the Upper-Region Regulations 

Committee of the Mississippi Flyway 

Council recommended that the daily 

and possession bag limits for redheads 

during the 2011–12 duck hunting 

season be 3 and 6, respectively (76 FR 

58682; September 21, 2011). While we 

recognized the desire to provide 

additional hunting opportunity for 

redheads, we did not support the 

recommendations to increase the daily 

bag limit of redheads from 2 to 3 birds. 

As we have done with other species 

(such as canvasbacks, pintails, etc.), we 

believed that changes to redhead daily 

bag limits should only be considered 

with guidance from an agreed-upon 

harvest strategy that is supported by all 

four Flyway Councils and the Service. 

Thus, we suggested that the Flyways 

work collaboratively to develop a 

redhead harvest strategy, which would 

include: (1) Clearly defined and agreedupon management objectives; (2) clearly 

defined regulatory alternatives; and 

(3) a model that can be used to predict 

population responses to harvest 

mortality. We further stated that if the 

development of a harvest strategy for 

redheads was a priority for the Flyways, 

a conceptual framework for a redhead 

harvest strategy could be discussed at 

the Harvest Management Working 

Group meeting in November 2011. We 

also noted that if the Flyway Councils 

wish to implement a redhead harvest 

strategy for the 2012–13 season, a draft 

strategy needed to be available for 

review and discussion by the February 

2012 SRC meeting, finalized by the 

Flyways Councils at their March 2012 

meetings, and forwarded as a 

recommendation for SRC consideration 

at the early season SRC meeting (June 

2012). 

We discussed the process and 

development of a draft redhead harvest 

strategy at the February 1, 2012, SRC 

meeting (noticed in a January 11, 2012, 

Federal Register (77 FR 1718)). 

Subsequently, in a February 6, 2012 

letter, the Central Flyway Council 

formally provided us with a draft 

redhead harvest management strategy 

for our review and consideration. As we 

discussed at the February 1 SRC 

meeting, in order to be implemented 

this year, as with all harvest strategies 

for late season species, the harvest 

strategy would need to be finalized and 

approved by the SRC at the June 20–21 

SRC meeting. At this time, we have 

made no decision on whether to 

propose a redhead harvest strategy for 

the 2012–13 season, but are providing 

the draft strategy to the public for their 

review, consideration, and comment. 

The draft strategy 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. Any 

decision on whether to propose a 

harvest management strategy for 

redheads for implementation in the 

2012–13 season, and the specifics of any 

such strategy, would be provided to the 

public in a separate supplemental 

proposed rule (see the diagram at the 

end of this proposed rule for major steps 

in the 2012–13 regulatory cycle). 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 23103 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP17AP12.047</GPH>
23104 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 74 / Tuesday, April 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

[FR Doc. 2012–9125 Filed 4–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS4EP17AP12.048</GPH>