Managing Migratory Bird Subsistence Hunting in Alaska; Strategy for Regulating the Spring and Summer Taking of Migratory Birds in Alaska for Subsistence Purposes

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Managing Migratory Bird Subsistence Hunting in Alaska; Strategy

for Regulating the Spring and Summer Taking of Migratory Birds in

Alaska for Subsistence Purposes

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of final environmental assessment and

finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is to inform the public of the availability of the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) final environmental

assessment (EA) evaluating alternatives for resolving the problem of

ongoing spring and summer migratory bird subsistence hunting. This

notice also makes available to the public the substance of the

Service's proposed Finding of No Significant Impact which results from

the EA. The Service has finalized the selection of the preferred

alternative set out in the EA, i.e., to amend the 1916 Convention

Between the United States and Great Britain for the Protection of

Migratory Birds (Convention) to allow a regulated migratory bird

subsistence harvest during what is now the closed period of March 10 to

September 1. The final EA is available from the Service upon request at

either of the addresses provided below (See ADDRESSES: and/or FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:).

DATES: The decision stated in the Finding of No Significant Impact will

be effective no earlier than August 8, 1994.

ADDRESSES: The contact point for this matter is: Director (FWS/MBMO),

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 634 ARLSQ, 1849 C St., NW., Washington,

DC 20240; or Regional Director (MBC), Region 7, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503. Any comments received

on previous drafts are available for public inspection during normal

business hours in Room 634 Arlington Square Building, 4401 No. Fairfax

Drive, Arlington, VA 22203; or, for those comments originating within

Alaska, 3rd Floor, Room 3387, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska

99503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Keith A. Morehouse, Staff

Specialist, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 634 ARLSQ, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240 (703/358-

1714); or Mr. Robin West, Migratory Bird Coordinator, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503 (907/786-

3423).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Subsistence hunting of migratory birds for

cultural and nutritional purposes occurs in Alaska and in the far

northern areas of Canada as a customary and traditional activity during

the closed period (between March 10 and September 1) required by the

Convention and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.),

which implements the terms of the Convention. Apparently, the framers

of the Convention were aware of migratory bird subsistence hunting

activity but unaware of the extent to which it was needed and practiced

by far northern rural peoples. Thus, the Convention provides

inadequately for this particular subsistence use, with the result that

much of the current subsistence hunting activity is illegal. However,

restricting subsistence hunting to a time period outside of that in

which birds are available neither provides equitable access to the

resource nor accommodates customary and traditional uses. Because the

Service recognizes the legitimate need for equitable access to the

migratory bird resource for subsistence purposes, regulatory strategies

have been under evaluation which would bring about successful

resolution of the problem. The Service has recently completed the

environmental assessment process regarding this issue and the results

are contained in the final EA titled ``Regulation of Migratory Bird

Subsistence Hunting in Alaska,'' dated May 1994. All comments received

during the review of the draft EA have been considered in the

preparation of the final EA. The Service has also completed a proposed

Finding of No Significant Impact for the EA process, which is as

follows:

Finding of No-Significant Impact

Finding of no significant impact for managing migratory bird

subsistence hunting in Alaska

On the basis of the final environmental assessment analysis

contained in the document titled ``Managing Migratory Bird

Subsistence Hunting in Alaska'' and dated May 1994, the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service finds that no significant impacts will result

from the action to be taken to amend the 1916 Convention Between the

U.S. and Great Britain [For Canada] For the Protection of Migratory

Birds (Convention). The Service examined five alternatives for

dealing with the subsistence hunting of migratory bird issue, which

are: (1) maintaining the status quo; (2) expanding the universe of

cooperative agreements; (3) enforcing the terms of the current

Convention; (4) amending the Convention; and (5) amending the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act to allow subsistence hunting outside of

the Convention. Action modifiers which specify how subsistence

harvest of migratory birds would be managed were considered in

conjunction with the five alternatives. Amendment of the Convention

is the Service's preferred strategy for resolving problems

associated with the illegal subsistence hunting of migratory birds

by far northern peoples in Alaska and Canada.

Of the five alternatives considered, only amending the

Convention responds to problems created by its current provisions

for subsistence harvest. Selection of this alternative, amending the

Convention, is based on the following factors: The Convention

currently proscribes hunting for migratory birds during the period

March 10 to September 1, except under very limited circumstances;

there is an existing need for the customary and traditional use of

migratory bird resources that must be accommodated; accommodation of

this need recognizes existing levels of use and will not

significantly increase levels of harvest; migratory birds used for

subsistence purposes are generally not available when harvest is

allowed under the Convention; regulatory mechanisms now available to

management agencies to monitor and control harvest will be enhanced

by this action; and that, because the same subsistence harvest

problems exist within Canada because of inadequacies in the

Convention, amendment is the best alternative for ensuring the

future of the North American migratory bird resource. Also, there is

a preponderance of public opinion that believes amending the

Convention is the most satisfactory way of dealing with the

migratory bird subsistence hunting issue.

Based upon my review and evaluation of the enclosed

environmental assessment and other supporting documentation, I have

determined that the action that is anticipated to be taken to

regulate migratory bird subsistence hunting in Alaska is not a major

Federal action which would significantly affect the quality of the

human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, preparation

of an environmental impact statement on the proposed action is not

required.

The EA presents a menu of action modifiers that allow the Service a

range of approaches to regulating subsistence harvest within an amended

Convention. Action modifiers selected that specify how the Service

would regulate a migratory bird subsistence harvest, as well as

associated principles that are intended to guide the process, are as

follows: First, the subsistence harvest should be available to Alaska

Natives and other qualified residents residing in designated

subsistence harvest areas; Second, the Service believes that nothing in

this action should grant entitlement, rights or preference of some

users over any other users of migratory birds in the U.S. As with sport

hunting, promulgation of appropriate regulations will be the vehicle

for opening subsistence hunting season(s). A management system would be

established that allows coordination among user groups, State and

Federal interests, and the Flyway Councils. All the ordinary strategies

of bag limits, seasons, species restrictions, quotas, management units,

zones, etc., could be used to manage, as appropriate. Windows of

harvest opportunity would be set that would vary from area to area, but

would, to the maximum extent possible, protect breeding birds; Third,

the migratory bird and/or migratory bird egg subsistence harvest should

be regionally limited, e.g., Southeast and Southcentral Alaska

generally would be excluded because of fall harvest options, and urban

areas such as the North Star Borough would be similarly excluded.

Communities outside of the proposed inclusion areas should be allowed

to petition for consideration of hunting opportunity based on specific

criteria including past and ongoing customary and traditional take of

migratory birds for food during the closed season; Fourth, birds should

be taken for food, for personal and family use and could be shared

within the communities. Items crafted from non-edible by-products could

be utilized for personal, cultural or ceremonial uses. Birds, parts,

eggs and craft items may be bartered or traded in limited quantities

but may not be sold; Fifth, variable levels of harvest should be set

that fluctuate with population numbers. However, it is the Service's

goal that there should be no significant increase in levels of harvest

in the future beyond the variable levels referenced above. Harvest of

eggs should be considered for all traditional species. However, limited

harvest of waterfowl eggs would be considered where it is shown as an

established customary use and egg resources from nonwaterfowl species

are not available; and Sixth, there should be moderate enforcement in

cooperation with subsistence users. That is, enforcement for this

activity should be consistent with enforcement during the other part of

the year and sufficiently great on an as-needed basis to help ensure

compliance.

Since international agreement negotiations of the U.S. Department

of State are not bound by agency NEPA process results, the foregoing

position of the Service represents the desired, but may not be the

actual, results of Convention amendment. However, it is the Service's

intent to pursue amendment results which incorporate these features.

Dated: July 1, 1994.

Bruce Blanchard,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 94-16449 Filed 7-6-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-M