Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1995-1996 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals

Part IV

Department of the Interior

_______________________________________________________________________

Fish and Wildlife Service

_______________________________________________________________________

50 CFR Part 20

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Rule

Proposed Rules

=======================================================================

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AC79

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1995-1996 Migratory Game Bird

Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal

Proposals

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rulemaking.

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

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. These

regulations will permit the taking of the designated species during the

1995-96 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 and habitat

conditions.

ployed 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 and habitat

conditions.

DATES: Tribal proposals and related comments should be submitted by

June 2, 1995. The comment period for proposed early-season frameworks

will end on July 21, 1995; and for proposed late-season frameworks on

September 4, 1995. The public hearing for early-season frameworks will

be held on June 22, 1995, at 9 a.m. The public hearing for late-season

frameworks will be held on August 3, 1995, at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Both public hearings will be held in the Auditorium,

Department of the Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC.

Written comments on the proposals and notice of intention to testify at

either hearing may be mailed 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. Comments

received will be available for public inspection during normal business

hours in room 634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on tribal

proposals contact Keith A. Morehouse, and for all other issues

regarding annual migratory bird hunting regulations contact Ron W.

Kokel. Both Dr. Morehouse and Mr. Kokel may be contacted 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.

For further information on tribal

proposals contact Keith A. Morehouse, and for all other issues

regarding annual migratory bird hunting regulations contact Ron W.

Kokel. Both Dr. Morehouse and Mr. Kokel may be contacted 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 remaining proposed and final rulemaking documents will be

published 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) 766-8048.

--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) 236-8676.

--Region 7 - Robin West, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East

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

Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons

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) 236-8676.

--Region 7 - Robin West, 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 1995-1996 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 1995-96

hunting season, regulations will be proposed 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 1995-96 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 1995-1996

). These proposals are described under Proposed 1995-96 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 1995-1996

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

documents for migratory game bird hunting regulations. Proposals

relating to the harvest of migratory game birds that may be initiated

after publication of this proposed rulemaking will be made available

for public review in supplemental proposed rulemakings to be published

in the Federal Register. Also, additional supplemental proposals will

be published 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, it is anticipated that comment periods on some

proposals will necessarily be abbreviated. Special circumstances that

limit the amount of time which the Service can allow for public comment

are involved in the establishment of these regulations. Specifically,

two considerations compress the time in which the rulemaking process

must operate: 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

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

Major steps in the 1995-1996 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. Tundra 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, items requiring no

attention will be omitted and the remaining numbered items will be

discontinuous and appear incomplete.

Public Hearings

ons

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, items requiring no

attention will be omitted and the remaining numbered items will be

discontinuous and appear incomplete.

Public Hearings

Two public hearings pertaining to 1995-1996 migratory game bird

hunting regulations are scheduled. Both hearings will be conducted in

accordance with 455 DM 1 of the Departmental Manual. On June 22, a

public hearing will be held at 9 a.m. in the Auditorium of the

Department of the Interior Building, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC.

This hearing is for the purpose of reviewing the status of migratory

shore and upland game birds. Proposed hunting regulations will be

discussed for these species plus regulations for migratory game birds

in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; special September

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

Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. On August 3, a public

hearing will be held at 9 a.m. in the Auditorium of the Department of

the Interior Building, address above. This hearing is for the purpose

of reviewing the status and proposed regulations for waterfowl not

previously discussed at the June 22 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

Building, address above. This hearing is for the purpose

of reviewing the status and proposed regulations for waterfowl not

previously discussed at the June 22 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 guidelines were developed 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)

e 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

he 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 example, in Minnesota, the Mille Lacs

Band of Chippewa Indians) 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.

Details Needed in Tribal Proposals

ng 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 1995-96 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

t 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

Pertinent details in proposals received from tribes will be

published 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

1995-96 hunting season should submit their proposals as soon as

possible, but no later than June 2, 1995. Tribal inquiries regarding

the guidelines and proposals should be directed 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

omulgation 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.

Comments received on the proposed annual regulations will be

available for public inspection during normal business hours at the

Service's office in room 634, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington,

Virginia. Specific comment periods will be established for each series

of proposed rulemakings. All relevant comments will be accepted through

the closing date of the comment period on the particular proposal under

consideration. 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 25, 1995

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

DATE: March 26, 1995

--Atlantic Flyway Council, 9:00 a.m.

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

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

--Pacific Flyway Council, 10:00 a.m.

The Council meetings will be held at the Minneapolis Hilton and

Towers, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

NEPA Consideration

inter meetings of the various Flyway Councils:

DATE: March 25, 1995

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

DATE: March 26, 1995

--Atlantic Flyway Council, 9:00 a.m.

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

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

--Pacific Flyway Council, 10:00 a.m.

The Council meetings will be held at the Minneapolis Hilton and

Towers, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

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 1995-96 migratory game bird hunting

regulations, consideration will be given to 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 changes to be made to proposals in this

and future supplemental proposed rulemaking documents.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act

sulted in a total 1993 fall flight of ducks similar

(-5 percent) to that predicted in 1992. Because the status of ducks has

not yet fully recovered from the drought of the 1980's, hunting

regulations were developed that maintained the reduced hunting

opportunity established in the 1988-89 season. There were no

significant changes in hunter activity between the 1992-93 and the

1993-94 seasons. Hunter numbers decreased by 1 percent and waterfowl

hunters spent an average of 3 percent more days hunting, resulting in a

2 percent increase in the total number of hunting days. Many

nonregulatory factors, however, influence hunter participation. There

was essentially no change in the total duck harvest between the 1992-93

and the 1993-94 seasons.''

Copies of the updated analysis are available upon request from the

Office of Migratory Bird Management. The address is

indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

These regulations contain no information collections subject to

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). However, the Service

does utilize information acquired through other various information

collections in the formulation of these regulations. These information

collection requirements have been approved by OMB and assigned

clearance numbers 1018-0005, 1018-0006, 1018-0008, 1018-0009, 1018-

0010, 1018-0015, 1018-0019, and 1018-0023.

Authorship

The primary authors of this proposed rule are Keith A. Morehouse

and Ron W. Kokel, Office of Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

these regulations. These information

collection requirements have been approved by OMB and assigned

clearance numbers 1018-0005, 1018-0006, 1018-0008, 1018-0009, 1018-

0010, 1018-0015, 1018-0019, and 1018-0023.

Authorship

The primary authors of this proposed rule are Keith A. Morehouse

and Ron W. Kokel, Office of Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714.

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 1995-96

hunting season are authorized under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July

3, 1918), as amended, (16 U.S.C. 703-711); the Fish and Wildlife

Improvement Act of 1978 (November 8, 1978), as amended, (16 U.S.C.

712); and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (August 8, 1956), as

amended, (16 U.S.C. 742 a-d and e-j).

Dated: March 10, 1995.

George T. Frampton, Jr.,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed 1995-1996 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 1994-95 frameworks of

August 17 and September 27, 1994, (59 FR 42474 and 49304) is proposed.

Specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 1994-95 frameworks

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

States or tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

A. General Harvest Strategy

and bag limits) may be deferred. Unless

otherwise specified, no change from the final 1994-95 frameworks of

August 17 and September 27, 1994, (59 FR 42474 and 49304) is proposed.

Specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 1994-95 frameworks

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

States or tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

A. General Harvest Strategy

Despite the large volume of information available on hunter

activity, duck harvest levels, and population status, the annual

process of setting duck hunting regulations has often been

characterized by a lack of consensus among managers on an appropriate

harvest strategy. The Service believes there are three fundamental

reasons for the annual debate over setting duck hunting regulations:

(1) harvest-management objectives have not always been clearly stated

or agreed upon, (2) a large number of regulatory options has hindered

our assessment of their effects; and (3) management of an

international, migratory resource is difficult and the complex

relationship between harvest and population status could be more fully

understood. To address these difficulties, the Service is developing a

more formal and objective decision-making process. This process

requires clear identification of harvest-management objectives, a

limited number of regulatory options, and alternative, yet credible,

hypotheses regarding the influence of harvest on duck populations.

Using these elements, a harvest strategy can be developed to help

managers better understand the effects of hunting, while also providing

maximum harvest opportunities consistent with long-term resource

conservation goals. The Service proposes to implement some aspects of

this process for the 1995-96 hunting season, with broader

implementation to occur over the next few years

ck populations.

Using these elements, a harvest strategy can be developed to help

managers better understand the effects of hunting, while also providing

maximum harvest opportunities consistent with long-term resource

conservation goals. The Service proposes to implement some aspects of

this process for the 1995-96 hunting season, with broader

implementation to occur over the next few years.

This year, as part of the implementation process, the Service

proposes a duck harvest-management objective that balances hunting

opportunities with the desire to achieve waterfowl population goals

identified in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (hereinafter

the Plan). Under this harvest-management objective, the relative

importance of hunting opportunity increases as populations approach the

goals in the Plan (e.g. 8.1 million mallards). Thus, hunting

opportunity would be maximized when the population is at or above

goals. Additionally, while the Service believes that the Plan's

population goals would tend to exert a conservative influence on

overall duck harvest management, other factors, such as habitat, also

need to be considered.

For the 1995-96 season, the Service proposes that three regulatory

options be considered: restrictive, moderate, or liberal seasons. Each

regulatory option or ``package'' would contain Flyway-specific season

lengths, bag limits, and framework opening and closing dates, mutually

agreed upon by the Service and Flyway Councils. Public comment would

also be solicited. Several reasons exist for considering discrete

regulatory ``packages.'' First, the Service believes that regulatory

changes should be of sufficient magnitude to cause measurable changes

in duck harvest rates. Minor changes (i.e., ``tinkering'') in

regulations that have little or no consequential overall impact on

waterfowl resources and harvest can confuse both hunters and the

public. Second, waterfowl managers must have adequate time to evaluate

proposed regulatory options

ervice believes that regulatory

changes should be of sufficient magnitude to cause measurable changes

in duck harvest rates. Minor changes (i.e., ``tinkering'') in

regulations that have little or no consequential overall impact on

waterfowl resources and harvest can confuse both hunters and the

public. Second, waterfowl managers must have adequate time to evaluate

proposed regulatory options. This evaluation involves a determination

of expected duck harvest rates and resource impacts. Frequently,

adequate time for a thorough evaluation is not available when new

regulatory options are introduced late in the regulations-setting

process. Introducing prescriptive regulatory options or packages early

in the regulations-setting process allows managers to carefully and

thoroughly evaluate the expected resource impacts.

An equally important component of the regulatory packages is

guidelines for their use. Flyway Councils and waterfowl managers must

know when, and under what conditions, to use each regulatory package.

These guidelines are currently being developed and will be proposed by

the Service and made available for public comment. The guidelines will

specify the particular regulatory package appropriate for various

combinations of duck population size and wetland conditions on the

breeding grounds. For example, liberal hunting regulations would be

proposed when population levels were high (relative to Plan goals),

breeding-habitat conditions were exceptionally good, or both. The

Service believes it is important that these guidelines be consistent

with the goal of maximum sustainable hunting opportunities and the

desire to achieve population levels specified in the Plan.

In setting annual hunting regulations for ducks, the Service

considers not only biological, but sociological, recreational, and

economic impacts

bitat conditions were exceptionally good, or both. The

Service believes it is important that these guidelines be consistent

with the goal of maximum sustainable hunting opportunities and the

desire to achieve population levels specified in the Plan.

In setting annual hunting regulations for ducks, the Service

considers not only biological, but sociological, recreational, and

economic impacts. The proposed process described above is intended to

improve our understanding of the biological impacts of hunting by

making more efficient use of harvest and population data from current

waterfowl monitoring programs, while simultaneously pursuing

traditional harvest and population objectives. The Service will

continue to rely on the established process of public input for

considering non-biological impacts.

Specific details of this year's proposed regulatory ``packages''

for each Flyway, guidelines for the use of these regulatory packages,

and a general description of the harvest management objective and the

alternative hypotheses of duck population dynamics that were considered

in this proposed process will be available for public comment on March

24, 1995, by writing to the address under the caption ADDRESSES.

Additional information regarding specific population goals identified

in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan will be available as

well at the address provided above.

F. Zones and Splits

ive hypotheses of duck population dynamics that were considered

in this proposed process will be available for public comment on March

24, 1995, by writing to the address under the caption ADDRESSES.

Additional information regarding specific population goals identified

in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan will be available as

well at the address provided above.

F. Zones and Splits

In 1990, the Service determined that the use of zones and split

seasons was an acceptable means by which States could redistribute

harvest opportunities and established a long-term strategy for the use

of zones and split-season options for duck seasons (55 FR 38901-38902).

This long-term strategy contained guidelines that limited selection of

zone/split options available to States to 5-year intervals. The 1995-96

season will be the final year of the 5-year assessment period and the

Service reminds those States that made changes during the last open

season in 1990 that a review of pertinent data (e.g. estimates of

harvest, hunter numbers and success) will be required at the end of

this year's hunting season. This review does not have to be the result

of a rigorous experimental design, but nonetheless should assist the

Service in ascertaining whether major changes occurred as a result of

zone/split regulations. As a matter of information for preparation of

proposals for 1996-97, the Service does not anticipate any changes in

the existing guidelines governing zone and split options for the

upcoming open season.

Temporary Zone in the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California. In

1994, the Service allowed the State of California to continue this zone

on a temporary basis. The Service acknowledges that the Southern San

Joaquin Valley Zone appears to provide economic incentives for

maintaining privately-managed wetlands, especially during recent years

when season lengths have been relatively short

son.

Temporary Zone in the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California. In

1994, the Service allowed the State of California to continue this zone

on a temporary basis. The Service acknowledges that the Southern San

Joaquin Valley Zone appears to provide economic incentives for

maintaining privately-managed wetlands, especially during recent years

when season lengths have been relatively short. Accordingly, the

Service will consider allowing this zone to continue on a temporary

basis during the final year of the 5-year moratorium on zone changes

pending review of harvest and hunter participation information.

G. Special Seasons/Species Management

i. Canvasback Management

In 1994, the Service re-opened the hunting season on canvasbacks.

Based on population levels, expected production, and projected harvest

estimates, the Service believed that a season in all Flyways with a 1-

bird daily bag limit was warranted. The Service is aware of the high

harvest potential for this species and will evaluate last season's

canvasback harvest. For this year, the Service will defer a decision on

canvasback hunting until the 1994-95 harvest and 1995 spring population

status information are available. The Service proposes no change in the

process employed for deciding on regulations governing the harvest of

canvasbacks.

ii. September Teal Seasons

In 1990, the Service established a strategy for the use of shooting

hours which stated that shooting hours would begin at sunrise unless

States could demonstrate that the impact of presunrise shooting hours

on nontarget duck species was negligible. During the 1993-94 teal

seasons, several Mississippi and Central Flyway States conducted

evaluations of shooting hours for teal seasons

l Seasons

In 1990, the Service established a strategy for the use of shooting

hours which stated that shooting hours would begin at sunrise unless

States could demonstrate that the impact of presunrise shooting hours

on nontarget duck species was negligible. During the 1993-94 teal

seasons, several Mississippi and Central Flyway States conducted

evaluations of shooting hours for teal seasons. In 1994, the Service

allowed those States in the Mississippi and Central Flyways that had

conducted evaluations of presunrise shooting hours for teal to begin

shooting hours at one-half hour before sunrise, since the evaluations

demonstrated that the attempted harvest of non-target species was no

different between pre- and post-sunrise periods in those States. The

Service notes, however, that final reports of the evaluations are still

needed from the Mississippi and Central Flyway States and believes that

comprehensive final reports are necessary for completion of the

evaluations. The Service has not yet received these reports and

requests that they be submitted prior to the June regulations meetings.

iii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons

Since these seasons were last reviewed in the early 1980s, the

Service requests that Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee provide an

update of recovery and survival rates, harvest estimates, and

derivations of banded birds harvested during these seasons. Preferably,

these reports should be submitted prior to this summer's Flyway

meetings. The Service will make a full assessment of these seasons

pending the completion of the cooperative Wood Duck Initiative final

report due in 1996.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons

an

update of recovery and survival rates, harvest estimates, and

derivations of banded birds harvested during these seasons. Preferably,

these reports should be submitted prior to this summer's Flyway

meetings. The Service will make a full assessment of these seasons

pending the completion of the cooperative Wood Duck Initiative final

report due in 1996.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons

The Service is currently reviewing the existing procedures for

establishing and evaluating special Canada goose seasons in the

Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways with the intent of streamlining and

simplifying the process. Possible changes the Service is considering

include the elimination of the experimental-status requirement for

special seasons conducted between the 1st and 15th of September.

However, States not participating in the Migratory Bird Harvest

Information Program would continue to be responsible for monitoring

hunter activity and harvest during these special seasons. For seasons

held after September 15, the Service anticipates that current

requirements for special Canada goose seasons will continue.

B. Regular Seasons

In the Atlantic Flyway, the Service and the Flyway Council will

cooperatively conduct an assessment of the just concluded 3-year

harvest-reduction program. It is likely that further adjustments to

regular season harvest regulations will be proposed.

The Service also remains concerned about the status of the Southern

James Bay and Dusky Canada goose populations. The Service will

carefully review and consider all harvest regulations to ensure that

these populations are not impacted.

5. White-fronted Geese

cluded 3-year

harvest-reduction program. It is likely that further adjustments to

regular season harvest regulations will be proposed.

The Service also remains concerned about the status of the Southern

James Bay and Dusky Canada goose populations. The Service will

carefully review and consider all harvest regulations to ensure that

these populations are not impacted.

5. White-fronted Geese

In 1994, the Service denied the Pacific Flyway Council's request

for liberalization of seasons and limits on white-fronted geese in

Washington, Oregon, and California because the population objective had

not been attained and because a Flyway harvest strategy had not been

completed. Given that the most recent 3-year average index of Pacific

Flyway white-fronted geese is 283,600, with the 1994 fall count being

324,800, the Service now believes some liberalization is warranted,

provided a suitable harvest strategy is developed beforehand.

8. Tundra Swans

In 1990 and 1991, the Service agreed to experimentally increase the

number of permits available to North and South Dakota (1,000 each) for

tundra swan hunting. The additional permits were also experimentally

allocated for the 1992-94 hunting seasons. An assessment of these

experimental seasons in the form of a final report

should be submitted to the Service by these States by June 1, 1995. The

final report should contain biological information collected during

these experimental seasons that would address the objectives identified

in the Memorandum of Understanding between the Service and each State.

These objectives include: (1) to determine the fall distribution,

chronology of migration, and identification of major concentration

areas of tundra swans in each State; (2) to determine the number of

tundra swans harvested by permittees in each State; and (3) to evaluate

hunter activity and success, hunting methods and harvest locations and

estimate crippling losses associated with the hunting of tundra swans

nclude: (1) to determine the fall distribution,

chronology of migration, and identification of major concentration

areas of tundra swans in each State; (2) to determine the number of

tundra swans harvested by permittees in each State; and (3) to evaluate

hunter activity and success, hunting methods and harvest locations and

estimate crippling losses associated with the hunting of tundra swans.

To properly address these objectives the Service encourages these

States to follow the evaluation guidelines in the ``Eastern Population

Tundra Swan Sport Hunting Plan'' that was completed in 1988, which

specifies that evaluation procedures should include an annual harvest

survey and a minimum of 2 years of population survey information.

In 1994, the Service restricted seasons and hunt areas in Utah and

required that Montana, Utah, and Nevada measure the accidental take, if

any, of trumpeter swans by tundra swan hunters. Pending reports on the

occurrence and take of trumpeter swans in the hunt areas, possible

additional changes may be warranted. The Service believes tundra swan

hunting in these three States is warranted but seasons may be further

modified to minimize, but not preclude, the accidental take of

trumpeter swans.

14. Woodcock

The Service is concerned with the gradual long-term declines in

woodcock populations in both the Eastern and Central Management

Regions. Although habitat changes appear to be the primary factor in

the declines, adjustment of harvest opportunities may be appropriate in

light of current population trends. The Service and the Flyway Councils

should continue their ongoing review of the status of woodcock and

cooperatively develop a harvest-management strategy.

15. Band-tailed Pigeons

th the Eastern and Central Management

Regions. Although habitat changes appear to be the primary factor in

the declines, adjustment of harvest opportunities may be appropriate in

light of current population trends. The Service and the Flyway Councils

should continue their ongoing review of the status of woodcock and

cooperatively develop a harvest-management strategy.

15. Band-tailed Pigeons

The Service supports the continuation of seasons on both the

Coastal and Interior populations. However, the Service remains

concerned about the long-term decline in the Coastal population and

continues to support restrictive harvest regulations. As in 1993 and

1994, all States having band-tailed pigeon hunting seasons must again

require either participation in the nationwide Migratory Bird Harvest

Information Program or require band-tailed pigeon hunters to obtain

mandatory State permits to provide sampling frames for obtaining more

precise estimates of band-tailed pigeon harvest. Those States not

participating in the Harvest Information Program will be required to

conduct a harvest survey and provide the results to the Service by June

1 of each year. The Service will continue to closely monitor population

and harvest information from both populations and will evaluate this

information in June prior to making any decisions regarding the 1995-96

seasons. Indian tribes also should consider this situation when

proposing harvest regulations for this species.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-F

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP24MR95.013

[FR Doc. 95-7304 Filed 3-23-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C