Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1999-2000 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter we) proposes

to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game

birds for the 1999-2000 hunting season. We annually prescribe outside

limits (frameworks) within which States may select hunting seasons. We

also request proposals from Indian tribes that wish to establish

special migratory bird hunting regulations on Federal Indian

reservations and ceded lands. Migratory game bird hunting seasons

provide hunting opportunities for recreation and sustenance; aid

Federal, State, and tribal governments in the management of migratory

game birds; and permit harvests at levels compatible with migratory

bird population status and habitat conditions.

DATES: You must submit comments for proposed early-season frameworks by

July 27, 1999; and for proposed late-season frameworks by September 7,

1999. Tribes should submit proposals and related comments by June 2,

1999.

ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the proposals to the Chief, Office of

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department

of the Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC

20240. All comments received, including names and addresses, will

become part of the public record. You may inspect comments during

normal business hours in room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N.

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel at: Office of Migratory

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the

Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240 (703)

358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For administrative purposes, this document

consolidates the notice of intent and request for tribal proposals with

the preliminary proposals for the annual hunting regulations-

development process. We will publish the remaining proposed and final

rulemaking documents separately. For inquiries on tribal guidelines and

proposals, tribes should contact the following personnel.

Region 1--Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 N.E.

11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164.

Region 2--Jeff Haskins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box

1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; (505) 248-7885.

Region 3--Steve Wilds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal

Building, One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056; (612)

713-5432.

Region 4--Frank Bowers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875

Century Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; (404) 679-4000.

Region 5--George Haas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate

Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589; (413) 253-8576.

Region 6--John Cornely, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box

25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, Colorado 80225; (303) 236-8145.

Region 7--Robert Leedy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East

Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; (907) 786-3423.

Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons

This notice announces our intent to establish open hunting seasons

and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated groups or

species of migratory game birds for 1999-2000 in the contiguous United

States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, under

Secs. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50 CFR

part 20.

``Migratory game birds'' are those bird species so designated in

conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for

the protection and management of these birds. Hunting of all other

birds designated as migratory (under Sec. 10.13 of Subpart B of 50 CFR

Part 10) is not permitted. For the 1999-2000 hunting season, we will

propose regulations for certain designated members of the avian

families Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and

pigeons); Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and

gallinules); and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these

proposals under Proposed 1998-99 Migratory Game Bird Hunting

Regulations (Preliminary) in this document. We published definitions of

waterfowl flyways and mourning dove management units, as well as a

description of the data used in and the factors affecting the

regulatory process, in the March 14, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR

9618).

Regulatory Schedule for 1999-2000

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

documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will make

proposals relating to the harvest of migratory game birds initiated

after this publication available for public review in supplemental

proposed rulemakings. Also, we will publish additional supplemental

proposals for public comment in the Federal Register as population,

habitat, harvest, and other information become available.

Because of the late dates when certain portions of these data

become available, we anticipate abbreviated comment periods on some

proposals. Special circumstances limit the amount of time we can allow

for public comment on these regulations. Specifically, two

considerations compress the time for the rulemaking process: the need,

on one hand, to establish final rules early enough in the summer to

allow resource agencies to select and publish season dates and bag

limits prior to the beginning of hunting seasons and, on the other

hand, the lack of current status data on most migratory game birds

until later in the summer.

Because the regulatory process is strongly influenced by the times

when information is available for consideration, we divide the overall

regulations process into two segments. Early seasons are those seasons

that generally open prior to October 1, and include seasons in Alaska,

Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Late seasons are those

seasons opening in the remainder of the United States about October 1

and later, and include most of the waterfowl seasons.

Major steps in the 1999-2000 regulatory cycle relating to open

public meetings and Federal Register notifications are illustrated in

the accompanying diagram. All publication dates of Federal Register

documents are target dates.

All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining hunting

frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These

headings are:

1. Ducks

2. Sea Ducks

3. Mergansers

4. Canada Geese

5. White-fronted Geese

6. Brant

7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese

8. Swans

9. Sandhill Cranes

10. Coots

[[Page 23743]]

11. Moorhens and Gallinules

12. Rails

13. Snipe

14. Woodcock

15. Band-tailed Pigeons

16. Mourning Doves

17. White-winged and White-tipped Doves

18. Alaska

19. Hawaii

20. Puerto Rico

21. Virgin Islands

22. Falconry

23. Other

Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to

numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to

note that we will omit those items requiring no attention and remaining

numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.

Public Hearings

In past years, we have annually conducted two public hearings

pertaining to migratory game bird hunting regulations. The first

hearing held in late June reviewed the status of migratory shore and

upland game birds and discussed proposed hunting regulations for these

species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Hawaii,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl

seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic

Flyway; extended falconry seasons; and proposed regulatory alternatives

for the duck hunting season. The second hearing held in early August

reviewed the status and proposed regulations for waterfowl not

previously discussed at the June public hearing. Because of declining

attendance and interest the past several years, we are not planning to

hold the public hearings this year.

Requests for Tribal Proposals

Background

Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed

guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR

23467) to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations on

Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and

ceded lands. We developed these guidelines in response to tribal

requests for our recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for

some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both

tribal and non-tribal members throughout their reservations. The

guidelines include possibilities for:

(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and non-tribal members,

with hunting by non-tribal members on some reservations to take place

within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected

by the surrounding State(s);

(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual

Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and

possession limits; and

(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands,

outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added

flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.

In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines

must be consistent with the annual March 10 to September 1 closed

season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and

Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds

(Convention). The guidelines are capable of application to those tribes

that have reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations

(including off-reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also

apply to the establishment of migratory bird hunting regulations for

non-tribal members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of

reservations where tribes have full wildlife management authority over

such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have

reached agreement over hunting by non-tribal members on non-Indian

lands.

Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory bird

hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our

approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations

that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the

surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations

governing hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such cases, we

encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on regulations that

would apply throughout the reservations. When appropriate, we will

consult with a tribe and State with the aim of facilitating an accord.

We also will consult jointly with tribal and State officials in the

affected States where tribes may wish to establish special hunting

regulations for tribal members on ceded lands. As explained in previous

rulemaking documents, it is incumbent upon the tribe and/or the State

to request consultation as a result of the proposal being published in

the Federal Register. We will not presume to make a determination,

without being advised by a tribe or a State, that any issue is/is not

worthy of formal consultation.

One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of harvest of

migratory game birds by tribal members on reservations where it is a

customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest, provided it does not

take place during the closed season required by the Convention, and it

is not so large as to adversely affect the status of the migratory bird

resource. For several years, we have reached annual agreement with

tribes for hunting by tribal members on their lands or on lands where

they have reserved hunting rights. We will continue to consult with

tribes that wish to reach a mutual agreement on hunting regulations for

on-reservation hunting by tribal members.

Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. Nevertheless,

we believe that they provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the

reserved hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while

ensuring that the migratory bird resource receives necessary

protection. The conservation of this important international resource

is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes

to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which

the reservation is located.

Details Needed in Tribal Proposals

Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting

regulations for the 1999-2000 hunting season should submit a proposal

that includes:

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

regulations;

(2) Harvest anticipated under the requested regulations;

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

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

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

could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would seriously

impact the migratory bird resource; and

(5) Tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory bird

hunting regulations.

A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the waterfowl

season should specify this in their proposal, rather than request a

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

unless a tribe wishes to set more restrictive regulations than Federal

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

and possession limits and season length for ducks and geese that

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

which the reservation is located.

[[Page 23744]]

Tribal Proposal Procedures

We will publish tribal proposals details for public review in later

Federal Register documents. Because of the time required for our and

public review, Indian tribes that desire special migratory bird hunting

regulations for the 1999-2000 hunting season should submit their

proposals as soon as possible, but no later than June 2, 1999. Tribes

should direct inquiries regarding the guidelines and proposals to the

appropriate Service Regional Office listed under the caption

Supplementary Information. Tribes that request special hunting

regulations for tribal members on ceded lands should send a courtesy

copy of the proposal to officials in the affected State(s).

Public Comments Solicited

The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable,

to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking

process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written

comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed

regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting

regulations, we will take into consideration all comments received.

Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to

final regulations that differ from these proposals. We invite

interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting

written comments to the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

You may inspect comments received on the proposed annual

regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office in

room 634, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. For each

series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment

periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to,

each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments received

during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date.

Flyway Council Meetings

Departmental representatives will attend the following winter

meetings of the various Flyway Councils:

March 25 and 29, 1999

National Waterfowl Council, 1:00 p.m.

March 26, 1999

Atlantic Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.

Central Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.

Mississippi Flyway Council, 8:00 a.m.

Pacific Flyway Council, 10:30 a.m.

The Council meetings will be held at the Hyatt Regency at San

Francisco Airport, 1333 Bay Shore Highway, Burlingame, California.

NEPA Consideration

NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document,

``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual

Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-

14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988.

We published Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16,

1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 18,

1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental

assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations

on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available from the

address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

Prior to issuance of the 1999-2000 migratory game bird hunting

regulations, we will consider provisions of the Endangered Species Act

of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act) to

ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence

of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or

destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation

programs for those species. Consultations under Section 7 of this Act

may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental

proposed rulemaking documents.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

This rule is economically significant and was reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866.

E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy

to understand. We invite comments on how to make this rule easier to

understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1)

Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2) Does the rule

contain technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?

(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections, use of

headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Would the

rule be easier to understand if it were divided into more (but shorter)

sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in the ``Supplementary

Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the

rule? What else could the Service do to make the rule easier to

understand?

Regulatory Flexibility Act

These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial

numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual

hunting regulations on small business entities in detail and a Small

Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) was issued by the Service in

1998. The Analysis documented the significant beneficial economic

effect on a substantial number of small entities. The primary source of

information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting

is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-

year intervals. The Analysis utilized the 1996 National Hunting and

Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business

Patterns from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would

spend between $429 and $1,084 million at small businesses in 1998.

Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Office of

Migratory Bird Management.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above,

this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan

to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C.

808 (1) .

Paperwork Reduction Act

We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995. The various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed

under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, Subpart K, are

utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations.

Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements

of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and assigned

clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 09/30/2001). This information is

used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to

improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to

better manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information

collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest Questionnaire and

assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 09/30/2000). The

information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude, the

geographical and

[[Page 23745]]

temporal distribution of harvest, and the portion its constitutes of

the total population.

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays

a currently valid OMB control number.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements

of the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this

rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given

year on local or State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined

that these regulations meet the applicable standards found in Sections

3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

Takings Implication Assessment

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule,

authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant

takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected

property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of

property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking

of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise

otherwise unavailable privileges; and, therefore, reduce restrictions

on the use of private and public property.

Federalism Effects

Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the

Federal government has been given responsibility over these species by

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from

which the States make selections and employ guidelines to establish

special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands.

This process preserves the ability of the States and Tribes to

determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Tribe

may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The

frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and

the Flyway Councils. This allows States to participate in the

development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby

having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a

substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or

responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State

policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order

12612, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and

do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 1999-2000

hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,

and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

Dated: March 19, 1999.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed 1999-2000 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations

(Preliminary)

Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat

conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway

Councils, we may defer specific framework proposals (including opening

and closing dates, seasons lengths, and bag limits). Unless otherwise

specified, we are proposing no change from the final 1998-99 frameworks

of August 28 and September 29, 1998, (63 FR 46124 and 51998). Specific

preliminary proposals that vary from the 1998-99 frameworks and issues

requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or

tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

We propose to continue the use of Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM)

to guide the establishment of duck hunting regulations. The AHM

approach recognizes we cannot predict the consequences of hunting

regulations with certainty, and provides a framework for making

objective decisions despite this uncertainty. Also inherent in the

adaptive approach is an awareness that we can maximize the success of

our long-term management programs, in terms of sustainable hunting

opportunities, only if we reduce the uncertainty about regulatory

effects. Thus, AHM relies on a tightly integrated cycle of monitoring,

assessment, and decision-making to better understand the relationships

among hunting regulations, harvests, and waterfowl abundance.

Because of the structured approach and formal nature of the AHM

process, Federal and State managers must continue to consider those

factors that influence the outcome of regulatory strategies and, thus,

the potential harvest impacts on waterfowl populations. We have

identified three areas critical to the success of AHM which require

additional consideration:

(1) Setting objectives--Waterfowl harvest managers must rely on

clear, definitive statements about management objectives. This requires

formal agreement among stakeholders about how to place a value on

harvest benefits and how to share those benefits. AHM cannot operate as

intended with vague, unclear management objectives;

(2) System control--Our ability to control harvest levels is

dependent on understanding the relationship between hunting

regulations, hunter behavior, and harvest. However, we do not have

complete control over all these factors. Ultimately, hunting

regulations only partially control hunter activity and success, and

variable environmental conditions often have a pronounced effect on

harvest levels. Thus, our ability to only partially control harvest

imposes limits on both short-term hunting opportunity and the learning

needed to increase long-term management performance;

(3) Management scale--As waterfowl managers, we continue to try to

account for increasingly more spatial, temporal, and organizational

variability in waterfowl biology. However, serious questions remain

about the cost-effectiveness of this approach because costs can

sometimes outweigh benefits. Moreover, the appropriate scale, or

resolution, of harvest management is often limited by the availability

of resources for monitoring and assessment, rather than by

determinations of the highest net benefit.

These institutional issues pose our greatest challenge to the long-

term success of AHM. Managing these issues will require innovative ways

to maintain productive dialogue, and resolve differences within a

process that all stakeholders can support. We intend to work diligently

with our management partners to organize these discussions, so that we

can collectively explore and appreciate the technical and sociological

implications of these issues.

B. Framework Dates

During 1995 and 1996, the first two years of implementation of AHM,

three regulatory alternatives characterized as ``liberal'',

``moderate'', and ``restrictive'' were defined based on regulations

used during 1979-84, 1985-87, and 1988-93, respectively. In 1997, we

attempted to further accommodate State and Flyway

[[Page 23746]]

concerns by modifying the regulatory alternatives to include: (1) the

addition of a very restrictive alternative; (2) additional days and a

higher duck bag limit in the moderate and liberal alternatives; and (3)

an increase in the bag limit of hen mallards in the moderate and

liberal alternatives.

The subsequent set of four regulatory alternatives was acceptable

to the majority of States. However, the issue of framework-date

extensions continued to be discussed and because of its contentiousness

has drawn increasing political interest. Finally in 1998, Congressional

action interceded and allowed certain States in the Mississippi Flyway

(Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee) to

select a framework closing date of January 31, provided it was

accompanied by a commensurate reduction in season length.

The issue of duck hunting framework-date extensions and possible

modifications to regulatory alternatives remains unresolved for the

1999-2000 hunting season. Although we have not received specific

proposals for changes in the regulatory alternatives, we believe that

any forthcoming proposals for modification of framework dates should be

consistent with existing biological constraints, while not disrupting

the intended functioning of AHM. We believe that framework dates should

remain a viable tool in regulating harvests and an important component

of any set of regulatory alternatives. Further, we believe that

application of framework dates should continue to be incorporated at

the Flyway level. Additional application of date changes or options

with harvest offsets at scales below the Flyway level, such as the

State or zone level, would result in unprecedented technical challenges

in terms of predicting cumulative impacts and evaluating the effects of

various regulatory tools and severely strain our capability to reliably

predict and control harvests at levels commensurate with the biological

capacity of waterfowl populations.

The ability to predict, at least probabilistically, the harvests

achieved under the regulatory alternatives is an essential feature of

the AHM process. Therefore, we believe that a limited set of Flyway-

based regulatory alternatives that are stable over time is necessary to

maintain or improve our understanding of the relationships between

regulations and harvest, and between harvest and population response.

The ability of AHM to operate as intended is premised on a set of well-

defined regulatory alternatives, which are small in number and which

lead to recognizable differences in harvest (or harvest rate). To this

end, we are interested in cooperatively working with States, Flyway

Councils, and the public to explore changes in Flyway-wide regulatory

alternatives to resolve the frameworks issue. This approach will assure

the integrity of the AHM process, while maintaining a Flyway-based

regulatory system.

G. Special Seasons/Species Management

i. Scaup

We remain concerned about the declining trend in the size of the

scaup breeding population and believe that substantial reductions in

hunting opportunity are needed, particularly in light of recent harvest

increases. As we announced last September, we intend to cooperate with

the Flyway Councils in an effort to develop a strategy for guiding

scaup harvest management beginning this year. A preliminary draft

strategy was sent to each Flyway in February for comment. This strategy

will build upon information in a recently completed scaup status report

(copies available from MBMO).

ii. Canvasbacks

We continue to support the canvasback harvest strategy adopted in

1994. Last year, we reviewed data collected since implementation of the

strategy to assess the strategy's performance. Subsequently, we

prepared a report for the Flyways detailing our review and distributed

the report to the Flyway Technical Sections for comment during their

March meetings. Overall, we believe the strategy has performed

adequately, and have not found sufficient reason to alter it. We will

continue to monitor its performance as annual information from

population and habitat surveys are available.

2. Sea Ducks

We continue to be concerned about recent population trends in sea

ducks throughout North America. Last year, we provided a report titled

``Status of Sea Ducks in Eastern North America and a Review of the

Special Sea Duck Season in the Atlantic Flyway'' to the Flyways. This

report summarized our current state of knowledge regarding several sea

duck species and highlighted our management concerns. In light of these

concerns, we requested the Atlantic and Pacific Flyways to review the

special regulations for sea duck seasons currently in place in each

Flyway. In the Atlantic Flyway, we continue to ask the Council to

consider changes to sea duck seasons and to develop management goals

for sea ducks. In the Pacific Flyway, we encourage the Flyway, and

particularly the State of Alaska to give consideration to changes in

existing sea duck regulations in light of current population status and

trends. In addition, we continue to support and encourage participation

by the Atlantic and Pacific Flyways in the development and

implementation of the sea duck joint venture to address management and

information needs for this unique group of waterfowl in North America.

4. Canada Geese

We support the Atlantic Flyway Council's position that hunting

seasons on Atlantic Population (AP) Canada Geese remain closed until

the breeding population index exceeds 60,000 pairs and there is

evidence of a sustained population recovery. Following the season

closure in 1995 and favorable production in 1997 and 1998, we expect

this population to begin expansion and begin to show an increase in the

breeding pair survey index. In this context, we encourage the Council

to give serious consideration to specific criteria for resuming the

hunting season. Additionally, if these criteria are triggered in 1999,

we believe that appropriate regulatory strategies and harvest controls

will be necessary to effectively manage the harvest in order to prevent

harvest levels that would deter the AP from making a full recovery to

objective levels.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 23747]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03MY99.001

[FR Doc. 99-10961 Filed 4-30-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C