![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2002-03 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: March 19, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 53)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12501-12510]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19mr02-35]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AI30
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2002-03 Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal
Proposals
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we)
proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory
game birds for the 2002-03 hunting season. We annually prescribe
outside limits (frameworks) within which States may select hunting
seasons. This proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, announces
the Flyway Council meetings, and describes proposed changes to the
regulatory alternatives for the 2002-03 duck hunting seasons. We also
request proposals from Indian tribes that wish to establish special
migratory bird hunting regulations on Federal Indian reservations and
ceded
[[Page 12502]]
lands. Migratory game bird hunting seasons provide hunting
opportunities for recreation and sustenance; aid Federal, State, and
tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds; and
permit harvests at levels compatible with migratory bird population
status and habitat conditions.
DATES: You must submit comments on the proposed regulatory alternatives
for the 2002-03 duck hunting seasons by May 1, 2002. You must submit
comments for proposed early-season frameworks by July 30, 2002, and for
proposed late-season frameworks by August 30, 2002. Tribes should
submit proposals and related comments by June 1, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments on the proposals to the Chief, Division
of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20240. All comments received, including names and
addresses, will become part of the public record. You may inspect
comments during normal business hours in room 634, Arlington Square
Building, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel at: Division of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240, (703)
358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Overview
Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in
conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for
the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to determine when ``hunting, taking, capture, killing,
possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or
export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest or egg'' of migratory game
birds can take place and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These
regulations must be written based on ``the zones of temperature and the
distribution, abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and
lines of migratory flight of such birds'' and must be updated annually.
This responsibility has been delegated to the Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) of the Department of the Interior as the lead Federal agency
for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States.
The Service develops migratory bird hunting regulations by
establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag
limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. Acknowledging
regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has
administratively divided the nation into four Flyways for the primary
purpose of managing waterfowl. Each Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi,
Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal organization
generally composed of one member from each State and Province in that
Flyway. The Flyway Councils, established through the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), also assist in
researching and providing management techniques for Federal, State, and
Provincial Governments, as well as private conservation agencies and
the general public.
The migratory bird hunting regulations, located at 50 CFR 20, are
constrained by three primary factors. Legal and administrative
considerations dictate how long the rulemaking process will last. Most
importantly though, the biological cycle of migratory birds controls
the timing of data-gathering activities and thus the date on which
results are available for consideration. The process includes two
separate regulations-development schedules, based on early- and late-
hunting season regulations. Early seasons pertain to all migratory game
bird species in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands;
migratory game birds other than waterfowl (i.e., dove, woodcock, etc.);
and special early waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada
geese. The early season generally begins prior to October 1. Late
seasons generally start on or after October 1 and include most
waterfowl seasons not already established.
There are basically no differences in the processes for
establishing either early- or late-hunting seasons. For each cycle,
Service biologists gather, analyze, and interpret survey data and
provide this information to all those involved in the process through a
series of published status reports and presentations to Flyway Councils
and other interested parties. Because the Service is required to take
abundance of migratory birds and other factors into consideration, the
Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout the year in
conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the Canadian Wildlife
Service, and State and Provincial wildlife-management agencies. Factors
such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual
breeding effort, the condition of breeding, wintering habitat, the
number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest are considered to
determine the appropriate frameworks for each species.
After frameworks, or outside limits, are established for season
lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting,
migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of State
and Federal governments. After Service establishment of final
frameworks for hunting seasons, the States may select season dates, bag
limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States
may be more conservative in their selections than the Federal
frameworks but never more liberal.
Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons
This notice announces our intent to establish open hunting seasons
and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated groups or
species of migratory game birds for 2002-03 in the contiguous United
States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, under
Secs. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50 CFR
part 20.
For the 2002-03 migratory game bird hunting season, we will propose
regulations for certain designated members of the avian families
Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons);
Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and gallinules);
and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these proposals
under Proposed 2002-03 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations
(Preliminary) in this document. We published definitions of waterfowl
flyways and mourning dove management units, as well as a description of
the data used in and the factors affecting the regulatory process, in
the March 14, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR 9618).
Regulatory Schedule for 2002-03
This document is the first in a series of proposed, supplemental,
and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting
regulations. We will publish additional supplemental proposals for
public comment in the Federal Register as population, habitat, harvest,
and other information become available.
Because of the late dates when certain portions of these data
become available, we anticipate abbreviated comment periods on some
proposals. Special circumstances limit the amount of time we can allow
for public comment on these regulations. Specifically, two
considerations compress the time for the
[[Page 12503]]
rulemaking process: the need, on one hand, to establish final rules
early enough in the summer to allow resource agencies to select and
publish season dates and bag limits prior to the beginning of hunting
seasons and, on the other hand, the lack of current status data on most
migratory game birds until later in the summer. Because the regulatory
process is strongly influenced by the times when information is
available for consideration, we divide the regulatory process into two
segments: early seasons and late seasons.
Major steps in the 2002-03 regulatory cycle relating to open public
meetings and Federal Register notifications are illustrated in the
diagram at the end of this proposed rule. All publication dates of
Federal Register documents are target dates.
All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining hunting
frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These
headings are:
1. Ducks
A. General Harvest Strategy
B. Regulatory Alternatives
C. Zones and Split Seasons
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. September Teal Seasons
ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
iii. Black ducks
iv. Canvasbacks
v. Pintails
vi. Scaup
vii. Youth Hunt
2. Sea Ducks
3. Mergansers
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
B. Regular Seasons
C. Special Late Seasons
5. White-fronted Geese
6. Brant
7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
8. Swans
9. Sandhill Cranes
10. Coots
11. Moorhens and Gallinules
12. Rails
13. Snipe
14. Woodcock
15. Band-tailed Pigeons
16. Mourning Doves
17. White-winged and White-tipped Doves
18. Alaska
19. Hawaii
20. Puerto Rico
21. Virgin Islands
22. Falconry
23. Other
Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to
numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to
note that we will omit those items requiring no attention and remaining
numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.
We will publish final regulatory alternatives for the 2002-03 duck
hunting seasons in early June. We will publish proposed early-season
frameworks in mid-July and late-season frameworks in mid-August. We
will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about
August 20, 2002, and those for late seasons on or about September 15,
2002.
Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings
Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings
of the four Flyway Councils this April. Although agendas are not yet
available, these meetings usually commence at 8:00 a.m. on the days
indicated. All meetings will be held April 2, 2002, at the Hyatt
Regency at Reunion Center, 300 Reunion Boulevard, Dallas, Texas.
Review of Public Comments
This proposed rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory
alternatives for the 2002-03 duck hunting seasons. This proposed
rulemaking also describes other recommended changes or specific
preliminary proposals that vary from the 2001-02 frameworks and issues
requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or
tribes. We will publish responses to all proposals and written comments
when we develop final frameworks. We seek additional information and
comments on the recommendations in this proposed rule.
Consolidation of Notices
For administrative purposes, this document consolidates the notice
of intent to establish open migratory bird hunting seasons and the
request for tribal proposals with the preliminary proposals for the
annual hunting regulations-development process. We will publish the
remaining proposed and final rulemaking documents separately. For
inquiries on tribal guidelines and proposals, tribes should contact the
following personnel:
Region 1--Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 N.E.
11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164.
Region 2--Jeff Haskins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; (505) 248-7885.
Region 3--Steve Wilds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal
Building, One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056; (612)
713-5432.
Region 4--Frank Bowers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875
Century Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; (404) 679-4000.
Region 5--George Haas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate
Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035-9589; (413) 253-8576.
Region 6--John Cornely, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, Colorado 80225; (303) 236-8145.
Region 7--Robert Leedy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East
Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; (907) 786-3423.
Requests for Tribal Proposals
Background
Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed
guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR
23467) to establish special migratory bird hunting regulations on
Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and
ceded lands. We developed these guidelines in response to tribal
requests for our recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for
some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both
tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. The
guidelines include possibilities for:
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members,
with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place
within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected
by the surrounding State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual
Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and
possession limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands,
outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added
flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines
must be consistent with the annual March 10 to September 1 closed
season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and
Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds
(Convention). The guidelines are applicable to those tribes that have
reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-
reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also may be applied to
the establishment of migratory bird hunting regulations for nontribal
members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of reservations
where tribes have full wildlife management authority over such hunting,
or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have reached
[[Page 12504]]
agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian lands.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird
hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our
approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations
that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the
surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations
governing migratory bird hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such
cases, we encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on
regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When
appropriate, we will consult with a tribe and State with the aim of
facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and
State officials in the affected States where tribes may wish to
establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded
lands. As explained in previous rulemaking documents, it is incumbent
upon the tribe and/or the State to request consultation as a result of
the proposal being published in the Federal Register. We will not
presume to make a determination, without being advised by either a
tribe or a State, that any issue is or is not worthy of formal
consultation.
One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal
members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such
harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest,
provided it does not take place during the closed season required by
the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the
status of the migratory bird resource. For several years, we have
reached annual agreement with tribes for migratory bird hunting by
tribal members on their lands or on lands where they have reserved
hunting rights. We will continue to consult with tribes that wish to
reach a mutual agreement on hunting regulations for on-reservation
hunting by tribal members.
Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. We believe
that they provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved
hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while ensuring
that the migratory bird resource receives necessary protection. The
conservation of this important international resource is paramount. Use
of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes to observe the
hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which the
reservation is located.
Details Needed in Tribal Proposals
Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting
regulations for the 2002-03 hunting season should submit a proposal
that includes:
(1) The requested hunting season dates and other details regarding
the proposed regulations;
(2) Harvest anticipated under the proposed regulations;
(3) Methods that will be employed to measure or monitor harvest
(mail-questionnaire survey, bag checks, etc.);
(4) Steps that will be taken to limit level of harvest, where it
could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would seriously
impact the migratory bird resource; and
(5) Tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory bird
hunting regulations.
A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the waterfowl
season should specify this request in their proposal, rather than
request a date that might not be within the final Federal frameworks.
Similarly, unless a tribe wishes to set more restrictive regulations
than Federal regulations will permit, the proposal should request the
same daily bag and possession limits and season length for ducks and
geese that Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the
Flyway in which the reservation is located.
Tribal Proposal Procedures
We will publish details of tribal proposals for public review in
later Federal Register documents. Because of the time required for our
and public review, Indian tribes that desire special migratory bird
hunting regulations for the 2002-03 hunting season should submit their
proposals as soon as possible, but no later than June 1, 2002. Tribes
should direct inquiries regarding the guidelines and proposals to the
appropriate Service Regional Office listed above under the caption
Consolidation of Notices. Tribes that request special migratory game
bird hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded lands should send
a courtesy copy of the proposal to officials in the affected State(s).
Public Comments Solicited
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable,
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking
process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed
regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will take into consideration all comments received.
Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to
final regulations that differ from these proposals. We invite
interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments to the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There may also be circumstances in which
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity,
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your
comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
You may inspect comments received on the proposed annual
regulations during normal business hours at the Service's office in
room 634, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. For each
series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific comment
periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in detail to,
each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments received
during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in
any final rules.
NEPA Consideration
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document,
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988.
We published Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16,
1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 18,
1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985 environmental
assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations
on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available from the
address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
In a proposed rule published in the April 30, 2001, Federal
Register (66 FR 21298), we expressed our intent to begin
[[Page 12505]]
the process of developing a new EIS for the migratory bird hunting
program. This issue is discussed below under ``Proposed 2002-03
Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations.''
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Prior to issuance of the 2002-03 migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will consider provisions of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act) to
ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or
destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation
programs for those species. Consultations under Section 7 of this Act
may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental
proposed rulemaking documents.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
This rule is economically significant and was reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. The migratory
bird hunting regulations are economically significant and are annually
reviewed by OMB under E.O. 12866. As such, a cost/benefit analysis was
prepared in 1998 and is further discussed below under the heading
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Copies of the cost/benefit analysis are
available upon request from the address indicated under the caption
ADDRESSES.
E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write regulations that are easy
to understand. We invite comments on how to make this rule easier to
understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
(1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
(2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
interferes with its clarity?
(3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity?
(4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it were divided into
more (but shorter) sections?
(5) Is the description of the rule in the ``Supplementary
Information'' section of the preamble helpful in understanding the
rule?
(6) What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
Regulatory Flexibility Act
These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial
numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the economic impacts of the annual
hunting regulations on small business entities in detail, and the
Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) in 1998.
The Analysis documented the significant beneficial economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities. The primary source of information
about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting is the
National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-year
intervals. The Analysis utilized the 1996 National Hunting and Fishing
Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns
from which it was estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend
between $429 million and $1.084 billion at small businesses in 1998.
Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Division of
Migratory Bird Management.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above,
this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan
to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C.
808 (1).
Paperwork Reduction Act
We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995. The various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed
under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, Subpart K, are
utilized in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations.
Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements
of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and assigned
clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 09/30/2004). This information is
used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to
improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to
better manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information
collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest Questionnaire and
assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 07/30/2003). The
information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude and the
geographical and temporal distribution of the harvest, and the portion
it constitutes of the total population.
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 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. Therefore, this
rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.
Takings Implication Assessment
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings
implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected
property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking
of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise
otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on
the use of private and public property.
Energy Effects--E.O. 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O.
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. While this proposed rule is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to adversely
affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is
not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is
required.
Federalism Effects
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from
which the States make selections and employ guidelines to establish
special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands.
This process preserves the ability of the States and tribes to
determine which seasons meet their individual needs.
[[Page 12506]]
Any State or tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks
at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with
the States and the Flyway Councils. This process allows States to
participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make
selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These
rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity,
change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments,
or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance
with E.O. 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism
effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2002-03
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
Dated: February 1, 2002.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Proposed 2002-03 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations
(Preliminary)
Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat
conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway
Councils, we may defer specific regulatory proposals. With the
exception of modifying the framework opening and closing dates within
the regulatory alternatives, we are proposing no change from the final
2001-02 frameworks of August 21 and September 27, 2001 (66 FR 44010 and
49478). Other issues requiring early discussion, action, or the
attention of the States or tribes are contained below:
1. Ducks
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest
management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. Only those containing substantial recommendations
are discussed below.
A. General Harvest Strategy
We recommend the continued use of adaptive harvest management (AHM)
to help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2002-03
season. The current AHM protocol is used to evaluate five alternative
regulatory levels based on the population status of mallards (special
hunting restrictions are enacted for species of special concern, such
as canvasbacks and pintails). The regulatory alternative in the
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways is prescribed based on the
status of mallards and breeding-habitat conditions in central North
America (Federal survey strata 1-18, 20-50 and 75-77, and State surveys
in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). The recommended regulatory
alternative for the Atlantic Flyway is based on the population status
of mallards breeding in eastern North America (Federal survey strata
51-54 and 56, and State surveys in New England and the mid-Atlantic
region) and, thus, may differ from that in the remainder of the
country. A specific regulatory alternative for each of the Flyways
during the 2002-03 season will be proposed after survey information
becomes available in late summer.
Last year, the AHM Working Group (an interagency, technical
advisory committee) identified a number of concerns with the current
AHM protocol for mallards. These concerns focused on the models of
population dynamics used to evaluate various regulatory options, and
include: (1) Evidence that all models of mallard population dynamics
may predict biased annual growth rates; (2) indications that the
current method of comparing predicted and observed population sizes may
unrealistically inflate the rate at which we can identify the most
accurate population model; and (3) the need for improved survival and
reproductive models that more effectively capture the range of possible
population dynamics and effects of harvest. These concerns have
important management implications, and we expect to propose remedial
measures for the 2002-03 hunting season. Our proposals will be based on
consultations with the AHM Working Group and the Flyway Councils, and
will be made available for public comment later in the year.
Finally, we expressed our desire last year to begin the process of
developing a new Environmental Impact Statement for migratory bird
hunting (66 FR 21302). We reiterate the need to focus on three key
themes:
(1) Goal setting--AHM can produce optimal regulatory decisions in
the face of uncertainty, if and only if, there is agreement about the
goals and objectives of harvest management. Clearly, the goals of duck
harvest management extend well beyond simple measures of hunter success
and population size, and many of the difficulties in duck harvest
management today probably relate more to ambiguity in objectives,
rather than to uncertainty about biological impacts. Disagreement about
management objectives poses a serious threat to the long-term viability
of AHM.
(2) Limits to system control--There are both theoretical and
practical limits to our ability to predict, control, and measure the
size of waterfowl populations and harvest and, as a consequence,
operational constraints on short-term hunting opportunity and on the
learning needed to increase long-term performance. The waterfowl
management community needs to better explore, understand, and
acknowledge these limits, and to develop regulatory alternatives and
strategies that avoid the most undesirable consequences of those
limits, while meeting reasonable demands for hunting opportunity.
(3) Management scale--The history of duck harvest management has
been characterized by efforts to account for increasingly more spatial,
temporal, and taxonomic variability in waterfowl demographics in a
continuing effort to maximize hunting opportunity. We have begun to
question the wisdom of this approach, given the inevitable tradeoff
between harvest benefits and the direct and indirect costs of managing
at progressively finer scales. The level of resolution that ultimately
will be most appropriate in the AHM process remains to be seen, but we
are increasingly concerned about what we see as unrealistic
expectations for accommodating small-scale variation in waterfowl
population dynamics.
We look forward to exploring these and other duck-harvest
management issues with the Flyway Councils, other stakeholders, and the
general public during the coming year.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
The Service regulates the earliest and latest dates within which
States can select duck-hunting seasons. Historically, these dates have
been approximately October 1 to January 20. The effects of extending
these dates so that seasons could open earlier and/or later have been
the subject of extensive debate within the waterfowl management
community. Biological impacts and impacts on harvest resulting from
such changes remain uncertain.
In 1998, Congress specified that the 1998-99 hunting season in
Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee
could
[[Page 12507]]
extend to January 31, with a 9-day reduction from the 60-day season
established for other States. The 9-day reduction was intended to
offset the anticipated increase in harvest that was expected to occur.
Since 1998, Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee chose to use this
extended closing date (January 31) with the 9-day offset. We have
continued to monitor duck harvests in these States but do not yet have
sufficient data to determine definitively whether the magnitude of
season-length reduction is accomplishing its intended purpose.
In August 2000, the Flyway Council Consultants to the Service
Regulations Committee requested that the Service evaluate the projected
impacts of extending the framework opening date for duck hunting from
the Saturday nearest October 1 to the Saturday nearest September 24 and
extending the closing date from the Sunday nearest January 20 to the
last Sunday in January. The evaluation, completed in January 2001, was
based on a canvassing of all Flyways to determine which States would
use the extension. The principal conclusion of this review reaffirmed
earlier assessments that nationwide use of framework-date extensions
might significantly reduce the frequency of more liberal duck hunting
seasons. This is primarily a result of greater uncertainty in our
ability to predict the impacts of such fundamental changes in the
regulations.
In 2001, the National Flyway Council (NFC) submitted a letter
signed by the Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils, and the
Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council,
that formally recommended an experimental framework opening date of the
Saturday nearest September 24 and a framework closing date of the last
Sunday in January, with no offsets, in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal''
regulatory packages, for the 2001-03 duck seasons. The letter further
recommended that the framework dates be applicable either Statewide or
in zones and that the Service use an evaluation of the framework date
extensions for the next 3 years as a basis for establishing future
framework dates.
We considered the recommendation, but declined to offer any changes
to existing framework dates for duck hunting in the 2001-02 hunting
season (66 FR 38498) due to a number of unresolved issues. Among those
were: (1) Uncertainty about changes in mallard harvest rates that might
occur with implementation of framework-date extensions; (2) the need
for a reliable monitoring program for estimating realized harvest rates
of mallards, i.e., current estimates of band-reporting rates; (3) the
potential for adverse biological impacts to species other than
mallards, such as wood ducks, and especially those below objective
levels (e.g., pintails, scaup); and (4) certain administrative and
procedural issues involved in extending framework dates, particularly
the timing of key meetings, publication of proposed and final rules,
and the availability of adequate public notice and opportunity for
comment. Other long-standing concerns were: (1) Changes in distribution
of the harvest both within and among Flyways; (2) the need to maintain
stability of regulatory packages; and (3) the potential impact of late-
season extensions on ducks returning to the breeding grounds in the
spring. We also emphasized that any uncertainty surrounding the impact
of framework-date extensions on mallard numbers could be addressed most
effectively using an adaptive management approach. This approach would
not only help identify the effects of framework-date extensions but
also ensure that we can account for uncertainty associated with harvest
and population impacts in each regulatory decision.
On October 11, 2001, upon reconsideration of the previously
established ``liberal'' regulatory alternative, we proposed (66 FR
51919) a framework opening date of September 29 and a closing date of
January 31, with no reduction (offset) in season length, for the 2001-
02 hunting season in the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. This proposal was in contrast to
framework-date extensions existing since 1998 in Alabama, Mississippi,
and Tennessee, of a closing date of January 31, accompanied by a 9-day
reduction in season length.
The vast majority of comments received during the comment period
were strongly opposed to this proposal. Consequently, we withdrew the
proposal on November 23, 2001 (66 FR 58707) and stated that we would
begin immediately to work with the Flyway Councils to develop a
resolution to the framework-date issue prior to the 2002-03 duck
hunting season.
On December 2, 2001, we met in Wichita, Kansas, with a newly formed
working group of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies (IAFWA). This group, comprised of State representatives,
including representatives from each Flyway Council, was formed to
facilitate early coordination with the Flyway Councils and States. The
discussion focused on the original 2001 recommendation submitted
through the NFC and how the current regulations-setting process and
schedule would need to be changed in order to accommodate changes in
frameworks dates should such a proposal be adopted through the usual
regulatory process. This early coordination was considered necessary
since meetings throughout the process, which are scheduled well in
advance, might have to be changed. It was concluded that changes to the
current process could be made to allow for earlier and later season
extensions as proposed by the Flyway Councils.
Based on discussions with Flyway Council representatives, and using
the above recommendation to extend season dates, we propose the
following: (1) To modify the current set of regulatory alternatives
changing the framework opening date from the Saturday nearest October 1
to the Saturday nearest September 24 and change the closing date from
the Sunday nearest January 20 to the last Sunday in January, with no
offset in days or bag limits, in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal''
regulatory alternatives; (2) to keep these changes to framework dates
in place for 3 years to allow for a reasonable opportunity to monitor
the impacts of these extensions on harvest distribution and rates of
harvest prior to considering any subsequent use; (3) to make any
changes to frameworks within the context of AHM; and (4) to hold the
Flyway Technical Committee and Council meetings and the Service
Regulations Committee meeting for late-season hunting proposals
approximately 1 week earlier than normally scheduled to accommodate
administrative and procedural requirements.
Based on our recent assessment, ``Framework-date Extensions for
Duck Hunting in the United States: Projected Impacts & Coping With
Uncertainty (January 2001)'', we expect this proposal to result in some
redistribution of the harvest, increases in harvest of mallards and
perhaps other species, and potentially less frequent liberal
regulations. These impacts were summarized in the June 14, 2001,
Federal Register (66 FR 32297).
Regarding administrative and procedural issues, the Service
underscores the need to proceed carefully with modifications to the
existing timetable for regulations development. That is, if additional
changes to the schedule become necessary, beyond those already proposed
to accommodate early-season framework extensions, significant problems
could arise. Included in these concerns would be the availability of
[[Page 12508]]
survey information prior to the development of regulatory proposals.
In light of the uncertainty about the impacts of extended framework
dates, we support the recommendation of the Flyway Councils that
changes must be accomplished within the context of AHM. Several years
ago (April 1999), the AHM Working Group considered an adaptive approach
to framework-date extensions and developed a set of principles and
general guidelines, which we continue to support. Those principles are:
(1) The need for stability in regulatory alternatives so that
associated levels of duck harvest can be estimated reliably; (2) the
advisability of framework-date proposals with minimal complexity (i.e.,
few, if any, special cases or dispensations); (3) the specification of
framework regulations that are uniform within Flyways; (4) the need for
improved resource monitoring to provide necessary feedback; and (5) a
cautionary statement that regulatory changes far beyond the realm of
experience undermine our ability to make data-based predictions about
harvest impacts and, thus, undermine the integrity of the AHM process.
In light of these concerns, we are requesting the AHM Working Group
to evaluate the framework-date proposal contained herein, and to
recommend appropriate changes to the current AHM technical protocol. At
a minimum, we believe that the AHM Working Group should: (1) Review and
update the predictions of mallard harvest rates under the current
regulatory alternatives (without framework-date extensions); (2)
determine how we will account for the uncertainty about the impacts of
extended framework dates; (3) recommend changes to resource monitoring
programs that will be necessary to permit an evaluation of framework-
date extensions; and (4) provide guidelines for assessing impacts to
species other than mallards (especially those species below objective
levels). Finally, in evaluating the current framework-date proposal, we
urge all interested parties to consider how improvements to resource
monitoring programs would be funded, whether the risk of more
restrictive hunting seasons (i.e., shorter season lengths and smaller
bag limits) is acceptable, and whether some re-distribution of duck
harvest to more northerly and more southerly States is desirable.
In conclusion, the Service re-emphasizes its commitment to
monitoring the impacts of these proposed extensions of framework dates
over a 3-year period, particularly with regard to any effects on
harvest distribution and rates of harvest. It is essential, therefore,
that improvements to existing monitoring programs, such as the need to
estimate the rate at which hunters voluntarily report band encounters
(band reporting rate), be in place during this evaluation period.
Resulting improvements in the estimation of harvest rates of mallards
and other duck species, along with other elements of ongoing survey
activities, will play a major role in the evaluation effort. Any
decision to continue these framework extensions, or implement more
restrictive hunting seasons, will be contingent on the outcome of this
assessment.
Thus, as indicated above, for the 2002-03 season, we are proposing
to modify the four regulatory alternatives used last year (see
accompanying table for specifics of the proposed regulatory
alternatives). 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. We will announce final regulatory alternatives in early
June. Public comments will be accepted until May 1, 2002, and should be
sent to the address under the caption ADDRESSES.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
iv. Canvasbacks
Since 1994, the Service has followed a canvasback harvest strategy
such that, if population status and production are sufficient to permit
a harvest of one canvasback per day nationwide for the entire length of
the regular duck season, while attaining a spring population objective
of 500,000 birds, the season on canvasbacks should be opened.
Otherwise, the season on canvasbacks should be closed nationwide. Lat
spring, the estimate of canvasback abundance was 580,000 birds and the
number of ponds in Prairie Canada in May (2.7 million) was 20% below
the long-term average. The size of the spring population, together with
natural mortality and below-average expected production due to the
relatively dry conditions, was insufficient to offset expected
mortality associated with a canvasback season lasting the entire length
of the ``liberal'' regulatory alternative and still attain the
population objective of 500,000 canvasbacks in the spring of 2002.
While we continued to support the harvest strategy and the model
adopted in 1994, despite the reduced numbers and below-average
production forecast last year, we believed there was still some
opportunity to allow a limited harvest last fall without compromising
the population's ability to reach 500,000 canvasbacks this spring.
Thus, we allowed a very restrictive, shortened canvasback season for
2001-02. In the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, the season length was
20 days, in the Central Flyway, 25 days, and in the Pacific Flyway, 38
days. Our objective was to provide some hunting opportunity while still
maintaining the spring population above the 500,000 objective level.
We also expressed a willingness to revisit the guidelines outlined
in the strategy and asked that any proposed changes have broad-based
support and reflect the interests of all stakeholders. In addition, we
urged the Flyway Councils to begin internal discussions regarding
species-specific restrictions in the existing AHM framework. In 2002,
we will again consider the size of the spring population and model-
based predictions of production and harvest in development of
regulations proposals for canvasbacks. However, absent the broad-based
support by the Flyway Councils to revise the strategy, we intend to
follow the 1994 model-based prescriptions originally developed for
canvasbacks.
v. Pintails
We presently utilize an interim strategy to manage the harvest of
pintails. In the current strategy, the determination of appropriate bag
limits is based, in part, on the harvest predicted by a set of models
that were developed from historical data relating harvest to bag limit
and season length. However, since the interim strategy was implemented
in 1997, the predicted harvest has consistently been lower than the
estimated harvest from the U.S. and Canadian Federal harvest surveys.
We will work with the Flyway Councils to review the current method of
determining bag limits with the intent of making appropriate
adjustments to the strategy to better reflect the realized harvest of
pintails.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 12509]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP19MR02.077
[[Page 12510]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TP19MR02.078
[FR Doc. 02-6527 Filed 3-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C