[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 84 (Monday, May 3, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23742-23747]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-10961]
[[Page 23741]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1999-2000 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 84 / Monday, May 3, 1999 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 23742]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AF24
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1999-2000 Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal
Proposals
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter we) proposes
to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game
birds for the 1999-2000 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.
DATES: You must submit comments for proposed early-season frameworks by
July 27, 1999; and for proposed late-season frameworks by September 7,
1999. Tribes should submit proposals and related comments by June 2,
1999.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the proposals to the Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC
20240. All comments received, including names and addresses, will
become part of the public record. You may inspect comments during
normal business hours in room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N.
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel at: Office of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240 (703)
358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For administrative purposes, this document
consolidates the notice of intent and request for tribal proposals with
the preliminary proposals for the annual 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 1999-2000 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. Hunting of all other
birds designated as migratory (under Sec. 10.13 of Subpart B of 50 CFR
Part 10) is not permitted. For the 1999-2000 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 1998-99 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary) in this document. We published definitions of
waterfowl flyways and mourning dove management units, as well as a
description of the data used in and the factors affecting the
regulatory process, in the March 14, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR
9618).
Regulatory Schedule for 1999-2000
This is the first in a series of proposed and final rulemaking
documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will make
proposals relating to the harvest of migratory game birds initiated
after this publication available for public review in supplemental
proposed rulemakings. Also, we will publish additional supplemental
proposals for public comment in the Federal Register as population,
habitat, harvest, and other information become available.
Because of the late dates when certain portions of these data
become available, we anticipate abbreviated comment periods on some
proposals. Special circumstances limit the amount of time we can allow
for public comment on these regulations. Specifically, two
considerations compress the time for the rulemaking process: the need,
on one hand, to establish final rules early enough in the summer to
allow resource agencies to select and publish season dates and bag
limits 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 overall
regulations process 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 1999-2000 regulatory cycle relating to open
public meetings and Federal Register notifications are illustrated in
the accompanying diagram. All publication dates of Federal Register
documents are target dates.
All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining hunting
frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These
headings are:
1. Ducks
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
[[Page 23743]]
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.
Public Hearings
In past years, we have annually conducted two public hearings
pertaining to migratory game bird hunting regulations. The first
hearing held in late June reviewed the status of migratory shore and
upland game birds and discussed proposed hunting regulations for these
species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl
seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic
Flyway; extended falconry seasons; and proposed regulatory alternatives
for the duck hunting season. The second hearing held in early August
reviewed the status and proposed regulations for waterfowl not
previously discussed at the June public hearing. Because of declining
attendance and interest the past several years, we are not planning to
hold the public hearings this year.
Requests for Tribal Proposals
Background
Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed
guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR
23467) to establish special migratory 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 non-tribal members throughout their reservations. The
guidelines include possibilities for:
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and non-tribal members,
with hunting by non-tribal 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
apply to the establishment of migratory bird hunting regulations for
non-tribal 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 non-tribal members on non-Indian
lands.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory 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 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 Federal Register. We 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. 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 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 1999-2000 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
(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 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.
[[Page 23744]]
Tribal Proposal Procedures
We will publish tribal proposals details for public review in later
Federal Register documents. Because of the time required for our and
public review, Indian tribes that desire special migratory bird hunting
regulations for the 1999-2000 hunting season should submit their
proposals as soon as possible, but no later than June 2, 1999. Tribes
should direct inquiries regarding the guidelines and proposals to the
appropriate Service Regional Office listed under the caption
Supplementary Information. Tribes that request special hunting
regulations for tribal members on ceded lands should send a courtesy
copy of the proposal to officials in the affected State(s).
Public Comments Solicited
The 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 ADDRESSES.
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.
Flyway Council Meetings
Departmental representatives will attend the following winter
meetings of the various Flyway Councils:
March 25 and 29, 1999
National Waterfowl Council, 1:00 p.m.
March 26, 1999
Atlantic Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.
Central Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.
Mississippi Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.
Pacific Flyway Council, 10:30 a.m.
The Council meetings will be held at the Hyatt Regency at San
Francisco Airport, 1333 Bay Shore Highway, Burlingame, California.
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 Federal Register on June 16,
1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 18,
1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental
assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations
on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available from the
address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Prior to issuance of the 1999-2000 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 ``Supplementary
Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the
rule? What else could the Service 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 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual
hunting regulations on small business entities in detail and a Small
Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) was issued by the Service 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 and $1,084 million at small businesses in 1998.
Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Office 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 09/30/2000). The
information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude, the
geographical and
[[Page 23745]]
temporal distribution of harvest, and the portion its 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 Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., 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 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
12612, 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 1999-2000
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
Dated: March 19, 1999.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Proposed 1999-2000 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, seasons lengths, and bag limits). Unless otherwise
specified, we are proposing no change from the final 1998-99 frameworks
of August 28 and September 29, 1998, (63 FR 46124 and 51998). Specific
preliminary proposals that vary from the 1998-99 frameworks and issues
requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or
tribes are contained below:
1. Ducks
A. Harvest Strategy Considerations
We propose to continue the use of Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM)
to guide the establishment of duck hunting regulations. The AHM
approach recognizes we cannot predict the consequences of hunting
regulations with certainty, and provides a framework for making
objective decisions despite this uncertainty. Also inherent in the
adaptive approach is an awareness that we can maximize the success of
our long-term management programs, in terms of sustainable hunting
opportunities, only if we reduce the uncertainty about regulatory
effects. Thus, AHM relies on a tightly integrated cycle of monitoring,
assessment, and decision-making to better understand the relationships
among hunting regulations, harvests, and waterfowl abundance.
Because of the structured approach and formal nature of the AHM
process, Federal and State managers must continue to consider those
factors that influence the outcome of regulatory strategies and, thus,
the potential harvest impacts on waterfowl populations. We have
identified three areas critical to the success of AHM which require
additional consideration:
(1) Setting objectives--Waterfowl harvest managers must rely on
clear, definitive statements about management objectives. This requires
formal agreement among stakeholders about how to place a value on
harvest benefits and how to share those benefits. AHM cannot operate as
intended with vague, unclear management objectives;
(2) System control--Our ability to control harvest levels is
dependent on understanding the relationship between hunting
regulations, hunter behavior, and harvest. However, we do not have
complete control over all these factors. Ultimately, hunting
regulations only partially control hunter activity and success, and
variable environmental conditions often have a pronounced effect on
harvest levels. Thus, our ability to only partially control harvest
imposes limits on both short-term hunting opportunity and the learning
needed to increase long-term management performance;
(3) Management scale--As waterfowl managers, we continue to try to
account for increasingly more spatial, temporal, and organizational
variability in waterfowl biology. However, serious questions remain
about the cost-effectiveness of this approach because costs can
sometimes outweigh benefits. Moreover, the appropriate scale, or
resolution, of harvest management is often limited by the availability
of resources for monitoring and assessment, rather than by
determinations of the highest net benefit.
These institutional issues pose our greatest challenge to the long-
term success of AHM. Managing these issues will require innovative ways
to maintain productive dialogue, and resolve differences within a
process that all stakeholders can support. We intend to work diligently
with our management partners to organize these discussions, so that we
can collectively explore and appreciate the technical and sociological
implications of these issues.
B. Framework Dates
During 1995 and 1996, the first two years of implementation of AHM,
three regulatory alternatives characterized as ``liberal'',
``moderate'', and ``restrictive'' were defined based on regulations
used during 1979-84, 1985-87, and 1988-93, respectively. In 1997, we
attempted to further accommodate State and Flyway
[[Page 23746]]
concerns by modifying the regulatory alternatives to include: (1) the
addition of a very restrictive alternative; (2) additional days and a
higher duck bag limit in the moderate and liberal alternatives; and (3)
an increase in the bag limit of hen mallards in the moderate and
liberal alternatives.
The subsequent set of four regulatory alternatives was acceptable
to the majority of States. However, the issue of framework-date
extensions continued to be discussed and because of its contentiousness
has drawn increasing political interest. Finally in 1998, Congressional
action interceded and allowed certain States in the Mississippi Flyway
(Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee) to
select a framework closing date of January 31, provided it was
accompanied by a commensurate reduction in season length.
The issue of duck hunting framework-date extensions and possible
modifications to regulatory alternatives remains unresolved for the
1999-2000 hunting season. Although we have not received specific
proposals for changes in the regulatory alternatives, we believe that
any forthcoming proposals for modification of framework dates should be
consistent with existing biological constraints, while not disrupting
the intended functioning of AHM. We believe that framework dates should
remain a viable tool in regulating harvests and an important component
of any set of regulatory alternatives. Further, we believe that
application of framework dates should continue to be incorporated at
the Flyway level. Additional application of date changes or options
with harvest offsets at scales below the Flyway level, such as the
State or zone level, would result in unprecedented technical challenges
in terms of predicting cumulative impacts and evaluating the effects of
various regulatory tools and severely strain our capability to reliably
predict and control harvests at levels commensurate with the biological
capacity of waterfowl populations.
The ability to predict, at least probabilistically, the harvests
achieved under the regulatory alternatives is an essential feature of
the AHM process. Therefore, we believe that a limited set of Flyway-
based regulatory alternatives that are stable over time is necessary to
maintain or improve our understanding of the relationships between
regulations and harvest, and between harvest and population response.
The ability of AHM to operate as intended is premised on a set of well-
defined regulatory alternatives, which are small in number and which
lead to recognizable differences in harvest (or harvest rate). To this
end, we are interested in cooperatively working with States, Flyway
Councils, and the public to explore changes in Flyway-wide regulatory
alternatives to resolve the frameworks issue. This approach will assure
the integrity of the AHM process, while maintaining a Flyway-based
regulatory system.
G. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. Scaup
We remain concerned about the declining trend in the size of the
scaup breeding population and believe that substantial reductions in
hunting opportunity are needed, particularly in light of recent harvest
increases. As we announced last September, we intend to cooperate with
the Flyway Councils in an effort to develop a strategy for guiding
scaup harvest management beginning this year. A preliminary draft
strategy was sent to each Flyway in February for comment. This strategy
will build upon information in a recently completed scaup status report
(copies available from MBMO).
ii. Canvasbacks
We continue to support the canvasback harvest strategy adopted in
1994. Last year, we reviewed data collected since implementation of the
strategy to assess the strategy's performance. Subsequently, we
prepared a report for the Flyways detailing our review and distributed
the report to the Flyway Technical Sections for comment during their
March meetings. Overall, we believe the strategy has performed
adequately, and have not found sufficient reason to alter it. We will
continue to monitor its performance as annual information from
population and habitat surveys are available.
2. Sea Ducks
We continue to be concerned about recent population trends in sea
ducks throughout North America. Last year, we provided a report titled
``Status of Sea Ducks in Eastern North America and a Review of the
Special Sea Duck Season in the Atlantic Flyway'' to the Flyways. This
report summarized our current state of knowledge regarding several sea
duck species and highlighted our management concerns. In light of these
concerns, we requested the Atlantic and Pacific Flyways to review the
special regulations for sea duck seasons currently in place in each
Flyway. In the Atlantic Flyway, we continue to ask the Council to
consider changes to sea duck seasons and to develop management goals
for sea ducks. In the Pacific Flyway, we encourage the Flyway, and
particularly the State of Alaska to give consideration to changes in
existing sea duck regulations in light of current population status and
trends. In addition, we continue to support and encourage participation
by the Atlantic and Pacific Flyways in the development and
implementation of the sea duck joint venture to address management and
information needs for this unique group of waterfowl in North America.
4. Canada Geese
We support the Atlantic Flyway Council's position that hunting
seasons on Atlantic Population (AP) Canada Geese remain closed until
the breeding population index exceeds 60,000 pairs and there is
evidence of a sustained population recovery. Following the season
closure in 1995 and favorable production in 1997 and 1998, we expect
this population to begin expansion and begin to show an increase in the
breeding pair survey index. In this context, we encourage the Council
to give serious consideration to specific criteria for resuming the
hunting season. Additionally, if these criteria are triggered in 1999,
we believe that appropriate regulatory strategies and harvest controls
will be necessary to effectively manage the harvest in order to prevent
harvest levels that would deter the AP from making a full recovery to
objective levels.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 23747]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MY99.001
[FR Doc. 99-10961 Filed 4-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
