12054 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AE14

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed

1997–1998 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 the Service)

proposes to establish annual hunting

regulations for certain migratory game

birds. The Service also requests

proposals from Indian tribes that wish

to establish special migratory bird

hunting regulations. The establishment

of these regulations will permit the

taking of the designated species during

the 1997–98 hunting season. The

Service annually prescribes outside

limits (frameworks) within which States

may select hunting seasons. The Service

has also employed guidelines to

establish special migratory bird hunting

regulations on Federal Indian

reservations and ceded lands. These

seasons provide hunting opportunities

for recreation and sustenance; aid

Federal, State, and tribal governments in

the management of migratory game

birds; and are designed to permit

harvests at levels compatible with

migratory bird population status and

habitat conditions.

DATES: Tribes should submit proposals

and related comments by June 2, 1997.

The comment period for proposed earlyseason frameworks will end on July 25,

1997; and for proposed late-season

frameworks on September 4, 1997. The

Service will hold a public hearing for

early-season frameworks on June 26,

1997, at 9 a.m. and late-season

frameworks on August 7, 1997, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The Service will hold both

public hearings in the Auditorium,

Department of the Interior Building,

1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC.

The public may submit written

comments on the proposals and notice

of intention to testify at either hearing

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. The public may inspect

comments received during normal

business hours in room 634, Arlington

Square Building, 4401 N. 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 and

request for tribal proposals with the

preliminary proposals for the annual

regulations-development process. The

Service will publish the remaining

proposed and final rulemaking

documents separately. For inquiries on

tribal guidelines and proposals, please

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) 725–

3313.

—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 Center, 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 the intention

of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, to establish open hunting

seasons and daily bag and possession

limits for certain designated groups or

species of migratory game birds for

1997–1998 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. All other

birds designated as migratory (under

10.13 of Subpart B of 50 CFR Part 10)

in the aforementioned conventions may

not be hunted. For the 1997–98 hunting

season, the Service 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). These proposals

are described under Proposed 1997–98

Migratory Game Bird Hunting

Regulations (Preliminary) in this

document. 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,

were published in the March 14, 1990,

Federal Register (55 FR 9618).

Regulatory Schedule for 1997–1998

This is the first in a series of proposed

and final rulemaking documents for

migratory game bird hunting

regulations. The Service will make

proposals relating to the harvest of

migratory game birds initiated after

publication of this proposed rulemaking

available for public review in

supplemental proposed rulemakings

published in the Federal Register. Also,

the Service 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,

the Service anticipates that comment

periods on some proposals will be

necessarily abbreviated. Special

circumstances limit the amount of time

which the Service 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 at a time early

enough in the summer to allow resource

agencies to select and publish season

dates and bag limits prior to the hunting

seasons and, on the other hand, the lack

of current data on the status of most

migratory game birds until later in the

summer.

Because the process is strongly

influenced by the times when

information is available for

consideration, the overall regulations

process is divided into two segments.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules 12055

October 1 and later, and include most of

the waterfowl seasons.

Major steps in the 1997–1998

regulatory cycle relating to public

hearings and Federal Register

notifications are illustrated in the

accompanying diagram. Dates shown

relative to publication of Federal

Register documents are target dates.

Sections of this and subsequent

documents which outline hunting

frameworks and guidelines are

organized under numbered headings.

These headings are:

1. Ducks

2. Sea Ducks

3. Mergansers

4. Canada Geese

5. White-fronted Geese

6. Brant

7. Snow and Ross’s (Light) Geese

8. Swans

9. Sandhill Cranes

10. Coots

11. Moorhens and Gallinules

12. Rails

13. Snipe

14. Woodcock

15. Band-tailed Pigeons

16. Mourning Doves

17. White-winged and White-tipped

Doves

18. Alaska

19. Hawaii

20. Puerto Rico

21. Virgin Islands

22. Falconry

23. Other

Later sections of this and subsequent

documents will refer only to numbered

items requiring attention. Therefore, we

will omit those items requiring no

attention and remaining numbered

items will be discontinuous and appear

incomplete.

Public Hearings

Two public hearings pertaining to

1997–1998 migratory game bird hunting

regulations are scheduled. The Service

will conduct both hearings in

accordance with 455 DM 1 of the

Departmental Manual. On June 26, the

Service will hold a public hearing at 9

a.m. in the Auditorium of the

Department of the Interior Building,

1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC.

This hearing will review the status of

migratory shore and upland game birds

and discuss proposed hunting

regulations for these species plus

regulations for migratory game birds in

Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the

Virgin Islands; special September

waterfowl seasons in designated States;

special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic

Flyway; extended falconry seasons; and

proposed regulatory alternatives for the

1997–98 duck hunting season. On

August 7, the Service will hold a public

hearing at 9 a.m. in the Auditorium of

the Department of the Interior Building,

address above. This hearing will review

the status and proposed regulations for

waterfowl not previously discussed at

the June 26 public hearing. The public

is invited to participate in both

hearings. Persons wishing to make a

statement at these hearings should write

to the address indicated under the

caption ADDRESSES.

Requests for Tribal Proposals

Background

Beginning with the 1985–86 hunting

season, the Service has 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. The

Service developed these guidelines in

response to tribal requests for Service

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, the regulations

established under the guidelines would

have to 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 bird hunting by

nonmembers on Indian-owned

reservation lands, subject to Service

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 hunting by nonIndians on these lands. In such cases,

the Service encourages the tribes and

States to reach agreement on regulations

that would apply throughout the

reservations. When appropriate, the

Service will consult with a tribe and

State with the aim of facilitating an

accord. The Service 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 put

forward a request for consultation as a

result of the proposal being published in

the Federal Register. The Service will

not presume to make a determination,

without being advised by a tribe or a

State, that any issue is/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 it is a customary

practice. The Service does 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, the Service has reached annual

agreement with tribes for hunting by

tribal members on their lands or on

lands where they have reserved hunting

rights. The Service will continue to

consult with tribes that wish to reach a

mutual agreement on hunting

regulations for on-reservation hunting

by tribal members.

The guidelines should not be viewed

as inflexible. Nevertheless, the Service

believes 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.
12056 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Details Needed in Tribal Proposals

Tribes that wish to use the guidelines

to establish special hunting regulations

for the 1997–98 hunting season must

submit a proposal that includes:

(1) the requested hunting season dates

and other details regarding regulations

to be observed;

(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 in the

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

The Service will publish pertinent

details in tribal proposals for public

review in later Federal Register

documents. Because of the time

required for Service and public review,

Indian tribes that desire special

migratory bird hunting regulations for

the 1997–98 hunting season should

submit their proposals as soon as

possible, but no later than June 2, 1997.

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

hunting regulations for tribal members

on ceded lands should send a courtesy

copy of the proposal to officials in the

affected State(s).

Public Comments Solicited

The policy of the Department of the

Interior is, whenever practicable, to

afford the public an opportunity to

participate in the rulemaking process.

Accordingly, interested persons are

invited to submit written comments,

suggestions, or recommendations

regarding the proposed regulations.

Promulgation of final migratory game

bird hunting regulations will take into

consideration all comments received by

the Service. Such comments, and any

additional information received, may

lead to final regulations that differ from

these proposals. Interested persons are

invited to participate in this rulemaking

by submitting written comments to the

address indicated under the caption

ADDRESSES.

The public 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, the Service will

establish specific comment periods. The

Service will consider, but possibly may

not respond in detail to, each comment.

As in the past, the Service will

summarize all comments received

during the comment period and respond

to them after the closing date.

Flyway Council Meetings

Departmental representatives will be

present at the following winter meetings

of the various Flyway Councils:

DATE: March 14, 1997

—Central Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.

DATE: March 15, 1997

—National Waterfowl Council, 3:30

p.m.

DATE: March 16, 1997

—Atlantic Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.

—Mississippi Flyway Council, 8:30 a.m.

—Pacific Flyway Council, 1:00 p.m.

The Council meetings will be held at

the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert

Street, NW., Washington, DC.

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.

Notice of Availability was published in

the Federal Register on June 16, 1988

(53 FR 22582). The Service’s Record of

Decision was published 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 Service at the address

indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

Prior to issuance of the 1997–98

migratory game bird hunting

regulations, the Service 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 the Service 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.

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.). The economic impacts of the

annual hunting regulations on small

business entities were analyzed in detail

and a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis

(Analysis) was issued by the Service in

1996. 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 1991 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 $254 and $592

million at small businesses in 1996.

Copies of the Analysis are available

upon request from the Office of

Migratory Bird Management. The

address is indicated under the caption

ADDRESSES.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Department examined these

regulations under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and found no

information collection requirements.

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 1997-98 hunting

season are authorized under 16 U.S.C.

703–711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C.

742 a—j.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules 12057

Dated: March 5, 1997.

Don Barry,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed 1997–1998 Migratory Game Bird

Hunting Regulations (Preliminary)

Pending current information on

populations, harvest, and habitat

conditions, and receipt of

recommendations from the four Flyway

Councils, specific framework proposals

(including opening and closing dates,

seasons lengths, and bag limits) may be

deferred. Unless otherwise specified, no

change from the final 1996–97

frameworks of August 29 and September

26, 1996, (61 FR 45836 and 50662) is

proposed. Specific preliminary

proposals that vary from the 1996–97

frameworks and issues requiring early

discussion, action, or the attention of

the States or tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

The annual process of setting duckhunting regulations in the United States

is based on a system of resource

monitoring, data analyses, and

rulemaking. Each year, monitoring

activities such as aerial surveys and

hunter questionnaires provide

information on harvest levels,

population size, and habitat conditions

on the breeding grounds. Data collected

from these monitoring programs are

analyzed each year, and proposals for

duck-hunting regulations are developed

by the Flyway Councils, States, and the

Service. After extensive public review,

the Service announces a regulatory

framework within which States can set

their hunting seasons.

By and large, this process has

generally worked well. For most duck

species, population levels and

associated hunting opportunities have

been maintained in the face of variable

environmental conditions and

permanent landscape changes. Despite

this success, however, the annual

process of setting regulations often has

been controversial. Debates over

appropriate regulations are frequent

among hunters, managers, and the

public-at-large. The controversy

typically stems from disagreements

about the role of harvest in population

dynamics. As a consequence, managers

are unsure about how much regulations

should be restricted when populations

are declining, how much they can be

liberalized when populations are

increasing, and when those regulatory

changes should occur.

To help answer these questions, the

Service, in cooperation with the Flyway

Councils, introduced the concept of

Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM)

in 1995. AHM should help managers

better understand the impacts of

regulations on harvest and population

levels, thereby improving the ability to

provide maximum hunting

opportunities consistent with long-term

resource maintenance. AHM also is

intended to provide a more objective,

better informed, and less contentious

decision-making process, as well as a

formal and coherent framework for

addressing controversial harvestmanagement issues.

Key components of AHM are

agreement on the goals of harvest

management, a limited number of

regulatory alternatives or options, and

alternative models of population

dynamics. The alternative models

reflect disagreement among managers

regarding the effects of hunting

regulations on harvest and population

size. With AHM, the setting of hunting

regulations involves a repetitive

process:

(1) each year, an optimal regulation is

identified based on population and

habitat status, and on the relative ability

of alternative models to mimic

population dynamics;

(2) after the regulatory decision is

made, each population model is used to

predict breeding population size the

following year;

(3) when monitoring data become

available, models that more accurately

predict observed population size gain

credibility, while those models that are

poor predictors lose credibility; and

(4) the new assessments of model

credibility are used to start another

iteration of the process.

A technical working group

representing the Service, the four

Flyway Councils, and the Canadian

Wildlife Service was established in 1992

to assist with implementation of AHM.

The working group continues to meet at

least once a year to pursue AHM

conceptual development and to

consider technical and communication

issues for the current regulatory cycle.

The working group met in December

1996 to address issues and concerns

raised during the 1996 regulatory

process. The working group’s role

continues to be strictly advisory and

should not be misconstrued as a

substitute for any existing technical or

decision-making body.

The working group continues to

express concern about what may be

unrealistic expectations among

managers and the public regarding the

scope and speed of AHM

implementation. The working group

emphasizes that AHM has highlighted

many unresolved issues in waterfowl

harvest management, and that adequate

time is needed to address these issues

in a comprehensive and coherent

manner. In the interim, the Service is

interested in working with its partners

to foster agreement on technical issues

of highest priority and realistic

timetables for action. The Service

believes strongly that the success of

AHM will depend on a commitment to

careful and methodical implementation.

Implementation of AHM began in

1995 with a focus on midcontinent

mallards. The Service believes this

focus is appropriate because mallards

are the most abundant and heavily

harvested duck species, and because the

status of mallards is closely related to

the status of many other duck stocks.

Nonetheless, the Service continues to

work toward a more formal AHM

framework for other ducks, including

mallards in eastern breeding areas,

northern pintails, canvasbacks, and

black ducks. Ultimately, however,

managers face a number of practical

constraints (e.g., available data, quality

of monitoring programs, complexity of

assessment procedures) and

development of a general AHM

framework for all duck stocks likely is

not feasible. The Service believes that

the following questions should be

addressed when considering whether a

regulatory approach different than that

for mallards is warranted:

(1) How much does the duck stock

differ from mallards in terms of

population dynamics (i.e., responses to

environmental conditions and harvest)

and vulnerability to harvest?

(2) What are the relative costs (i.e.,

monitoring and assessment) and

benefits (i.e., increased hunting

opportunity and improved ability to

attain population goals) of managing the

duck stock independently from

mallards?

(3) What is the ability of hunters to

harvest selectively?

(4) Do hunters prefer the maximum

hunting opportunity afforded by

complex regulations, or simpler hunting

regulations that offer less hunting

opportunity?

Although these issues always have

been considered before implementing

stock-specific harvest strategies, the

Service is interested in developing

formal assessments before considering

significant changes to existing harvest

strategies for duck species other than

mallards.

In July 1996, the four Flyway

Councils passed a joint recommendation

regarding development of regulatory

alternatives for AHM. This

recommendation stressed the

importance of refining the current
12058 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules

alternatives and provided guidelines for

considering modifications. Following

the July Council meetings, the AHM

working group prepared a mail survey

requesting further clarification from

Council members regarding their

concerns about the current alternatives.

Copies of the joint recommendation and

of the survey results are available upon

request from the Office of Migratory

Bird Management at the address

indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Based on input from the Flyway

Councils, the working group developed

a recommended set of regulatory

alternatives for the 1997–98 hunting

season. Significant changes from last

year’s alternatives would include: (1)

the addition of a very restrictive

alternative; (2) additional days and a

higher total-duck daily bag limit in the

moderate and liberal alternatives; and

(3) an increase in the bag limit of hen

mallards in the moderate and liberal

alternatives. See the attached table for a

complete description of the

recommended alternatives. The working

group provided the following

explanations and rationale for these

alternatives:

(1) the range and number of regulatory

alternatives was expanded to decrease

the probability of closed seasons and to

take greater advantage of available

hunting opportunity at high population

levels; however, even the very

restrictive option would be too liberal

for some combinations of population

size and pond numbers due to the

emphasis placed on reaching the goal of

the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan at very low

population sizes; in addition, more days

and a higher daily bag limit in the

liberal option tends to produce more

conservative regulatory choices at low

population sizes;

(2) recommended maximum and

minimum season lengths and bag limits

largely reflect the reported desires of

most Flyway Council members;

differences in season length and bag

limits among Flyways generally

maintain proportional differences

during the last two decades;

(3) total bag limits under the moderate

and liberal alternatives would be

increased to provide additional hunting

opportunity for species not restricted

within the overall bag; this change

would allow additional harvest of

abundant species like gadwall, teal, and

shoveler above and beyond that realized

from additional days in the season;

(4) the increase in bag limits of hen

mallards is recommended to address

States’ concern about overly-restrictive

regulations, while recognizing there are

biological and sociological arguments

for maintaining sex-specific bag limits;

the working group also recognized,

however, that hen harvest rates are

lower than those for males and that

many hunters are adverse to shooting

hens, irrespective of what regulations

allow; and

(5) some simplification in regulations

would be achieved by assigning the

same basic bag limits to the very

restrictive and restrictive alternatives,

and to the moderate and liberal

alternatives; this also would provide a

better basis to investigate the

independent effects of season length

and bag limit.

Final estimates of harvest rates (i.e.,

the proportion of the fall flight

harvested) expected from the

recommended regulatory alternatives

will be available in the near future.

Predictions will be based on estimates

of harvest rates realized in the recent

past, Flyway-specific analyses that

predict the effect of changing days and

bag limits, and the long-term declines in

hunter numbers. Preliminary estimates

of mean harvest rates for adult male

mallards are provided in the following

table. Harvest rates of females would be

about 30% lower than those for males.

The selection of the appropriate

alternative for the 1997–98 hunting

season would depend on breeding

population and production estimates,

which will be available in late July.

Alternative

Harvest

rates (percent)

Very restrictive .......................... 4.5

Restrictive ................................. 7.1

Moderate ................................... 9.2

Liberal ....................................... 12.2

The Service will offer its proposal for

regulatory alternatives for ducks in the

Federal Register in late May, with a

public comment period to end on or

about June 27, 1997. Final regulatory

alternatives will be published in the

Federal Register on or about July 15,

1997.

G. Special Seasons/Species

Management

i. Canvasback

Since 1994, the Service has followed

a harvest-management strategy for

canvasbacks which considers

population levels, potential for

recruitment, and expected harvest by

hunters. The plan permits an open

season on canvasbacks with a 1-bird

daily bag limit nationwide when the

above factors are sufficient to maintain

a spring population size of 500,000

birds. Each year, the Service reviews

harvest and population-status

information to evaluate the effectiveness

of the harvest strategy. This information

is not yet available for 1997. The Service

proposes no change in the strategy

employed for deciding on regulations

governing the harvest of canvasbacks.

ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons

The Service continues to stress the

importance of improving wood duck

population monitoring programs. Such

programs are necessary to ensure

maintenance of our regular season

approach to managing this species. The

Wood Duck Population Monitoring

Initiative (Initiative), completed in 1996,

will provide managers with an

assessment of the geographic scale at

which we can adequately monitor

population levels or trends,

productivity, and survival and recovery

rates. The draft final report for the

Initiative is currently being reviewed by

Flyway Council Technical Sections and

Service cooperators. Publication of the

final report is scheduled for July 1997.

Decisions regarding the

appropriateness of September teal/wood

duck seasons will be made in

cooperation with the Flyway Councils

after the assessment of wood duck

monitoring programs is completed.

Until such time, the Service does not

propose changes to these seasons in

Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida or to

expand such seasons elsewhere.

iii. High Plains Mallard Management

Unit

The Service is expecting the report on

the High Plains Mallard Management

Unit from the Central Flyway Council.

Prompt completion of the report is

encouraged prior to this summer’s

regulatory decisions.

iv. Black Ducks

The wintering population of black

ducks appears to have stabilized over

the last decade during which restrictive

regulations have been in effect. Recent

Midwinter Waterfowl Survey estimates

have been slightly more than 300,000

for the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways

combined. Black duck populations

remain below the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan goal of

385,000.

Current black duck harvest

restrictions are based on guidelines

outlined in the 1983 Environmental

Assessment, which requested that States

voluntarily reduce their harvest by 25%

from 1977–81 levels. To date, both

Flyways and individual States have met

or exceeded this goal. Beginning in

1994, with the return of more liberal

duck seasons, black duck harvests have
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules 12059

increased. The Service is concerned that

these longer seasons may result in

higher harvests and may have a negative

impact upon black duck recovery.

Recent survival analyses from

banding programs have not definitively

answered questions regarding the

impacts of harvest, but do not rule out

the possibility of additive effects on the

dynamics of black duck populations. To

help clarify the role of harvest, the Black

Duck Joint Venture Committee indicated

that a higher priority should be placed

on achieving preseason banding goals.

The Service requests input from the

Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway

Councils.

v. Youth Hunt

This past year, the Service offered

States the opportunity to establish a

special ‘‘Youth Waterfowl Hunting

Day.’’ The one-day season was intended

to introduce youth to the concepts of

ethical utilization and stewardship of

waterfowl and other natural resources,

encourage youngsters and adults to

experience the outdoors together, and

contribute to our Nation’s migratory

bird conservation efforts. The Service is

currently evaluating this opportunity

and is committed to working with the

States and the Flyway Councils prior to

any similar proposal for a youth hunt

this year.

4. Canada Geese

In 1995, the regular season on

Atlantic Population (AP) Canada geese

was closed due to dramatic declines in

the breeding population from 118,000

pairs in 1988 to 29,000 pairs in 1995. In

1996, the spring breeding survey in

northern Quebec recorded an increase to

46,000 pairs. However, habitat

conditions at the time of the survey last

spring were not favorable for nesting

and productivity of AP Canada geese

was believed to have been below

average. While the impact of last year’s

poor production may not affect this

year’s spring survey, this ‘‘missing’’ year

class will impact production in future

years.

An Action Plan approved by the

Atlantic Flyway Council last year calls

for a return to 60,000 breeding pairs and

evidence of a sustained population

recovery before hunting seasons are

resumed. The overall population

objective for the AP is 150,000 pairs in

the Ungava Region. Further, the Action

Plan for the next five years (1997–2001)

calls for an ambitious commitment to

fund monitoring programs, measure

productivity, initiate breeding ground

banding, and implement surveys to

measure subsistence harvest. The

Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service,

States and Provinces have been asked to

participate in this effort to improve our

management database on AP Canada

Geese. Copies of the Action Plan are

available upon request from the Office

of Migratory Bird Management at the

address indicated under the caption

ADDRESSES.

Last year, several questions arose

regarding the population status and

harvest of a ‘‘Maritime’’ or ‘‘North

Atlantic’’ Population of Canada geese.

This stock of birds was not identified

separately from the AP in previous

Flyway management plans primarily

because little survey information exists

to monitor the status or differentiate the

harvest of this stock from AP birds.

Currently, the Atlantic Flyway has

agreed to begin the task of setting up the

appropriate surveys necessary to

delineate this stock of birds and

determine whether it should be

managed separately from the AP in the

future.

14. Woodcock

The Service is increasingly concerned

about the gradual long-term declines in

woodcock populations in the Eastern

and Central Management Regions.

Although habitat change appears to be

the primary cause of the declines, the

Service believes that hunting

regulations should be commensurate

with the status of woodcock populations

and rates of decline. The Service seeks

active participation by the Atlantic,

Mississippi, and Central Flyway

Councils in the development of shortand long-term harvest management

strategies for woodcock, which identify

the circumstances under which changes

in harvest opportunity should be

implemented and what those changes

should be. Should the 1997 population

data reflect the continuing decline,

without other compelling information,

harvest restrictions are likely.

23. Other

A. Compensatory Days

In some states, state law or

constitutional provisions prohibit

Sunday hunting. These states have

asked the Service to allow them to ‘‘add

on’’ days to ‘‘compensate’’ their hunters

for these lost days. In the past, the

Service has maintained the policy that

there is no biological basis for

prohibiting hunting on Sundays and

believed this problem was an individual

State issue, which could best be

resolved by each State removing their

self-imposed restrictions (September 24,

1993, Federal Register, 58 FR 50188).

However, two years ago during the

early-season regulations meeting, June

21, 1995, the Service agreed to work

with the Atlantic Flyway Council to

review and clarify various technical and

policy concerns relating to the issue of

offering compensatory days to those

States that restrict Sunday hunting.

Subsequently, on December 18, 1996, in

Hadley, Massachusetts, the Service met

with several Atlantic Flyway Council

representatives to continue its efforts to

resolve this issue. Although no final

decisions were made, the Service did

express its empathy with the problem

and the difficulty States have in

resolving this issue at the individual

State level. During the 1997–1998

regulatory cycle, the Service will

continue to work with the Atlantic

Flyway Council to address several

policy and technical concerns and to

explore potential solutions and

appropriate guidelines and/or criteria.

B. Bird Banding

About 10 years ago, the Service began

a carefully-planned effort to increase

band-reporting rates, the proportion of

bands recovered by hunters that are

reported to the Bird Banding Laboratory

(now part of the U.S. Geological

Survey’s Biological Resources Division).

In the initial phase, current bandreporting rates were estimated and

sources of variability identified. The

second phase is a large-scale effort to

increase band-reporting rates, with

associated studies designed to assess the

magnitude of the increase. This phase

was begun in 1993 using bands

inscribed with a more complete return

address. In 1995, the Service, in

conjunction with the Bird Banding

Laboratory, conducted a study of the

effects of using a toll-free telephone

number on the reporting of bands from

mallard ducks recovered by hunters. In

1996, bands with the 1–800–327-BAND

phone number were placed on most

preseason-banded mallards. The new

toll-free number was advertised in State

regulation brochures and magazines. In

1997, plans are to place the new bands

on most preseason-banded ducks and

geese. The goal is to have the phone

number widely disseminated so that the

transition time to this new way of

reporting bands is as short a period as

possible. The Service requests that State

assist in advertising the new phone

number and suggests the inclusion of

the number in all State waterfowl

regulations brochures. Other outreach

efforts by the States, such as inclusion

of the number in State magazines and

other information and education efforts

is encouraged.

BILLING CODE 4310–55-F
12060 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Proposed Rules 12061

[FR Doc. 97–6486 Filed 3–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C