15642 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AC79

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed

1995–1996 Migratory Game Bird

Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With

Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

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. These regulations

will permit the taking of the designated

species during the 1995–96 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 and habitat

conditions.

DATES: Tribal proposals and related

comments should be submitted by June

2, 1995. The comment period for

proposed early-season frameworks will

end on July 21, 1995; and for proposed

late-season frameworks on September 4,

1995. The public hearing for earlyseason frameworks will be held on June

22, 1995, at 9 a.m. The public hearing

for late-season frameworks will be held

on August 3, 1995, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Both public hearings will be

held in the Auditorium, Department of

the Interior Building, 1849 C Street

NW., Washington, DC. Written

comments on the proposals and notice

of intention to testify at either hearing

may be mailed 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. Comments

received will be available for public

inspection during normal business

hours in room 634, Arlington Square

Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information on tribal proposals

contact Keith A. Morehouse, and for all

other issues regarding annual migratory

bird hunting regulations contact Ron W.

Kokel. Both Dr. Morehouse and Mr.

Kokel may be contacted 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

remaining proposed and final

rulemaking documents will be

published 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) 766-8048.

—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) 236-8676.

—Region 7 - Robin West, 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

1995–1996 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 1995–96 hunting

season, regulations will be proposed 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 1995–96 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 1995–1996

This is the first in a series of proposed

and final rulemaking documents for

migratory game bird hunting

regulations. Proposals relating to the

harvest of migratory game birds that

may be initiated after publication of this

proposed rulemaking will be made

available for public review in

supplemental proposed rulemakings to

be published in the Federal Register.

Also, additional supplemental proposals

will be published 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,

it is anticipated that comment periods

on some proposals will necessarily be

abbreviated. Special circumstances that

limit the amount of time which the

Service can allow for public comment

are involved in the establishment of

these regulations. Specifically, two

considerations compress the time in

which the rulemaking process must

operate: 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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15643

include seasons in Alaska, Hawaii,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Late

seasons are those seasons opening in the

remainder of the United States about

October 1 and later, and include most of

the waterfowl seasons.

Major steps in the 1995–1996

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. Tundra 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,

items requiring no attention will be

omitted and the remaining numbered

items will be discontinuous and appear

incomplete.

Public Hearings

Two public hearings pertaining to

1995–1996 migratory game bird hunting

regulations are scheduled. Both hearings

will be conducted in accordance with

455 DM 1 of the Departmental Manual.

On June 22, a public hearing will be

held at 9 a.m. in the Auditorium of the

Department of the Interior Building,

1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC.

This hearing is for the purpose of

reviewing the status of migratory shore

and upland game birds. Proposed

hunting regulations will be discussed

for these species plus regulations for

migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto

Rico, and the Virgin Islands; special

September waterfowl seasons in

designated States; special sea duck

seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and

extended falconry seasons. On August 3,

a public hearing will be held at 9 a.m.

in the Auditorium of the Department of

the Interior Building, address above.

This hearing is for the purpose of

reviewing the status and proposed

regulations for waterfowl not previously

discussed at the June 22 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

guidelines were developed 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 example, in

Minnesota, the Mille Lacs Band of

Chippewa Indians) 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.
15644 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Details Needed in Tribal Proposals

Tribes that wish to use the guidelines

to establish special hunting regulations

for the 1995-96 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 (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

(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

Pertinent details in proposals received

from tribes will be published 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 1995–96 hunting season should

submit their proposals as soon as

possible, but no later than June 2, 1995.

Tribal inquiries regarding the guidelines

and proposals should be directed 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.

Comments received on the proposed

annual regulations will be available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the Service’s office in

room 634, 4401 North Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, Virginia. Specific comment

periods will be established for each

series of proposed rulemakings. All

relevant comments will be accepted

through the closing date of the comment

period on the particular proposal under

consideration. 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 25, 1995

—National Waterfowl Council, 3:30

p.m.

DATE: March 26, 1995

—Atlantic Flyway Council, 9:00 a.m.

—Mississippi Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.

—Central Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.

—Pacific Flyway Council, 10:00 a.m.

The Council meetings will be held at

the Minneapolis Hilton and Towers,

Minneapolis, Minnesota.

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 1995–96

migratory game bird hunting

regulations, consideration will be given

to 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 changes to be made to

proposals in this and future

supplemental proposed rulemaking

documents.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the

Paperwork Reduction Act

This document was reviewed under

Executive Order 12866.

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.). Therefore, in accordance with

Office of Management and Budget

instructions, a Final Regulatory Impact

Analysis (FRIA) was prepared in 1981

and revised in 1990. Although a FRIA

is no longer required, the economic

analysis contained in the FRIA has been

reviewed and the Service has

determined that it meets the

requirements of Executive Order 12866.

This analysis was updated for 1995. The

FRIA update included waterfowl hunter

and harvest information from the 1993–

94 season. The summary of the 1995

update follows:

‘‘New information which can be

compared to that appearing in the 1990

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA)

includes estimates of the 1993 fall flight

of ducks from surveyed areas, and

hunter activity and harvest information

from the 1993–94 hunting season.

Decreased production in prairie Canada

and increased production from the

northcentral U.S. resulted in a total

1993 fall flight of ducks similar (–5

percent) to that predicted in 1992.

Because the status of ducks has not yet

fully recovered from the drought of the

1980’s, hunting regulations were

developed that maintained the reduced

hunting opportunity established in the

1988–89 season. There were no

significant changes in hunter activity

between the 1992–93 and the 1993–94

seasons. Hunter numbers decreased by 1

percent and waterfowl hunters spent an

average of 3 percent more days hunting,

resulting in a 2 percent increase in the

total number of hunting days. Many

nonregulatory factors, however,

influence hunter participation. There

was essentially no change in the total

duck harvest between the 1992–93 and

the 1993–94 seasons.’’

Copies of the updated analysis are

available upon request from the Office
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15645

of Migratory Bird Management. The

address is indicated under the caption

ADDRESSES.

These regulations contain no

information collections subject to Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

review under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

However, the Service does utilize

information acquired through other

various information collections in the

formulation of these regulations. These

information collection requirements

have been approved by OMB and

assigned clearance numbers 1018–0005,

1018–0006, 1018–0008, 1018–0009,

1018–0010, 1018–0015, 1018–0019, and

1018–0023.

Authorship

The primary authors of this proposed

rule are Keith A. Morehouse and Ron W.

Kokel, Office of Migratory Bird

Management, (703) 358–1714.

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 1995-96 hunting

season are authorized under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918),

as amended, (16 U.S.C. 703–711); the

Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of

1978 (November 8, 1978), as amended,

(16 U.S.C. 712); and the Fish and

Wildlife Act of 1956 (August 8, 1956),

as amended, (16 U.S.C. 742 a-d and ej).

Dated: March 10, 1995.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and

Parks.

Proposed 1995–1996 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 1994–95

frameworks of August 17 and September

27, 1994, (59 FR 42474 and 49304) is

proposed. Specific preliminary

proposals that vary from the 1994–95

frameworks and issues requiring early

discussion, action, or the attention of

the States or tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

A. General Harvest Strategy

Despite the large volume of

information available on hunter activity,

duck harvest levels, and population

status, the annual process of setting

duck hunting regulations has often been

characterized by a lack of consensus

among managers on an appropriate

harvest strategy. The Service believes

there are three fundamental reasons for

the annual debate over setting duck

hunting regulations: (1) harvestmanagement objectives have not always

been clearly stated or agreed upon, (2)

a large number of regulatory options has

hindered our assessment of their effects;

and (3) management of an international,

migratory resource is difficult and the

complex relationship between harvest

and population status could be more

fully understood. To address these

difficulties, the Service is developing a

more formal and objective decisionmaking process. This process requires

clear identification of harvestmanagement objectives, a limited

number of regulatory options, and

alternative, yet credible, hypotheses

regarding the influence of harvest on

duck populations. Using these elements,

a harvest strategy can be developed to

help managers better understand the

effects of hunting, while also providing

maximum harvest opportunities

consistent with long-term resource

conservation goals. The Service

proposes to implement some aspects of

this process for the 1995–96 hunting

season, with broader implementation to

occur over the next few years.

This year, as part of the

implementation process, the Service

proposes a duck harvest-management

objective that balances hunting

opportunities with the desire to achieve

waterfowl population goals identified in

the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan (hereinafter the Plan).

Under this harvest-management

objective, the relative importance of

hunting opportunity increases as

populations approach the goals in the

Plan (e.g. 8.1 million mallards). Thus,

hunting opportunity would be

maximized when the population is at or

above goals. Additionally, while the

Service believes that the Plan’s

population goals would tend to exert a

conservative influence on overall duck

harvest management, other factors, such

as habitat, also need to be considered.

For the 1995–96 season, the Service

proposes that three regulatory options

be considered: restrictive, moderate, or

liberal seasons. Each regulatory option

or ‘‘package’’ would contain Flywayspecific season lengths, bag limits, and

framework opening and closing dates,

mutually agreed upon by the Service

and Flyway Councils. Public comment

would also be solicited. Several reasons

exist for considering discrete regulatory

‘‘packages.’’ First, the Service believes

that regulatory changes should be of

sufficient magnitude to cause

measurable changes in duck harvest

rates. Minor changes (i.e., ‘‘tinkering’’)

in regulations that have little or no

consequential overall impact on

waterfowl resources and harvest can

confuse both hunters and the public.

Second, waterfowl managers must have

adequate time to evaluate proposed

regulatory options. This evaluation

involves a determination of expected

duck harvest rates and resource impacts.

Frequently, adequate time for a

thorough evaluation is not available

when new regulatory options are

introduced late in the regulationssetting process. Introducing prescriptive

regulatory options or packages early in

the regulations-setting process allows

managers to carefully and thoroughly

evaluate the expected resource impacts.

An equally important component of

the regulatory packages is guidelines for

their use. Flyway Councils and

waterfowl managers must know when,

and under what conditions, to use each

regulatory package. These guidelines are

currently being developed and will be

proposed by the Service and made

available for public comment. The

guidelines will specify the particular

regulatory package appropriate for

various combinations of duck

population size and wetland conditions

on the breeding grounds. For example,

liberal hunting regulations would be

proposed when population levels were

high (relative to Plan goals), breedinghabitat conditions were exceptionally

good, or both. The Service believes it is

important that these guidelines be

consistent with the goal of maximum

sustainable hunting opportunities and

the desire to achieve population levels

specified in the Plan.

In setting annual hunting regulations

for ducks, the Service considers not

only biological, but sociological,

recreational, and economic impacts. The

proposed process described above is

intended to improve our understanding

of the biological impacts of hunting by

making more efficient use of harvest and

population data from current waterfowl

monitoring programs, while

simultaneously pursuing traditional

harvest and population objectives. The

Service will continue to rely on the

established process of public input for

considering non-biological impacts.
15646 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Specific details of this year’s

proposed regulatory ‘‘packages’’ for each

Flyway, guidelines for the use of these

regulatory packages, and a general

description of the harvest management

objective and the alternative hypotheses

of duck population dynamics that were

considered in this proposed process will

be available for public comment on

March 24, 1995, by writing to the

address under the caption ADDRESSES.

Additional information regarding

specific population goals identified in

the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan will be available as

well at the address provided above.

F. Zones and Splits

In 1990, the Service determined that

the use of zones and split seasons was

an acceptable means by which States

could redistribute harvest opportunities

and established a long-term strategy for

the use of zones and split-season

options for duck seasons (55 FR 38901–

38902). This long-term strategy

contained guidelines that limited

selection of zone/split options available

to States to 5-year intervals. The 1995–

96 season will be the final year of the

5-year assessment period and the

Service reminds those States that made

changes during the last open season in

1990 that a review of pertinent data (e.g.

estimates of harvest, hunter numbers

and success) will be required at the end

of this year’s hunting season. This

review does not have to be the result of

a rigorous experimental design, but

nonetheless should assist the Service in

ascertaining whether major changes

occurred as a result of zone/split

regulations. As a matter of information

for preparation of proposals for 1996–

97, the Service does not anticipate any

changes in the existing guidelines

governing zone and split options for the

upcoming open season.

Temporary Zone in the Southern San

Joaquin Valley of California. In 1994,

the Service allowed the State of

California to continue this zone on a

temporary basis. The Service

acknowledges that the Southern San

Joaquin Valley Zone appears to provide

economic incentives for maintaining

privately-managed wetlands, especially

during recent years when season lengths

have been relatively short. Accordingly,

the Service will consider allowing this

zone to continue on a temporary basis

during the final year of the 5-year

moratorium on zone changes pending

review of harvest and hunter

participation information.

G. Special Seasons/Species

Management

i. Canvasback Management

In 1994, the Service re-opened the

hunting season on canvasbacks. Based

on population levels, expected

production, and projected harvest

estimates, the Service believed that a

season in all Flyways with a 1-bird daily

bag limit was warranted. The Service is

aware of the high harvest potential for

this species and will evaluate last

season’s canvasback harvest. For this

year, the Service will defer a decision

on canvasback hunting until the 1994–

95 harvest and 1995 spring population

status information are available. The

Service proposes no change in the

process employed for deciding on

regulations governing the harvest of

canvasbacks.

ii. September Teal Seasons

In 1990, the Service established a

strategy for the use of shooting hours

which stated that shooting hours would

begin at sunrise unless States could

demonstrate that the impact of

presunrise shooting hours on nontarget

duck species was negligible. During the

1993–94 teal seasons, several

Mississippi and Central Flyway States

conducted evaluations of shooting hours

for teal seasons. In 1994, the Service

allowed those States in the Mississippi

and Central Flyways that had conducted

evaluations of presunrise shooting hours

for teal to begin shooting hours at onehalf hour before sunrise, since the

evaluations demonstrated that the

attempted harvest of non-target species

was no different between pre- and postsunrise periods in those States. The

Service notes, however, that final

reports of the evaluations are still

needed from the Mississippi and Central

Flyway States and believes that

comprehensive final reports are

necessary for completion of the

evaluations. The Service has not yet

received these reports and requests that

they be submitted prior to the June

regulations meetings.

iii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons

Since these seasons were last

reviewed in the early 1980s, the Service

requests that Florida, Kentucky, and

Tennessee provide an update of

recovery and survival rates, harvest

estimates, and derivations of banded

birds harvested during these seasons.

Preferably, these reports should be

submitted prior to this summer’s

Flyway meetings. The Service will make

a full assessment of these seasons

pending the completion of the

cooperative Wood Duck Initiative final

report due in 1996.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons

The Service is currently reviewing the

existing procedures for establishing and

evaluating special Canada goose seasons

in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways

with the intent of streamlining and

simplifying the process. Possible

changes the Service is considering

include the elimination of the

experimental-status requirement for

special seasons conducted between the

1st and 15th of September. However,

States not participating in the Migratory

Bird Harvest Information Program

would continue to be responsible for

monitoring hunter activity and harvest

during these special seasons. For

seasons held after September 15, the

Service anticipates that current

requirements for special Canada goose

seasons will continue.

B. Regular Seasons

In the Atlantic Flyway, the Service

and the Flyway Council will

cooperatively conduct an assessment of

the just concluded 3-year harvestreduction program. It is likely that

further adjustments to regular season

harvest regulations will be proposed.

The Service also remains concerned

about the status of the Southern James

Bay and Dusky Canada goose

populations. The Service will carefully

review and consider all harvest

regulations to ensure that these

populations are not impacted.

5. White-fronted Geese

In 1994, the Service denied the Pacific

Flyway Council’s request for

liberalization of seasons and limits on

white-fronted geese in Washington,

Oregon, and California because the

population objective had not been

attained and because a Flyway harvest

strategy had not been completed. Given

that the most recent 3-year average

index of Pacific Flyway white-fronted

geese is 283,600, with the 1994 fall

count being 324,800, the Service now

believes some liberalization is

warranted, provided a suitable harvest

strategy is developed beforehand.

8. Tundra Swans

In 1990 and 1991, the Service agreed

to experimentally increase the number

of permits available to North and South

Dakota (1,000 each) for tundra swan

hunting. The additional permits were

also experimentally allocated for the

1992–94 hunting seasons. An

assessment of these experimental
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15647

seasons in the form of a final report

should be submitted to the Service by

these States by June 1, 1995. The final

report should contain biological

information collected during these

experimental seasons that would

address the objectives identified in the

Memorandum of Understanding

between the Service and each State.

These objectives include: (1) to

determine the fall distribution,

chronology of migration, and

identification of major concentration

areas of tundra swans in each State; (2)

to determine the number of tundra

swans harvested by permittees in each

State; and (3) to evaluate hunter activity

and success, hunting methods and

harvest locations and estimate crippling

losses associated with the hunting of

tundra swans. To properly address these

objectives the Service encourages these

States to follow the evaluation

guidelines in the ‘‘Eastern Population

Tundra Swan Sport Hunting Plan’’ that

was completed in 1988, which specifies

that evaluation procedures should

include an annual harvest survey and a

minimum of 2 years of population

survey information.

In 1994, the Service restricted seasons

and hunt areas in Utah and required

that Montana, Utah, and Nevada

measure the accidental take, if any, of

trumpeter swans by tundra swan

hunters. Pending reports on the

occurrence and take of trumpeter swans

in the hunt areas, possible additional

changes may be warranted. The Service

believes tundra swan hunting in these

three States is warranted but seasons

may be further modified to minimize,

but not preclude, the accidental take of

trumpeter swans.

14. Woodcock

The Service is concerned with the

gradual long-term declines in woodcock

populations in both the Eastern and

Central Management Regions. Although

habitat changes appear to be the primary

factor in the declines, adjustment of

harvest opportunities may be

appropriate in light of current

population trends. The Service and the

Flyway Councils should continue their

ongoing review of the status of

woodcock and cooperatively develop a

harvest-management strategy.

15. Band-tailed Pigeons

The Service supports the continuation

of seasons on both the Coastal and

Interior populations. However, the

Service remains concerned about the

long-term decline in the Coastal

population and continues to support

restrictive harvest regulations. As in

1993 and 1994, all States having bandtailed pigeon hunting seasons must

again require either participation in the

nationwide Migratory Bird Harvest

Information Program or require bandtailed pigeon hunters to obtain

mandatory State permits to provide

sampling frames for obtaining more

precise estimates of band-tailed pigeon

harvest. Those States not participating

in the Harvest Information Program will

be required to conduct a harvest survey

and provide the results to the Service by

June 1 of each year. The Service will

continue to closely monitor population

and harvest information from both

populations and will evaluate this

information in June prior to making any

decisions regarding the 1995–96

seasons. Indian tribes also should

consider this situation when proposing

harvest regulations for this species.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–F
15648 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 1995 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 95–7304 Filed 3–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C