Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1997-1998 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) with Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals

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. The

establishment of these regulations will permit the taking of the

designated species during the 1997-98 hunting 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: Tribes should submit proposals and related comments by June 2,

1997. The comment period for proposed early-season frameworks will end

on July 25, 1997; and for proposed late-season frameworks on September

4, 1997. The Service will hold a public hearing for early-season

frameworks on June 26, 1997, at 9 a.m. and late-season frameworks on

August 7, 1997, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The Service will hold both public hearings in the

Auditorium, Department of the Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW.,

Washington, DC. The public may submit written comments on the proposals

and notice of intention to testify at either hearing 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. The public may

inspect comments received 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 regulations-development

process. The Service will publish the remaining proposed and final

rulemaking documents 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 1997-1998 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 1997-98

hunting season, the Service 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). These proposals are described under Proposed 1997-98

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 1997-1998

This is the first in a series of proposed and final rulemaking

documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations. The Service will

make proposals relating to the harvest of migratory game birds

initiated after publication of this proposed rulemaking available for

public review in supplemental proposed rulemakings published in the

Federal Register. Also, the Service 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, the Service anticipates that comment periods on some

proposals will be necessarily abbreviated. Special circumstances limit

the amount of time which the Service 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 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

[[Page 12055]]

October 1 and later, and include most of the waterfowl seasons.

Major steps in the 1997-1998 regulatory cycle relating to public

hearings and Federal Register notifications are illustrated in the

accompanying diagram. Dates shown relative to publication of Federal

Register documents are target dates.

Sections of this and subsequent documents which outline hunting

frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These

headings are:

1. Ducks

2. Sea Ducks

3. Mergansers

4. Canada Geese

5. White-fronted Geese

6. Brant

7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese

8. 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, we will omit those items

requiring no attention and remaining numbered items will be

discontinuous and appear incomplete.

Public Hearings

Two public hearings pertaining to 1997-1998 migratory game bird

hunting regulations are scheduled. The Service will conduct both

hearings in accordance with 455 DM 1 of the Departmental Manual. On

June 26, the Service will hold a public hearing at 9 a.m. in the

Auditorium of the Department of the Interior Building, 1849 C Street

NW., Washington, DC. This hearing will review the status of migratory

shore and upland game birds and discuss 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 1997-98 duck hunting season. On August 7, the

Service will hold a public hearing at 9 a.m. in the Auditorium of the

Department of the Interior Building, address above. This hearing will

review the status and proposed regulations for waterfowl not previously

discussed at the June 26 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 Service developed these guidelines 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 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.

[[Page 12056]]

Details Needed in Tribal Proposals

Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting

regulations for the 1997-98 hunting season must submit a proposal that

includes:

(1) the requested hunting season dates and other details regarding

regulations to be observed;

(2) harvest anticipated under the requested regulations;

(3) methods that will be employed to measure or monitor harvest

(mail-questionnaire survey, bag checks, etc.);

(4) steps that will be taken to limit level of harvest, where it

could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would seriously

impact the migratory bird resource; and

(5) tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory bird

hunting regulations.

A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the waterfowl

season should specify this in the proposal, rather than request a date

that might not be within the final Federal frameworks. Similarly,

unless a tribe wishes to set more restrictive regulations than Federal

regulations will permit, the proposal should request the same daily bag

and possession limits and season length for ducks and geese that

Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the Flyway in

which the reservation is located.

Tribal Proposal Procedures

The Service will publish pertinent details in tribal proposals 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 1997-98 hunting

season should submit their proposals as soon as possible, but no later

than June 2, 1997. 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 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.

The public 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, the Service will establish specific

comment periods. 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 14, 1997

--Central Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.

DATE: March 15, 1997

--National Waterfowl Council, 3:30 p.m.

DATE: March 16, 1997

--Atlantic Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.

--Mississippi Flyway Council, 8:30 a.m.

--Pacific Flyway Council, 1:00 p.m.

The Council meetings will be held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500

Calvert Street, NW., Washington, DC.

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 1997-98 migratory game bird hunting

regulations, the Service 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 the Service 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.

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.). 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 1996. 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 $254 and $592 million at small businesses in 1996.

Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Office

of Migratory Bird Management. The address is indicated under the

caption ADDRESSES.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Department examined these regulations under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and found no information collection requirements.

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 1997-98

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 12057]]

Dated: March 5, 1997.

Don Barry,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed 1997-1998 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 1996-97 frameworks of

August 29 and September 26, 1996, (61 FR 45836 and 50662) is proposed.

Specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 1996-97 frameworks

and issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the

States or tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

The annual process of setting duck-hunting regulations in the

United States is based on a system of resource monitoring, data

analyses, and rulemaking. Each year, monitoring activities such as

aerial surveys and hunter questionnaires provide information on harvest

levels, population size, and habitat conditions on the breeding

grounds. Data collected from these monitoring programs are analyzed

each year, and proposals for duck-hunting regulations are developed by

the Flyway Councils, States, and the Service. After extensive public

review, the Service announces a regulatory framework within which

States can set their hunting seasons.

By and large, this process has generally worked well. For most duck

species, population levels and associated hunting opportunities have

been maintained in the face of variable environmental conditions and

permanent landscape changes. Despite this success, however, the annual

process of setting regulations often has been controversial. Debates

over appropriate regulations are frequent among hunters, managers, and

the public-at-large. The controversy typically stems from disagreements

about the role of harvest in population dynamics. As a consequence,

managers are unsure about how much regulations should be restricted

when populations are declining, how much they can be liberalized when

populations are increasing, and when those regulatory changes should

occur.

To help answer these questions, the Service, in cooperation with

the Flyway Councils, introduced the concept of Adaptive Harvest

Management (AHM) in 1995. AHM should help managers better understand

the impacts of regulations on harvest and population levels, thereby

improving the ability to provide maximum hunting opportunities

consistent with long-term resource maintenance. AHM also is intended to

provide a more objective, better informed, and less contentious

decision-making process, as well as a formal and coherent framework for

addressing controversial harvest-management issues.

Key components of AHM are agreement on the goals of harvest

management, a limited number of regulatory alternatives or options, and

alternative models of population dynamics. The alternative models

reflect disagreement among managers regarding the effects of hunting

regulations on harvest and population size. With AHM, the setting of

hunting regulations involves a repetitive process:

(1) each year, an optimal regulation is identified based on

population and habitat status, and on the relative ability of

alternative models to mimic population dynamics;

(2) after the regulatory decision is made, each population model is

used to predict breeding population size the following year;

(3) when monitoring data become available, models that more

accurately predict observed population size gain credibility, while

those models that are poor predictors lose credibility; and

(4) the new assessments of model credibility are used to start

another iteration of the process.

A technical working group representing the Service, the four Flyway

Councils, and the Canadian Wildlife Service was established in 1992 to

assist with implementation of AHM. The working group continues to meet

at least once a year to pursue AHM conceptual development and to

consider technical and communication issues for the current regulatory

cycle. The working group met in December 1996 to address issues and

concerns raised during the 1996 regulatory process. The working group's

role continues to be strictly advisory and should not be misconstrued

as a substitute for any existing technical or decision-making body.

The working group continues to express concern about what may be

unrealistic expectations among managers and the public regarding the

scope and speed of AHM implementation. The working group emphasizes

that AHM has highlighted many unresolved issues in waterfowl harvest

management, and that adequate time is needed to address these issues in

a comprehensive and coherent manner. In the interim, the Service is

interested in working with its partners to foster agreement on

technical issues of highest priority and realistic timetables for

action. The Service believes strongly that the success of AHM will

depend on a commitment to careful and methodical implementation.

Implementation of AHM began in 1995 with a focus on midcontinent

mallards. The Service believes this focus is appropriate because

mallards are the most abundant and heavily harvested duck species, and

because the status of mallards is closely related to the status of many

other duck stocks. Nonetheless, the Service continues to work toward a

more formal AHM framework for other ducks, including mallards in

eastern breeding areas, northern pintails, canvasbacks, and black

ducks. Ultimately, however, managers face a number of practical

constraints (e.g., available data, quality of monitoring programs,

complexity of assessment procedures) and development of a general AHM

framework for all duck stocks likely is not feasible. The Service

believes that the following questions should be addressed when

considering whether a regulatory approach different than that for

mallards is warranted:

(1) How much does the duck stock differ from mallards in terms of

population dynamics (i.e., responses to environmental conditions and

harvest) and vulnerability to harvest?

(2) What are the relative costs (i.e., monitoring and assessment)

and benefits (i.e., increased hunting opportunity and improved ability

to attain population goals) of managing the duck stock independently

from mallards?

(3) What is the ability of hunters to harvest selectively?

(4) Do hunters prefer the maximum hunting opportunity afforded by

complex regulations, or simpler hunting regulations that offer less

hunting opportunity?

Although these issues always have been considered before

implementing stock-specific harvest strategies, the Service is

interested in developing formal assessments before considering

significant changes to existing harvest strategies for duck species

other than mallards.

In July 1996, the four Flyway Councils passed a joint

recommendation regarding development of regulatory alternatives for

AHM. This recommendation stressed the importance of refining the

current

[[Page 12058]]

alternatives and provided guidelines for considering modifications.

Following the July Council meetings, the AHM working group prepared a

mail survey requesting further clarification from Council members

regarding their concerns about the current alternatives. Copies of the

joint recommendation and of the survey results are available upon

request from the Office of Migratory Bird Management at the address

indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Based on input from the Flyway Councils, the working group

developed a recommended set of regulatory alternatives for the 1997-98

hunting season. Significant changes from last year's alternatives would

include: (1) the addition of a very restrictive alternative; (2)

additional days and a higher total-duck daily 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. See the attached

table for a complete description of the recommended alternatives. The

working group provided the following explanations and rationale for

these alternatives:

(1) the range and number of regulatory alternatives was expanded to

decrease the probability of closed seasons and to take greater

advantage of available hunting opportunity at high population levels;

however, even the very restrictive option would be too liberal for some

combinations of population size and pond numbers due to the emphasis

placed on reaching the goal of the North American Waterfowl Management

Plan at very low population sizes; in addition, more days and a higher

daily bag limit in the liberal option tends to produce more

conservative regulatory choices at low population sizes;

(2) recommended maximum and minimum season lengths and bag limits

largely reflect the reported desires of most Flyway Council members;

differences in season length and bag limits among Flyways generally

maintain proportional differences during the last two decades;

(3) total bag limits under the moderate and liberal alternatives

would be increased to provide additional hunting opportunity for

species not restricted within the overall bag; this change would allow

additional harvest of abundant species like gadwall, teal, and shoveler

above and beyond that realized from additional days in the season;

(4) the increase in bag limits of hen mallards is recommended to

address States' concern about overly-restrictive regulations, while

recognizing there are biological and sociological arguments for

maintaining sex-specific bag limits; the working group also recognized,

however, that hen harvest rates are lower than those for males and that

many hunters are adverse to shooting hens, irrespective of what

regulations allow; and

(5) some simplification in regulations would be achieved by

assigning the same basic bag limits to the very restrictive and

restrictive alternatives, and to the moderate and liberal alternatives;

this also would provide a better basis to investigate the independent

effects of season length and bag limit.

Final estimates of harvest rates (i.e., the proportion of the fall

flight harvested) expected from the recommended regulatory alternatives

will be available in the near future. Predictions will be based on

estimates of harvest rates realized in the recent past, Flyway-specific

analyses that predict the effect of changing days and bag limits, and

the long-term declines in hunter numbers. Preliminary estimates of mean

harvest rates for adult male mallards are provided in the following

table. Harvest rates of females would be about 30% lower than those for

males. The selection of the appropriate alternative for the 1997-98

hunting season would depend on breeding population and production

estimates, which will be available in late July.

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

Harvest

Alternative rates

(percent)

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

Very restrictive........................................... 4.5

Restrictive................................................ 7.1

Moderate................................................... 9.2

Liberal.................................................... 12.2

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

The Service will offer its proposal for regulatory alternatives for

ducks in the Federal Register in late May, with a public comment period

to end on or about June 27, 1997. Final regulatory alternatives will be

published in the Federal Register on or about July 15, 1997.

G. Special Seasons/Species Management

i. Canvasback

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 population-

status information to evaluate the effectiveness of the harvest

strategy. This information is not yet available for 1997. The Service

proposes no change in the strategy employed for deciding on regulations

governing the harvest of canvasbacks.

ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons

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 (Initiative),

completed in 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. The draft

final report for the Initiative is currently being reviewed by Flyway

Council Technical Sections and Service cooperators. Publication of the

final report is scheduled for July 1997.

Decisions regarding the appropriateness of September teal/wood duck

seasons will be made in cooperation with the Flyway Councils after the

assessment of wood duck monitoring programs is completed. Until such

time, the Service does not propose changes to these seasons in

Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida or to expand such seasons elsewhere.

iii. High Plains Mallard Management Unit

The Service is expecting the report on the High Plains Mallard

Management Unit from the Central Flyway Council. Prompt completion of

the report is encouraged prior to this summer's regulatory decisions.

iv. Black Ducks

The wintering population of black ducks appears to have stabilized

over the last decade during which restrictive regulations have been in

effect. Recent Midwinter Waterfowl Survey estimates have been slightly

more than 300,000 for the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways combined.

Black duck populations remain below the North American Waterfowl

Management Plan goal of 385,000.

Current black duck harvest restrictions are based on guidelines

outlined in the 1983 Environmental Assessment, which requested that

States voluntarily reduce their harvest by 25% from 1977-81 levels. To

date, both Flyways and individual States have met or exceeded this

goal. Beginning in 1994, with the return of more liberal duck seasons,

black duck harvests have

[[Page 12059]]

increased. The Service is concerned that these longer seasons may

result in higher harvests and may have a negative impact upon black

duck recovery.

Recent survival analyses from banding programs have not

definitively answered questions regarding the impacts of harvest, but

do not rule out the possibility of additive effects on the dynamics of

black duck populations. To help clarify the role of harvest, the Black

Duck Joint Venture Committee indicated that a higher priority should be

placed on achieving preseason banding goals. The Service requests input

from the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils.

v. Youth Hunt

This past year, the Service offered States the opportunity to

establish a special ``Youth Waterfowl Hunting Day.'' The one-day season

was intended to introduce youth to the concepts of ethical utilization

and stewardship of waterfowl and other natural resources, encourage

youngsters and adults to experience the outdoors together, and

contribute to our Nation's migratory bird conservation efforts. The

Service is currently evaluating this opportunity and is committed to

working with the States and the Flyway Councils prior to any similar

proposal for a youth hunt this year.

4. Canada Geese

In 1995, the regular season on Atlantic Population (AP) Canada

geese was closed due to dramatic declines in the breeding population

from 118,000 pairs in 1988 to 29,000 pairs in 1995. In 1996, the spring

breeding survey in northern Quebec recorded an increase to 46,000

pairs. However, habitat conditions at the time of the survey last

spring were not favorable for nesting and productivity of AP Canada

geese was believed to have been below average. While the impact of last

year's poor production may not affect this year's spring survey, this

``missing'' year class will impact production in future years.

An Action Plan approved by the Atlantic Flyway Council last year

calls for a return to 60,000 breeding pairs and evidence of a sustained

population recovery before hunting seasons are resumed. The overall

population objective for the AP is 150,000 pairs in the Ungava Region.

Further, the Action Plan for the next five years (1997-2001) calls for

an ambitious commitment to fund monitoring programs, measure

productivity, initiate breeding ground banding, and implement surveys

to measure subsistence harvest. The Service, the Canadian Wildlife

Service, States and Provinces have been asked to participate in this

effort to improve our management database on AP Canada Geese. Copies of

the Action Plan are available upon request from the Office of Migratory

Bird Management at the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Last year, several questions arose regarding the population status

and harvest of a ``Maritime'' or ``North Atlantic'' Population of

Canada geese. This stock of birds was not identified separately from

the AP in previous Flyway management plans primarily because little

survey information exists to monitor the status or differentiate the

harvest of this stock from AP birds. Currently, the Atlantic Flyway has

agreed to begin the task of setting up the appropriate surveys

necessary to delineate this stock of birds and determine whether it

should be managed separately from the AP in the future.

14. Woodcock

The Service is increasingly concerned about the gradual long-term

declines in woodcock populations in the Eastern and Central Management

Regions. Although habitat change appears to be the primary cause of the

declines, the Service believes that hunting regulations should be

commensurate with the status of woodcock populations and rates of

decline. The Service seeks active participation by the Atlantic,

Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils in the development of short-

and long-term harvest management strategies for woodcock, which

identify the circumstances under which changes in harvest opportunity

should be implemented and what those changes should be. Should the 1997

population data reflect the continuing decline, without other

compelling information, harvest restrictions are likely.

23. Other

A. Compensatory Days

In some states, state law or constitutional provisions prohibit

Sunday hunting. These states have asked the Service to allow them to

``add on'' days to ``compensate'' their hunters for these lost days. In

the past, the Service has maintained the policy that there is no

biological basis for prohibiting hunting on Sundays and believed this

problem was an individual State issue, which could best be resolved by

each State removing their self-imposed restrictions (September 24,

1993, Federal Register, 58 FR 50188). However, two years ago during the

early-season regulations meeting, June 21, 1995, the Service agreed to

work with the Atlantic Flyway Council to review and clarify various

technical and policy concerns relating to the issue of offering

compensatory days to those States that restrict Sunday hunting.

Subsequently, on December 18, 1996, in Hadley, Massachusetts, the

Service met with several Atlantic Flyway Council representatives to

continue its efforts to resolve this issue. Although no final decisions

were made, the Service did express its empathy with the problem and the

difficulty States have in resolving this issue at the individual State

level. During the 1997-1998 regulatory cycle, the Service will continue

to work with the Atlantic Flyway Council to address several policy and

technical concerns and to explore potential solutions and appropriate

guidelines and/or criteria.

B. Bird Banding

About 10 years ago, the Service began a carefully-planned effort to

increase band-reporting rates, the proportion of bands recovered by

hunters that are reported to the Bird Banding Laboratory (now part of

the U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division). In the

initial phase, current band-reporting rates were estimated and sources

of variability identified. The second phase is a large-scale effort to

increase band-reporting rates, with associated studies designed to

assess the magnitude of the increase. This phase was begun in 1993

using bands inscribed with a more complete return address. In 1995, the

Service, in conjunction with the Bird Banding Laboratory, conducted a

study of the effects of using a toll-free telephone number on the

reporting of bands from mallard ducks recovered by hunters. In 1996,

bands with the 1-800-327-BAND phone number were placed on most

preseason-banded mallards. The new toll-free number was advertised in

State regulation brochures and magazines. In 1997, plans are to place

the new bands on most preseason-banded ducks and geese. The goal is to

have the phone number widely disseminated so that the transition time

to this new way of reporting bands is as short a period as possible.

The Service requests that State assist in advertising the new phone

number and suggests the inclusion of the number in all State waterfowl

regulations brochures. Other outreach efforts by the States, such as

inclusion of the number in State magazines and other information and

education efforts is encouraged.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-F

[[Page 12060]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13MR97.022

[[Page 12061]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP13MR97.023

[FR Doc. 97-6486 Filed 3-12-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C