Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Regulatory Alternatives for the 1998-99 Duck Hunting Season

Part III

Department of the Interior

_______________________________________________________________________

Fish and Wildlife Service

_______________________________________________________________________

50 CFR Part 20

Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Regulatory Alternatives for the 1998-99

Duck Hunting Season; Proposed Rule

Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AE93

Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Regulatory Alternatives for the

1998-99 Duck Hunting Season

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule supplement establishes the Service's final

regulatory alternatives for the 1998-99 duck hunting season for the

States of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and

Tennessee. The effect of this supplement is to facilitate the selection

of the appropriate regulatory alternative for the 1998-99 duck hunting

season for these States. The selection of the alternative for the 1998-

99 season will be published in the Federal Register in late-August.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul R. Schmidt, Chief, MBMO, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 1998

On March 20, 1998, the Service published in the Federal Register

(63 FR 13748) 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. On May 29, 1998, the Service published in the

Federal Register (63 FR 29518) a second document providing supplemental

proposals for early- and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations

frameworks and the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1998-99

duck hunting season

, and other regulations for

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

20.110 of subpart K. On May 29, 1998, the Service published in the

Federal Register (63 FR 29518) a second document providing supplemental

proposals for early- and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations

frameworks and the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1998-99

duck hunting season. The May 29 supplement also provided detailed

information on the 1998-99 regulatory schedule and announced the

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway Council

meetings. On June 25, 1998, the Service held a public hearing to

announce the proposed early-season migratory bird hunting regulations

frameworks. On July 17, 1998, the Service published in the Federal

Register (63 FR 38700) a third document specifically dealing with

proposed early-season frameworks for the 1998-99 season. The July 17

supplement also established the final regulatory alternatives for the

1998-99 duck hunting season for all States except Alabama, Arkansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.

This document is the fourth in a series of proposed, supplemental,

and final rulemaking documents for migratory bird hunting regulations

and deals specifically with the final regulatory alternatives for the

1998-99 duck hunting season for the States of Alabama, Arkansas,

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. It will lead to the

selection of the proposed alternative and ultimately final frameworks

from which States may select season dates, shooting hours, and daily

bag and possession limits for the 1998-99 season. The Service has

considered all pertinent comments received through July 1, 1998, in

developing this document. The Service will publish proposed regulatory

frameworks, including the selection of the appropriate regulatory

alternative for the 1998-99 duck hunting season, for late seasons in

the Federal Register on or about August 21, 1998.

Comments Received at June 25 Public Hearing

99 season. The Service has

considered all pertinent comments received through July 1, 1998, in

developing this document. The Service will publish proposed regulatory

frameworks, including the selection of the appropriate regulatory

alternative for the 1998-99 duck hunting season, for late seasons in

the Federal Register on or about August 21, 1998.

Comments Received at June 25 Public Hearing

Mr. Brad Bales, gamebird program coordinator for the Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife, made two statements on behalf of two

separate organizations. The first, on behalf of the National Flyway

Council, was an announcement that the National Flyway Council would

establish a committee to address the framework question from a national

perspective. At their next meeting, the National Flyway Council will

determine the composition of the group and establish a time frame for

the committee to complete their work and make their recommendations

back to the National Flyway Council.

Mr. Bales' second comment was on behalf of the Pacific Flyway

Council. He indicated that the Pacific Flyway Council urged the Service

not to extend the framework dates for duck hunting in the lower

Mississippi Flyway as recently proposed in the Federal Register.

Further, he offered the support of the Pacific Flyway Council for the

effort proposed by the National Flyway Council.

Mr. Robert McDowell, representing the Atlantic Flyway Council

stressed the Flyway's proposal that framework dates remain fixed where

they currently are in all Flyways and disapproved of attempts occurring

outside the formal regulatory process to change them. He further

indicated that if the Service finalized the proposed framework closing

date extensions, all States should have the same opportunity. He

supported the National Flyway Council efforts to resolve this problem

that is divisive among Flyways.

Mr

ain fixed where

they currently are in all Flyways and disapproved of attempts occurring

outside the formal regulatory process to change them. He further

indicated that if the Service finalized the proposed framework closing

date extensions, all States should have the same opportunity. He

supported the National Flyway Council efforts to resolve this problem

that is divisive among Flyways.

Mr. Charles Kelley, representing the Alabama Department of

Conservation and Natural Resources, commented in support of the

proposed extension of the framework closing date for duck hunting,

stating that the State had been requesting an extension for a number of

years because a later hunting season would allow them to take better

advantage of duck abundance in the State.

Written Comments Received

The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the March 20

Federal Register, opened the public comment period for migratory game

bird hunting regulations. The supplemental proposed rule, which

appeared in the May 29 Federal Register, defined the public comment

period for the Service's proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1998-

99 duck hunting season. The public comment period for the proposed

regulatory alternatives closed July 1, 1998. Comments pertaining to the

proposed alternatives are summarized below and numbered in the order

used in the March 20 Federal Register. All of these comments were

included in the July 17 supplement, however, comments related to the

regulatory alternatives for the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee were not addressed in that

document. They are instead addressed here, and thus, have been repeated

as a convenience for the reader. Only the numbered items pertaining to

the proposed regulatory alternatives for which written comments were

received are included.

The Service received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils.

Some recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks

not addressed in that

document. They are instead addressed here, and thus, have been repeated

as a convenience for the reader. Only the numbered items pertaining to

the proposed regulatory alternatives for which written comments were

received are included.

The Service received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils.

Some recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks.

Due to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks

performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's

frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were

received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are

summarized below.

General

I. Ducks

The categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest

management are as follows: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Framework

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

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

those categories

containing substantial recommendations are included below.

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

On May 29, 1998, the Service published for public comment the

proposed regulatory alternatives for the 1998-99 duck hunting season

(63 FR 29518). The proposed regulatory alternatives were identical to

the alternatives utilized in 1997-98 except for the proposal to offer

an extension of the framework closing date to no later than January 31

in those States in the Lower Region of the Mississippi Flyway

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

Further discussion of the framework issue can be found in B. Framework

Dates.

Council Recommendations: All four Flyway Councils generally

endorsed continuation of the 1997-98 regulatory alternatives.

Modifications recommended by the Councils were identified and discussed

in the May 29, 1998, Federal Register. The recommendations are

reiterated below and modified where necessary based on subsequent

comments received from the Flyway Councils

ound in B. Framework

Dates.

Council Recommendations: All four Flyway Councils generally

endorsed continuation of the 1997-98 regulatory alternatives.

Modifications recommended by the Councils were identified and discussed

in the May 29, 1998, Federal Register. The recommendations are

reiterated below and modified where necessary based on subsequent

comments received from the Flyway Councils.

The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that the duck hunting

packages used for the 1997-98 season be continued for the 1998-99

season.

The Upper-Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council

recommended that the 1997-98 regulations packages be maintained for the

1998-99 duck season. These consisted of 20-, 30-, 45-, and 60-day

seasons, with bag limits ranging from 3 to 6 ducks, including

appropriate species restrictions, and frameworks dates from the

Saturday nearest October 1 to the Sunday nearest January 20.

The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended that the regulatory packages for the 1997-98 season

be continued in 1998-99, with the exception of framework dates (see

further discussion in B. Framework Dates).

The Central Flyway Council recommended that the duck hunting

packages used for the 1997-98 season be continued for the 1998-99

season.

Service Response: In the July 17 proposed rule, the Service

indicated that for the 1998-99 regular duck hunting season, the Service

would utilize the four regulatory alternatives detailed in the

accompanying table for all States except Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,

Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The regulatory alternatives for

those six States were not finalized pending a decision on the framework

closing date and associated season length.

For the 1998-99 regular duck hunting season, the Service will

utilize the previously identified regulatory alternatives for all

States. Details of the four alternatives are identified in the

accompanying table

ouisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The regulatory alternatives for

those six States were not finalized pending a decision on the framework

closing date and associated season length.

For the 1998-99 regular duck hunting season, the Service will

utilize the previously identified regulatory alternatives for all

States. Details of the four alternatives are identified 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 is convinced that these alternatives will be

successful at providing maximum hunting opportunity, while not

jeopardizing the ability of duck species to attain population goals

when habitat conditions are adequate. The Service will propose a

specific regulatory alternative when survey data on waterfowl

population and habitat status are available.

B. Framework Dates

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended no

change to the current framework dates, believing that extensions would

be premature without knowing the potential harvest impacts, which could

reduce the frequency of liberal regulations and would reduce the

likelihood that eastern mallards will be fully incorporated into

Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) this year. In a subsequent letter,

the Council opposed the Service's May 29, 1998, framework extension

proposal because the proposal was developed outside the normal Flyway

meeting schedule which prohibited Flyway Council review. The Council

voiced concerns regarding the impact on the AHM process, adverse

impacts on hunting opportunities across all Flyways to accommodate

desires of a small region which already enjoys very high hunter

success, negative biological impacts on mallard pairing and hen body

condition, and impacts on eastern mallard stocks, black ducks, and wood

ducks

which prohibited Flyway Council review. The Council

voiced concerns regarding the impact on the AHM process, adverse

impacts on hunting opportunities across all Flyways to accommodate

desires of a small region which already enjoys very high hunter

success, negative biological impacts on mallard pairing and hen body

condition, and impacts on eastern mallard stocks, black ducks, and wood

ducks. They believe the proposal calls into question the fair

allocation of a shared resource and mechanisms used to achieve that

allocation. The Council warned that allowing extensions without using

existing Flyway Council protocol would fracture the existing Flyway

system and politicize the system. The Council recommended delaying

action on frameworks for at least one year to allow appropriate State

and Flyway review.

The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended the Service allow States to choose a framework

closing date as late as January 31 with a 10% penalty in days.

The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway

Council recommended no change in existing framework dates. The

Committee also recommended that if the Service were to offer States the

opportunity to extend frameworks, the extension should be coupled with

a commensurate reduction in season length and/or bag limits in the

participating States to offset the predicted increase in harvest.

The Central Flyway Council recommended maintaining the current

opening and closing framework dates adopted under AHM. However, at some

future date, when the packages are reviewed for modification, the

Council recommended that the framework dates issue should be

cooperatively dealt with by all Flyways in seeking an agreement for

equitable harvest opportunity. In a subsequent letter, the Council

opposed the Service's May 29, 1998, proposal because it was developed

outside the normal Flyway Council/Service review process

some

future date, when the packages are reviewed for modification, the

Council recommended that the framework dates issue should be

cooperatively dealt with by all Flyways in seeking an agreement for

equitable harvest opportunity. In a subsequent letter, the Council

opposed the Service's May 29, 1998, proposal because it was developed

outside the normal Flyway Council/Service review process. They believe

the proposal's adoption will create animosity among States and erode

the cooperative framework the Council system has provided for the past

fifty years, and threaten the success of AHM. The Council perceives the

extension issue as one of fair allocation of harvest opportunity. The

Council is concerned that other States are not being offered the

extension and may be held to a more stringent criteria for future

changes. The Council urged the Service to work with Flyways to continue

development of the AHM program, which the Council believes will promote

enhanced hunting opportunities in the future. The Council stated that

both early and late framework issues should be addressed when AHM

packages are next revised and that they look forward to working with

the other Flyways and the Service towards an agreement on equitable

harvest opportunity.

The Pacific Flyway Council recommended maintaining the current

opening and closing duck season framework dates adopted under AHM for

the near future.

Written Comments: The Mississippi Department of Wildlife,

Fisheries, and Parks commented in favor of extending the framework

closing date to January 31 and submitted an analysis of data based on

the most recent two years. Although their analysis indicated an

appropriate reduction in season length of 3 days, they proposed to

reduce the season length 8 days, based on a more liberal estimate of

harvest increases.

The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources communicated

their interest in having the option of a

sing date to January 31 and submitted an analysis of data based on

the most recent two years. Although their analysis indicated an

appropriate reduction in season length of 3 days, they proposed to

reduce the season length 8 days, based on a more liberal estimate of

harvest increases.

The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources communicated

their interest in having the option of a

January 31 framework closing date. While the State had no specific data

related to an appropriate penalty for the extension, they believed

Mississippi's analysis was applicable for the Lower Region at this

time, unless more appropriate analyses had been conducted elsewhere.

Kentucky urged the Service to develop final framework packages based on

the information that most accurately reflects the anticipated impacts.

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission expressed concern that the

framework issue had been pursued largely outside the Flyway Council

process and threatened the long-term waterfowl management process, but

believed a component of its hunters was interested in the extended

opportunity. Arkansas expressed concern over the potential for the

extensions to result in more restrictive harvest regulations in the

future, and the inability to accurately measure harvest rates and

assess impacts of the extensions.

The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency stated that the recent

warmer-than-normal conditions had renewed sportsmen's interest in

framework extensions. The State pledged the assistance of its personnel

to help resolve the framework issue in a fair, equitable, and non-

divisive manner. An Agency resolution called for the Service and the

Mississippi Flyway Council to work towards extending season frameworks

in a fair and equitable manner for the 1998-99 season and beyond.

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries supported a

framework extension to January 31 as long as the State's participation

does not require a reduction in hunting days or bag limits

isive manner. An Agency resolution called for the Service and the

Mississippi Flyway Council to work towards extending season frameworks

in a fair and equitable manner for the 1998-99 season and beyond.

The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries supported a

framework extension to January 31 as long as the State's participation

does not require a reduction in hunting days or bag limits. Louisiana

was disappointed by the proposed rule and hoped the Service would

develop a practical resolution to this contentious issue. A 1997

opinion survey of Louisiana hunters indicated a large majority

preferred a January 31 closing date and State waterfowl survey data

indicate that more ducks are in Louisiana during December and January.

The State was unable to develop, in the allotted period, an estimate of

the impact on harvest rates that they would consider reliable.

The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources stated

that they had supported framework extensions in Alabama for many years

and support maximizing hunting opportunities as long as the resource is

not negatively impacted. The Department stated that Alabama hunter

success is near or below the Mississippi Flyway average as shown by

seasonal duck harvest per hunter and that an increased proportion of

mallards harvested in Alabama may help offset the long-term decline in

Canada goose harvest opportunity in Alabama. Alabama had no data

regarding an offset penalty and would rely on the analysis from

Mississippi.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission opposed the extension proposal.

Pennsylvania stated the proposal was developed without consultation

with the other Flyway Councils, it conflicted with cooperatively

developed AHM packages, and would confound attempts to assess impacts

of season length on harvest. Concern was expressed about the potential

for increased harvest of eastern duck stocks and the potential for more

restrictive harvest opportunities on a broad scale if frameworks were

extended in southern States

thout consultation

with the other Flyway Councils, it conflicted with cooperatively

developed AHM packages, and would confound attempts to assess impacts

of season length on harvest. Concern was expressed about the potential

for increased harvest of eastern duck stocks and the potential for more

restrictive harvest opportunities on a broad scale if frameworks were

extended in southern States. Pennsylvania believed that, at the very

least, consideration of this proposal should be delayed until Flyway

Councils and the AHM working group had assessed its ramifications.

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources objected to the

proposal to limit the extension of the framework closing date to the

southern portion of the Mississippi Flyway. They stated that waterfowl

hunters in South Carolina have been dissatisfied with the framework

dates for a very long time, and the proposal to restrict the extension

is arbitrary and capricious and violates the tenet of ``fairness'' that

we have operated under for so many years as relates to the nationwide

management of migratory birds through the regulatory process

administered by the Service. They recommended that the same option for

extension of the framework closing date be offered to States in the

southern portion of the Atlantic Flyway.

The Georgia Department of Natural Resources did not support the

extension proposal because it undermined the primary goals of the AHM

process which had been adopted by all Flyways. They believed adoption

of the proposal would serve as a catalyst for additional regional

campaigns leading to increased regulatory inconsistency. Many of

Georgia's hunters strongly desire a framework extension to January 31;

however, until current packages are tested over a longer period, it was

not in the long-term interest of waterfowl to extend frameworks. If

changes are to be made now, extensions should be available to all

States

d serve as a catalyst for additional regional

campaigns leading to increased regulatory inconsistency. Many of

Georgia's hunters strongly desire a framework extension to January 31;

however, until current packages are tested over a longer period, it was

not in the long-term interest of waterfowl to extend frameworks. If

changes are to be made now, extensions should be available to all

States. The Lower Mississippi Flyway proposal has triggered discussions

regarding a southern coalition within the Atlantic Flyway, intended to

pursue southern issues and framework extensions in that region.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

requested that the proposed framework extension be deferred for one

year to allow adequate review by all Flyway Councils and the AHM

working group. New York expressed concerns that the proposal was

developed without Flyway Council review, was counter to AHM principles,

that efforts on framework extensions would delay the incorporation of

eastern mallards into the decision process, future harvest opportunity

for all Flyways could be adversely affected, eastern duck stocks could

be impacted, and that adoption of the proposal would spawn additional

requests from special interest groups. The Department stated that when

regulation packages were set and agreed to by all Councils, it was

understood that they would be stable for several years, New York

recommended that the Flyway Councils and the AHM working group work

this year to devise a strategy for 1999.

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department stressed that waterfowl

harvest management should be based on sound scientific information and

objectives established through the Flyway Council process. North Dakota

expressed great concern over the unfairness of extending southern

frameworks when northern States have benefitted little from special

teal seasons and recently lengthened seasons

1999.

The North Dakota Game and Fish Department stressed that waterfowl

harvest management should be based on sound scientific information and

objectives established through the Flyway Council process. North Dakota

expressed great concern over the unfairness of extending southern

frameworks when northern States have benefitted little from special

teal seasons and recently lengthened seasons. They believed if an

extension is offered to southern States similar opportunity must be

offered to all States.

The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks urged the

Service to not extend the framework closing date in the southern part

of the Mississippi Flyway, since all other Flyway Councils and the

Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council

recommended that framework dates not be changed. Such action would be

totally unfair to all other States that are willing to use the AHM

process to fairly and biologically determine the framework issue.

The Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks strongly opposed the

proposal to offer extended duck hunting season framework dates to

States in the lower region of the Mississippi Flyway, stating that it

is blatantly unfair to other States that may be interested in such

changes, and that it will establish an undesirable precedent regarding

how we implement harvest regulations.

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources opposed a framework

extension for the southern Mississippi Flyway because it conflicted

with recommendations from all Flyways

gion of the Mississippi Flyway, stating that it

is blatantly unfair to other States that may be interested in such

changes, and that it will establish an undesirable precedent regarding

how we implement harvest regulations.

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources opposed a framework

extension for the southern Mississippi Flyway because it conflicted

with recommendations from all Flyways

Councils (1997) to maintain consistency in regulatory packages and it

could negatively affect other States through redistribution of harvest.

Delaware urged all four Councils and the AHM working group work to

recommend a specific strategy for 1999 to address all concerns.

The Missouri Department of Conservation opposed the framework

extension due to concerns regarding biological impacts on the waterfowl

resource including changes in harvest timing and composition (age,

species, and sex), the inequitable provision of the extension

opportunities, and conflicts with the AHM process. Missouri believes

adopting this proposal would set an unfortunate precedent and have

negative implications for the future of cooperative waterfowl and

wetland management.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources strongly opposed the

extension proposal on the basis of its conflict with previous

recommendations of the Upper-Region Regulations Committee. Michigan

believed if extensions were implemented, both early and late extensions

should be offered to all States.

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection opposed the

extension proposal and requested the Service defer action until full

review by all Flyways is possible. Connecticut voiced concern over

reduced hunting opportunity across the nation and impacts to black

ducks which are more vulnerable in late winter.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources continued to support

recommendations of the Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the

Mississippi Flyway Council and the other 3 Flyway Councils for no

change in framework dates

ll Flyways is possible. Connecticut voiced concern over

reduced hunting opportunity across the nation and impacts to black

ducks which are more vulnerable in late winter.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources continued to support

recommendations of the Upper-Region Regulations Committee of the

Mississippi Flyway Council and the other 3 Flyway Councils for no

change in framework dates. They believe the extension proposal is

extremely divisive and threatens the future of the Flyway Council

system and AHM. They stated that the potentially negative physiological

impacts on ducks of extensions have not been addressed and should be

evaluated by States and the Service prior to implementing extensions.

Minnesota believed northern States have the strongest argument for

framework extensions because of weather-related limitations to long

duck seasons. The extension proposal was contrary to the cooperative

process of establishing migratory bird regulations; however, if it is

offered, it should be offered to all States.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources supported no change

in framework dates. Wisconsin found the extension proposal completely

unacceptable because it increases inequity, citing the current higher

hunter success rates in southern States, frequently truncated season

length in northern States due to freeze-up, and differences in special-

teal-season availability. Wisconsin expressed concern about the

possible impacts of late-winter hunting on mallard pair formation and

nutrient-reserve accumulation. Wisconsin opposed offering southern

States an extension, but believed if the extension was granted to

southern States, northern States must be offered an extension on season

opening dates.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources stated the extension

proposal was patently unfair because it was not available to all States

in all Flyways. The State remains concerned about biological impacts on

duck pair formation and acquisition of body reserves

but believed if the extension was granted to

southern States, northern States must be offered an extension on season

opening dates.

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources stated the extension

proposal was patently unfair because it was not available to all States

in all Flyways. The State remains concerned about biological impacts on

duck pair formation and acquisition of body reserves. Illinois believed

this is an issue of national consequence and without time for a full

public debate and analysis before the 1998 season, the Service should

postpone implementation of any framework extensions until at least the

1999 season. However, if extensions are implemented, the offset penalty

should be determined by the Service or third party and Illinois should

be allowed to split the duck season in their three zones.

The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation was strongly

opposed to the extension proposal. Oklahoma believed that the proposal

seriously undermines the long-standing cooperative Flyway and Service

process for establishing waterfowl hunting regulations and calls into

question the Service's commitment to the AHM process. Oklahoma further

recommended that the Service deny the framework extension until such

time as the issue can be addressed through the AHM process and all

States' interests are fairly and objectively considered.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department opposed the framework

extension because they believe that season recommendations should be

based on Flyway/Service review and approval and not political

considerations, the proposed extension threatens AHM, other States are

not offered a similar opportunity, and the proposal creates animosity

between States and erodes the cooperative framework of the Flyway

Council system. They further encourage the Service to work with the

Flyways to continue to develop and enhance AHM and believe that early

and late framework issues should be addressed when the next round of

AHM packages are developed

ns AHM, other States are

not offered a similar opportunity, and the proposal creates animosity

between States and erodes the cooperative framework of the Flyway

Council system. They further encourage the Service to work with the

Flyways to continue to develop and enhance AHM and believe that early

and late framework issues should be addressed when the next round of

AHM packages are developed.

The New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife opposed

implementation of framework extensions due to their commitment to the

AHM process, concern regarding impacts on migrating wood ducks, and the

potential to divide the flyway system.

The Wisconsin Conservation Congress opposed the framework extension

proposal stating that it was in direct conflict with the principles of

the Service to manage the resource for the benefit of all people.

The Delta Waterfowl Foundation did not support the framework

extension proposal. While supporting the Service's goal of ensuring

that nonparticipating States will not be impacted, they believed that

reductions in bag limits and species restrictions should also be

considered. They further stated that the Service should entertain other

framework date extensions, such as opening dates.

The Alabama Waterfowl Association requested a January 31 extension

in Alabama be experimental beginning in the 1998 season. The

Association would accept a 10% penalty in hunting days. They cite

conflicts between farmers and hunting-lease holders or hunters in mid-

November when incomplete crop harvest prevents flooding of agricultural

fields. The Association believed an extended framework would allow

improved habitat management and availability at the start of the season

and would have less impact on the resource than the additional hen in

the bag recently offered.

Two individuals from Michigan, 45 from Wisconsin, 30 from

Minnesota, 1 from Arkansas, 1 from Iowa, 1 from Florida, and 3 from

Tennessee commented in opposition to the proposed extension of the

framework closing date

uld allow

improved habitat management and availability at the start of the season

and would have less impact on the resource than the additional hen in

the bag recently offered.

Two individuals from Michigan, 45 from Wisconsin, 30 from

Minnesota, 1 from Arkansas, 1 from Iowa, 1 from Florida, and 3 from

Tennessee commented in opposition to the proposed extension of the

framework closing date.

Three individuals from Alabama, 1 from Florida, 5 from Arkansas, 2

from Georgia, 31 from Tennessee, and 110 from Mississippi commented in

favor of extending the framework closing date.

Service Response: Extensive comments were received regarding the

May 29 proposal (63 FR 29518) to extend the framework closing date to

January 31 in six States in the southern portion of the Mississippi

Flyway (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and

Tennessee). In the proposal, those States would be permitted a

framework date extension, provided it was accompanied by a reduction in

season length sufficient to offset the expected increase in harvest.

The Service's goal was to provide a later hunting opportunity that had

been requested by southern Mississippi

Flyway States, without increasing overall harvest in those States or

affecting hunting opportunities in other States and Flyways.

The Service's proposal has been severely criticized by three Flyway

Councils and numerous States. Based on a review of those comments,

there appear to be three primary reasons for dissatisfaction with the

proposal:

(1) the perception of inequity because most States would be

excluded unilaterally from participation;

(2) a concern that the proposal was developed largely outside the

Flyway Council consultation process, and that the proposal would be

finalized before the Councils had an opportunity to meet and discuss

concerns or suggest alternatives; and

ary reasons for dissatisfaction with the

proposal:

(1) the perception of inequity because most States would be

excluded unilaterally from participation;

(2) a concern that the proposal was developed largely outside the

Flyway Council consultation process, and that the proposal would be

finalized before the Councils had an opportunity to meet and discuss

concerns or suggest alternatives; and

(3) technical concerns about the ability to predict the effects of

a framework-date extension on harvests or duck populations, and

apprehension about whether the Service could guarantee that the season-

length reduction would be sufficient to completely offset the expected

increase in harvest.

For these reasons, the Service is withdrawing its proposal to

extend the closing date of the duck-hunting season in the southern

Mississippi Flyway. However, it is clear that the issue of framework

extensions and expanding both early-and late-season hunting opportunity

is an issue of strong and continuing interest among the States and the

public. The Service acknowledges and shares this interest. Therefore,

the Service will work with the Flyway Councils to consider these issues

on a broader basis. The Service endorses the interest of the National

Flyway Council to provide a forum for this discussion, especially

because the issue inherently involves perceptions regarding the fair

and equitable distribution of hunting opportunity among all States. The

Service also believes that the design of acceptable regulatory

alternatives, including the specification of framework dates, will

require a structured process in which to explore common goals,

conflicts, and possible solutions. In the interim the Service will

continue to use the set of regulatory alternatives established in 1997

which includes framework dates of approximately October 1 and January

20

lso believes that the design of acceptable regulatory

alternatives, including the specification of framework dates, will

require a structured process in which to explore common goals,

conflicts, and possible solutions. In the interim the Service will

continue to use the set of regulatory alternatives established in 1997

which includes framework dates of approximately October 1 and January

20.

In considering its decision regarding the framework date issue, the

Service recognized that there are existing species-specific regulatory

strategies, most notably for blue-winged teal, that must be considered

within the context of a comprehensive framework date review. Particular

reference is made to the special September duck hunting season

currently offered to Iowa. Unlike other Mississippi Flyway States, Iowa

is allowed to hold up to 5 days of its regular duck hunting season in

September, with the second segment not to begin prior to October 10.

The Iowa September season focuses on providing additional hunting

opportunity for lightly harvested teal, and is a version of special

September teal seasons offered to all other Mississippi Flyway States

south of Iowa. The Iowa season is discontinued along with all other

September teal seasons when warranted by poor teal status. Iowa's

harvest during their early 5-day segment is predominately teal (53% in

1997), and thus the regulation has been successful at targeting

additional hunting opportunity on an underutilized resource.

Iowa first had the option of the September season on an

experimental basis during 1979-84, and has conducted the season on an

operational basis during 1985-87 and 1994-present. The season was not

offered during 1988-93 pending a comprehensive review of teal season

criteria, which was precipitated by a declining teal population. The

Iowa season has been examined on several occasions, and reviewed and

supported by Flyway Councils, including both the Upper and Lower

Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council

rational basis during 1985-87 and 1994-present. The season was not

offered during 1988-93 pending a comprehensive review of teal season

criteria, which was precipitated by a declining teal population. The

Iowa season has been examined on several occasions, and reviewed and

supported by Flyway Councils, including both the Upper and Lower

Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council. Given the

upcoming evaluation of special September teal seasons in 1998/99 and

the comprehensive review of the framework dates by the Flyway Councils

over the next 2 years, all special species-specific seasons, including

the Iowa season, will be further reviewed during these processes.

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 Considerations

As in the past, the Service designs hunting regulations to remove

or alleviate chances of conflict between migratory game bird hunting

seasons and the protection and conservation of endangered and

threatened species. Consultations are currently being conducted 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. Findings from these consultations will be included in

a biological opinion and may cause modification of some regulatory

measures previously proposed. The final frameworks will reflect any

modifications

ese 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. Findings from these consultations will be included in

a biological opinion and may cause modification of some regulatory

measures previously proposed. The final frameworks will reflect any

modifications. The Service's biological opinions resulting from its

Section 7 consultation are public documents and will be available for

public inspection in the Service's Division of Endangered Species and

MBMO, at the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In the March 20, 1998, Federal Register, the Service reported

measures it took to comply with requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. One measure was to prepare a Small Entity Flexibility

Analysis (Analysis) in 1996 documenting 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. Copies of the Analysis are available upon

request from the Office of Migratory Bird Management. The Service is

currently updating the 1996 Analysis with information from the 1996

National Hunting and Fishing Survey.

Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

This rules establishing the frameworks (early- and late-season) for

hunting seasons is economically significant and will be reviewed by the

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

establishes the regulatory alternatives for the 1998-99 duck hunting

season.

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

easy to understand

tive Order (E.O.) 12866

This rules establishing the frameworks (early- and late-season) for

hunting seasons is economically significant and will be reviewed by the

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

establishes the regulatory alternatives for the 1998-99 duck hunting

season.

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

easy to understand. The Service invites comments on how to make this

rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the

following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)

Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with

its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided

into more (but shorter) sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in

the ``Supplementary Information'' section of

the preamble helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else

could the Service do to make the rule easier to understand?

Send a copy of any comments that concern how this rule could be

made easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department

of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20240. Comments may also be e-mailed to: E[email protected].

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Service examined these regulations under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995. The various recordkeeping and reporting

requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR Part 20,

Subpart K, are utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird

hunting regulations. Specifically, the information collection

requirements of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program have

been approved by OMB and assigned clearance number 1018-0015 (expires

08/31/1998)

1995. The various recordkeeping and reporting

requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR Part 20,

Subpart K, are utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird

hunting regulations. Specifically, the information collection

requirements of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program have

been approved by OMB and assigned clearance number 1018-0015 (expires

08/31/1998). This information is used to provide a sampling frame for

voluntary national surveys to improve Service harvest estimates for all

migratory game birds in order to better manage these populations. The

information collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest

Questionnaire have been approved by OMB and assigned clearance number

1018-0023 (expires 09/30/2000). The information from this survey is

used to estimate the magnitude, the geographical and temporal

distribution of harvest, and the portion its constitutes of the total

population. The Service may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

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

currently valid OMB control number.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Service has determined and certifies in compliance with the

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

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

given year on local or State government or private entities.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that

these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in Sections

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

Taking Implication Assessment

process with

the States and the Flyway Councils. This allows States to participate

in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections,

thereby having an influence on their own regulation. These rules do not

have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles

or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on

State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive

Order 12612, these regulations do not have significant federalism

effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant

the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,

``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American tribal

Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible

effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that

there are no effects.

Regulations Promulgation

The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its

nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, the Service

intends that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to

comment on the regulations. Thus, when the preliminary proposed

rulemaking was published, the Service established what it believed were

the longest periods possible for public comment. However, special

circumstances involved in the establishment of these regulations limit

the amount of time 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

involved in the establishment of these regulations limit

the amount of time 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. Therefore, the Service believes allowing comment

periods past the dates specified is contrary to public interest.

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 1998-99

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

a-j.

Dated: July 30, 1998.

Stephen C. Saunders,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP05AU98.009

[FR Doc. 98-20900 Filed 7-31-98; 3:58 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C