[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 150 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41926-41932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20900]
[[Page 41925]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of the Interior
_______________________________________________________________________
Fish and Wildlife Service
_______________________________________________________________________
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Regulatory Alternatives for the 1998-99
Duck Hunting Season; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 / Wednesday, August 5, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 41926]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AE93
Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Regulatory Alternatives for the
1998-99 Duck Hunting Season
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule supplement establishes the Service's final
regulatory alternatives for the 1998-99 duck hunting season for the
States of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Tennessee. The effect of this supplement is to facilitate the selection
of the appropriate regulatory alternative for the 1998-99 duck hunting
season for these States. The selection of the alternative for the 1998-
99 season will be published in the Federal Register in late-August.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, MBMO, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations Schedule for 1998
On March 20, 1998, the Service published in the Federal Register
(63 FR 13748) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal dealt
with the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for
migratory game birds under Secs. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and
20.110 of subpart K. On May 29, 1998, the Service published in the
Federal Register (63 FR 29518) a second document providing supplemental
proposals for early- and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations
frameworks and the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1998-99
duck hunting season. The May 29 supplement also provided detailed
information on the 1998-99 regulatory schedule and announced the
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Council
meetings. On June 25, 1998, the Service held a public hearing to
announce the proposed early-season migratory bird hunting regulations
frameworks. On July 17, 1998, the Service published in the Federal
Register (63 FR 38700) a third document specifically dealing with
proposed early-season frameworks for the 1998-99 season. The July 17
supplement also established the final regulatory alternatives for the
1998-99 duck hunting season for all States except Alabama, Arkansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
This document is the fourth in a series of proposed, supplemental,
and final rulemaking documents for migratory bird hunting regulations
and deals specifically with the final regulatory alternatives for the
1998-99 duck hunting season for the States of Alabama, Arkansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. It will lead to the
selection of the proposed alternative and ultimately final frameworks
from which States may select season dates, shooting hours, and daily
bag and possession limits for the 1998-99 season. The Service has
considered all pertinent comments received through July 1, 1998, in
developing this document. The Service will publish proposed regulatory
frameworks, including the selection of the appropriate regulatory
alternative for the 1998-99 duck hunting season, for late seasons in
the Federal Register on or about August 21, 1998.
Comments Received at June 25 Public Hearing
Mr. Brad Bales, gamebird program coordinator for the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, made two statements on behalf of two
separate organizations. The first, on behalf of the National Flyway
Council, was an announcement that the National Flyway Council would
establish a committee to address the framework question from a national
perspective. At their next meeting, the National Flyway Council will
determine the composition of the group and establish a time frame for
the committee to complete their work and make their recommendations
back to the National Flyway Council.
Mr. Bales' second comment was on behalf of the Pacific Flyway
Council. He indicated that the Pacific Flyway Council urged the Service
not to extend the framework dates for duck hunting in the lower
Mississippi Flyway as recently proposed in the Federal Register.
Further, he offered the support of the Pacific Flyway Council for the
effort proposed by the National Flyway Council.
Mr. Robert McDowell, representing the Atlantic Flyway Council
stressed the Flyway's proposal that framework dates remain fixed where
they currently are in all Flyways and disapproved of attempts occurring
outside the formal regulatory process to change them. He further
indicated that if the Service finalized the proposed framework closing
date extensions, all States should have the same opportunity. He
supported the National Flyway Council efforts to resolve this problem
that is divisive among Flyways.
Mr. Charles Kelley, representing the Alabama Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources, commented in support of the
proposed extension of the framework closing date for duck hunting,
stating that the State had been requesting an extension for a number of
years because a later hunting season would allow them to take better
advantage of duck abundance in the State.
Written Comments Received
The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the March 20
Federal Register, opened the public comment period for migratory game
bird hunting regulations. The supplemental proposed rule, which
appeared in the May 29 Federal Register, defined the public comment
period for the Service's proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1998-
99 duck hunting season. The public comment period for the proposed
regulatory alternatives closed July 1, 1998. Comments pertaining to the
proposed alternatives are summarized below and numbered in the order
used in the March 20 Federal Register. All of these comments were
included in the July 17 supplement, however, comments related to the
regulatory alternatives for the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee were not addressed in that
document. They are instead addressed here, and thus, have been repeated
as a convenience for the reader. Only the numbered items pertaining to
the proposed regulatory alternatives for which written comments were
received are included.
The Service received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils.
Some recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks.
Due to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks
performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's
frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were
received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are
summarized below.
General
I. Ducks
The categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest
management are as follows: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Framework
Dates, (C) Season Length, (D) Closed Seasons, (E) Bag Limits, (F) Zones
and Split Seasons, and (G) Special Seasons/Species Management. Only
those categories
[[Page 41927]]
containing substantial recommendations are included below.
A. Harvest Strategy Considerations
On May 29, 1998, the Service published for public comment the
proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1998-99 duck hunting season
(63 FR 29518). The proposed regulatory alternatives were identical to
the alternatives utilized in 1997-98 except for the proposal to offer
an extension of the framework closing date to no later than January 31
in those States in the Lower Region of the Mississippi Flyway
(Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee).
Further discussion of the framework issue can be found in B. Framework
Dates.
Council Recommendations: All four Flyway Councils generally
endorsed continuation of the 1997-98 regulatory alternatives.
Modifications recommended by the Councils were identified and discussed
in the May 29, 1998, Federal Register. The recommendations are
reiterated below and modified where necessary based on subsequent
comments received from the Flyway Councils.
The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that the duck hunting
packages used for the 1997-98 season be continued for the 1998-99
season.
The Upper-Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council
recommended that the 1997-98 regulations packages be maintained for the
1998-99 duck season. These consisted of 20-, 30-, 45-, and 60-day
seasons, with bag limits ranging from 3 to 6 ducks, including
appropriate species restrictions, and frameworks dates from the
Saturday nearest October 1 to the Sunday nearest January 20.
The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended that the regulatory packages for the 1997-98 season
be continued in 1998-99, with the exception of framework dates (see
further discussion in B. Framework Dates).
The Central Flyway Council recommended that the duck hunting
packages used for the 1997-98 season be continued for the 1998-99
season.
Service Response: In the July 17 proposed rule, the Service
indicated that for the 1998-99 regular duck hunting season, the Service
would utilize the four regulatory alternatives detailed in the
accompanying table for all States except Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The regulatory alternatives for
those six States were not finalized pending a decision on the framework
closing date and associated season length.
For the 1998-99 regular duck hunting season, the Service will
utilize the previously identified regulatory alternatives for all
States. Details of the four alternatives are identified in the
accompanying table. Alternatives are specified for each Flyway and are
designated as ``VERY RES'' for the very restrictive, ``RES'' for the
restrictive, ``MOD'' for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal
alternative. The Service is convinced that these alternatives will be
successful at providing maximum hunting opportunity, while not
jeopardizing the ability of duck species to attain population goals
when habitat conditions are adequate. The Service will propose a
specific regulatory alternative when survey data on waterfowl
population and habitat status are available.
B. Framework Dates
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended no
change to the current framework dates, believing that extensions would
be premature without knowing the potential harvest impacts, which could
reduce the frequency of liberal regulations and would reduce the
likelihood that eastern mallards will be fully incorporated into
Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) this year. In a subsequent letter,
the Council opposed the Service's May 29, 1998, framework extension
proposal because the proposal was developed outside the normal Flyway
meeting schedule which prohibited Flyway Council review. The Council
voiced concerns regarding the impact on the AHM process, adverse
impacts on hunting opportunities across all Flyways to accommodate
desires of a small region which already enjoys very high hunter
success, negative biological impacts on mallard pairing and hen body
condition, and impacts on eastern mallard stocks, black ducks, and wood
ducks. They believe the proposal calls into question the fair
allocation of a shared resource and mechanisms used to achieve that
allocation. The Council warned that allowing extensions without using
existing Flyway Council protocol would fracture the existing Flyway
system and politicize the system. The Council recommended delaying
action on frameworks for at least one year to allow appropriate State
and Flyway review.
The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended the Service allow States to choose a framework
closing date as late as January 31 with a 10% penalty in days.
The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended no change in existing framework dates. The
Committee also recommended that if the Service were to offer States the
opportunity to extend frameworks, the extension should be coupled with
a commensurate reduction in season length and/or bag limits in the
participating States to offset the predicted increase in harvest.
The Central Flyway Council recommended maintaining the current
opening and closing framework dates adopted under AHM. However, at some
future date, when the packages are reviewed for modification, the
Council recommended that the framework dates issue should be
cooperatively dealt with by all Flyways in seeking an agreement for
equitable harvest opportunity. In a subsequent letter, the Council
opposed the Service's May 29, 1998, proposal because it was developed
outside the normal Flyway Council/Service review process. They believe
the proposal's adoption will create animosity among States and erode
the cooperative framework the Council system has provided for the past
fifty years, and threaten the success of AHM. The Council perceives the
extension issue as one of fair allocation of harvest opportunity. The
Council is concerned that other States are not being offered the
extension and may be held to a more stringent criteria for future
changes. The Council urged the Service to work with Flyways to continue
development of the AHM program, which the Council believes will promote
enhanced hunting opportunities in the future. The Council stated that
both early and late framework issues should be addressed when AHM
packages are next revised and that they look forward to working with
the other Flyways and the Service towards an agreement on equitable
harvest opportunity.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended maintaining the current
opening and closing duck season framework dates adopted under AHM for
the near future.
Written Comments: The Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries, and Parks commented in favor of extending the framework
closing date to January 31 and submitted an analysis of data based on
the most recent two years. Although their analysis indicated an
appropriate reduction in season length of 3 days, they proposed to
reduce the season length 8 days, based on a more liberal estimate of
harvest increases.
The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources communicated
their interest in having the option of a
[[Page 41928]]
January 31 framework closing date. While the State had no specific data
related to an appropriate penalty for the extension, they believed
Mississippi's analysis was applicable for the Lower Region at this
time, unless more appropriate analyses had been conducted elsewhere.
Kentucky urged the Service to develop final framework packages based on
the information that most accurately reflects the anticipated impacts.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission expressed concern that the
framework issue had been pursued largely outside the Flyway Council
process and threatened the long-term waterfowl management process, but
believed a component of its hunters was interested in the extended
opportunity. Arkansas expressed concern over the potential for the
extensions to result in more restrictive harvest regulations in the
future, and the inability to accurately measure harvest rates and
assess impacts of the extensions.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency stated that the recent
warmer-than-normal conditions had renewed sportsmen's interest in
framework extensions. The State pledged the assistance of its personnel
to help resolve the framework issue in a fair, equitable, and non-
divisive manner. An Agency resolution called for the Service and the
Mississippi Flyway Council to work towards extending season frameworks
in a fair and equitable manner for the 1998-99 season and beyond.
The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries supported a
framework extension to January 31 as long as the State's participation
does not require a reduction in hunting days or bag limits. Louisiana
was disappointed by the proposed rule and hoped the Service would
develop a practical resolution to this contentious issue. A 1997
opinion survey of Louisiana hunters indicated a large majority
preferred a January 31 closing date and State waterfowl survey data
indicate that more ducks are in Louisiana during December and January.
The State was unable to develop, in the allotted period, an estimate of
the impact on harvest rates that they would consider reliable.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources stated
that they had supported framework extensions in Alabama for many years
and support maximizing hunting opportunities as long as the resource is
not negatively impacted. The Department stated that Alabama hunter
success is near or below the Mississippi Flyway average as shown by
seasonal duck harvest per hunter and that an increased proportion of
mallards harvested in Alabama may help offset the long-term decline in
Canada goose harvest opportunity in Alabama. Alabama had no data
regarding an offset penalty and would rely on the analysis from
Mississippi.
The Pennsylvania Game Commission opposed the extension proposal.
Pennsylvania stated the proposal was developed without consultation
with the other Flyway Councils, it conflicted with cooperatively
developed AHM packages, and would confound attempts to assess impacts
of season length on harvest. Concern was expressed about the potential
for increased harvest of eastern duck stocks and the potential for more
restrictive harvest opportunities on a broad scale if frameworks were
extended in southern States. Pennsylvania believed that, at the very
least, consideration of this proposal should be delayed until Flyway
Councils and the AHM working group had assessed its ramifications.
The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources objected to the
proposal to limit the extension of the framework closing date to the
southern portion of the Mississippi Flyway. They stated that waterfowl
hunters in South Carolina have been dissatisfied with the framework
dates for a very long time, and the proposal to restrict the extension
is arbitrary and capricious and violates the tenet of ``fairness'' that
we have operated under for so many years as relates to the nationwide
management of migratory birds through the regulatory process
administered by the Service. They recommended that the same option for
extension of the framework closing date be offered to States in the
southern portion of the Atlantic Flyway.
The Georgia Department of Natural Resources did not support the
extension proposal because it undermined the primary goals of the AHM
process which had been adopted by all Flyways. They believed adoption
of the proposal would serve as a catalyst for additional regional
campaigns leading to increased regulatory inconsistency. Many of
Georgia's hunters strongly desire a framework extension to January 31;
however, until current packages are tested over a longer period, it was
not in the long-term interest of waterfowl to extend frameworks. If
changes are to be made now, extensions should be available to all
States. The Lower Mississippi Flyway proposal has triggered discussions
regarding a southern coalition within the Atlantic Flyway, intended to
pursue southern issues and framework extensions in that region.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
requested that the proposed framework extension be deferred for one
year to allow adequate review by all Flyway Councils and the AHM
working group. New York expressed concerns that the proposal was
developed without Flyway Council review, was counter to AHM principles,
that efforts on framework extensions would delay the incorporation of
eastern mallards into the decision process, future harvest opportunity
for all Flyways could be adversely affected, eastern duck stocks could
be impacted, and that adoption of the proposal would spawn additional
requests from special interest groups. The Department stated that when
regulation packages were set and agreed to by all Councils, it was
understood that they would be stable for several years, New York
recommended that the Flyway Councils and the AHM working group work
this year to devise a strategy for 1999.
The North Dakota Game and Fish Department stressed that waterfowl
harvest management should be based on sound scientific information and
objectives established through the Flyway Council process. North Dakota
expressed great concern over the unfairness of extending southern
frameworks when northern States have benefitted little from special
teal seasons and recently lengthened seasons. They believed if an
extension is offered to southern States similar opportunity must be
offered to all States.
The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks urged the
Service to not extend the framework closing date in the southern part
of the Mississippi Flyway, since all other Flyway Councils and the
Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council
recommended that framework dates not be changed. Such action would be
totally unfair to all other States that are willing to use the AHM
process to fairly and biologically determine the framework issue.
The Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks strongly opposed the
proposal to offer extended duck hunting season framework dates to
States in the lower region of the Mississippi Flyway, stating that it
is blatantly unfair to other States that may be interested in such
changes, and that it will establish an undesirable precedent regarding
how we implement harvest regulations.
The Delaware Department of Natural Resources opposed a framework
extension for the southern Mississippi Flyway because it conflicted
with recommendations from all Flyways
[[Page 41929]]
Councils (1997) to maintain consistency in regulatory packages and it
could negatively affect other States through redistribution of harvest.
Delaware urged all four Councils and the AHM working group work to
recommend a specific strategy for 1999 to address all concerns.
The Missouri Department of Conservation opposed the framework
extension due to concerns regarding biological impacts on the waterfowl
resource including changes in harvest timing and composition (age,
species, and sex), the inequitable provision of the extension
opportunities, and conflicts with the AHM process. Missouri believes
adopting this proposal would set an unfortunate precedent and have
negative implications for the future of cooperative waterfowl and
wetland management.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources strongly opposed the
extension proposal on the basis of its conflict with previous
recommendations of the Upper-Region Regulations Committee. Michigan
believed if extensions were implemented, both early and late extensions
should be offered to all States.
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection opposed the
extension proposal and requested the Service defer action until full
review by all Flyways is possible. Connecticut voiced concern over
reduced hunting opportunity across the nation and impacts to black
ducks which are more vulnerable in late winter.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources continued to support
recommendations of the Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the
Mississippi Flyway Council and the other 3 Flyway Councils for no
change in framework dates. They believe the extension proposal is
extremely divisive and threatens the future of the Flyway Council
system and AHM. They stated that the potentially negative physiological
impacts on ducks of extensions have not been addressed and should be
evaluated by States and the Service prior to implementing extensions.
Minnesota believed northern States have the strongest argument for
framework extensions because of weather-related limitations to long
duck seasons. The extension proposal was contrary to the cooperative
process of establishing migratory bird regulations; however, if it is
offered, it should be offered to all States.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources supported no change
in framework dates. Wisconsin found the extension proposal completely
unacceptable because it increases inequity, citing the current higher
hunter success rates in southern States, frequently truncated season
length in northern States due to freeze-up, and differences in special-
teal-season availability. Wisconsin expressed concern about the
possible impacts of late-winter hunting on mallard pair formation and
nutrient-reserve accumulation. Wisconsin opposed offering southern
States an extension, but believed if the extension was granted to
southern States, northern States must be offered an extension on season
opening dates.
The Illinois Department of Natural Resources stated the extension
proposal was patently unfair because it was not available to all States
in all Flyways. The State remains concerned about biological impacts on
duck pair formation and acquisition of body reserves. Illinois believed
this is an issue of national consequence and without time for a full
public debate and analysis before the 1998 season, the Service should
postpone implementation of any framework extensions until at least the
1999 season. However, if extensions are implemented, the offset penalty
should be determined by the Service or third party and Illinois should
be allowed to split the duck season in their three zones.
The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation was strongly
opposed to the extension proposal. Oklahoma believed that the proposal
seriously undermines the long-standing cooperative Flyway and Service
process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations and calls into
question the Service's commitment to the AHM process. Oklahoma further
recommended that the Service deny the framework extension until such
time as the issue can be addressed through the AHM process and all
States' interests are fairly and objectively considered.
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department opposed the framework
extension because they believe that season recommendations should be
based on Flyway/Service review and approval and not political
considerations, the proposed extension threatens AHM, other States are
not offered a similar opportunity, and the proposal creates animosity
between States and erodes the cooperative framework of the Flyway
Council system. They further encourage the Service to work with the
Flyways to continue to develop and enhance AHM and believe that early
and late framework issues should be addressed when the next round of
AHM packages are developed.
The New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife opposed
implementation of framework extensions due to their commitment to the
AHM process, concern regarding impacts on migrating wood ducks, and the
potential to divide the flyway system.
The Wisconsin Conservation Congress opposed the framework extension
proposal stating that it was in direct conflict with the principles of
the Service to manage the resource for the benefit of all people.
The Delta Waterfowl Foundation did not support the framework
extension proposal. While supporting the Service's goal of ensuring
that nonparticipating States will not be impacted, they believed that
reductions in bag limits and species restrictions should also be
considered. They further stated that the Service should entertain other
framework date extensions, such as opening dates.
The Alabama Waterfowl Association requested a January 31 extension
in Alabama be experimental beginning in the 1998 season. The
Association would accept a 10% penalty in hunting days. They cite
conflicts between farmers and hunting-lease holders or hunters in mid-
November when incomplete crop harvest prevents flooding of agricultural
fields. The Association believed an extended framework would allow
improved habitat management and availability at the start of the season
and would have less impact on the resource than the additional hen in
the bag recently offered.
Two individuals from Michigan, 45 from Wisconsin, 30 from
Minnesota, 1 from Arkansas, 1 from Iowa, 1 from Florida, and 3 from
Tennessee commented in opposition to the proposed extension of the
framework closing date.
Three individuals from Alabama, 1 from Florida, 5 from Arkansas, 2
from Georgia, 31 from Tennessee, and 110 from Mississippi commented in
favor of extending the framework closing date.
Service Response: Extensive comments were received regarding the
May 29 proposal (63 FR 29518) to extend the framework closing date to
January 31 in six States in the southern portion of the Mississippi
Flyway (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Tennessee). In the proposal, those States would be permitted a
framework date extension, provided it was accompanied by a reduction in
season length sufficient to offset the expected increase in harvest.
The Service's goal was to provide a later hunting opportunity that had
been requested by southern Mississippi
[[Page 41930]]
Flyway States, without increasing overall harvest in those States or
affecting hunting opportunities in other States and Flyways.
The Service's proposal has been severely criticized by three Flyway
Councils and numerous States. Based on a review of those comments,
there appear to be three primary reasons for dissatisfaction with the
proposal:
(1) the perception of inequity because most States would be
excluded unilaterally from participation;
(2) a concern that the proposal was developed largely outside the
Flyway Council consultation process, and that the proposal would be
finalized before the Councils had an opportunity to meet and discuss
concerns or suggest alternatives; and
(3) technical concerns about the ability to predict the effects of
a framework-date extension on harvests or duck populations, and
apprehension about whether the Service could guarantee that the season-
length reduction would be sufficient to completely offset the expected
increase in harvest.
For these reasons, the Service is withdrawing its proposal to
extend the closing date of the duck-hunting season in the southern
Mississippi Flyway. However, it is clear that the issue of framework
extensions and expanding both early-and late-season hunting opportunity
is an issue of strong and continuing interest among the States and the
public. The Service acknowledges and shares this interest. Therefore,
the Service will work with the Flyway Councils to consider these issues
on a broader basis. The Service endorses the interest of the National
Flyway Council to provide a forum for this discussion, especially
because the issue inherently involves perceptions regarding the fair
and equitable distribution of hunting opportunity among all States. The
Service also believes that the design of acceptable regulatory
alternatives, including the specification of framework dates, will
require a structured process in which to explore common goals,
conflicts, and possible solutions. In the interim the Service will
continue to use the set of regulatory alternatives established in 1997
which includes framework dates of approximately October 1 and January
20.
In considering its decision regarding the framework date issue, the
Service recognized that there are existing species-specific regulatory
strategies, most notably for blue-winged teal, that must be considered
within the context of a comprehensive framework date review. Particular
reference is made to the special September duck hunting season
currently offered to Iowa. Unlike other Mississippi Flyway States, Iowa
is allowed to hold up to 5 days of its regular duck hunting season in
September, with the second segment not to begin prior to October 10.
The Iowa September season focuses on providing additional hunting
opportunity for lightly harvested teal, and is a version of special
September teal seasons offered to all other Mississippi Flyway States
south of Iowa. The Iowa season is discontinued along with all other
September teal seasons when warranted by poor teal status. Iowa's
harvest during their early 5-day segment is predominately teal (53% in
1997), and thus the regulation has been successful at targeting
additional hunting opportunity on an underutilized resource.
Iowa first had the option of the September season on an
experimental basis during 1979-84, and has conducted the season on an
operational basis during 1985-87 and 1994-present. The season was not
offered during 1988-93 pending a comprehensive review of teal season
criteria, which was precipitated by a declining teal population. The
Iowa season has been examined on several occasions, and reviewed and
supported by Flyway Councils, including both the Upper and Lower
Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council. Given the
upcoming evaluation of special September teal seasons in 1998/99 and
the comprehensive review of the framework dates by the Flyway Councils
over the next 2 years, all special species-specific seasons, including
the Iowa season, will be further reviewed during these processes.
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 EPA on June 9, 1988. The Service published a Notice
of Availability in the June 16, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 22582).
The Service published its Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR
31341). Copies of these documents are available from the Service at the
address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act Considerations
As in the past, the Service designs hunting regulations to remove
or alleviate chances of conflict between migratory game bird hunting
seasons and the protection and conservation of endangered and
threatened species. Consultations are currently being conducted to
ensure that actions resulting from these regulatory proposals will not
likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their
critical habitat. Findings from these consultations will be included in
a biological opinion and may cause modification of some regulatory
measures previously proposed. The final frameworks will reflect any
modifications. The Service's biological opinions resulting from its
Section 7 consultation are public documents and will be available for
public inspection in the Service's Division of Endangered Species and
MBMO, at the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In the March 20, 1998, Federal Register, the Service reported
measures it took to comply with requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. One measure was to prepare a Small Entity Flexibility
Analysis (Analysis) in 1996 documenting the significant beneficial
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. The Analysis
estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend between $254 and $592
million at small businesses. Copies of the Analysis are available upon
request from the Office of Migratory Bird Management. The Service is
currently updating the 1996 Analysis with information from the 1996
National Hunting and Fishing Survey.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This rules establishing the frameworks (early- and late-season) for
hunting seasons is economically significant and will be reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. This rule
establishes the regulatory alternatives for the 1998-99 duck hunting
season.
E.O. 12866 also requires each agency to write regulations that are
easy to understand. The Service invites 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
[[Page 41931]]
the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else
could the Service do to make the rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how this rule could be
made easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20240. Comments may also be e-mailed to: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Service 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, the information collection
requirements of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program have
been approved by OMB and assigned clearance number 1018-0015 (expires
08/31/1998). This information is used to provide a sampling frame for
voluntary national surveys to improve Service harvest estimates for all
migratory game birds in order to better manage these populations. The
information collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest
Questionnaire have been approved by OMB and assigned clearance number
1018-0023 (expires 09/30/2000). The information from this survey is
used to estimate the magnitude, the geographical and temporal
distribution of harvest, and the portion its constitutes of the total
population. The Service 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
The Service has determined and certifies 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 rule, has determined that
these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Taking Implication Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, these rules, authorized
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, do not have significant takings
implications and do not affect any constitutionally protected property
rights. These rules 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
privileges that would be otherwise unavailable; 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. The Service annually prescribes
frameworks from which the States make selections and employs 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 regulation. 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.
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible
effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that
there are no effects.
Regulations Promulgation
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its
nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, the Service
intends that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to
comment on the regulations. Thus, when the preliminary proposed
rulemaking was published, the Service established what it believed were
the longest periods possible for public comment. However, special
circumstances involved in the establishment of these regulations limit
the amount of time the Service can allow for public comment.
Specifically, two considerations compress the time in which the
rulemaking process must operate: (1) the need to establish final rules
at a point early enough in the summer to allow affected State agencies
to appropriately adjust their licensing and regulatory mechanisms; and
(2) the unavailability, before mid-June, of specific, reliable data on
this year's status of some waterfowl and migratory shore and upland
game bird populations. Therefore, the Service believes allowing comment
periods past the dates specified is contrary to public interest.
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 1998-99
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742
a-j.
Dated: July 30, 1998.
Stephen C. Saunders,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 41932]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AU98.009
[FR Doc. 98-20900 Filed 7-31-98; 3:58 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
