65FR38399 Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings
robop...@us.govnews.org
Posting-number: Volume 65, Issue 119, Page 38399
[Federal Register: June 20, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 119)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38399-38405]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20jn00-30]
[[Page 38399]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VI
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings; Proposed Rule
[[Page 38400]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
RIN 1018-AG08
Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental Proposals for Migratory Game
Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we)
proposed in an earlier document to establish annual hunting regulations
for certain migratory game birds for the 2000-01 hunting season. This
supplement to the proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule;
announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway
Council meetings; and describes the proposed regulatory alternatives
for the 2000-01 duck hunting seasons and other proposed changes from
the 1999-2000 hunting regulations.
DATES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to
consider and develop proposed regulations for early-season migratory
bird hunting on June 21 and 22, and for late-season migratory bird
hunting on August 2 and 3. All meetings will commence at approximately
8:30 a.m.
You must submit comments on the proposed regulatory alternatives
for the 2000-01 duck hunting seasons by July 7, 2000. You must submit
comments on the proposed migratory bird hunting-season frameworks for
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other early
seasons by July 28, 2000; and for proposed late-season frameworks by
September 8, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet
in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square
Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
Send your comments on the proposals to the Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC
20240. 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 N.
Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Andrew, Chief, or Ron W.
Kokel, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, (703) 358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations Schedule for 2000
On April 25, 2000, we published in the Federal Register (65 FR
24260) 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 Sec. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of
subpart K. This document is the second in a series of proposed,
supplemental, and final rules for migratory game bird hunting
regulations. We will publish proposed early-season frameworks and final
regulatory alternatives for the 2000-01 duck hunting seasons in mid-
July and late-season frameworks in mid-August. We will publish final
regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about August 18, 2000,
and those for late seasons on or about September 25, 2000.
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings
The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet June 21-
22 to review information on the current status of migratory shore and
upland game birds and develop 2000-01 migratory game bird regulations
recommendations for these species plus regulations for migratory game
birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The Committee
will also develop regulations recommendations for special September
waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck seasons in the
Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In addition, the
Committee review and discuss preliminary information on the status of
waterfowl.
At the August 2-3 meetings, the Committee will review information
on the current status of waterfowl and develop 2000-01 migratory game
bird regulations recommendations for regular waterfowl seasons and
other species and seasons not previously discussed at the early-season
meetings.
In accordance with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to
public observation. You may submit written comments to the Director on
the matters discussed.
Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings
Service representatives will be present at the joint and individual
meetings of the four Flyway Councils, July 27 and 28, at the Peabody
Hotel in Memphis, Tennessee. Although agendas are not yet available,
these meetings usually commence at 8:00 a.m. on the days indicated.
Review of Public Comments
This supplemental rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory
alternatives for the 2000-01 duck hunting seasons. We have included and
addressed all comments and recommendations received through May 12,
2000, relating to the development of these alternatives.
This supplemental rulemaking also describes other recommended
changes based on the preliminary proposals published in the April 25,
2000, Federal Register. We have included only those recommendations
requiring either new proposals or substantial modification of the
preliminary proposals. This supplement does not include recommendations
or comments that simply support or oppose preliminary proposals and
provide no recommended alternatives. We will consider these comments
later in the regulations-development process. 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 supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to
previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible,
they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items
in the April 25, 2000, proposed rule.
1. Ducks
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest
management are: (A) Harvest Strategy Considerations, (B) Regulatory
Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season
length, and bag limits, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special
Seasons/Species Management. Only those categories for which we received
public comment are discussed below.
A. Harvest Strategy Considerations
Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended
that duck hunting regulations in the Atlantic Flyway for the 2000-01
season be based on the optimal harvest strategy for eastern mallards.
Service Response: In the April 25, 2000, proposed rule (65 FR
24260), we proposed to continue use of Adaptive Harvest Management
(AHM) to guide the establishment of duck hunting regulations. This
year, we also propose to modify the existing AHM protocol to account
for the status of mallards
[[Page 38401]]
breeding in eastern North America. Modification of the AHM protocol
involves: (1) Augmentation of the criteria for regulatory decisions to
include population and environmental variables relevant to eastern
mallards; (2) development of a combined harvest-management objective
for midcontinent and eastern mallards; and (3) modification of the
decision rules to allow a regulatory choice in the Atlantic Flyway that
may differ from the remainder of the country. Recently, the Service, in
cooperation with the Atlantic Flyway Council, completed a technical
assessment regarding modification of AHM to account for eastern
mallards. The principal finding of this assessment was that the status
of midcontinent mallards appears to have little or no influence on the
most appropriate choice of regulatory alternative in the Atlantic
Flyway. However, the status of eastern mallards can influence the most
appropriate regulatory choice in the western three Flyways,
particularly when the status of midcontinent and eastern mallards is
disparate. We note that this assessment considers only the large-scale
status of mallard breeding populations, and not the status of sub-
populations that may have affinities for certain wintering areas. We
also note that the assessment did not explicitly consider the status of
species other than mallards in the development of regulatory
strategies. The assessment report is available on the Internet at
www.migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/reports.html. We will consider the
implications for mallard harvest and status discussed in this
assessment report, as well as potential impacts on species other than
mallards, in proposing a regulatory alternative for the Atlantic Flyway
for the 2000-2001 hunting season. We will accept public comment on this
issue until September 8, 2000. Comments should be sent to the address
under the caption ADDRESSES.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the regulations
alternatives from 1999 be used in 2000, except that the framework
opening and closing dates in all alternatives should be the Saturday
nearest September 23 to the Sunday nearest January 28, with appropriate
offsets (e.g., reduction in season length) as determined by the
Service.
The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council recommended that the framework opening and closing dates in all
regulatory alternatives should be the Saturday nearest September 23 to
the Sunday nearest January 28, with no penalties in season length.
The Central Flyway Council recommended the continued use of the
1999 regulatory alternatives for the 2000-2001 season, but with
modifications. The Council recommended a framework opening date of the
Saturday closest to September 24 in the ``liberal'' and ``moderate''
regulatory alternatives with no offsets, and a framework closing date
of the Sunday closest to January 25. Additionally, the Council
recommended that no additional changes be allowed to the alternatives
for a 5-year period.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that the set of regulatory
alternatives for the 2000-2001 hunting season remain unchanged from
those adopted in 1999.
Service Response: We believe that tacit disagreement over the
objectives of modifying framework dates continues to undermine the
biological and administrative foundations of the regulatory process for
setting duck hunting seasons. Therefore, we believe that the continuing
debate over framework-date extensions could benefit from further
dialogue, in which Flyway Councils explore the sociological issues of
fairness and equity underlying the framework-date issue. We acknowledge
the difficulties associated with such a dialogue, but broad-based
agreement on a regulatory approach to framework dates is unlikely in
its absence.
Due to the continuing absence of agreement among States and Flyways
about how best to modify framework dates, we are proposing no changes
to the set of regulatory alternatives from those considered last year
(i.e., the 1999-2000 hunting season) (64 FR 39460). We reiterate that
our desire is to maintain current framework-date specifications through
the 2002-03 hunting season, or until such time that the Flyway Councils
can develop an approach that adequately addresses the concerns of the
Service and a majority of States.
In evaluating proposals for modification of framework dates, we
will continue to focus on several key issues, including: (1) The
potential for biological impacts on the waterfowl resource,
particularly on those species currently at depressed levels; (2) the
technical difficulties associated with predicting harvest impacts; (3)
our desire to maintain framework dates as a viable tool, along with
season length and bag limit, for regulating duck harvests; and (4) the
acceptability of proposals to a broad range of stakeholders. In
addition, we are particularly concerned about any modification to
framework dates that would disrupt the functioning of AHM, which is
intended to reduce long-standing uncertainties about the impacts of
hunting regulations on waterfowl populations. An essential feature of
the AHM process is a set of regulatory alternatives (including
framework dates, season lengths, and bag limits) that is sufficiently
stable over time to permit a reliable investigation of the
relationships between regulations and harvest, and between harvest and
subsequent duck population size.
Therefore, we propose the four regulatory alternatives described in
the accompanying table for consideration during the 2000-2001 duck
hunting season. 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
July following the early-season regulations meetings in late June.
Public comments will be accepted until July 7, 2000, and should be sent
to the address under the caption ADDRESSES.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended
that the guidelines for regular duck season zone/split configurations
be modified to allow States to select up to three zones with a two-way
split season in each zone.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
iii. September Teal Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended
that Nebraska be allowed to have an experimental 9-day teal season in
the non-production area of the State.
iv. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council requested that the Service and the
Council's Wood Duck Technical Committee move forward during the current
year (2000) to allow for implementation of a wood duck Flyway harvest
management strategy by the year 2001 as scheduled. The Committee
further recommended that September seasons remain an option for
delineated wood duck reference areas (population units), provided that
specified data-collection requirements are met.
[[Page 38402]]
v. Youth Hunt
Council Recommendations: The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a special 2-day youth
waterfowl hunt for the 2000-01 season.
The Central Flyway Council recommended expansion of the special
youth waterfowl hunt to 2 days.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that the Service allow
States the opportunity to select up to 2 consecutive days for a youth
waterfowl hunt outside the general season and frameworks in 2000.
3. Mergansers
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that, for those States that
include mergansers in their duck bag limit, the merganser limit be the
same as the duck bag limit, except that the hooded merganser limit
would remain at one.
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the three counties near
Saginaw Bay in Michigan (Huron, Saginaw, and Tuscola), which previously
have been closed in the special early Canada goose season, be allowed
an experimental special early season with a two-bird daily bag limit.
The Lower-Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council urged the Service to use caution in changing or expanding
special goose seasons.
The Central Flyway Council recommended that the framework closing
date for operational September Canada goose seasons in the Central
Flyway be extended to September 30 with no additional evaluation
required.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that Wyoming's daily bag and
season limits be increased from 2 and 4, to 3 and 6 birds,
respectively, and that the bag and possession limits for Washington's
September season increase from 3 and 6, to 5 and 10, respectively.
B. Regular Seasons
Council Recommendations: The Upper-Region Regulations Committee of
the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the 1999 regular goose
season opening date be as early as September 16 in Michigan and
Wisconsin. The Committee further recommended that the framework opening
date for regular goose seasons in the Mississippi Flyway be September
16.
The Central Flyway Council recommended that the framework opening
date for regular dark goose seasons in the East and West Tiers be fixed
at September 1, rather than the current opening date of the Saturday
nearest October 1.
5. White-fronted Geese
Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended
that the framework closing date for Mid-Continent white-fronted geese
be changed to the Sunday closest to February 15. They further
recommended that the season length be 95 days, except for the Eastern
Goose Zone of Texas, where it would be unchanged (86 days).
8. Swans
Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended
that States with Eastern Population tundra swan hunting seasons (North
Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana) be allowed to issue a second swan
permit to interested hunters from permits remaining after the initial
drawing.
9. Sandhill Cranes
Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended a
95-day season with the option for a two-way split season for the
hunting of Mid-Continent sandhill cranes. This change would result in a
37-day season length increase in North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,
Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado and a 2-day season length
increase in Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico.
The Council further recommended that the open area for the hunting
of Mid-Continent sandhill cranes be extended eastward to the
Mississippi Flyway. The Council recommends a season length of 37 days
with outside framework dates of September 1 and February 28, and a
daily bag/possession limit of 3 and 9, respectively, for this expanded
area.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended a boundary modification in
Box Elder County, Utah to exclude that portion of the County known to
be used by greater sandhill cranes affiliated with the Lower Colorado
River Population.
12. Rails
Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended
that those States divided between the Central and Pacific Flyways be
allowed to select rail season frameworks, on a statewide basis, that
conform with the Central Management Unit frameworks.
13. Snipe
Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended
that those States divided between the Central and Pacific Flyways be
allowed to select snipe season frameworks, on a statewide basis, that
conform with the Central Management Unit frameworks.
15. Band-tailed Pigeons
Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended a
change in frameworks for Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons from 1999 to
increase the possession limit from 2 to 4 birds.
16. Mourning Doves
Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended
that those States divided between the Central and Pacific Flyways be
allowed to select dove season frameworks, on a statewide basis, that
conform with the Central Management Unit frameworks.
18. Alaska
Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended a
reduction in sandhill crane bag limits from three to two in that
portion of the State associated with the Pacific Flyway Population of
lesser sandhill cranes.
Public Comment Invited
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable,
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking
process. We intend that adopted final rules be as responsive as
possible to all concerned interests and, therefore, seek the comments
and suggestions of the public, other concerned governmental agencies,
non-governmental organizations, and other private interests on these
proposals. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed
regulations to the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES.
Special circumstances involved in the establishment of these
regulations limit the amount of time that we 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
[[Page 38403]]
shore and upland game bird populations. Therefore, we believe that to
allow comment periods past the dates specified is contrary to the
public interest.
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.
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.
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 a 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). Copies are available from the address indicated
under the caption ADDRESSES.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Prior to issuance of the 2000-01 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 that the proposed action 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
While this individual supplemental rule was not reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the migratory bird hunting
regulations are economically significant and are annually reviewed by
OMB under E.O. 12866.
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?
What else could the Service 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 a Small
Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis) was issued by the Service 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 was based on 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 million at small businesses in
1998. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the Office
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 09/30/2001). 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 09/30/2000). The
information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude and the
geographical and temporal distribution of 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.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that these regulations meet the applicable standards found in Sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Takings Implication Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 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.
[[Page 38404]]
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. 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 Executive Order
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 2000-01
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: June 14, 2000.
Donald J. Barry,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 38405]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JN00.005
[FR Doc. 00-15454 Filed 6-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C