Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings

Part V

Department of the Interior

_______________________________________________________________________

Fish and Wildlife Service

_______________________________________________________________________

50 CFR Part 20

Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird

Hunting Regulations; Proposed Rule

Rules

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN: 1018-AE14

Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game

Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

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

proposed in an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations

for certain migratory game birds for the 1997-98 hunting season. This

supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule;

announces a special meeting to discuss and review Adaptive Harvest

Management; announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee

and Flyway Councils meetings; and describes the proposed regulatory

alternatives for the 1997-98 duck hunting seasons and other proposed

changes from the 1996-97 hunting regulations.

n. This

supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule;

announces a special meeting to discuss and review Adaptive Harvest

Management; announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee

and Flyway Councils meetings; and describes the proposed regulatory

alternatives for the 1997-98 duck hunting seasons and other proposed

changes from the 1996-97 hunting regulations.

DATES: The Service will hold a special open meeting at 9:00 a.m. on

June 24, 1997, to review the concepts and process of Adaptive Harvest

Management. The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will

consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory

bird hunting at 8:30 a.m. on June 25 and 26, and for late-season

migratory bird hunting on August 5 and 6. The Service will hold public

hearings on proposed early- and late-season frameworks at 9:00 a.m. on

June 27 and August 7, 1997, respectively. The comment period for the

proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1997-98 duck hunting seasons

will end on July 3, 1997. The comment period for proposed migratory

bird hunting-season frameworks for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, and other early seasons will end on July 25, 1997. The

comment period for late-season proposals will end on September 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The Adaptive Harvest Management Meeting and the Service

Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet in room 200 of the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax

Drive, Arlington, Virginia. The Service will hold public hearings in

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

Street, NW., Washington, DC. Parties should submit written comments on

the proposals and/or a notice of intent to participate in either

hearing to the Chief, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, ms 634--ARLSQ, 1849 C

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240

ublic hearings in

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

Street, NW., Washington, DC. Parties should submit written comments on

the proposals and/or a notice of intent to participate in either

hearing to the Chief, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, ms 634--ARLSQ, 1849 C

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. The public may inspect comments

during normal business hours in room 634, ARLSQ Building, 4401 N.

Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, Office of

Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-

1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 1997

On March 13, 1997, the Service published in the Federal Register

(62 FR 12054) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal dealt

with the establishment of seasons, limits, and other regulations for

migratory game birds under Secs. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and

20.110 of subpart K. This document is the second in a series of

proposed, supplemental, and final rules for migratory game bird hunting

regulations. The Service will propose early-season frameworks in late

June and late-season frameworks in early August. The Service will

publish final regulatory alternatives for the 1997-98 duck hunting

seasons in mid-July and final regulatory frameworks for early seasons

on or about August 20, 1997, and those for late seasons on or about

September 25, 1997.

On June 27, 1997, the Service will hold a public hearing in

Washington, DC, to review the status of migratory shore and upland game

birds and waterfowl hunted during early seasons and the recommended

hunting regulations for these species.

On August 7, 1997, the Service will hold a public hearing in

Washington, DC, to review the status of waterfowl and recommended

hunting regulations for regular waterfowl seasons, and other species

and seasons not previously discussed at the June 27 public hearing.

y shore and upland game

birds and waterfowl hunted during early seasons and the recommended

hunting regulations for these species.

On August 7, 1997, the Service will hold a public hearing in

Washington, DC, to review the status of waterfowl and recommended

hunting regulations for regular waterfowl seasons, and other species

and seasons not previously discussed at the June 27 public hearing.

Announcement of Adaptive Harvest Management Meeting

The June 24 meeting will review the concepts and process of

Adaptive Harvest Management. Representatives from the Service, the

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee, and Flyway Council

Consultants will attend.

Announcement of Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee

Meetings

The June 25 meeting will review information on the current status

of migratory shore and upland game birds and develop 1997-98 migratory

game bird regulations recommendations 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. In addition, the Service will review and discuss

preliminary information on the status of waterfowl as it relates to the

development of the final regulatory packages for the 1997-98 regular

waterfowl seasons. The June 26 meeting will ensure that the Service

develops its regulations recommendations in full consultation.

The August 5 meeting will review information on the current status

of waterfowl and develop 1997-98 migratory game bird regulations

recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and other species and

seasons not previously discussed at the early season meetings. The

August 6 meeting will ensure that the Service develops its regulations

recommendations in full consultation.

In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to

public observation

of waterfowl and develop 1997-98 migratory game bird regulations

recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and other species and

seasons not previously discussed at the early season meetings. The

August 6 meeting will ensure that the Service develops its regulations

recommendations in full consultation.

In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to

public observation. Members of the public may submit written comments

on the matters discussed to the Director.

Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings

Service representatives will be present at the following meetings

of the Flyway Councils:

Atlantic Flyway--July 31-August 1, Savannah Georgia (Savannah

Marriott River Front)

Central Flyway--July 30-31, Cypress Hills, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Mississippi Flyway--July 30-31, Hot Springs, Arkansas

Pacific Flyway--July 30-31, Reno, Nevada (Peppermill Hotel)

Although agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually

commence at 8:30 a.m. on the days indicated.

Review of Public Comments

This supplemental rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory

alternatives for the 1997-98 duck hunting seasons. All comments and

recommendations received through May 1, 1997, relating to the

development of these alternatives are included and addressed herein.

This supplemental rulemaking also describes other recommended

changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the March 13,

1997, Federal Register. Only those recommendations requiring either new

proposals or substantial modification of the preliminary proposals are

included here. This supplement does not include recommendations that

support or oppose but do not recommend alternatives to the preliminary

proposals. The Service will consider these comments later in the

regulations-development process. The Service will publish responses to

all proposals, written comments, and public-hearing testimony when it

develops final frameworks

liminary proposals are

included here. This supplement does not include recommendations that

support or oppose but do not recommend alternatives to the preliminary

proposals. The Service will consider these comments later in the

regulations-development process. The Service will publish responses to

all proposals, written comments, and public-hearing testimony when it

develops final frameworks.

The Service seeks additional information and comments on the

recommendations in this supplemental proposed rule. The Service will

consider all recommendations and associated comments during development

of the final frameworks.

New proposals and modifications to previously described proposals

are discussed below. Wherever possible, they are discussed under

headings corresponding to the numbered items in the March 13, 1997,

Federal Register.

General

Written Comments: Several individuals from Tennessee and

Mississippi recommended either a noon or 1:00 p.m. closing time for

duck hunting, citing positive benefits to the duck population and law

enforcement.

An individual from Minnesota urged elimination of the 4:00 p.m.

closing time in Minnesota.

1. Ducks

Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest

management are: (A) Harvest Strategy Considerations, (B) Framework

Dates, (C) Season Length, (D) Closed Seasons, (E) Bag Limits, (F) Zones

and Split Seasons, and (G) Special Seasons/Species Management.

Categories containing substantial recommendations are discussed below.

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

ime in Minnesota.

1. Ducks

Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest

management are: (A) Harvest Strategy Considerations, (B) Framework

Dates, (C) Season Length, (D) Closed Seasons, (E) Bag Limits, (F) Zones

and Split Seasons, and (G) Special Seasons/Species Management.

Categories containing substantial recommendations are discussed below.

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

On March 13, 1997, the Service published for public comment

recommendations from the Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) technical

working group regarding modification of the regulatory alternatives for

duck hunting (62 FR 12054). If adopted, significant changes from the

alternatives utilized in 1996-97 would include: (1) addition of a

``very restrictive'' alternative; (2) additional days and a higher

total-duck daily bag limit in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal''

alternatives; and (3) an increase in the daily bag limit of hen

mallards in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal'' alternatives.

Council Recommendations: All four Flyway Councils generally

endorsed the regulatory alternatives recommended by the AHM technical

working group that were identified in the March 13, 1997, Federal

Register. However, some modifications were recommended and are

identified below.

The Atlantic Flyway Council endorsed the four regulatory

alternatives for the Atlantic Flyway, with the exception of the total

duck bag limit and hen mallard bag limit restrictions (see further

discussion in E. Bag Limits).

The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the

Mississippi Flyway Council endorsed the regulatory packages for the

Mississippi Flyway for the 1997-98 season, with the Lower-Region

Regulations Committee also recommending an experimental framework

closing date (see further discussion in B. Framework Dates)

hen mallard bag limit restrictions (see further

discussion in E. Bag Limits).

The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the

Mississippi Flyway Council endorsed the regulatory packages for the

Mississippi Flyway for the 1997-98 season, with the Lower-Region

Regulations Committee also recommending an experimental framework

closing date (see further discussion in B. Framework Dates).

The Central Flyway Council endorsed the regulatory packages with

the exception of recommending a harvest strategy for pintails and an

earlier framework opening date for northern states (see further

discussions in B. Framework Dates and G. Special Seasons/Species

Management, ii. Pintails).

The Pacific Flyway Council endorsed the working group's recommended

alternatives with several modifications. The Council recommended minor

changes in season length and the hen mallard bag limit and adoption of

an interim pintail harvest strategy (see further discussion in C.

Season Length, E. Bag Limits and G. Special Seasons/Species Management,

ii. Pintails).

Written Comments: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

(Minnesota) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources supported

the packages proposed by the AHM technical working group, although both

stated that the packages provide little additional benefit to hunters

in northern States. Minnesota noted that AHM brings more science,

better decisions and less politics into the regulations-setting

process. Minnesota also expressed support for the working group's

recommended ``liberal'' alternative despite their belief that it

essentially changes the allocation of harvest, providing additional

opportunity to mid-latitude and southern States while limiting

Minnesota hunter opportunities due to typical freeze-up dates.

The Missouri Department of Conservation (Missouri) supported the

working group's recommendations and further supported any change among

the various options that provided a consistent, science-based approach

to waterfowl management

tion of harvest, providing additional

opportunity to mid-latitude and southern States while limiting

Minnesota hunter opportunities due to typical freeze-up dates.

The Missouri Department of Conservation (Missouri) supported the

working group's recommendations and further supported any change among

the various options that provided a consistent, science-based approach

to waterfowl management. Missouri further commented that the strengths

of AHM are the shared objectives and improved use of available

information and that State and region-specific proposals generated

outside the AHM process jeopardize this improved waterfowl management

decision-making process.

The North American Waterfowl Federation (NAWF) supported the

development and implementation of AHM in setting waterfowl regulations

but did not support the liberalizations proposed by the working group

regarding increases in season lengths and bag limits. NAWF believed

that extensive changes were premature and did not provide adequate

consideration for population impacts. NAWF pointed out that several

species of waterfowl had not yet reached population goals and that

additional harvest did not appear justified. NAWF was also not aware of

any initiative or substantial interest among the duck hunting public

for an expansion of hunting opportunities and questioned whether the

interests of hunters were being represented.

The Delta Wildlife Foundation and the Delta Outfitters Association

of Mississippi and the Alabama Waterfowl Association expressed support

for the recommendations of the Lower-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council.

The Louisiana Wildlife Federation supported the establishment of a

``more'' or ``most'' liberal alternative for those years when duck

reproduction was high and the population could support additional

harvest.

Several individuals from Louisiana fully supported the working

group's recommendations

the working group's recommendation

for extended season lengths under the ``moderate'' and ``liberal''

alternatives.

An individual from Kansas strongly supported the addition of a

``very restrictive'' alternative as a management tool.

An individual from Oregon was concerned about potential increases

in mallard harvest given the population status of mallards and recent

season liberalizations.

Several individuals from Ohio, California, and Pennsylvania opposed

all increases in either daily bag limits or season lengths on moral

grounds, with some calling for overall reductions in hunting

opportunities.

Service Response: Comments received to date regarding the

recommendations of the AHM technical working group generally have been

favorable. Therefore, the Service is proposing to adopt most of the

recommendations of the AHM working group. Minor differences between the

working group's recommendations and the Service's proposal are noted

under C. Season Lengths, E. Bag Limits, and G. Special Seasons/Species

Management, ii. Pintails. The Service notes a number of comments

suggesting some hunters may not be interested in more liberal

regulations, even though they may be biologically acceptable.

For the 1997-98 regular duck hunting season, the Service proposes

the four regulatory alternatives detailed in the accompanying table.

Alternatives are specified for each Flyway and are designated as ``VERY

RES'' for the very restrictive, ``RES'' for the restrictive, ``MOD''

for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal alternative. The Service

will publish final regulatory alternatives in July and propose a

specific regulatory alternative when survey data on waterfowl

population and habitat status are available. Public comments will be

accepted until June 27, 1997, and should be sent to the address under

the caption ADDRESSES.

B. Framework Dates

ctive, ``MOD''

for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal alternative. The Service

will publish final regulatory alternatives in July and propose a

specific regulatory alternative when survey data on waterfowl

population and habitat status are available. Public comments will be

accepted until June 27, 1997, and should be sent to the address under

the caption ADDRESSES.

B. Framework Dates

Council Recommendations: The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended the Service allow an

experimental January 31 framework closing date, as long as it does not

affect regulations/framework packages in non-participatory States.

The Central Flyway Council recommended a framework opening date of

the Saturday nearest September 23 in North Dakota, South Dakota,

Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Nebraska.

Written Comments: The State of North Dakota provided a concurrent

resolution urging the Service to adopt a framework opening date of

September 20.

The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

recommended a framework closing date of January 31 under the

``liberal'' and ``moderate'' alternatives. In lieu of this option, they

suggested an experimental season of 3 to 5 years for a limited number

of States in order to determine any resulting detrimental effects from

the later framework closing date.

Senators Trent Lott and Thad Cochran of Mississippi urged support

for extending the framework closing date to January 31 in Mississippi

with the same number of days and bag limit as other States in the

Mississippi Flyway.

The Mississippi State Senate provided a concurrent resolution

urging the Mississippi U.S. Congressional delegation to express to the

Service the need and support for a duck hunting framework closing date

of January 31 for the Mississippi Flyway

tending the framework closing date to January 31 in Mississippi

with the same number of days and bag limit as other States in the

Mississippi Flyway.

The Mississippi State Senate provided a concurrent resolution

urging the Mississippi U.S. Congressional delegation to express to the

Service the need and support for a duck hunting framework closing date

of January 31 for the Mississippi Flyway. The resolution stated that

peak duck populations in Mississippi occur from late December through

January, a January 31 framework closing date would not adversely impact

the survival rate of ducks, and Mississippi hunters were denied the

same opportunity to hunt ducks afforded to hunters in the northern and

central portions of the Mississippi Flyway.

The City of Grenada, Mississippi, urged consideration of a season

ending after the first week in February so as to allow Mississippi

hunters the same hunting opportunities afforded other States in the

Mississippi Flyway.

The Mississippi Wildlife Federation expressed support for a later

framework closing date in January, citing the fact that Mississippi

overwinters the third largest number of waterfowl in the Mississippi

Flyway, but only ranks 11th out of 14 States in the Flyway in waterfowl

harvest.

One hundred and twenty-six individual commenters and 107

petitioners from Mississippi recommended a framework closing date

extension to January 31. Most commenters believed the majority of

waterfowl do not arrive in Mississippi until mid- to late-January after

the current season closes. Further, many cited the opinion that due to

the Service's unfair frameworks policy, southern waterfowlers are not

given the same hunting opportunities as those given to hunters in

northern States.

Twenty-two individuals and eleven petitioners from Mississippi

recommended a framework closing date extension to February 9. One

individual from Mississippi recommended a season running through the

middle of February

the opinion that due to

the Service's unfair frameworks policy, southern waterfowlers are not

given the same hunting opportunities as those given to hunters in

northern States.

Twenty-two individuals and eleven petitioners from Mississippi

recommended a framework closing date extension to February 9. One

individual from Mississippi recommended a season running through the

middle of February.

Three individuals from Alabama urged the Service to consider

extending the framework closing date to at least January 31.

The Louisiana Wildlife Federation supported modifying the framework

closing date to allow hunting through the last weekend in January,

provided that the late-season disturbance was not shown to be an

impediment to the overall population or to achieving the NAWMP goals.

Several individuals from Louisiana recommended a duck hunting

season closing the end of January.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (Minnesota) expressed

serious concerns about the proposals to extend framework opening and

closing dates stating that the proposed changes would alter the current

distribution of duck harvest within and among Flyways. Minnesota

commented that shifting hunting opportunity further to the south

through a framework extension would be unacceptable to Minnesota and

would allow a reallocation of harvest by default.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin) did not

support modification of the frameworks at this time. Wisconsin stated,

however, that if the Service were to seriously consider changing the

framework closing date, it must also consider changes to the framework

opening date. Wisconsin believed that extending the framework date to

the end of January without modifying the opening framework dates would

only serve to widen the gap in hunting opportunities currently offered

in the Mississippi Flyway

isconsin stated,

however, that if the Service were to seriously consider changing the

framework closing date, it must also consider changes to the framework

opening date. Wisconsin believed that extending the framework date to

the end of January without modifying the opening framework dates would

only serve to widen the gap in hunting opportunities currently offered

in the Mississippi Flyway. Wisconsin further recommended that the

Service establish a timetable and a process to allow a thorough

discussion of the implications of framework modification for all

Flyways.

Although supporting the working group's recommended packages, the

Missouri Department of Conservation (Missouri) believed the 1996-97

regulations provided excellent hunting opportunity and would prefer

retaining these options rather than any additional wholesale changes in

frameworks. Missouri was concerned that the potential biological

impacts of

framework extensions had not been adequately considered and that a

rigorous evaluation would be necessary. Missouri further believed that

this was not a high priority for AHM at this time and questioned

whether issues of harvest allocation should even be a part of the AHM

process, stating that these issues were largely social, not technical.

Several individuals from Tennessee and Louisiana expressed strong

opposition to extending the framework closing date past January 20,

citing concerns for the conditions of the ducks and the lack of hunting

opportunity later in January.

The California Waterfowl Association expressed concerns about the

impacts of either earlier framework opening dates or later framework

closing dates.

Individuals in Pennsylvania and Iowa believed the season in their

respective States closed too early.

Individuals in California and Oregon expressed support for

extending the hunting season

nd the lack of hunting

opportunity later in January.

The California Waterfowl Association expressed concerns about the

impacts of either earlier framework opening dates or later framework

closing dates.

Individuals in Pennsylvania and Iowa believed the season in their

respective States closed too early.

Individuals in California and Oregon expressed support for

extending the hunting season.

Service Response: In 1995, the Service established AHM framework

opening and closing dates of the Saturday nearest October 1 to the

Sunday nearest January 20 for the Pacific, Central, and Mississippi

Flyways, and fixed dates of October 1 to January 20 for the Atlantic

Flyway (60 FR 50045). In 1996, the Service denied requests for a

January 31 closing date in Mississippi, but recognized that the

suitability of all aspects of the regulatory alternatives, including

framework dates, should be investigated by the AHM technical working

group. All four Flyway Councils, in joint recommendations dated July

28, 1996, assigned a high priority to refining the AHM regulatory

alternatives and asked the technical working group to draft

recommendations prior to the 1997 regulatory cycle. In the fall of

1996, the technical working group circulated a questionnaire to all

States seeking input regarding concerns with the current regulatory

alternatives. Fifty-four percent of States nationwide believed the

current framework dates of approximately October 1 to January 20 were

satisfactory, while 32 percent believed the dates were too constrained.

Overall, States ranked framework dates as the sixth most important

regulatory issue, after issues involving season lengths, bag limits,

and the number of regulatory alternatives. The Service recognizes that

questionnaires received from Central and Mississippi Flyway States

indicated a somewhat higher level of dissatisfaction with established

framework dates than the national average

trained.

Overall, States ranked framework dates as the sixth most important

regulatory issue, after issues involving season lengths, bag limits,

and the number of regulatory alternatives. The Service recognizes that

questionnaires received from Central and Mississippi Flyway States

indicated a somewhat higher level of dissatisfaction with established

framework dates than the national average.

After extensive deliberation and consideration of input by States

and Flyway Councils, the AHM technical working group recommended no

change in framework dates from those established in 1995 (62 FR 12054).

The Service's Migratory Bird Regulations Committee reviewed the working

group's recommendations with the Flyway Council Regulations Consultants

at the January 23, 1997, meeting and there were no indications that

framework dates of approximately October 1 to January 20 would not be

satisfactory to most States. On April 22, 1997, representatives from

the Service met with Flyway Council Chairmen and Regulations

Consultants to consider the Flyway Councils recommendations for the AHM

regulatory alternatives. Representatives from the Atlantic, Central,

and Pacific Flyway Councils, and from the Upper-Region Regulations

Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council, agreed that framework

dates should not be extended beyond those currently in use for the

1997-98 season; however, the representatives agreed the issue should be

reviewed further by the AHM working group and all four Flyway Councils.

Therefore, the Service has adopted the working group's recommendation

for framework dates of approximately October 1 to January 20 for all

AHM regulatory alternatives as its formal proposal.

In considering requests for either earlier or later framework

dates, such as those described above, the Service will focus on the

following issues:

by the AHM working group and all four Flyway Councils.

Therefore, the Service has adopted the working group's recommendation

for framework dates of approximately October 1 to January 20 for all

AHM regulatory alternatives as its formal proposal.

In considering requests for either earlier or later framework

dates, such as those described above, the Service will focus on the

following issues:

(1) Possible changes in the size of the harvest. Experience with

hunting seasons opening more than a few days before October 1 or

closing similarly after January 20 is limited. Mississippi experimented

with a January 31 closing date during 1979-84, and Iowa was permitted

an opening date for a small portion of their regular duck season of

approximately September 20 during 1979-87 and 1994-96 in lieu of an

early teal season. In both States, harvests of mallards and total ducks

were higher in years with a framework extension, relative to

surrounding States where a framework extension was not available. If

results from these States are representative, then proposals to extend

framework dates in the Central and Mississippi Flyways would be

expected to increase the harvest of midcontinent mallards by 13 percent

(10% range of error). This increase would be in addition to the 20

percent increase in mallard harvest expected from the proposed increase

in season length under the ``liberal'' alternative. The Service

predicts that adoption of the Central and Mississippi Flyway proposals

would lead to a more conservative harvest strategy for all States,

whether or not they could take advantage of the extended framework

dates. The Service also predicts more frequent changes in regulations

and more variability in population size of midcontinent mallards if the

Central and Mississippi Flyway proposals were adopted.

ts that adoption of the Central and Mississippi Flyway proposals

would lead to a more conservative harvest strategy for all States,

whether or not they could take advantage of the extended framework

dates. The Service also predicts more frequent changes in regulations

and more variability in population size of midcontinent mallards if the

Central and Mississippi Flyway proposals were adopted.

(2) Re-allocation of hunting opportunity and harvest within and

among Flyways. Based on the survey conducted by the AHM technical

working group, most States are satisfied with the distribution of

hunting opportunity within and among Flyways. Nationwide, concerns

regarding allocation of hunting opportunity among States ranked last

among those concerns with the current AHM regulatory alternatives.

Also, all Flyway Councils passed a joint recommendation (July 28, 1996)

asking the Service to maintain traditional allocations of hunting

opportunity among Flyways when considering changes to the AHM

regulatory alternatives. The Service agrees with the Flyway Councils

that resolving outstanding disputes over allocation will require

development of an appropriate framework for discussion and that

progress is unlikely prior to the 1997 hunting season. (3) The

potential for negative physiological impacts on ducks.

The Service reiterates its long-standing concerns that hunting

disturbance in late winter may interfere with pair-bonding and inhibit

nutrient acquisition necessary for successful migration and

reproduction (61 FR 50664). Information from a recent study of late-

winter mate loss among captive-reared mallards by Mississippi State

University has not alleviated these concerns because these preliminary

study results cannot necessarily be applied to free-ranging mallards or

other species.

interfere with pair-bonding and inhibit

nutrient acquisition necessary for successful migration and

reproduction (61 FR 50664). Information from a recent study of late-

winter mate loss among captive-reared mallards by Mississippi State

University has not alleviated these concerns because these preliminary

study results cannot necessarily be applied to free-ranging mallards or

other species.

The Service does not wish to prejudge a discussion about allocation

of duck hunting opportunity, but is confused about public comments that

hunters in the southern Mississippi Flyway are not afforded the same

hunting opportunities as their northern counterparts. States of the

southern Mississippi Flyway collectively enjoy hunter success (as

measured by seasonal duck harvest per hunter) that is higher than that

in any region of the country. Moreover, hunter success in the

Mississippi Flyway is about twice as high in southern States as in

northern and mid-latitude States, and this discrepancy has been

increasing steadily over time. The State of Mississippi has the fourth

highest

hunter success in the country, after Louisiana, California, and

Arkansas.

In summary, the Service is not proposing at this time to extend

framework dates beyond those currently in use. However, the Service

seeks further clarification from the Flyway Councils, States, and the

public regarding the relative importance of this issue and requests

comments concerning the three issues described above. The Service

believes strongly that potential changes to framework dates must be

approached in a methodical and comprehensive manner, and with due

consideration of both biological and sociological impacts.

C. Season Length

Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended the

``restrictive'' regulatory package for their Flyway be modified from 59

days to 60 days.

cribed above. The Service

believes strongly that potential changes to framework dates must be

approached in a methodical and comprehensive manner, and with due

consideration of both biological and sociological impacts.

C. Season Length

Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended the

``restrictive'' regulatory package for their Flyway be modified from 59

days to 60 days.

Written Comments: The Alabama Department of Conservation and

Natural Resources recommended the ``very restrictive'' alternative be

23 days rather than 20 days to allow for 4 full weekends of hunting.

The California Waterfowl Association supported the addition of 1

day to the ``restrictive'' alternative in the Pacific Flyway.

Several individuals from Minnesota opposed increases in the season

length under the ``liberal'' alternative, arguing that it would only

benefit the southern States in the Mississippi Flyway.

An individual from Louisiana believed that seasons should be

lengthened by 5 to 10 days.

Individuals from Kansas and Washington believed that season lengths

should be extended as opposed to additional birds in the daily bag

limit.

An individual from Oregon believed that season lengths did not need

to be any longer.

An individual from Oregon expressed support for lengthening the

seasons.

Service Response: The Service agrees with the Pacific Flyway

Council's recommendation to modify the ``restrictive'' alternative to

60 days rather than 59 days in the Pacific Flyway. This modification

would allow those States opting to split their seasons into 2 segments

to open on a Saturday and close on a Sunday in each segment as has been

traditional in the Pacific Flyway. The Service notes that this option

becomes increasingly important to States as season length decreases and

would not be a primary consideration under more liberal seasons.

E. Bag Limits

ific Flyway. This modification

would allow those States opting to split their seasons into 2 segments

to open on a Saturday and close on a Sunday in each segment as has been

traditional in the Pacific Flyway. The Service notes that this option

becomes increasingly important to States as season length decreases and

would not be a primary consideration under more liberal seasons.

E. Bag Limits

Council Recommendations: The Mississippi, Central, and Pacific

Flyway Councils endorsed the AHM working group's recommendations for

total duck bag limits. The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended a

uniform total duck bag limit of 4 in all Atlantic Flyway regulatory

packages to minimize the frequency of changes.

All Flyway Councils supported the basic mallard daily bag limits as

recommended by the working group in each of the regulatory packages.

However, the Atlantic and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended

modifications to the hen mallard daily bag limit in the ``liberal''

package. The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that there be no hen

mallard restrictions and the Pacific Flyway Council recommended a daily

bag limit of 3 hen mallards instead of 2.

Written Comments: The South Carolina Department of Natural

Resources recommended the Service adopt the 6-bird daily bag limit

recommended by the working group and retain hen mallard restrictions

outlined in the ``liberal'' regulations package.

The California Waterfowl Association supported the working group's

recommendation of adding a second hen mallard to the daily bag limits

under the ``moderate'' and ``liberal'' alternatives. They further

recommended adding a third hen mallard under the Pacific Flyway's

``liberal'' alternative.

The Save Hens Alliance did not support an increase in the hen

mallard daily bag limit, indicating that hen restrictions have had a

positive effect on yearly breeding stocks

mendation of adding a second hen mallard to the daily bag limits

under the ``moderate'' and ``liberal'' alternatives. They further

recommended adding a third hen mallard under the Pacific Flyway's

``liberal'' alternative.

The Save Hens Alliance did not support an increase in the hen

mallard daily bag limit, indicating that hen restrictions have had a

positive effect on yearly breeding stocks. They further pointed out

that a high percentage of hens surviving until the last few weeks of

the season could be expected to return to breeding areas. As an

alternative, they recommended that an extra drake mallard be added to

the mallard daily bag limit.

The Great Outdoors, L.L.C., urged the Service to not tease the

dedicated duck hunter with regulations that are not sustainable. They

stated that the rebound in duck populations is due to a reversal in

weather patterns, habitat improvements like the Conservation Reserve

Program, and restrictions on season length and bag limits. They further

pointed out that hunters are not requesting these liberalizations in

seasons and believed that liberalizations in the shooting of hens was

not ethical. They also believed that the increased use of zone/split

seasons by States has increased the potential for higher harvests.

Finally, they encouraged the Service to exercise common sense,

restraint, and ethics, which are the foundations upon which

sportsmanship is based.

Several individuals from Louisiana preferred additional birds in

the daily bag limit rather than additional days of season length.

Several individuals from Louisiana and individuals from Kansas,

Minnesota, and California supported the working group's recommendation

of additional days in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal'' alternatives,

but recommended daily bag limits of no more than 5 birds.

Several individuals from Oregon and Louisiana believed that current

bag limits provided plenty of hunter opportunity

season length.

Several individuals from Louisiana and individuals from Kansas,

Minnesota, and California supported the working group's recommendation

of additional days in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal'' alternatives,

but recommended daily bag limits of no more than 5 birds.

Several individuals from Oregon and Louisiana believed that current

bag limits provided plenty of hunter opportunity.

Several individuals from Louisiana recommended a daily bag limit of

1 hen mallard under the ``liberal'' alternative rather than the working

group's recommendation of 2, while another individual supported any

increase in the overall daily bag limit.

An individual from California expressed support for no internal

bag-limit restrictions, while an individual from Oregon recommended

holding bag limits at the ``restrictive'' alternative level.

Service Response: As indicated above, the Service concurs with the

recommendations for regulatory packages drafted by the AHM working

group. The Service supports the Atlantic Flyway Council's request to

have more restrictive bag limits of 4 rather than 6 in the ``moderate''

and ``liberal'' packages, but does not support having a 4-bird daily

bag limit instead of 3 in the ``restrictive'' and ``very restrictive''

packages. Maintaining a 4-bird daily bag limit during restrictive

seasons has the potential to increase harvests at a time when attempts

are being made to reduce harvest.

Regarding mallard hen restrictions, the Service does not support

the changes in hen restrictions recommended by the Atlantic and Pacific

Flyway Councils. Although the role of sex-specific bag limits in

regulating mallard harvests, total mortality, and recruitment is

uncertain, sex-specific bag limits for mallards have been used since

the early 1970's. Lower female (relative to male) bag limits (hen

restrictions) have been used during 1972-96 in the Central Flyway,

since 1976 in the Mississippi Flyway, and beginning in 1985 in the

Atlantic and Pacific Flyways

e of sex-specific bag limits in

regulating mallard harvests, total mortality, and recruitment is

uncertain, sex-specific bag limits for mallards have been used since

the early 1970's. Lower female (relative to male) bag limits (hen

restrictions) have been used during 1972-96 in the Central Flyway,

since 1976 in the Mississippi Flyway, and beginning in 1985 in the

Atlantic and Pacific Flyways. These differential regulations were

intended to direct harvest pressure away from females and thus increase

annual survival of females relative to males in the population.

Recent analysis of the effects of mallard hen restrictions have

shown

these restrictions to have been effective in increasing the harvest of

males relative to females. However, the effects of changes in female

mallard bag limits on overall mallard population status and on species

that are similar in appearance to mallards are unknown.

The Service supports the AHM working group's recommendation of a

moderate increase in the female mallard bag limits in the ``moderate''

and ``liberal'' alternatives, but does not support the larger increases

recommended by the Atlantic and Pacific Flyway Councils. The Service

continues to support the use of regulations for mallards that emphasize

protection of females while allowing optimum recreational opportunity

on males. Therefore, the Service believes that it would be premature to

remove hen restrictions without further investigation of the potential

biological and social consequences of such changes. Further, the

Service is concerned about the potential of synergistic effects of

removing hen restrictions on the harvest of similar appearing species

like mottled or black ducks.

F. Zones and Split Seasons

es. Therefore, the Service believes that it would be premature to

remove hen restrictions without further investigation of the potential

biological and social consequences of such changes. Further, the

Service is concerned about the potential of synergistic effects of

removing hen restrictions on the harvest of similar appearing species

like mottled or black ducks.

F. Zones and Split Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended the Service allow ``3 zones

and 2-way splits in one or more zones'' as an additional option to the

current zoning process. The Committee also requested that the Service

allow States up to 1 year to choose this option, based on the public-

input process States undertake, before they provide the Service with

their proposal (prior to the 1998-99 regular-duck season).

Written Comments: The Louisiana Wildlife Federation urged the

Service to consider allowing Louisiana to split into north and south

zones for duck hunting.

G. Special Seasons/Species Management

i. Canvasback

Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended the Service continue its use

of the Office of Migratory Bird Management's January 1994 ``Draft--

Canvasback Harvest Management: An Interim Strategy'' to guide the 1997-

98 regulatory decisions on canvasback.

ii. Pintails

hunting.

G. Special Seasons/Species Management

i. Canvasback

Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended the Service continue its use

of the Office of Migratory Bird Management's January 1994 ``Draft--

Canvasback Harvest Management: An Interim Strategy'' to guide the 1997-

98 regulatory decisions on canvasback.

ii. Pintails

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council, the Upper-

Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council, and the

Central Flyway Council did not endorse the Pacific Flyway Council's

``Proposed Interim Strategy for Northern Pintail Harvest Regulations''

as circulated for Councils' review in February of this year.

The Central Flyway Council recommended an interim, prescriptive

method for determining pintail daily bag limits based on the breeding

population size. The pintail limit would be 1 with a breeding

population below 3.0 million; 2 with a breeding population between 3.0

and 4.5 million; 3 with a breeding population between 4.5 and 5.6

million; and equal to the overall daily bag limit with a breeding

population above 5.6 million.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended adoption of a revised

``Proposed Interim Harvest Strategy.'' The Council's revised interim

strategy included several modifications intended to address the

concerns expressed by the other Flyway Councils and by the Service

technical review. The revised interim strategy was presented to the

Service and the other three Flyways at the April 22, 1997, AHM meeting

in Arlington, VA.

The revised strategy is based on a mathematical model of the

continental pintail population, which assumes that:

(1) the size of the continental population can be effectively

monitored through spring surveys in the northcentral U.S., Central

Canada, and Alaska,

(2) mortality due to hunting is additive to natural mortality,

(3) harvest in Canada and Alaska is relatively constant from one

year to the next,

ategy is based on a mathematical model of the

continental pintail population, which assumes that:

(1) the size of the continental population can be effectively

monitored through spring surveys in the northcentral U.S., Central

Canada, and Alaska,

(2) mortality due to hunting is additive to natural mortality,

(3) harvest in Canada and Alaska is relatively constant from one

year to the next,

(4) crippling loss is constant and proportional to the size of

the retrieved harvest,

(5) recruitment of young birds can be reasonably predicted based

on the distribution of breeding pintails, and

(6) harvest of pintails can be reasonably predicted based on the

length of the season and pintail bag limit in each Flyway.

The model predicts allowable harvest of pintails in the lower 48

States based on the current size of the pintail breeding population,

anticipated recruitment, anticipated natural mortality, anticipated

mortality due to hunting, and the desired size of the population in the

following spring.

Written Comments: The California Waterfowl Association urged

adoption of a pintail interim AHM model for determining alternative

daily bag limits for the 1997-98 hunting season.

An individual from Louisiana recommended a daily bag limit of 2

pintails, only 1 of which could be a hen, under the ``liberal''

alternative.

An individual from Oregon was concerned about potential increases

in pintail harvest given the population status of pintails.

An individual in Louisiana believed that the pintail season should

be closed since the population had not recovered despite good breeding

conditions.

Service Response: The Service remains concerned about the overall

status of the continental population of northern pintails. The breeding

population of northern pintails was an estimated 2,735,900 in 1996,

which was 38 percent below the 1955-95 average and more than 50 percent

below the population objective established in the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan

ood breeding

conditions.

Service Response: The Service remains concerned about the overall

status of the continental population of northern pintails. The breeding

population of northern pintails was an estimated 2,735,900 in 1996,

which was 38 percent below the 1955-95 average and more than 50 percent

below the population objective established in the North American

Waterfowl Management Plan.

The Service recognizes the value of developing a strategy for

determining pintail hunting regulations that is technically sound and

explicitly promotes growth of the pintail population. The Service

believes that ultimately pintail hunting regulations should be guided

by a formal AHM process. This year, a cooperative effort began to

develop the needed technical foundation for a more formal incorporation

of pintails into the AHM process. The Service recognizes and greatly

appreciates the support for this effort provided by the Flyway Councils

and participating non-governmental organizations. However, since it

likely will require about three more years to complete the development

and implementation of this new process, the Service believes there is

merit in adopting an interim prescriptive strategy for the management

of pintail harvest until the species can be fully addressed by the AHM

process.

In the July 22, 1996, Federal Register (61 FR 37994), the Service

indicated that the adoption of any interim strategy would be dependent

on how the strategy addressed three key concerns: (1) explicit harvest-

management objectives, (2) comprehensive model development for

continental pintails, and (3) a consideration of the regulatory

constraints imposed by the adaptive harvest strategy for mid-continent

mallards. We believe that the strategy recommended by the Pacific

Flyway Council more satisfactorily addresses these elements than does

the strategy recommended by the Central Flyway

licit harvest-

management objectives, (2) comprehensive model development for

continental pintails, and (3) a consideration of the regulatory

constraints imposed by the adaptive harvest strategy for mid-continent

mallards. We believe that the strategy recommended by the Pacific

Flyway Council more satisfactorily addresses these elements than does

the strategy recommended by the Central Flyway. Therefore, the Service

proposes to adopt the revised interim harvest strategy proposed by the

Pacific Flyway Council, with the following modifications: (1) the

maximum pintail daily bag limit under any regulatory alternative in any

Flyway would be limited to 3 pintails, and (2) that this interim

strategy will be replaced by a more fully adaptive approach at the

earliest opportunity. Further, we believe the interim pintail harvest

strategy should be thoroughly reviewed in about 3 years, regardless of

whether a more adaptive approach is available at that time.

The technical details of the Pacific Flyway Proposal are available

by writing directly to MBMO at the address indicated under the caption

ADDRESSES.

iii. September Teal Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended the continuance of the

experimental September teal/wood duck seasons in Kentucky and Tennessee

for the 1997-98 season with no change from the 1996-97 season

frameworks.

The Central Flyway Council recommended a 3-year experimental teal

harvest strategy in the Central Flyway based on the breeding population

of blue-winged teal. When the 3-year running average breeding

population of blue-winged teal is 4.7 million or greater, the Council's

recommended harvest strategy would consist of two changes to the

current September teal season frameworks. First, in those Central

Flyway States currently allowed a September teal season, an additional

7 days of hunting (for a total of 16 days) and 1 additional teal (for a

total of 5 teal) would be allowed

erage breeding

population of blue-winged teal is 4.7 million or greater, the Council's

recommended harvest strategy would consist of two changes to the

current September teal season frameworks. First, in those Central

Flyway States currently allowed a September teal season, an additional

7 days of hunting (for a total of 16 days) and 1 additional teal (for a

total of 5 teal) would be allowed. Second, for Central Flyway

production States, the recommended harvest strategy would provide for a

season of up to 7 days, beginning no earlier than September 20, and a

daily bag limit of 4 ducks, 3 of which must be teal. The Council

further recommended that the Service work with the States to

cooperatively develop an experimental design and criteria to adequately

evaluate the proposed expansion of teal harvest.

iv. September Duck Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that Iowa be allowed to open

the second segment of their split duck season no earlier than October

10, instead of October 15.

v. High Plains Mallard Management Unit

Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended

minor administrative changes to the High Plains Mallard Management Unit

boundary in North Dakota and South Dakota for boundary clarification

and wetland development.

vi. Youth Hunt

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended

the continuance of the youth waterfowl hunt day and requested the

Service announce their intent in June. The Council further recommended

that ducks, coots, mergansers, moorhens, brant and snow geese be open

to harvest on the special day and requested clarification of whether

youth may participate in other open migratory bird hunting seasons on

that day

The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended

the continuance of the youth waterfowl hunt day and requested the

Service announce their intent in June. The Council further recommended

that ducks, coots, mergansers, moorhens, brant and snow geese be open

to harvest on the special day and requested clarification of whether

youth may participate in other open migratory bird hunting seasons on

that day.

The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended that youth waterfowl hunt day bag limits be the

same as the regular-season bag limits and include ducks, geese, and

coots, with framework dates 14 days outside the regular duck-season

framework dates instead of 10.

The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended the inclusion of geese and coots in a 2-day youth

waterfowl hunting season, with framework dates 14 days outside of the

regular duck-season framework dates instead of 10.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended the continuation of the

youth hunt allowing States to select outside the general season and

frameworks.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended a

3-year experimental September Canada goose season in New Jersey with a

framework closing date of the first Saturday in October.

The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended an experimental framework

closing date of October 5 for the Long Island, New York, 1997 September

Canada Goose Season.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended expansion of the Washington

September Canada goose hunt zone to include all of Washington for 7

consecutive days. The Council also recommended the establishment of a

new 9-day season, with a 2-bird daily bag and possession limit, in

Humboldt County, California. Harvest of up to 200 birds would be

controlled through a regulated permit system.

B. Regular Seasons

ific Flyway Council recommended expansion of the Washington

September Canada goose hunt zone to include all of Washington for 7

consecutive days. The Council also recommended the establishment of a

new 9-day season, with a 2-bird daily bag and possession limit, in

Humboldt County, California. Harvest of up to 200 birds would be

controlled through a regulated permit system.

B. Regular Seasons

Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended Iowa be allowed to open its

regular Canada goose season on September 27, 1997, rather than on the

Saturday nearest October 1 (October 4, 1997).

7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese

Council Recommendations: The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of

the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended the Service follow the

regulatory changes for snow goose harvest endorsed by the Arctic Goose

Joint Venture Management Board.

The Central Flyway Council recommended the Service extend light

goose hunting in the Rainwater Basin region of Nebraska to March 10.

9. Sandhill Cranes

Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway and Pacific Flyway

Councils recommended that in Montana, sandhill cranes in Wheatland

County and that portion of Sweet Grass County north of I-90 be

delineated as Rocky Mountain Population sandhill cranes. Thus,

management of these cranes, including harvest, would be guided by the

Rocky Mountain Population Sandhill Crane Management Plan, rather than

the Mid-Continent Population Sandhill Crane Management Plan.

17. White-Winged and White-Tipped Doves

Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended

removing the restriction of no more than 6 white-winged doves in the

aggregate daily bag limit during the regular mourning dove season in

Texas.

18. Alaska

Rocky Mountain Population Sandhill Crane Management Plan, rather than

the Mid-Continent Population Sandhill Crane Management Plan.

17. White-Winged and White-Tipped Doves

Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended

removing the restriction of no more than 6 white-winged doves in the

aggregate daily bag limit during the regular mourning dove season in

Texas.

18. Alaska

Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended an

experimental tundra swan season in the Kotzebue Sound region of

Alaska's GMU 23, which would be consistent with the Pacific Flyway

Management Plan's harvest and permit guidelines for Western Population

of [Tundra] swans, and current guidelines for conductive experimental

seasons (3-year evaluation). The recommended season framework would be

September 1 - October 31 with a 3-swan per season limit (by sequential

permit) and a maximum of 300 permits in the GMU.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended an increase in Alaska's dark

goose daily bag and possession limit from 4 and 8 to 6 and 12,

respectively in GMU 9(D) and the Unimak Island portion of Unit 10.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended an increase in Alaska's

falconry bag limits to 6 daily and 12 in possession for migratory birds

in the aggregate. Restrictive species limits would not be applied.

22. Falconry

Written Comments: The North American Falconers Association urged

the Service to examine all possible means by which falconers might be

afforded safe access to the expanding

10.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended an increase in Alaska's

falconry bag limits to 6 daily and 12 in possession for migratory birds

in the aggregate. Restrictive species limits would not be applied.

22. Falconry

Written Comments: The North American Falconers Association urged

the Service to examine all possible means by which falconers might be

afforded safe access to the expanding

hunting potential reflected in the AHM working group's recommended

alternatives. In particular, they were concerned that the potential

``liberal'' alternative (i.e., 107-day season) under consideration in

the Pacific Flyway allows no opportunity for special falconry seasons

under current regulations. Further, they can envision other similar

season expansions in other Flyways.

Service Response: Under the Migratory Bird Treaty (1916), sport

hunting seasons are set at a maximum of 107 days. However, most regular

hunting seasons are much shorter than that permitted by the Treaty.

Thus, the Service has utilized special ``extended'' falconry seasons

which allow falconers the opportunity to hunt when gun hunters are not

afield. The Service recognizes that as some regular hunting seasons

become longer due to increases in certain migratory bird populations

and overall decreasing hunter numbers, seasons approach, and in some

cases, meet, the Treaty's mandated 107-day season limit. While the

Service also recognizes the special concerns of falconers relative to

the safety of their birds, we do not believe the provisions of the

Treaty allow for any latitude regarding sport season length and methods

of take.

23. Other

A. Compensatory Days

lations

and overall decreasing hunter numbers, seasons approach, and in some

cases, meet, the Treaty's mandated 107-day season limit. While the

Service also recognizes the special concerns of falconers relative to

the safety of their birds, we do not believe the provisions of the

Treaty allow for any latitude regarding sport season length and methods

of take.

23. Other

A. Compensatory Days

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council requested the

Service grant compensatory days for States in their Flyway that are

closed to waterfowl hunting statewide on Sunday by State law. The

Council's requested compensatory days would apply to waterfowl seasons

only and not to other migratory game birds. The compensatory request

includes the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and

West Virginia.

Public Comment Invited

The Service intends that adopted final rules be as responsive as

possible to all concerned interests, and therefore desires to obtain

the comments and suggestions of the public, other concerned

governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other

private interests on these proposals. Such comments, and any additional

information received, may lead to final regulations that differ from

these proposals.

Special circumstances are involved in the establishment of these

regulations which limit the amount of time that the Service can allow

for public comment. Specifically, two considerations compress the time

in which the rulemaking process must operate: (1) the need to establish

final rules at a point early enough in the summer to allow affected

State agencies to appropriately adjust their licensing and regulatory

mechanisms; and (2) the unavailability, before mid-June, of specific,

reliable data on this year's status of some waterfowl and migratory

shore and upland game bird populations

he time

in which the rulemaking process must operate: (1) the need to establish

final rules at a point early enough in the summer to allow affected

State agencies to appropriately adjust their licensing and regulatory

mechanisms; and (2) the unavailability, before mid-June, of specific,

reliable data on this year's status of some waterfowl and migratory

shore and upland game bird populations. Therefore, the Service believes

that to allow comment periods past the dates specified is contrary to

the public interest.

Comment Procedure

The policy of the Department of the Interior, whenever practical,

affords the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking

process. Accordingly, interested persons may participate by submitting

written comments 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. The public may inspect

comments during normal business hours at the Service's office in room

634, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington,

Virginia. The Service will consider all relevant comments received. The

Service will attempt to acknowledge received comments, but substantive

response to individual comments may not be provided.

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 EPA on June 9, 1988. The Service published a Notice

of Availability in the June 16, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 22582).

The Service published its Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR

31341). Copies of these documents are available from the Service at the

address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-

14),'' filed with EPA on June 9, 1988. The Service published a Notice

of Availability in the June 16, 1988, Federal Register (53 FR 22582).

The Service published its Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR

31341). Copies of these documents are available from the Service at the

address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

As in the past, hunting regulations are designed, among other

things, to remove or alleviate chances of conflict between seasons for

migratory game birds and the protection and conservation of endangered

and threatened species. Consultations are presently under way to ensure

that actions resulting from these regulatory proposals will not likely

jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species

or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical

habitat. It is possible that the findings from the consultations, which

will be included in a biological opinion, may cause modification of

some regulatory measures proposed in this document. The final

frameworks will reflect any modifications. The Service's biological

opinions resulting from its consultation under Section 7 are public

documents and are available for public inspection in the Division of

Endangered Species and the Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax

Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the

Paperwork Reduction Act

opinions resulting from its consultation under Section 7 are public

documents and are available for public inspection in the Division of

Endangered Species and the Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax

Drive, Arlington, Virginia.

Regulatory Flexibility Act; Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the

Paperwork Reduction Act

In the Federal Register dated March 13, 1997, the Service reported

measures it had undertaken to comply with requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Executive Order. These included

preparing a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) in 1996 to

document the significant beneficial economic effect on a substantial

number of small entities. The Analysis estimated that migratory bird

hunters would spend between $254 and $592 million at small businesses

in 1996. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the

Office of Migratory Bird Management. This rule was not subject to

review by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.

The Service examined these proposed regulations under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 and found no information collection requirements.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 1997-98

hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742

a-j.

Dated: May 30, 1997.

Donald J. Barry,

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-F

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06JN97.020

[FR Doc. 97-14882 Filed 6-5-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C