Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1996-1997 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 1996-1997 Migratory Game Bird Hunting

Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals;

Proposed Rule

Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AD69

Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 1996-1997 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

1996-97 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: Tribal proposals and related comments should be submitted by

June 3, 1996. The comment period for proposed early-season frameworks

will end on July 25, 1996; and for proposed late-season frameworks on

September 3, 1996

nments 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: Tribal proposals and related comments should be submitted by

June 3, 1996. The comment period for proposed early-season frameworks

will end on July 25, 1996; and for proposed late-season frameworks on

September 3, 1996. The public hearing for early-season frameworks will

be held on June 27, 1996, at 9 a.m. The public hearing for late-season

frameworks will be held on August 2, 1996, 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 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 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

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) 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 1996-1997 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

s. 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 1996-97

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 1996-97 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 1996-1997

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

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. 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 1996-1997 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

r 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, 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 1996-1997 migratory game bird

hunting regulations are scheduled. Both hearings will be conducted in

accordance with 455 DM 1 of the Departmental Manual. On June 27, 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, Hawaii, 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 2, 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 27 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 27 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

ing 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 1996-97 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

1996-97 hunting season should submit their proposals as soon as

possible, but no later than June 3, 1996. 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 23, 1996

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

DATE: March 24, 1996

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

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

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

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

The Council meetings will be held at the Adams Mark Hotel, Tulsa,

Oklahoma.

NEPA Consideration

dize

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

This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and

Budget under Executive Order 12866.

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 1995. 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 $258 and $586 million at small businesses in 1995.

Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Office

of Migratory Bird Management. The address is indicated under the

caption ADDRESSES.

These regulations have been examined under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 and have been found to contain no information collection

requirements.

Authorship

The primary author of this proposed rule is Ron W. Kokel, Office of

Migratory Bird Management, (703) 358-1714.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

of Migratory Bird Management. The address is indicated under the

caption ADDRESSES.

These regulations have been examined under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 and have been found to contain no information collection

requirements.

Authorship

The primary author of this proposed rule is 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 1996-97

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: May 13, 1996

George T. Frampton, Jr.

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks

Proposed 1996-1997 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 1995-96 frameworks of

August 29 and September 27, 1995, (60 FR 45020 and 50042) is proposed.

Specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 1995-96 frameworks

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

States or tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

limits) may be deferred. Unless

otherwise specified, no change from the final 1995-96 frameworks of

August 29 and September 27, 1995, (60 FR 45020 and 50042) is proposed.

Specific preliminary proposals that vary from the 1995-96 frameworks

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

States or tribes are contained below:

1. Ducks

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

In 1992, a technical working group comprised of representatives

from the Service and the four Flyway Councils was established to

develop recommendations for improving the regulation of duck harvests.

In 1993, the group embraced the concept of Adaptive Harvest Management

(AHM), which subsequently received strong support from a broad array of

conservation interests. In general terms, AHM involves: (1) choices of

harvest regulation based on resource status and expected harvest

impacts; (2) follow-up monitoring and assessment of population

dynamics; and (3) use of the monitoring and assessment information to

improve future decision-making abilities. Benefits of AHM include: (1)

maximum hunting opportunity consistent with long-term waterfowl

conservation and North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)

goals; (2) less contentiousness in the annual regulation-setting

process; (3) more objective, data-based decisions; and (4) more

efficient use of data collected from large-scale monitoring programs.

Perhaps the greatest benefit of AHM, however, is its potential to

resolve questions about how much hunting opportunity can be provided

while maintaining healthy waterfowl populations.

Implementation of AHM began in 1995 with a focus on mid-continent

mallards. Based on favorable comments by the Flyway Councils, State

wildlife agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the public, the

Service is seeking to continue its application of AHM for regulating

the harvest of ducks

about how much hunting opportunity can be provided

while maintaining healthy waterfowl populations.

Implementation of AHM began in 1995 with a focus on mid-continent

mallards. Based on favorable comments by the Flyway Councils, State

wildlife agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the public, the

Service is seeking to continue its application of AHM for regulating

the harvest of ducks. The technical working group continues to play an

important role in this effort by developing AHM procedures, stimulating

dialogue among stakeholders, conducting technical assessments to inform

decision makers, formulating information and education strategies, and

recommending timetables for implementation. The working group's

function is, however, strictly technical in nature.

Application of AHM continues to highlight many complex issues in

duck harvest management. Issues identified as high priorities for

further assessment include: (1) hunter dynamics and how regulations

affect hunter activity and success; (2) factors affecting duck

reproduction on a continental scale; (3) relative costs and benefits of

species, population, and sex-specific harvest management; (4)

allocation of harvest opportunities among countries, Flyways, and

States; and (5) public information and education needs.

The technical working group has recognized that additional time

will be necessary to address these issues in a more comprehensive and

coherent manner. Schedules for clarifying issues, receiving input from

stakeholders, and conducting the necessary assessments are currently

being developed by the working group so that expectations for progress

are realistic. Implementation of AHM will require periodic review of

all technical specifications, including management objectives, hunting-

season options, and theories (or models) of population dynamics.

Based on a review of public comments received about AHM in 1995,

the technical working group has made the following recommendations for

the 1996 regulatory process:

xpectations for progress

are realistic. Implementation of AHM will require periodic review of

all technical specifications, including management objectives, hunting-

season options, and theories (or models) of population dynamics.

Based on a review of public comments received about AHM in 1995,

the technical working group has made the following recommendations for

the 1996 regulatory process:

(1) Population goals of the NAWMP should continue to be recognized

to reflect broad resource values; this should be accomplished by a

proportional decrease in the value of harvest opportunity if the

mallard population were expected to fall below the NAWMP goal of 8.1

million;

(2) Pending further review, use of the restrictive, moderate, and

liberal regulatory options considered in 1995 should be continued; the

only exception might be the addition of one bird to the daily bag limit

under the liberal option for the Pacific Flyway;

(3) Pending further assessment, use of the mallard population

models from 1995, which incorporate the competing hypotheses of

additive and compensatory harvest mortality and strongly and weakly

density-dependent reproduction should be continued;

(4) Pending development of AHM strategies for individual species

and populations, existing technical and administrative procedures for

regulating the harvests of stocks other than mallards should be used,

with the recognition that: (a) potential regulatory changes should be

considered early in the annual process; and (b) proposals should

include potential effects of various regulatory options and criteria

for future regulatory changes;

individual species

and populations, existing technical and administrative procedures for

regulating the harvests of stocks other than mallards should be used,

with the recognition that: (a) potential regulatory changes should be

considered early in the annual process; and (b) proposals should

include potential effects of various regulatory options and criteria

for future regulatory changes;

(5) Outreach efforts should be continued.

One of the distinguishing features of AHM is a formal recognition

that technical experts have legitimate disagreements about the

particular population model that should be used to guide harvest

management. Perhaps the greatest strength of AHM is its method for

determining which model best describes the impacts of harvest and

habitat conditions on mallard abundance. Once a regulatory decision is

made, each model predicts whether population size will go up or down,

and by how much. Then, after data from the spring population survey are

available, AHM allows managers to see how well each model predicted the

change in population size that actually occurred. In subsequent years,

those models that prove to be good predictors will have greater

influence on regulatory decisions.

Survey data providing current population and habitat status, and

for evaluating performance of last year's mallard models, should be

available in June 1996. Specific regulatory alternatives for the 1996

duck hunting season will be considered at that time.

F. Zones and Splits

subsequent years,

those models that prove to be good predictors will have greater

influence on regulatory decisions.

Survey data providing current population and habitat status, and

for evaluating performance of last year's mallard models, should be

available in June 1996. Specific regulatory alternatives for the 1996

duck hunting season will be considered at that time.

F. Zones and Splits

In 1990, the Service established guidelines for the use of zones

and split seasons for duck hunting (Federal Register 55 FR 38901).

These guidelines were based upon a cooperative review and evaluation of

the historical use of zone/split options. The Service reiterated the

1977 criteria that the primary purpose of these options shall be to

provide more equitable distribution of harvest opportunity for hunters

throughout a State. In 1977, the Service also stated that these

regulations should not substantially change the pattern of harvest

distribution among States within a Flyway, nor should these options

detrimentally change the harvest distribution pattern among species or

populations at either the State or Flyway level. The 1990 review did

not show that the proliferation of these options had increased harvest

pressure; however, the ability to detect the impact of zones/split

configurations was poor

because of poorly chosen response variables, the lack of statistical

tests to differentiate between real and perceived changes, and the

absence of adequate experimental controls. Therefore, the existing

policy was intended to provide a framework for controlling the

proliferation of changes in zone/split options and limited changes to

5-year intervals. The first open season for changes was in 1991 and the

second will occur this year when zone/split configurations will be

established for the 1996-2000 period

d changes, and the

absence of adequate experimental controls. Therefore, the existing

policy was intended to provide a framework for controlling the

proliferation of changes in zone/split options and limited changes to

5-year intervals. The first open season for changes was in 1991 and the

second will occur this year when zone/split configurations will be

established for the 1996-2000 period.

As required by existing guidelines, States that made changes during

the last open season (except going to the basic option) should provide

the Service a review of pertinent data by the 1995-96 Winter/Spring

Technical Committee Meetings. At a minimum, State reports should

contain a summary of zone harvest estimates compared to previous

configurations. The Service reiterates that 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 in

harvest or hunter activity occurred as a result of zone/split

regulations.

For the 1996 open season, the Service will use the existing 1990

guidelines, with an exception for the handling of special management

units. The Service proposes to delete the following provision from the

1990 guidelines:

Special Management Unit Limitation: Within existing Flyway

boundaries, States may not zone and/or use a 3-way split season

simultaneously within a special management unit and the remainder of

the State.

The zone/split season guidelines apply only for the regular duck

season. The Service is proposing this change with the understanding

that the additional days for a management unit must be consecutive and,

for the Central Flyway, be held both after the Saturday nearest

December 10 and after the regular duck season.

The proposed guidelines include several definitions and

interpretations developed in response to questions during and following

the first open season in 1991. For clarification, these are reiterated:

1

standing

that the additional days for a management unit must be consecutive and,

for the Central Flyway, be held both after the Saturday nearest

December 10 and after the regular duck season.

The proposed guidelines include several definitions and

interpretations developed in response to questions during and following

the first open season in 1991. For clarification, these are reiterated:

1. A zone is defined as a geographic area or portion of a State,

with a contiguous boundary, for which independent dates (at least 1 day

difference) can be selected for the regular duck season.

2. Consideration of changes for management-unit boundaries are not

subject to the guidelines and provisions governing the use of zones and

split seasons for ducks.

3. Only minor (less than a county in size) boundary changes will be

allowed for any grandfather arrangement and changes are limited to the

open season.

4. Any State may change its zone/split arrangement to the Basic

Option at any time during the 5 years between open seasons. If such a

change is made, the Basic Option must be continued for the remainder of

the 5-year period.

For the 1996-2000 period, any State may continue the configuration

used in 1991-1995. If changes are made, the zone/split configuration

must conform to one of the following options:

1. Basic Option: The Basic Option, available at any time to any

State, would allow the regular duck season to be split into two

segments with no zones.

2. Alternative Options: Where the Basic Option is deemed

undesirable, States may choose one of the following:

a. No more than three zones with no splits,

b. A 3-way split with no zones, or

c. Two zones with the option for 2-way split seasons in one or both

zones.

At the end of 5 years after any changes in splits or zones (except

conversions to the Basic Option), States will be required to provide

the Service with a review of pertinent data (e.g., estimates of

harvest, hunter numbers, hunter success, etc.)

ore than three zones with no splits,

b. A 3-way split with no zones, or

c. Two zones with the option for 2-way split seasons in one or both

zones.

At the end of 5 years after any changes in splits or zones (except

conversions to the Basic Option), States will be required to provide

the Service with a review of pertinent data (e.g., estimates of

harvest, hunter numbers, hunter success, etc.). This review does not

have to be the result of a rigorous experimental design, but

nonetheless should assist the Service in ascertaining whether major

undesirable changes in harvest or hunter activity occurred as a result

of split and zone regulations. The next open season for changes in

zone/split configurations will be 2001.

G. Special seasons/species management

i. Canvasback Management

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 production

information to evaluate the effectiveness of the harvest strategy.

Thus, the Service will defer a decision on canvasback hunting until the

1995-96 harvest and 1996 spring population-status information are

available. The Service proposes no change in the process employed for

deciding on regulations governing the harvest of canvasbacks.

irds. Each year the Service reviews harvest and production

information to evaluate the effectiveness of the harvest strategy.

Thus, the Service will defer a decision on canvasback hunting until the

1995-96 harvest and 1996 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. The Central Flyway has

completed a final report of its evaluation, which indicated that the

attempted harvest of non-target species was no different between pre-

and post-sunrise periods in those States. Therefore, the Service

proposes that those Central Flyway States be allowed to continue pre-

sunrise shooting hours during their teal seasons. The Service notes

that it has not received a final report from the Mississippi Flyway,

but is aware that the report will be discussed at the February

Technical Committee Meeting. The Service believes that completion of

this report is critical to evaluating the appropriateness of presunrise

shooting hours during teal seasons within the Mississippi Flyway.

oting hours during their teal seasons. The Service notes

that it has not received a final report from the Mississippi Flyway,

but is aware that the report will be discussed at the February

Technical Committee Meeting. The Service believes that completion of

this report is critical to evaluating the appropriateness of presunrise

shooting hours during teal seasons within the Mississippi Flyway.

iii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons

In general, 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,

scheduled to be completed in July 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.

Regarding the appropriateness of September teal/wood duck seasons,

a decision will be made in cooperation with the the Flyway Councils

after the assessment of wood duck monitoring programs is completed.

Until such time, the Service does not propose to discontinue these

seasons in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida or expand such seasons

elsewhere. The Service has received draft updates of reports that

summarize wood duck survival and recovery rates, harvest estimates, and

derivations of banded birds harvested during these seasons.

iv. Special Management Units

High Plains Mallard Management Unit

The Service reminds the Central Flyway Council that the report on

the

High Plains Mallard Management Unit should be completed. Prompt

completion of the report is encouraged and the Service requests an

update on the status of the report including a projected completion

date.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons

g these seasons.

iv. Special Management Units

High Plains Mallard Management Unit

The Service reminds the Central Flyway Council that the report on

the

High Plains Mallard Management Unit should be completed. Prompt

completion of the report is encouraged and the Service requests an

update on the status of the report including a projected completion

date.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons

In response to the Atlantic Flyway Council's request to increase

harvests of resident Canada geese in light of the closed regular season

during 1995-96, the Service is considering extensions to the special

early- and late-seasons criteria in the Atlantic Flyway. The Service

believes that some changes in the existing season frameworks,

particularly during the early seasons, may be possible in designated

areas without causing undue harvest impacts on migrant Canada geese.

However, less flexibility is expected in expanding late-season harvest

opportunities in the Flyway without a comprehensive look at the

existing neck-collar data. The Service does not propose to increase the

composition of migrants in the harvest beyond that which is currently

identified in the criteria for these seasons.

B. Regular Seasons

The Service acknowledges the interest expressed by several Flyway

Councils to permit 3-way splits in regular goose seasons. The Service

will work with the Flyway Councils during the coming year to develop an

experimental protocol to evaluate the impact of such an option on a

Flyway-specific basis. Any experimental designs resulting from this

effort must insure adequate protection for goose populations of

management concern.

In the Atlantic Flyway, the Service continues to be concerned about

the status of the Atlantic Population (AP) of Canada geese. During this

year, the Service will work closely with Canada and the Atlantic Flyway

Council to monitor the 1996 spring breeding-pair estimates and

reevaluate its status

ng from this

effort must insure adequate protection for goose populations of

management concern.

In the Atlantic Flyway, the Service continues to be concerned about

the status of the Atlantic Population (AP) of Canada geese. During this

year, the Service will work closely with Canada and the Atlantic Flyway

Council to monitor the 1996 spring breeding-pair estimates and

reevaluate its status. The Service encourages the Atlantic Flyway

Council to begin updating the AP Management Plan and consider revising

population objectives and establishing appropriate harvest strategies.

Key population parameters will be reviewed during the annual

regulations-development process, but the recovery period for this

population is expected to take several years.

The Service also remains concerned about the status of the Southern

James Bay and Dusky Canada goose populations, and will carefully review

all harvest regulations to ensure that these populations are not

impacted.

7. Snow and Ross' Geese

The Service requests that the Atlantic, Mississippi, and the

Central Flyway Councils work with the Service to examine criteria

established for those areas with a framework closing date of March 10.

If there is a need to refine the northern boundary established for the

1995-96 seasons, the Service recommends the development of biological

criteria to guide the boundary refinement. Further, it is suggested

that these criteria should include an assessment of the frequency,

timing and magnitude of goose use in areas proposed to be designated as

wintering areas. Finally, the Service reminds States that proposed

boundary adjustments should be approved by their respective Flyway

Councils.

The Service is also concerned about the growing evidence of serious

habitat degredation caused by high white goose population levels at

several major breeding areas in the central and eastern Canadian

Arctic

use in areas proposed to be designated as

wintering areas. Finally, the Service reminds States that proposed

boundary adjustments should be approved by their respective Flyway

Councils.

The Service is also concerned about the growing evidence of serious

habitat degredation caused by high white goose population levels at

several major breeding areas in the central and eastern Canadian

Arctic. The Service proposes to work with the Arctic Goose Joint

Venture, the Flyway Councils and other concerned agencies and

organizations to investigate possible management alternatives to

address this problem.

9. Sandhill Cranes

The Service requests the assistance of the Central and Pacific

Flyway Councils in the development and implementation of improved

techniques to monitor the annual population status of the Rocky

Mountain Population of Greater Sandhill Cranes. In the interim, the

Service recommends that the Flyway Councils continue to use the

population, recruitment, and permit- allocation procedures in the

cooperative management plan to set crane seasons in 1996-97.

14. Woodcock

The Service remains concerned about the gradual long-term declines

in woodcock populations in both the Eastern and Central Management

Regions. The primary causes of the declines appear to be degradation

and loss of suitable habitat on both the breeding and wintering

grounds. Available data suggest that woodcock are harvested at a

relatively low rate and that hunting mortality comprises a relatively

small proportion of overall annual mortality. The Service will continue

to work with the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils to review the

status of woodcock and cooperatively develop a harvest-management

strategy.

15. Band-tailed Pigeons

and wintering

grounds. Available data suggest that woodcock are harvested at a

relatively low rate and that hunting mortality comprises a relatively

small proportion of overall annual mortality. The Service will continue

to work with the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils to review the

status of woodcock and cooperatively develop a harvest-management

strategy.

15. Band-tailed Pigeons

The Service supports the continuation of hunting seasons on both

the Coastal and Interior Populations. The Service remains concerned,

however, about the long-term decline in the Coastal Population and

supports the continuation of restrictive harvest regulations. As in

1995, 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 1996-97

seasons. Indian tribes also should consider this situation when

proposing harvest regulations for this species.

BILLING CODE 4310-31-F

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22MR96.000

[FR Doc. 96-6981 Filed 3-21-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-31-C