[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 57 (Friday, March 22, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11986-11992]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6981]
[[Page 11985]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1996-1997 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 57 / Friday, March 22, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11986]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AD69
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1996-1997 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
1996-97 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: Tribal proposals and related comments should be submitted by
June 3, 1996. The comment period for proposed early-season frameworks
will end on July 25, 1996; and for proposed late-season frameworks on
September 3, 1996. The public hearing for early-season frameworks will
be held on June 27, 1996, at 9 a.m. The public hearing for late-season
frameworks will be held on August 2, 1996, 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 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 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) 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 1996-1997 in the contiguous United States, Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, under Secs. 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 1996-97
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 1996-97 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 1996-1997
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 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 1996-1997 regulatory cycle relating to public
hearings and Federal Register notifications are illustrated in the
[[Page 11987]]
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, 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 1996-1997 migratory game bird
hunting regulations are scheduled. Both hearings will be conducted in
accordance with 455 DM 1 of the Departmental Manual. On June 27, 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, Hawaii, 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 2, 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 27 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 non-Indians 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.
Details Needed in Tribal Proposals
Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting
regulations for the 1996-97 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
[[Page 11988]]
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
1996-97 hunting season should submit their proposals as soon as
possible, but no later than June 3, 1996. 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 23, 1996
--National Waterfowl Council, 3:30 p.m.
DATE: March 24, 1996
--Atlantic Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.
--Mississippi Flyway Council, 8:30 a.m.
--Central Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.
--Pacific Flyway Council, 1:00 p.m.
The Council meetings will be held at the Adams Mark Hotel, Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
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 1996-97 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 has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget 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.). 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 1995. 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 $258 and $586 million at small businesses in 1995.
Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Office
of Migratory Bird Management. The address is indicated under the
caption ADDRESSES.
These regulations have been examined under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 and have been found to contain no information collection
requirements.
Authorship
The primary author of this proposed rule is 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 1996-97
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
[[Page 11989]]
Dated: May 13, 1996
George T. Frampton, Jr.
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
Proposed 1996-1997 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 1995-96 frameworks of
August 29 and September 27, 1995, (60 FR 45020 and 50042) is proposed.
Specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 1995-96 frameworks
and issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the
States or tribes are contained below:
1. Ducks
A. Harvest Strategy Considerations
In 1992, a technical working group comprised of representatives
from the Service and the four Flyway Councils was established to
develop recommendations for improving the regulation of duck harvests.
In 1993, the group embraced the concept of Adaptive Harvest Management
(AHM), which subsequently received strong support from a broad array of
conservation interests. In general terms, AHM involves: (1) choices of
harvest regulation based on resource status and expected harvest
impacts; (2) follow-up monitoring and assessment of population
dynamics; and (3) use of the monitoring and assessment information to
improve future decision-making abilities. Benefits of AHM include: (1)
maximum hunting opportunity consistent with long-term waterfowl
conservation and North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)
goals; (2) less contentiousness in the annual regulation-setting
process; (3) more objective, data-based decisions; and (4) more
efficient use of data collected from large-scale monitoring programs.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of AHM, however, is its potential to
resolve questions about how much hunting opportunity can be provided
while maintaining healthy waterfowl populations.
Implementation of AHM began in 1995 with a focus on mid-continent
mallards. Based on favorable comments by the Flyway Councils, State
wildlife agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the public, the
Service is seeking to continue its application of AHM for regulating
the harvest of ducks. The technical working group continues to play an
important role in this effort by developing AHM procedures, stimulating
dialogue among stakeholders, conducting technical assessments to inform
decision makers, formulating information and education strategies, and
recommending timetables for implementation. The working group's
function is, however, strictly technical in nature.
Application of AHM continues to highlight many complex issues in
duck harvest management. Issues identified as high priorities for
further assessment include: (1) hunter dynamics and how regulations
affect hunter activity and success; (2) factors affecting duck
reproduction on a continental scale; (3) relative costs and benefits of
species, population, and sex-specific harvest management; (4)
allocation of harvest opportunities among countries, Flyways, and
States; and (5) public information and education needs.
The technical working group has recognized that additional time
will be necessary to address these issues in a more comprehensive and
coherent manner. Schedules for clarifying issues, receiving input from
stakeholders, and conducting the necessary assessments are currently
being developed by the working group so that expectations for progress
are realistic. Implementation of AHM will require periodic review of
all technical specifications, including management objectives, hunting-
season options, and theories (or models) of population dynamics.
Based on a review of public comments received about AHM in 1995,
the technical working group has made the following recommendations for
the 1996 regulatory process:
(1) Population goals of the NAWMP should continue to be recognized
to reflect broad resource values; this should be accomplished by a
proportional decrease in the value of harvest opportunity if the
mallard population were expected to fall below the NAWMP goal of 8.1
million;
(2) Pending further review, use of the restrictive, moderate, and
liberal regulatory options considered in 1995 should be continued; the
only exception might be the addition of one bird to the daily bag limit
under the liberal option for the Pacific Flyway;
(3) Pending further assessment, use of the mallard population
models from 1995, which incorporate the competing hypotheses of
additive and compensatory harvest mortality and strongly and weakly
density-dependent reproduction should be continued;
(4) Pending development of AHM strategies for individual species
and populations, existing technical and administrative procedures for
regulating the harvests of stocks other than mallards should be used,
with the recognition that: (a) potential regulatory changes should be
considered early in the annual process; and (b) proposals should
include potential effects of various regulatory options and criteria
for future regulatory changes;
(5) Outreach efforts should be continued.
One of the distinguishing features of AHM is a formal recognition
that technical experts have legitimate disagreements about the
particular population model that should be used to guide harvest
management. Perhaps the greatest strength of AHM is its method for
determining which model best describes the impacts of harvest and
habitat conditions on mallard abundance. Once a regulatory decision is
made, each model predicts whether population size will go up or down,
and by how much. Then, after data from the spring population survey are
available, AHM allows managers to see how well each model predicted the
change in population size that actually occurred. In subsequent years,
those models that prove to be good predictors will have greater
influence on regulatory decisions.
Survey data providing current population and habitat status, and
for evaluating performance of last year's mallard models, should be
available in June 1996. Specific regulatory alternatives for the 1996
duck hunting season will be considered at that time.
F. Zones and Splits
In 1990, the Service established guidelines for the use of zones
and split seasons for duck hunting (Federal Register 55 FR 38901).
These guidelines were based upon a cooperative review and evaluation of
the historical use of zone/split options. The Service reiterated the
1977 criteria that the primary purpose of these options shall be to
provide more equitable distribution of harvest opportunity for hunters
throughout a State. In 1977, the Service also stated that these
regulations should not substantially change the pattern of harvest
distribution among States within a Flyway, nor should these options
detrimentally change the harvest distribution pattern among species or
populations at either the State or Flyway level. The 1990 review did
not show that the proliferation of these options had increased harvest
pressure; however, the ability to detect the impact of zones/split
configurations was poor
[[Page 11990]]
because of poorly chosen response variables, the lack of statistical
tests to differentiate between real and perceived changes, and the
absence of adequate experimental controls. Therefore, the existing
policy was intended to provide a framework for controlling the
proliferation of changes in zone/split options and limited changes to
5-year intervals. The first open season for changes was in 1991 and the
second will occur this year when zone/split configurations will be
established for the 1996-2000 period.
As required by existing guidelines, States that made changes during
the last open season (except going to the basic option) should provide
the Service a review of pertinent data by the 1995-96 Winter/Spring
Technical Committee Meetings. At a minimum, State reports should
contain a summary of zone harvest estimates compared to previous
configurations. The Service reiterates that 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 in
harvest or hunter activity occurred as a result of zone/split
regulations.
For the 1996 open season, the Service will use the existing 1990
guidelines, with an exception for the handling of special management
units. The Service proposes to delete the following provision from the
1990 guidelines:
Special Management Unit Limitation: Within existing Flyway
boundaries, States may not zone and/or use a 3-way split season
simultaneously within a special management unit and the remainder of
the State.
The zone/split season guidelines apply only for the regular duck
season. The Service is proposing this change with the understanding
that the additional days for a management unit must be consecutive and,
for the Central Flyway, be held both after the Saturday nearest
December 10 and after the regular duck season.
The proposed guidelines include several definitions and
interpretations developed in response to questions during and following
the first open season in 1991. For clarification, these are reiterated:
1. A zone is defined as a geographic area or portion of a State,
with a contiguous boundary, for which independent dates (at least 1 day
difference) can be selected for the regular duck season.
2. Consideration of changes for management-unit boundaries are 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. Any State may change its zone/split arrangement to the Basic
Option at any time during the 5 years between open seasons. If such a
change is made, the Basic Option must be continued for the remainder of
the 5-year period.
For the 1996-2000 period, any State may continue the configuration
used in 1991-1995. If changes are made, the zone/split configuration
must conform to one of the following options:
1. Basic Option: The Basic Option, available at any time to any
State, would allow the regular duck season to be split into two
segments with no zones.
2. Alternative Options: Where the Basic Option is deemed
undesirable, States may choose one of the following:
a. No more than three zones with no splits,
b. A 3-way split with no zones, or
c. 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 (except
conversions to the Basic Option), 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 2001.
G. Special seasons/species management
i. Canvasback Management
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 production
information to evaluate the effectiveness of the harvest strategy.
Thus, the Service will defer a decision on canvasback hunting until the
1995-96 harvest and 1996 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. The Central Flyway has
completed a final report of its evaluation, which indicated that the
attempted harvest of non-target species was no different between pre-
and post-sunrise periods in those States. Therefore, the Service
proposes that those Central Flyway States be allowed to continue pre-
sunrise shooting hours during their teal seasons. The Service notes
that it has not received a final report from the Mississippi Flyway,
but is aware that the report will be discussed at the February
Technical Committee Meeting. The Service believes that completion of
this report is critical to evaluating the appropriateness of presunrise
shooting hours during teal seasons within the Mississippi Flyway.
iii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
In general, 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,
scheduled to be completed in July 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.
Regarding the appropriateness of September teal/wood duck seasons,
a decision will be made in cooperation with the the Flyway Councils
after the assessment of wood duck monitoring programs is completed.
Until such time, the Service does not propose to discontinue these
seasons in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida or expand such seasons
elsewhere. The Service has received draft updates of reports that
summarize wood duck survival and recovery rates, harvest estimates, and
derivations of banded birds harvested during these seasons.
iv. Special Management Units
High Plains Mallard Management Unit
The Service reminds the Central Flyway Council that the report on
the
[[Page 11991]]
High Plains Mallard Management Unit should be completed. Prompt
completion of the report is encouraged and the Service requests an
update on the status of the report including a projected completion
date.
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
In response to the Atlantic Flyway Council's request to increase
harvests of resident Canada geese in light of the closed regular season
during 1995-96, the Service is considering extensions to the special
early- and late-seasons criteria in the Atlantic Flyway. The Service
believes that some changes in the existing season frameworks,
particularly during the early seasons, may be possible in designated
areas without causing undue harvest impacts on migrant Canada geese.
However, less flexibility is expected in expanding late-season harvest
opportunities in the Flyway without a comprehensive look at the
existing neck-collar data. The Service does not propose to increase the
composition of migrants in the harvest beyond that which is currently
identified in the criteria for these seasons.
B. Regular Seasons
The Service acknowledges the interest expressed by several Flyway
Councils to permit 3-way splits in regular goose seasons. The Service
will work with the Flyway Councils during the coming year to develop an
experimental protocol to evaluate the impact of such an option on a
Flyway-specific basis. Any experimental designs resulting from this
effort must insure adequate protection for goose populations of
management concern.
In the Atlantic Flyway, the Service continues to be concerned about
the status of the Atlantic Population (AP) of Canada geese. During this
year, the Service will work closely with Canada and the Atlantic Flyway
Council to monitor the 1996 spring breeding-pair estimates and
reevaluate its status. The Service encourages the Atlantic Flyway
Council to begin updating the AP Management Plan and consider revising
population objectives and establishing appropriate harvest strategies.
Key population parameters will be reviewed during the annual
regulations-development process, but the recovery period for this
population is expected to take several years.
The Service also remains concerned about the status of the Southern
James Bay and Dusky Canada goose populations, and will carefully review
all harvest regulations to ensure that these populations are not
impacted.
7. Snow and Ross' Geese
The Service requests that the Atlantic, Mississippi, and the
Central Flyway Councils work with the Service to examine criteria
established for those areas with a framework closing date of March 10.
If there is a need to refine the northern boundary established for the
1995-96 seasons, the Service recommends the development of biological
criteria to guide the boundary refinement. Further, it is suggested
that these criteria should include an assessment of the frequency,
timing and magnitude of goose use in areas proposed to be designated as
wintering areas. Finally, the Service reminds States that proposed
boundary adjustments should be approved by their respective Flyway
Councils.
The Service is also concerned about the growing evidence of serious
habitat degredation caused by high white goose population levels at
several major breeding areas in the central and eastern Canadian
Arctic. The Service proposes to work with the Arctic Goose Joint
Venture, the Flyway Councils and other concerned agencies and
organizations to investigate possible management alternatives to
address this problem.
9. Sandhill Cranes
The Service requests the assistance of the Central and Pacific
Flyway Councils in the development and implementation of improved
techniques to monitor the annual population status of the Rocky
Mountain Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes. In the interim, the
Service recommends that the Flyway Councils continue to use the
population, recruitment, and permit- allocation procedures in the
cooperative management plan to set crane seasons in 1996-97.
14. Woodcock
The Service remains concerned about the gradual long-term declines
in woodcock populations in both the Eastern and Central Management
Regions. The primary causes of the declines appear to be degradation
and loss of suitable habitat on both the breeding and wintering
grounds. Available data suggest that woodcock are harvested at a
relatively low rate and that hunting mortality comprises a relatively
small proportion of overall annual mortality. The Service will continue
to work with the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils to review the
status of woodcock and cooperatively develop a harvest-management
strategy.
15. Band-tailed Pigeons
The Service supports the continuation of hunting seasons on both
the Coastal and Interior Populations. The Service remains concerned,
however, about the long-term decline in the Coastal Population and
supports the continuation of restrictive harvest regulations. As in
1995, all States having band-tailed pigeon hunting seasons must again
require either participation in the nationwide Migratory Bird Harvest
Information Program or require band-tailed 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 1996-97
seasons. Indian tribes also should consider this situation when
proposing harvest regulations for this species.
BILLING CODE 4310-31-F
[[Page 11992]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22MR96.000
[FR Doc. 96-6981 Filed 3-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-31-C
