[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21298-21306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10696]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AH79


Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2001-02 Migratory Game Bird 
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal 
Proposals

<BD>AGENCY: <RM>Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

<BD>ACTION: <RM>Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

<BD>SUMMARY: <RM>The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter 
Service or we) proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for 
certain migratory game birds for the 2001-02 hunting season. We 
annually prescribe outside limits (frameworks) within which States may 
select hunting seasons. We also request proposals from Indian tribes 
that wish to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations on 
Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. Migratory game bird 
hunting seasons provide hunting opportunities for recreation and 
sustenance; aid Federal, State, and tribal governments in the 
management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels 
compatible with migratory bird population status and habitat 
conditions.

<BD>DATES: <RM>You must submit comments for proposed early-season 
frameworks by July 30, 2001, and for proposed late-season frameworks by 
September 7, 2001. Tribes should submit proposals and related comments 
by June 1, 2001.

<BD>ADDRESSES: <RM>Send your comments on the proposals to the Chief, 
Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Department of the Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20240. All comments received, including names and 
addresses, will become part of the public record. You may inspect 
comments during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington Square 
Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

<BD>FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: <RM>Ron W. Kokel at: Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department 
of the Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240, 
(703) 358-1714.

[[Page 21299]]


<BD>SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

<RM>Background and Overview

    Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in 
conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for 
the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird 
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized to determine when ``hunting, taking, capture, killing, 
possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or 
export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest or egg'' of migratory game 
birds can take place and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These 
regulations must be written based on ``the zones of temperature and the 
distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and 
lines of migratory flight of such birds'' and must be updated annually. 
This responsibility has been delegated to the Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service) of the Department of the Interior as the lead Federal agency 
for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States.
    The Service develops migratory bird hunting regulations by 
establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag 
limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. Acknowledging 
regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has 
administratively divided the nation into four Flyways for the primary 
purpose of managing waterfowl and obtaining assistance in the 
formulation of these regulations. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, 
Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization 
generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that 
Flyway. The Flyway Councils also assist in researching and providing 
management techniques for Federal, State, and Provincial Governments, 
as well as private conservation agencies and the general public.
    The migratory bird hunting regulations, located at 50 CFR 20, are 
constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative 
considerations dictate how long the rulemaking process will last. Most 
importantly though, the biological cycle of migratory birds controls 
the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the date on which 
results are available for consideration. The process includes two 
separate regulations-development schedules, based on early-and late-
hunting season regulations. Early seasons pertain to all migratory game 
bird species in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, 
migratory game birds other than waterfowl (i.e., dove, woodcock, etc.) 
and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada 
geese. The early season generally begins prior to October 1. Late 
seasons generally start on or after October 1 and include most 
waterfowl seasons not already established.
    There are basically no differences in the processes for 
establishing either early- or late-hunting seasons. For each cycle, 
Service biologists gather, analyze, and interpret survey data and 
provide this information to all those involved in the process through a 
series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils 
and other interested parties. Because the Service is required to take 
abundance of migratory birds and other factors into consideration, the 
Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in 
conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the Canadian Wildlife 
Service, and State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies. Factors 
such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual 
breeding effort, the condition of breeding, wintering habitat, the 
number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest are considered to 
determine the appropriate frameworks for each species.
    After frameworks, or outside limits, are established for season 
lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, 
migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of State 
and Federal governments. The Service works together with the States by 
allowing them certain authority to regulate hunting of migratory birds. 
After Service establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, 
the States may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory 
options for the hunting seasons. States may be more conservative in 
their selections than the Federal frameworks but never more liberal.

Consolidation of Notices

    For administrative purposes, this document consolidates the notice 
of intent to establish open migratory bird hunting seasons and the 
request for tribal proposals with the preliminary proposals for the 
annual hunting regulations-development process. We will publish the 
remaining proposed and final rulemaking documents separately. For 
inquiries on tribal guidelines and proposals, tribes should contact the 
following personnel:

Region 1--Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 N.E. 
11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164
Region 2--Jeff Haskins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 
1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; (505) 248-7885
Region 3--Steve Wilds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal 
Building, One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056; 
(612) 713-5432
Region 4--Frank Bowers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century 
Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; (404) 679-4000
Region 5--George Haas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate 
Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589; (413) 253-8576
Region 6--John Cornely, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 
25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, Colorado 80225; (303) 236-
8145
Region 7--Robert Leedy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East 
Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; (907) 786-3423

Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons

    This notice announces our intent to establish open hunting seasons 
and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated groups or 
species of migratory game birds for 2001-02 in the contiguous United 
States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, under 
Sec. Sec. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50 
CFR part 20.
    For the 2001-02 migratory game bird hunting season, we will propose 
regulations for certain designated members of the avian families 
Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons); 
Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and gallinules); 
and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these proposals 
under Proposed 2001-02 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations 
(Preliminary) in this document. We published definitions of waterfowl 
flyways and mourning dove management units, as well as a description of 
the data used in and the factors affecting the regulatory process, in 
the March 14, 1990, <CS>Federal Register <RM>(55 FR 9618).

Regulatory Schedule for 2001-02

    This document is the first in a series of proposed, supplemental, 
and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting 
regulations. In supplemental proposed rulemakings, we will make 
proposals relating to the harvest of migratory game birds initiated 
after this publication is available for public review. Also, we will 
publish additional supplemental proposals for public comment in the 
<CS>Federal Register <RM>as population, habitat, harvest, and other 
information become available.

[[Page 21300]]

    Because of the late dates when certain portions of these data 
become available, we anticipate abbreviated comment periods on some 
proposals. Special circumstances limit the amount of time we can allow 
for public comment on these regulations. Specifically, two 
considerations compress the time for the rulemaking process: The need, 
on one hand, to establish final rules early enough in the summer to 
allow resource agencies to select and publish season dates and bag 
limits prior to the beginning of hunting seasons and, on the other 
hand, the lack of current status data on most migratory game birds 
until later in the summer. Because the regulatory process is strongly 
influenced by the times when information is available for 
consideration, we divide the regulatory process into two segments: 
early seasons and late seasons.
    Major steps in the 2001-02 regulatory cycle relating to open public 
meetings and <CS>Federal Register <RM>notifications are illustrated in 
the diagram at the end of this proposed rule. All publication dates of 
<CS>Federal Register <RM>documents are target dates.
    All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining hunting 
frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These 
headings are:

1. Ducks
2. Sea Ducks
3. Mergansers
4. Canada Geese
5. White-fronted Geese
6. Brant
7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
8. Swans
9. Sandhill Cranes
10. Coots
11. Moorhens and Gallinules
12. Rails
13. Snipe
14. Woodcock
15. Band-tailed Pigeons
16. Mourning Doves
17. White-winged and White-tipped Doves
18. Alaska
19. Hawaii
20. Puerto Rico
21. Virgin Islands
22. Falconry
23. Other

    Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to 
numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to 
note that we will omit those items requiring no attention and remaining 
numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.

Requests for Tribal Proposals

Background

    Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed 
guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, <CS>Federal Register <RM>(50 
FR 23467) to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations on 
Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and 
ceded lands. We developed these guidelines in response to tribal 
requests for our recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for 
some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both 
tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. The 
guidelines include possibilities for:

    (1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members, 
with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place 
within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those 
selected by the surrounding State(s);
    (2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of 
usual Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily 
bag and possession limits; and
    (3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands, 
outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added 
flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.

    In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines 
must be consistent with the annual March 10 to September 1 closed 
season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and 
Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds 
(Convention). The guidelines are capable of application to those tribes 
that have reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations 
(including off-reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also are 
capable of application to the establishment of migratory bird hunting 
regulations for nontribal members on all lands within the exterior 
boundaries of reservations where tribes have full wildlife management 
authority over such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States 
otherwise have reached agreement over hunting by nontribal members on 
non-Indian lands.
    Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird 
hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our 
approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations 
that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the 
surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations 
governing migratory bird hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such 
cases, we encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on 
regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When 
appropriate, we will consult with a tribe and State with the aim of 
facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and 
State officials in the affected States where tribes may wish to 
establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded 
lands. As explained in previous rulemaking documents, it is incumbent 
upon the tribe and/or the State to request consultation as a result of 
the proposal being published in the <CS>Federal Register<RM>. We will 
not presume to make a determination, without being advised by either a 
tribe or a State, that any issue is or is not worthy of formal 
consultation.
    One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal 
members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such 
harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, 
provided it does not take place during the closed season required by 
the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the 
status of the migratory bird resource. For several years, we have 
reached annual agreement with tribes for migratory bird hunting by 
tribal members on their lands or on lands where they have reserved 
hunting rights. We will continue to consult with tribes that wish to 
reach a mutual agreement on hunting regulations for on-reservation 
hunting by tribal members.
    Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. Nevertheless, 
we believe that they provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the 
reserved hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while 
ensuring that the migratory bird resource receives necessary 
protection. The conservation of this important international resource 
is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes 
to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which 
the reservation is located.

Details Needed in Tribal Proposals

    Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting 
regulations for the 2001-02 hunting season should submit a proposal 
that includes:

    (1) The requested hunting season dates and other details 
regarding regulations;
    (2) Harvest anticipated under the requested regulations;
    (3) Methods that will be employed to measure or monitor harvest 
(mail-questionnaire survey, bag checks, etc.);
    (4) Steps that will be taken to limit level of harvest, where it 
could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would seriously 
impact the migratory bird resource; and

[[Page 21301]]

    (5) Tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory bird 
hunting regulations.

    A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the waterfowl 
season should specify this request in their proposal, rather than 
request a date that might not be within the final Federal frameworks. 
Similarly, unless a tribe wishes to set more restrictive regulations 
than Federal regulations will permit, the proposal should request the 
same daily bag and possession limits and season length for ducks and 
geese that Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the 
Flyway in which the reservation is located.

Tribal Proposal Procedures

    We will publish details of tribal proposals for public review in 
later <CS>Federal Register <RM>documents. Because of the time required 
for our and public review, Indian tribes that desire special migratory 
bird hunting regulations for the 2001-02 hunting season should submit 
their proposals as soon as possible, but no later than June 1, 2001. 
Tribes should direct inquiries regarding the guidelines and proposals 
to the appropriate Service Regional Office listed under the caption 
<BD>SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION<RM>. Tribes that request special 
migratory game bird hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded 
lands should send a courtesy copy of the proposal to officials in the 
affected State(s).

Public Comments Solicited

    The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable, 
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking 
process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written 
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed 
regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we will take into consideration all comments received. 
Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to 
final regulations that differ from these proposals. We invite 
interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
written comments to the address indicated under the caption 
<BD>ADDRESSES<RM>.
    You may inspect comments received on the proposed annual 
regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office in 
room 634, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. For each 
series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment 
periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to, 
each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments received 
during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in 
any final rules.

NEPA Consideration

    NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document, 
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual 
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. 
We published Notice of Availability in the <CS>Federal Register <RM>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 <BD>ADDRESSES.

<RM>Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Prior to issuance of the 2001-02 migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we will consider provisions of the Endangered Species Act 
of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act) to 
ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or 
destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation 
programs for those species. Consultations under Section 7 of this Act 
may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental 
proposed rulemaking documents.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    This rule is economically significant and was reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. E.O. 12866 
requires each agency to write regulations that are easy to understand. 
We invite comments on how to make this rule easier to understand, 
including answers to questions such as the following:

    (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
    (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
interferes with its clarity?
    (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, 
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
    (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided 
into more (but shorter) sections?
    (5) Is the description of the rule in the <BD>SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION <RM>section of the preamble helpful in understanding the 
rule?
    (6) What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial 
numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 601 <IT>et seq.<RM>). We analyzed the economic impacts of the 
annual hunting regulations on small business entities in detail, and 
the Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) in 
1998. The Analysis documented the significant beneficial economic 
effect on a substantial number of small entities. The primary source of 
information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting 
is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-
year intervals. The Analysis utilized the 1996 National Hunting and 
Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business 
Patterns from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would 
spend between $429 million and $1,084 million at small businesses in 
1998. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the 
Division of Migratory Bird Management.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, 
this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 
However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan 
to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 
808(1).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995. The various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed 
under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, Subpart K, are 
utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations. 
Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements 
of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and assigned 
clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 09/30/2001). This information is 
used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to 
improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to 
better manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information 
collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest Questionnaire and 
assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 07/30/2003). The 
information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude and the 
geographical and

[[Page 21302]]

temporal distribution of the harvest, and the portion it constitutes of 
the total population.
    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements 
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 <IT>et seq.<RM>, 
that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in 
any given year on local or State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined 
that these regulations meet the applicable standards found in Sections 
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule, 
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant 
takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected 
property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of 
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking 
of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise 
otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on 
the use of private and public property.

Federalism Effects

    Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the 
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by 
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from 
which the States make selections and employ guidelines to establish 
special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. 
This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to 
determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or tribe 
may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The 
frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and 
the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to participate in the 
development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby 
having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a 
substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or 
responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State 
policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 
13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and 
do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
    The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2001-02 
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712, 
and 16 U.S.C. 742a-j.

    Dated: April 19, 2001.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed 2001-02 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations 
(Preliminary)

    Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat 
conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway 
Councils, we may defer specific framework proposals (including opening 
and closing dates, season lengths, and bag limits). Unless otherwise 
specified, we are proposing no change from the final 2000-01 frameworks 
of August 23 and September 27, 2000 (65 FR 51496 and 58152). Specific 
preliminary proposals that vary from the 2000-01 frameworks and issues 
requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or 
tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory 
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. The categories correspond to previously published 
issues/discussion, and only those containing substantial 
recommendations are discussed below.

A. General Harvest Strategy

    All of our success in duck-harvest management notwithstanding, we 
continue to be faced with uncertainty about the biological and 
sociological impacts of hunting regulations. In 1995, we embarked on a 
regulatory approach known as adaptive harvest management (AHM), which 
is intended to help address that uncertainty. The AHM approach 
recognizes that we cannot predict the consequences of hunting 
regulations with certainty, and provides a means for making objective 
decisions despite this uncertainty. In addition, a tightly integrated 
cycle of monitoring, assessment, and decision-making is required under 
AHM to better understand the relationships among hunting regulations, 
harvests, and waterfowl abundance. More detailed information about AHM 
can be found on the Internet at: http://www.fws.gov/r9mbmo/homepg.html.
    Since 1995, AHM regulatory strategies have been based on the status 
of midcontinent mallards, which are defined as those breeding from 
South Dakota to Alaska (Federal survey strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77), 
and in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. An optimal regulatory 
alternative for midcontinent mallards is based on breeding population 
size and water conditions in the Canadian prairies, and on empirical 
weights assigned to four competing models of population dynamics. The 
same regulatory alternative is applied in all four Flyways, although 
season lengths and bag limits are Flyway-specific.
    The first application of the AHM process involved midcontinent 
mallards because of their ubiquitous distribution, their importance in 
the harvest, and because the data and understanding associated with 
mallards surpassed that of all other species. In the last few years, 
however, we have begun to examine other populations of mallards, as 
well as other species, in a search for an appropriate AHM approach to 
these stocks.
    A growing concern relates to how all these stock-specific 
applications ultimately will fit together in a coherent approach to 
duck harvest management. For example:

    <bullet> How much biological variation among duck stocks should 
we account for in the design of regulatory strategies?
    <bullet> Should the traditional Flyway-based approach to duck 
harvest management be modified to take advantage of new information 
and capabilities?
    <bullet> What monitoring and assessment capabilities will be 
needed to support these refinements?
    <bullet> What are realistic expectations of our ability to 
reduce uncertainty through the experience of management?
    <bullet> Even more fundamentally, should sustainable harvest be 
the sole or even principal currency by which we measure success?

    These questions and others suggest that the time has arrived to 
contemplate the basic goals and overall framework of duck harvest 
management, and how we might use the AHM process to help us steer an 
appropriate course. Moreover, the last Supplemental Environmental 
Impact Statement (SEIS) on migratory bird hunting was issued in 1988, 
and

[[Page 21303]]

our approach to duck harvest management has evolved beyond the 
preferred alternative identified at that time. Therefore, it is our 
intent to begin the process of preparing a new EIS that will describe 
new alternatives brought to light by our experience with AHM.
    In beginning the dialogue, we suggest the need to focus on three 
key themes:
    (1) Goal setting--AHM can produce optimal regulatory decisions in 
the face of uncertainty, but, if and only if, there is agreement about 
the goals and objectives of harvest management. Clearly, the goals of 
duck harvest management extend well beyond simple measures of hunter 
success and population size, and many of the difficulties in duck 
harvest management today probably relate more to ambiguity in 
objectives, rather than to uncertainty about biological impacts. Tacit 
disagreement over management objectives poses a serious threat to the 
long-term viability of AHM.
    (2) Limits to system control--There are both theoretical and 
practical limits to our ability to predict, control, and measure the 
size of waterfowl populations and harvests and, as a consequence, 
operational constraints on short-term hunting opportunity and on the 
learning needed to increase long-term performance. The waterfowl 
management community needs to better explore, understand, and 
acknowledge these limits, and to develop regulatory alternatives and 
strategies that avoid the most undesirable consequences of those 
limits, while meeting reasonable demands for hunting opportunity.
    (3) Management scale--The history of duck harvest management has 
been characterized by efforts to account for increasingly more spatial, 
temporal, and organizational variability in waterfowl demographics. We 
have begun to question the wisdom of this approach, given the 
inevitable tradeoff between harvest benefits and the direct and 
indirect costs of managing at progressively finer scales. It remains to 
be seen what level of resolution ultimately will be most appropriate in 
the AHM process, but we are increasingly concerned about what we see as 
unrealistic expectations for accommodating small-scale variation in 
waterfowl population dynamics.
    We look forward to exploring these and other duck-harvest 
management issues with the Flyway Councils and other stakeholders in 
the coming year. We hope these discussions will culminate in the 
issuance of a new EIS for migratory bird hunting sometime in 2004.
AHM for Eastern Mallards
    For the purposes of harvest regulation, eastern mallards are 
defined as those breeding in southern Ontario and Quebec (Federal 
survey strata 51-54 and 56), and in New Hampshire, Vermont, 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, New 
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. In 2000, with assistance from 
the Atlantic Flyway Council, we proposed mechanisms by which the status 
of eastern mallards could be considered in the development of a 
regulatory strategy for the Atlantic Flyway. However, the Service has 
not made a final decision about whether the Atlantic Flyway regulatory 
strategy also should be solely based on the status of eastern mallards. 
This decision was deferred pending further analyses of the implications 
of this decision for midcontinent mallards and other species. We also 
have concerns about the timing of this decision in the face of previous 
comments about the future of duck harvest management. Therefore, we 
consider the approach used last year to consider only eastern mallard 
status in the selection of Atlantic Flyway regulations as provisional. 
It is our recommendation, however, to continue this approach for the 
2001-02 hunting season.

C. Zones and Split Seasons

    In 1990, because of concerns about the proliferation of zones and 
split seasons for duck hunting, a cooperative review and evaluation of 
the historical use of zone/split options was conducted. This review did 
not show that the proliferation of these options had increased harvest 
pressure; however, the ability to detect the impact of zone/split 
configurations was poor because of unreliable response variables, the 
lack of statistical tests to differentiate between real and perceived 
changes, and the absence of adequate experimental controls. 
Consequently, guidelines were established to provide a framework for 
controlling the proliferation of changes in zone/split options. The 
guidelines identified a limited number of zone/split configurations 
that could be used for duck hunting and restricted the frequency of 
changes in these configurations to 5-year intervals. In 1996, the 
guidelines were revised to provide States greater flexibility in using 
their zone/split arrangements. Open seasons for changes occurred in 
1991 for the 1991-1995 period and in 1996 for 1996-2000. The third open 
season will occur this year when zone/split configurations will be 
established for the 2001-2005 period.
    In response to recommendations from the Flyway Councils, we 
considered changes to the current zone/split guidelines during last 
year's late-season regulations cycle. We believe that the guidelines 
implemented in 1996 (61 FR 38000) have achieved their intended 
objectives while allowing States sufficient flexibility to address 
differences in physiography, climate, and other factors. Accordingly, 
as announced in last year's <CS>Federal Register <RM>(65 FR 51176), we 
made no changes in the 1996 guidelines. A copy of the guidelines is 
included herein for information and use in selecting zone/split 
configuration for 2001-2005.
    As indicated in the guidelines, States that made changes during the 
last open season should provide us a review of pertinent data (e.g., 
estimates of harvest, hunter numbers, hunter success, etc.) by April 
15, 2001. However, it would be in the interest of each affected State 
to complete this report as soon as possible for internal consideration 
of any changes they might wish to make for the next 5-year period. We 
reiterate that this review does not have to be the result of a rigorous 
experimental design, but nonetheless should assist us in ascertaining 
whether major changes in harvest or hunter activity occurred as a 
result of zone/split regulations.
    We also request that by April 15, 2001, States notify us whether or 
not they plan to change their zone/split configurations for the next 5-
year period (2001-2005). Those States wishing to change their 
configuration should submit a proposal for the change by this date.

Guidelines for Duck Zones and Split Seasons, 2001-2005

    The following zone/split-season guidelines apply only for the 
<IT>regular <RM>duck season:
    1. A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a 
contiguous boundary, for which independent dates may be selected for 
the regular duck season.
    2. Consideration of changes for management-unit boundaries is not 
subject to the guidelines and provisions governing the use of zones and 
split seasons for ducks.
    3. Only minor (less than a county in size) boundary changes will be 
allowed for any grandfather arrangement, and changes are limited to the 
open season.
    4. Once a zone/split option is selected during an open season, it 
must remain in place for the following 5 years.
    For the 2001-2005 period, any State may continue the configuration 
used in

[[Page 21304]]

1996-2000. If changes are made, the zone/split-season configuration 
must conform to one of the following options:
    1. Three zones with no splits,
    2. Split seasons (no more than 3 segments) with no zones, or
    3. Two zones with the option for 2-way split seasons in one or both 
zones.
    At the end of 5 years after any changes in splits or zones, States 
will be required to provide the Service with a review of pertinent data 
(e.g., estimates of harvest, hunter numbers, hunter success, etc.). 
This review does not have to be the result of a rigorous experimental 
design, but nonetheless should assist the Service in ascertaining 
whether major undesirable changes in harvest or hunter activity 
occurred as a result of split and zone regulations. The next open 
season for changes in zone/split configurations will be in 2006.
Grandfathered Zone/Split Arrangements
    When the zone/split guidelines were first implemented in 1991, 
several States had completed experiments with zone/split arrangements 
different from Options 1-3 above. Those States were offered a one-time 
opportunity to continue those arrangements, with the stipulation that 
only minor changes could be made to zone boundaries; and if they ever 
wished to change their zone/split arrangement, the new arrangement 
would have to conform to one of the 3 options identified above. If a 
grandfathered State changed its zoning arrangement, it could not go 
back to the grandfathered arrangement it previously had. Current 
grandfathered arrangements are:

<IT>Atlantic Flyway:
    <RM>Massachusetts, New Jersey--3 zones with 2-segment splits in 
each zone
    New York--5 zones with 2-segment splits in each zone
    Pennsylvania--4 zones with 2-segment splits in each zone
<IT>Mississippi Flyway:
    <RM>Michigan, Indiana, Ohio--3 zones with 2-segment splits in each 
zone
<IT>Central Flyway:
    <RM>Nebraska--5 zones with 2-segment splits in each zone
    South Dakota--4 zones with 2-segment splits in each zone
<IT>Pacific Flyway:
    <RM>Alaska--5 zones with 2-segment splits in 1 zone
    California--5 zones with 2-segment splits in each zone

D. Special Seasons/Species Management

iii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
    The Wood Duck Population Monitoring Initiative showed that current 
wood duck monitoring efforts resulted in information that was capable 
of being used to manage wood ducks at no finer resolution than the 
Flyway level. Current databases do not allow proper evaluation of 
special September wood duck seasons on a State-by-State basis. In 1998, 
we stated that, after September 2000, the special wood duck seasons in 
Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee would be discontinued (August 28, 
1998; 63 FR 46126); the year 2000 was the last permitted for these 
seasons. The Service, in cooperation with the Atlantic and Mississippi 
Flyway Councils, is in the process of developing wood duck population 
models that will guide regular-season harvest management in the future. 
These models, and the accompanying evaluations of potential Flyway-wide 
expansions in harvest opportunity, will be developed prior to Spring 
2001.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 21305]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP30AP01.037


[[Page 21306]]


[FR Doc. 01-10696 Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C