Guidelines (50 FR 23459)

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules
1. Santa Ynez River, Santa BarbaraCounty
(Index map location A).
T5N, R27W: Sec. 1 and 12.
In addition, all lands within the following
circumscribed area: beginning at the
northeast comer of Sec. 1, T5N, R27W; thence
east approximately 1.85 miles to the
intersection of Mono Creek and the Los
Prietos Y Najalayegua land grant boundary;
thence south approximately 2.5 miles; thence

east approximately 2.6 miles to Agua
Calienta Creek at a point about 0.4 mile north
of the Pendola Guard Station; thence south
1.0 mile; thence west 2.5 miles to the Los
Prietos Y Najalayegua land grant boundary;
then west and north along said land grant
boundary to the northeast corner of Sec. 24,
T5N, R27W; thence north approximately 1.0
mile to the southwest corner of Sec. 12, T5N,
R27W.
4. On page 18973, column 3, lines 17
and 18, the name of the road is corrected
to read "Via Puerta Del Sol" not "Via
Puerta Del."
5. On page 18970, column 1, line 28,
the words "construction projects" are
replaced by "severe flooding."
6. On page 18970, column 2, line 19,
the number of acres should read
"44,500."
7. On page 18970, column 2, line 15
from bottom is corrected to read "(1)
removal or destruction of riparian."
8. On page 18970, column 3, line 23
from bottom is corrected to read
"Marine Corps has coordinated with
the."
Dated: May 30, 1985.
Susan Recce,
Arting Assistant Secretaryfor Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 85-13386 Filed 6-3--85; 8:45 am]
BILUNG COOE 4310-55-M

50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Supplemental
Proposals for Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document supplements
Federal Register Document 50 FR 6366 published on February 15, 1985, which
presented several duck harvest
strategies that were being considered by
the Service for possible implementation
during the 1985-86 duck hunting season,
and Federal Register Document 50 FR
10276 published on March 14, 1985,
which notified the public that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to
establish hunting regulations for certain
migratory game birds during 1985-86,
and provided information on certain
proposed regulations.

This proposed rulemaking provides
supplemental proposals and minor
corrections for both the "early" and
"late" season migratory bird hunting
regulations frameworks. The early
hunting seasons open prior to October 1
and include seasons on mourning doves;
white-winged doves; white-tipped
doves; band-tailed pigeons; woodcock;
common snipe; rails, moorhens, and
gallinules; September teal; sea ducks;
early duck seasons in Florida, Iowa,
Kentucky, and Tennessee; experimental
early goose season framework in a
portion of Michigan; special sandhill
crane-Canada goose season in
southwestern Wyoming; sandhill cranes
in the Central Flyway and Arizona;
migratory bird hunting seasons in
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands; and special falconry
seasons. Late seasons open about
October 1 or later and include most
waterfowl and seasons not previously
selected for other species. The Service
annually prescribes hunting regulations
frameworks within which the States
select specific seasons. The effect of this
proposed rule is to facilitate
establishment of early and late season
migratory bird hunting regulations for
the 1985-86 season.
DATES: The comment period for
proposed migratory bird hunting season
frameworks for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands will end on
June 20, 1985; that for other early season
proposals will end on July 15,1985; and
that for late season proposals on August
19, 1985. Comments and tribal requests
concerning the proposed guidelines for
migratory bird hunting on Indian
reservations and ceded lands, must be
received no later than July 1, 1985.
Public Hearings on proposed early and
late season frameworks will be held on
June 20 and August 1, 1985, respectively
(50 FR 10276).
Written comments and suggestions
concerning the environmental
assessment on Indian hunting rights
should be sent to MBMO by July 8, 1985.
ADDRESS: Send comments to: Director
(FWS/MBMO], U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior,
Main Interior Building, Room 3252,
Washington, D.C. 20240. The Public
Hearings will be held in the Auditorium
of the Department of the Interior
Building on C Street, between 18th and
19th Streets, NW., Washington, D.C.
Notice of intention to participate in this
hearing should be sent in writing to the
Director (FWS/MBMO), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, Main Interior Building, Room
3252, Washington, D.C. 20240

23459
23459

Comments received on the
supplemental proposed rulemaking will
be available for public inspection during
normal business hours in Room 538,
Matomic Building, 1717 H Street, NW.,
Washington, D.C. Addresses for those
tribes wishing to submit proposals for
special migratory bird hunting seasons
may be found in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Rollin D. Sparrowe, Chief, Office of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Department of the

Interior, Matomic Building-Room 536,
Washington, D.C. 20240 (202-254-3207).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
annual process for developing migratory
game bird hunting regulations deals with
regulations for early and late seasons.
Early seasons include those which open
before October 1, while late seasons

open about October 1 or later.
Regulations are developed
independently for early and late seaons.
The early season regulations cover
mourning doves; white-winged doves;
white-tipped doves; band-tailed pigeons;
rails; moorhens and gallinules;
woodcock; common snipe; sea ducks in
the Atlantic Flyway; teal in September
in the Central and Mississippi Flyways;
early duck seasons in Florida, Iowa,

Kentucky, and Tennessee; an
experimental early goose season
framework in a portion of Michigan;
sandhill cranes in the Central Flyway
and Arizona; a special sandhill craneCanada goose season in southwestern
Wyoming; doves in Hawaii; migratory
game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and

the Virgin Islands; and some special
falconry seasons. Late seasons include
the general waterfowl seasons; special

seasons for scaup and goldeneyes; extra
scaup and teal in regular seasons; coots,
moorhens, gallinules, and snipe in the
Pacific Flyway; and other special
falconry seasons.
Certain general procedures are
followed in developing regulations for

both the early and the late seasons.
Initial regulatory proposals are
announced in a Federal Register
document published in March and
opened to public comment. These
proposals are supplemented, as
necessary, with additional Federal
Register notices. Following termination
of comment periods and after public
hearings, the Service further develops
and publishes proposed frameworks for
times of seasons, season lengths,
shooting hours, daily bag and
possession limits, and other regulatory
elements. After consideration of
additional public comments, the Service

23460

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules

publishes final frameworks in the
Federal Register. Using these
frameworks, State conservation
agencies then select hunting season
dates and options. Upon receipt of State
selections, the Service publishes a final
rule in the Federal Register, amending
Subpart K of 50 CFR Part 20, to establish
specific seasons, bag limits, and other
regulations. The regulations become
effective upon publication. States may
prescribe more restrictive seasons than
those provided in the final frameworks.
The regulations schedule for this year

is as follows. In the February 15, 1985,
Federal Register (50 FR 6366) the Service
presented a series of duck harvest
strategies that were being considered for
possible implementation in the 1985-86
duck hunting season. On March 14, 1985,
the Service published in the Federal
Register (50 FR 10276) a proposal to
amend 50 CFR Part 20, with public
comment periods ending as noted
above. The proposal dealt with
establishment of seasons, limits and
other regulations for migratory birds
under § § 20.101 through 20.107 and

20.109 of Subpart K. This document is
the second in a series of proposed,
supplemental, and final rules for
migratory game bird hunting regulations.
All comments on the March 14 proposal
received through May 3, 1985, have been
considered in developing this document.
Comment periods on this second
document are specified above under
DATES. Final regulatory frameworks for
migratory game bird hunting seasons for
Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands are scheduled for Federal
Register publication on or about July 11,
1985, and those for early seasons in
other areas of the United States on July
26, 1985; and those for late seasons on
September 2, 1985.
On June 20, 1985, a public hearing will
be held in Washington, D.C., as
announced in the Federal Register of
March 14, 1985, (50 FR 10276), to review
the status of mourning doves, woodcock,
band-tailed pigeons, white-winged and
white-tipped doves, rails, moorhens and
gallinules, common snipe, and sandhill
cranes. Proposed hunting regulations
will be discussed for these species and
migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands; September
teal seasons in the Mississippi and
Central Flyways; special September
waterfowl seasons in designated States;
special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic
Flyway; and special falconry seasons.
Statements or comments are invited.
On August 1, 1985, a public hearing
will be held in Washington, D.C., as
announced in the Federal Register of
March 14, 1985, (50 FR 10276), to review

the status and proposed hunting
regulations for waterfowl not previously
discussed at the June 20 public hearing.
This supplemental proposed
rulemaking describes a number of
changes which have been proposed by
commentors on the original framework
proposals published on March 14, 1985,
in the Federal Register. Two minor
errors are corrected.
Review of Public Comments and the
Service's Response
Written Comments Received
As of May 3, 1985, the Service had
received comments on proposals
published in the March 14, 1985, Federal
Register (50 FR 10276) 21
correspondents, including 5 individuals,
2 organizations, 10 State agencies, and 4
waterfowl flyway councils. In some
instances, the communications did not
specifically mention the open comment
period or the regulatory proposals.
however, because they were received
during the comment period and
generally to migratory bird hunting
regulations, they are treated as
comments. These comments as well as
comments received on duck harvest
strategies published in the February 15,
1985, Federal Register (50 FR 6366) are
discussed below with particular
attention to new proposals, and
modifications, clarifications or
corrections to previously described
proposals. Wherever possible, they are
discussed under headings corresponding
to the numbered items in the March 14,
1985, Federal Register (50 FR 10276).
Comments received subsequent to May
3, 1985 as well as those received at the
June 20, 1985, public hearing will be
addressed in the next supplemental
proposal to be published in the Federal
Register in early July.
General Comments
Except for specific recommendations
identified below, theCentral Flyway
Council recommended adoption of the
proposed regulations published in the
March 14, 1985, Federal Register

pertinent to seasons in the Central
Management Unit and the Central
Flway for all migratory game birds.
The Pacific Flyway Council
recommended that no changes be made
in the season frameworks for mourning
doves, white-winged doves, band-tailed
pigeons, and the early season
frameworks for Alaska from those of
1984-85 except as identified below.
Review of Duck Harvest Strategies
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
with support from the Flyway Councils
and other organizations, joined with

Canada in a 5-year program of stablized
duck regulations beginning with the
1980-81 season. During the program,
season length and bag limits were
unchanged from those established for
the 1979-80 hunting season. Although
the 1984-85 hunting season marked the
final harvest season in the program,
field activities, including banding, radiotelemetry, and nesting studies will
continue through 1985. The program has
provided both countries the opportunity
to study those factors associated with
the regulation of duck numbers,
including specific investigations of
nonhunting mortality, hunting mortality,
and recruitment, in the absence of
annual changes in season lengths and
bag limits. Data analysis and evaluation
of the studies will extend into 1986, so
development of the 1985-86 and 1986-87
duck hunting regulations will be without
benefit of some of the results of the
studies.
In the February 15, 1985, Federal
Register (at 50 FR 6366) the Service
announced that because of the recent
prolonged drought on the duck breeding
grounds of prairie Canada and the
concern by the Service and other
wildlife agencies and organizations
about the declining status of mallards
and northern pintails, particularly
breeding populations of mid-continent
origin, various harvest strategies would
be reviewed prior to establishing duck
hunting regulations for 1985-86.
Conservative harvest strategies that had
been considered to date by the Service
for possible implementation during the
1985-86 duck hunting season were given
as follows:
1. Stabilized Regulations.Establish
retrictive regulations in each of the 4
waterfowl flyways that would remain in
effect for a predetermined length of
time.
2. Annual Assessment. Establish
requlations by flyway on an annual
basis in response to fall flight forecasts
of duck numbers and/or other criteria.
3. PrescriptionRegulations.Establish
a set of regulations in each flyway,
containing specific regulatory responses
baged on population size and/or habitat
conditions. Season lengths and bag
limits would be established on the basis
of harvest reduction objectives, i.e., if
the estimated breeding population of
mallards in surveyed areas falls below a
certain level, regulations would be
developed to decrease the harvest by an
established percentage. These
restrictions would remain in effect until
a predetermined population level is
attained.
4. Other Options.Influence harvest by
adjusting or eliminating zones. split

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules
seasons, bonus bags and special
seasons, point system bag limits,
framework dates, season length and
other special considerations.
The document invited comments and
recommendations on those options and
provided an opportunity to bring other
alternatives forward at an early date.
Summary of Comments
Comments on the harvest strategies
have been received (as of May 3, 1985)
from 22 State wildlife agencies, 2
Waterfowl Flyway Councils, 16
organizations, and 129 individuals.
Of the 22 states submitting comments,
5 (Arizona, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri,
and New Mexico) expressed a
preference for stabilized regulations,
while prescription regulations was the
strategy advocated by 5 (Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, South Carolina,
and Utah). Two states (Florida and
Virginia) indicated support for the
option of regulations establishment by
annual assessment. With the exception
of California, the remaining states
(Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
South Dakota, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin), supported 2 or more of the
options, suggested a combination of 2 or
more of the options, or endorsed options
other than those provided. California
indicated their belief that commenting
directly to the Service on harvest issues
would be contrary to the flyway
management concept, therefore the
State would continue to work with
member states of the Pacific Flyway in
developing duck harvest strategies.
Arizona stated it appears prudent to
adopt restrictive regulations as hunting
mortality is only partially compensatory.
The State asked that the Service
carefully evaluate the stabilized
regulations concept before endorsing
another harvest strategy. Illinois
indicated restrictive stabilized
regulations was the most viable option
especially if it would add to the data
base of the initial stabilized regulations
study. Minnesota expressed support for
a new and conservative period of
stabilized regulations while the initial
period of stabilized regulations is being
evaluated. Missouri stated that pending
the results of the stabilized regulations
study, regulations in the interim should
reflect concern for current waterfowl
population levels and that stabilized
regulations was their preferred
alternative provided that regulations
include a specified period of application,
and fail-safe population levels allowing
additional regulations restrictions during
the period of stabilization. New Mexico

endorsed a Central Flyway CouncilTechnical Committee recommendation

for an additional 5 years of stabilized
regulations with the provision to adjust
the point values of species and sexes of
ducks during the stabilized period.
Massachusetts indicated that until the
stabilized regulations study is
evaluated, prescription regulations
tailored to each flyway would be best.
New Jersey identified prescription
regulations to be the strategy of choice
because it would allow flyways to be
managed individually based on the size
of the duck population and/or habitat
conditions and thereby each flyway
could adjust harvest strategies to
manage those species of major concern.
New York expressed support for
prescription regulations, wherein a
stable framework is established to allow
harvest at a level sustainable by a
predetermined population size, as an
interim action while awaiting the results
of the stabilized regulations study. South
Carolina recommended adoption of
some type of prescription regulations
should the May and July 1985 waterfowl
surveys indicate no substantial
increases in the population of prairie
nesting mallards and northern pintails.
Utah expressed support for the Pacific
Flyway Council's tendency toward
prescription regulations.
Florida urged that regulations
established by the annual assessment
approach, strictly identified as an
interim action, be implemented for the
1985-86 and 1986-87 seasons while
awaiting the evaluation of stabilized
regulations, and that upon completion of
the evaluation the issue of duck harvest
strategies be revisited. Virginia
indicated that while awaiting the
stabilized regulations evaluation the
State preferred the option to establish
the 1985-86 and 1986-87 waterfowl
seasons based upon the annual
assessment of waterfowl numbers.
Alabama stated that should the 1985
waterfowl survey data indicate that
restrictions are in order, then the State
supports the use of the annual
assessment method or prescription
regulations, but the restrictions should
be directed at the major sources of the
problem rather than flyway- or nationwide.
Arkansas indicated a combination of
the options would be most useful and
desirable. The State suggested an
overall strategy of stabilized regulations
incorporating annual assessment of
population levels to evaluate their
relationship to previously identified
triggering levels (as per "prescription
regulations").
Kentucky indicated that measures that
might most effectively achieve
necessary reductions in duck harvest
would include timing seasons

23461

throughout the flyway on a state-bystate basis to miss peak populations of
target species, reducing the season
length, and delaying the opening of
shooting hours until sunrise.
Montana stated that positive aspects
offered by a stabilized regulations
format were that it could provide an
excellent opportunity for gathering
biological information and aid hunters
to better understand and become
familiar with the regulations. The State
also indicated that with prescription
regulations, once the guidelines have
been established and the regulation
format developed, state wildlife
agencies have time to address future
regulations changes while in the
regulations process.
Oklahoma felt the strategies offered
were not specific enough to determine
the numerical impact of each, and
although certain sex-specific regulations
might help accelerate a recovery
process, there are other means besides
using a total regulatory process by
which to improve the status of certain
species of ducks as well as ducks in
general.
Pennsylvania recommended the use,
where necessary, of annual assessment
and prescription regulations in
conjunction with each other.
South Dakota supported the concept
of stabilized regulations and
prescription regulations stating that
stabilized regulations offer excellent
research opportunities and reduce
hunter confusion, while prescription
regulations, such as those contained in
the Central Flyway Mallard
Management Plan, serve as fail-safe
mechanisms during periods of stabilized
regulations. The State's comments were
provided within the context that
increasingly restrictive harvest
regulations in response to continuing
declines in duck numbers in the future
can at best slow the current trend.
West Virginia indicated all of the
harvest strategy options were
acceptable.
Wisconsin stated a combination of
stabilized regulations and prescription
regulations would provide a reasonable
harvest management strategy.
The Pacific Flyway Council endorsed
the concept of stabilized duck hunting
regulations but indicated it is receptive
to prescription regulations to
accommodate species population
thresholds.
The Central Flyway Council
recommended initiation of a duck
harvest management program whereby
current stabilized duck hunting
regulations are continued with the
exceptions that the point value of hen

23462

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules

mallards be increased to 100 points, the
conventional possession limit for hen
mallards be reduced to 1, and the point
value of pintails be increased to 20
points. The program would continue for
5 years unless population levels
identified in operational management
plans are reached which trigger
regulations changes.
Nine organizations submitted
comments supporting the need for duck
harvest restrictions in 1985-86. The
Service's harvest strategies options
were addressed by 5 of the
organizations. Prescription regulations
received support from the New Jersey
Waterfowlers Association, River County
Voices (Wisconsin), and the Batchtown
Sportsman's Club (Illinois). The Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS)
urged adoption of a plan whereby
through a public process optimum
population levels for all waterfowl
would be established and then
strategies to implement them would be
chosen. HSUS indicated that their
interpretation of the Service's primary
duty under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, to manage migratory birds so as to
attain or maintain optimum population
levels, was not addressed by any of the
harvest strategies. The Service's review
of the need for restrictive harvest
regulations in 1985-86 was commended
by the Wildlife Management Institute
(Institute). Commenting on the Service's
strategy options, the Institute stated that
any future stabilized regulations must
provide for the recognition of
differences among duck species, as well
as yearly influences exerted on the
habitats and populations, and the
regulations should be oriented to duck
populations and their ranges. The
Institute indicated annual assessment is
needed with the population status of
each species and identifiable
populations emphasized. In principle,
the prescription regulations option was
considered appropriate by the Institute;
however, they felt the predetermined
levels for species and population units
should not be constrained by existing
annual population records or based on
3-year moving averages, and permitted
harvest should be related to population
levels to achieve restoration potentials
and numerical goals. The Institute urged
completion and initiation, where
necessary, of studies to improve the
understanding of relationships between
duck hunting regulations and duck
populations.
The 4 remaining organizations,
Michigan Duck Hunters Association,
Madison Audubon Society, Inc.
(Wisconsin), Wisconsin Waterfowlers
Association, and LaCrosse County

Conservation Alliance (Wisconsin),
supported the need for restrictive duck
harvest regulations in 1985-88 and all
recommended a reduction in the bag
limit for ducks rather than a shortening
of duck season length.
Seven letters in opposition to any
restrictive change in duck hunting
regulations for 1985-86 were received
from the following organizations: The
Wildlife Legislative Fund of America,
Ducks Unlimited, Waterfowl Habitat
Owners Alliance (California), New York
State Conservation Council, New York
State Brotherhood of Sportsmen,
Federated Sportsman's Clubs of Ulster
County, Inc. (New York), and Southwest
Louisiana Convention and Visitors
Bureau. One issue recurring in most of
the letters was that no change from the
1984-85 duck hunting regulations
frameworks should be made unless and
until the 5-year stabilized regulations
study has been evaluated. The 2 New
York State organizations and the club
from Ulster County recommended a
longer duck hunting season. The
Convention and Visitors Bureau of
southwest Louisiana opposed any
regulations restrictions because of the
economic hardships that would result on
the local tourism industry.
One hundred twenty-nine individuals
submitted comments on the possibility
of duck harvest restrictions in 1985-86.
One hundred six of those commenting
were in general support of the need for
duck harvest restrictions beginning this
year but there was very little consensus
on the management action(s) to be
implemented. The comments of 23
individuals dismissed the need for
harvest restrictions.
Response: The Service has reviewed
and considered all comments and
recommendations received as & result of
the February 15 Notice. Although there
was a broad range of responses more
comments favored stabilized regulations
than any other harvest strategy. A
recurring theme among supporters of
stabilized regulations was that such
regulations should be continued until the
results of the recent 5-year study are
compiled and analyzed, but that
breeding population data should be
monitored annually and any needed
protection should be afforded breeding
populations of mallards and northern
pintails. Other comments noted that the
5-year stabilized regulations study was
widely accepted by Flyway Councils,
State wildlife agencies, and hunters, and
that continuation of stabilized
regulations would add to the existing
study data base and would offer
additional research opportunities.

Considerable support was also
expressed for prescription regulations.
In practice these functions somewhat
like stabilized regulations but contain
more action points and may be more
specific in the response required. They
may be effectively combined with
stabilized regulations frameworks.
The Service notes the comments of the
Pacific Flyway Council and Central
Flyway Council in regards to harvest
strategies. The specific Council
recommendations will receive further
consideration during the current
regulatory cycle.
The individual comments contained
many thoughts about the resource and
the sport itself. There was, however,
general support for some type of duck
harvest restriction. A common
recommendation was to reduce the bag
limit on mallards, particularly hens,
and/or pintails.
Based on the preceding comments and
on discussions with our Canadian
counterparts, the Canadian Wildlife
Service (CWS), the Service believes the
needs of the duck resource and the
resource users can best be served by a
continuation of some form of a
stabilized regulations strategy until the
results of the 5-year cooperative study
become available. There are, however,
strong concerns in the United States and
Canada regarding current population
levels of mallards and northern pintails.
These concerns were first expressed in
1984 and more recently in the February
15 and March 14, 1985, Federal Register.
While waterfowl hunting regulations in
the United States and Canada are the
individual responsibility of each
country, waterfowl are a shared
resource. The Service and CWS believe
that minimum breeding population
levels need to be identified for selected
major species. These levels should
reflect current population management
objectives that can be endorsed by both
countries. Below such minimum (failsafe) population levels, joint
international attention would be
directed to the problem. Long-term
management has been and will continue
to focus on maintaining populations
above these minimums, but action
strategies which are triggered by
populations below minimum levels
would provide a means for short-term
responses to periodic population
fluctuations. The absence of a common
minimun population level for mallards
hindered discussions between the
United States and Canada on
appropriate regulatory actions in 198485-the final year of the stabilized
regulations study in both countries.
International agreement on minimum

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules
population levels, especially for
mallards and northern pintails, is
desirable prior to the deliberations and
eventual decisions on 1985-86 duck
hunting regulations in the United States
and Canada. Both countries recognize,
however, that loss and degradation of
the waterfowl habitat base is the most
pressing long-range problem.
The concern for these two species
results from the very low levels of their
breeding populations in 1984, the
importance of these ducks in numbers
and in the continental harvest, and the
deterioration of much of the central
prairie breeding habitat as a result of
extended drought since 1982. Intensive
study of habitat conditions during the
stabilized regulations has shown
accelerated modifications in breeding
marsh habitat during the prolonged
drought. While some of this change may
be temporary, the quality and quantity
of habitat available for waterfowl use
likely will remain reduced for more than
one year when water conditions
improve.
The Service therefore proposes to
consider, as interim guidelines, the
minimum population levels contained in
the following strategies during
discussions of 1985 regulations for
mallards and northern pintails..Note
that in each strategy more liberal
regulations would be established only
when populations levels show positive
signs of substantial recovery.
Mallards:If the breeding population
of mallards in the surveyed area of
Canada and the United States falls
below 6.5 million, the CWS and the
Service will solicit the cooperation of
the Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan,
and Manitoba, and the Atlantic,
Mississippi, Central, and Pacfic
Flyways, in initiating regulations
designed to reduce harvests on mallards
of mid-continent origin by at least 25
percent from those which would have
been expected had regulations remained
unchanged, from the previous year,
during that year's hunting season. The
harvest reduction would remain in effect
until the breeding population reaches or
exceeds 7.5 million mallards in the
surveyed area. Upon reaching these
levels, the restrictions could be
removed. Harvest regulations to
implement this reduction would be
developed through the normal regulatory
process of each country.
NorthernPintails:If the breeding
population of northern pintails in the
surveyed area of Canada and the United
States falls below 4 million, the CWS
and the Service will solicit the
cooperation of the Provinces of Alberta,
Saskatchewan, and Manitoba and the
Mississippi, Central, and Pacfic

Flyways, in initiating regulations
designed to reduce harvests on northern
pintails by at least 25 percent from those
which would have been expected had
regulations remained unchanged, from
the previous year, during that year's
hunting season. The harvest reduction
would remain in effect until the breeding
population reaches or exceeds 4.7
million northern pintails in the surveyed
area. Upon reaching these levels, the
restrictions could be removed. Harvest
regulations to implement this reduction
would be developed through the normal
regulatory process of each country.
Agreement on these strategies for
minimum populations of mallards and
northern pintails and harvest reduction
objectives if populations fall below
those minimum levels would establish
strategies for action that could occur in
1985. A decision whether to employ
these strategies will be made through
the normal regulatory process, including
cooperative evaluation of survey and
harvest data. Further, the means of
reducing harvest would be developed
for each Flyway with the full
participation of Flyway Councils and all
interested parties, and would address
species of concern. It may also be
necessary to reduce the harvest of other
species.
The Service emphasizes the question
of appropriate harvest strategies for
1985-86 and beyond and remains open
for further comment.
Note.-The following items are discussed
under headings corresponding to the
numbered items in the March 14, 1985 Federal
Register (50 FR 10276).

2. Frameworkdates for ducks and
geese in the continental United States.
The Service corrects the sentence on the
exception to.the framework dates for
Canada geese in the Mississippi Flyway
in the March 14, 1985, Federal Register
(at 50 FR 10283) as follows: In
Mississippi and designatedwestern
areasof Kentucky and Tennessee the
Canadagoose season framework
extends to January31, 1.986.
By letter dated March 14, 1985,
Mississippi requested continuation of
their experimental waterfowl framework
extension during the 1985-86 duck
hunting season while awaiting final
harvest data from the 1984-85 duck
hunting season and preparing their final
report on the 6-year study.
By letter of March 19, 1985, the Lower
Region Regulations Committee of the
Mississippi Flyway Council
recommended a January 31 framework
closing date for duck hunting in all
lower region States (Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama) unless the

23463

Mississippi framework extension
experiment documents unacceptable
impacts on duck resources. The
Committee also recommended a January
31 framework closing date for all
Canada goose hunting in Alabama,
Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee,
and a January 31 framework closing
date for all goose hunting in Arkansas.
The Upper Region Regulations
Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council by letter dated April 16, 1985,
recommended that the September 26
framework opening date for goose
hunting in the western portion of
Michigan's Upper Peninsula (UP) be
expanded to include the entire UP.
Response: The Service desires that
Mississippi's final report on their
experimental duck season framework
extension include data from all six years
of the study and, further, that the report
be completed in time for a decision
about future framework dates prior to
the establishment of regulations
frameworks for the 1986-87 waterfowl
hunting season. The recent prolonged
drought on the duck breeding grounds of
prairie Canada and the declining status
of mallards has raised the concern of the
Service and other wildlife agencies and
organizations. The potential for late
hunting seasons to increase mallard
harvest and adversely impact ducks
during a critical stage of their life cycle
is of particular concern. Because of this,
the Service proposes that the 1985-86
framework closing date for duck hunting
in Mississippi return to that which is
established for the Mississippi Flyway.
The Service notes the
recommendation of the Mississippi
Flyway Council Lower Region
Regulations Committee regarding a later
season for duck hunting in all States of
the Lower Region. The Service feels that
later duck seasons in other areas should
not be considered until the final report
on the Mississippi study and other
information relating to the potential
impact of late hunting seasons are
evaluated. In regard to the Committee's
recommendations concerning the
extension of the framework closing date
for geese, the Service believes this
management strategy deserves further
review. Although numerous late
frameworks now exist for geese, the
expansion of such late seasons must be
considered in light of the management
objectives for the various flocks. The
Service believes the extension of goose
season frameworks in Lower Region
States should be deferred pending
additional review.
In 1983 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service concurred with a
recommendation from the Upper Region

23464

Federal Register

/ Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules

Regulations Committee for an
experimental late-September framework
opening date for goose hunting in the
western Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
The 1985-86 waterfowl season is the
final year of the scheduled 3-year study.
The Service believes expanding the
early goose season option to other areas
should be deferred until Michigan's
ongoing goose season framework
extension study has been completed and
their final report has been submitted to
and evaluated by the Service and
Mississippi Flyway Council.
8. ExperimentalSeptember duck
seasons. The Lower Region Regulations
Committee of the Mississippi Flyway
Council, by letter dated March 19, 1985,
recommended that early September
duck seasons be made available to all
lower region States pending the
evaluation of experimental seasons in
Kentucky and Tennessee. The
Committee also recommended that the
experimental September duck seasons
in Kentucky and Tennessee be
continued through the 1985 hunting
season in order to collect additional
information on the effects of early
seasons on survival rates of wood
ducks.
By letter dated April 16, 1985, the
Mississippi Flyway Council Upper
Region Regulations Committee endorsed
a request from Iowa that the State's
experimental September duck season be
continued through the 1985 hunting
season while they prepare their final
report on the 6-year study.
In the March 14, 1985, Federal Register
(at 50 FR 10284) the Service gave notice
fo Florida's request for operational
status of their experimental September
duck season and noted that Florida's
request had not received Atlantic
Flyway Council review. Although the
Atlantic Flyway Council has not
provided recommendations on the
September duck season in Florida, the
Service proposes to continue it as an
experimental season in 1985.
Response: The Service agrees with the
Lower Region Regulations Committee
that additional information is needed
regarding the effects of the September
duck seasons in Kentucky and
Tennessee and proposes to continue
these experimental seasons in 1985.
The Service supports the
recommendation by the Upper Region
Regulations Committee to continue the
experimental September duck season in
Iowa in 1985.
9. Special scaup season. By letter
dated March 21, 1985, Florida requested
permission to expand their Indian River
Scaup Season Zone to include an area
immediately adjacent to the existing
zone because of significant annual

concentrations of wintering scaup in the
area in recent years. The new zone
would be described as follows: "All
open waters * * * (the) Indian River
from the Titusville Causeway (SR 406)
south, and all open waters of the
Banana River and Newfound Harbor
from the SR 520 causeway south."
Response: The Service defers action
on this request pending its review by the
Atlantic Flyway Council.
12. Canvosback and redheadducks.
New Jersey, by letter dated March 14,
1985, requested that the framework for
their experimental special canvasback
season, presently the last 11 days of the
regular duck season, be changed to the
last 11 days of their scaup-only season.
The State expressed concern that hunter
success and interest in the experimental
canvasback season has been declining
and may adversely affect their
experimental season evaluation
methods. Approval of New Jersey's
request would permit a later canvasback
season which they believe would be at a
time when more canvasbacks might be
present, hunter opportunity and interest
would increase, and the State could
maintain its season evaluation
procedures.
By letter of April 9, 1985, the LaCrosse
County Conservation Alliance
(Wisconsin] requested the canvasback
hunting closure in Wisconsin's
Mississippi River Zone be removed.
Response:The 1985-86 season is the
final year of a scheduled 3-year
experimental special canvasback season
in New Jersey. The Service cannot
support a change in the frameworks of
this ongoing experimental canvasback
season until the experiment has been
completed and evaluated.
The Service will review the Alliance's
request but notes that a
recommendation for removal of the
canvasback hunting closure in
Wisconsin's Mississippi River Zone has
not been received from either the State
or the Mississippi Flyway Council.
13. Duck Zones. Vermont, by letter
dated March 6, 1985, submitted a
proposal for a 3-year zoning experiment
commencing with the 1985-86 waterfowl
hunting season. The Lake Champlain
portion of New York presently accepts
the annual waterfowl season regulations
chosen by Vermont. By mutual
agreement, the authority for season
selection in the proposed Lake
Champlain Waterfowl Zone would rest
with Vermont. By letter dated February
12, 1985, New York expressed support
for Vermont's zoning proposal which
identified the following zones:
Lake Champlain Waterfowl Zone. The
proposed zone includes the United
State's portion of Lake Champlain and

those portions fo New York and
Vermont as follows:
New York: Includes that part of New York
lying east and north of a boundary running
south from the Canadian border along New
York Route 9B to New York Route 9 south of
Champlain; south on New York Route 9 to
New York Route 22 south of Keeseville; south
on New York Route 22 to South Bay, along
and around the shoreline of South Bay to
New York Route 22; south on New York
Route 22 to U.S. Highway 4 at Whitehall; and
east on U.S. Highway 4 to the Vermont
border.
Vermont: Includes that portion of Vermont
lying west and north of a boundary running
south from the Canadian border along
Interstate Highway 89 to Exit 16 at U.S.
Highway 7; south on U.S. Highway 7 to
Vermont Route 22A; south on Vermont Route
22A to U.S. Highway 4; and west on U.S.
Highway 4 to the New York border.
Remainder of State Zone. That area of
Vermont not previously described. At
their March 17, 1985, meeting the
Atlantic Flyway Council endorsed
Vermont's request to establish a Lake
Champlain Zone for duck hunting.
Colorado, by letter dated March 11,
1985, submitted a proposal for a 3-year
zoning experiment in the Pacific Flyway
portions of Colorado. Colorado
proposed the following zones:
Zone 1. Consists of the counties of Garfield,
Mesa, Delta, Montrose, Ouray, San Miguel,
Dolores, Montezuma, San Juan, LaPlata, that
portion of Hinsdale and Mineral Counties
south and west of the Continental Divide,
and that portion of Archuleta County west of
the Continental Divide.
Zone 2. Consist of the remainder of the
Pacific Flyway portion of Colorado.
The Mississippi Flyway Council
Upper Region Regulations Committee,
by letter dated April 16, 1985, endorsed
an Indiana request for minor boundary
changes in the State's experimental
duck hunting zones. Indiana proposed
the following:
North Zone: That portion of the State north
of a line beginning at State Highway 18 at the
Illinois state line; east on State Highway 18 to
U.S. Highway 31; north on U.S. Highway 31 to
U.S. Highway 24; east on U.S. Highway 24 to
U.S. Highway 224 at Huntington; southeast on
U.S. Highway 224 to the Ohio state line.
South Zone: That portion of the State
between the North and Ohio River Zone
boundaries.
Ohio River Zone: That portion of the State
south of a line beginning at Interstate
Highway 64 at the Illinois state line; east on
Interstate Highway 64 to State Route 62; east
on State Route 62 to State Route 56; east on
State Route 56 to State Route 156 at Vevay;
east on State Route 156 to State Route 56;
east on State Route 56 to U.S. Highway 50;
east on U.S. Highway 50 to the Ohio state
line.
Two replies were received to the
Service's solicitation in 50 FR 10285

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules
dated March 14, 1985, for additional
consultation on Louisiana duck hunting
regulations. The Mississippi Flyway
Upper Region Regulations Committee
expressed opposition to the Service
proposal to allow Louisiana to zone
their State east to west with Central
Flyway duck season length in the West
zone and Mississippi Flyway duck
season length in the East zone and
Mississippi Flyway bag limits in both
zones. The Central Flyway Council
recommended that the Service not
implement the Service proposal put forth
on June 13, 1984 (at 49 FR 24421), and
that the duck season framework for all
of Louisiana be that of the Mississippi
Flyway. Further, the council requested
additional consultation with the Service
regarding the Louisiana report and
proposal.
Response: Information available from
the Service's harvest survey and
banding programs generally provides for
broad management decisions but in
some cases has not been fully
satisfactory for evaluation of
experimental seasons. Future studies
will likely require additional special
data gathering programs to insure that
suitable evaluations can be made. The
Service believes it is time to assess the
cumulative effect of zoning and other
special management strategies on the
resource, and review existing criteria for
evaluation of experimental seasons with
each Flyway Council. Until some betterinformed judgments can be made, the
Service believes that present zones
should not be modified and no new duck
zoning studies should be initiated. The
Service intends to raise this issue for
discussion at Flyway Council meetings
in July.
The Service recognizes the long-term
unified waterfowl season in the Lake
Champlain area of Vermont and New
York and believes such action
represents a practical approach to
waterfowl management there. Because
of the desire announced above to delay
further zoning studies the Service does
not support the Vermont request. It is
noted that the uniform season
arrangement in New York and Vermont
has been effective to date without
recourse to zoning. The Service suggests
available options such as split seasons
be explored by Vermont as a means of
continuing the Lake Champlain season.
The Colorado request for a new zone
has not been reviewed by the Pacific
Flyway Council. Further, because of
interest in assessing duck zones, the
Service does not support this request.
The Service recognizes that the
proposed zone changes in Indiana
appear relatively minor and that
measures of harvest may not be

sensitive enough to reflect any-change
as a result of such boundary changes. It
is noted, however, that Indiana operated
under 2 zones with no splits during the
period 1977-1982. In 1983 the State
initiated a study of 2 zones with the
option to split the season within zones
and changed this to 3 zones with the
split season option in 1984. The State
now proposes to modify the boundaries
between the 3 zones and continue the
option to split seasons within zones. The
Memorandum of Agreement concerning
this zoning study calls for joint StateService analysis of harvest and hunter
activity data. Measures of harvest and
hunter activity may not be sensitive
enough to evaluate the 3-zone splitseason experimental study in Indiana
even if the study were to continue for
three years without change; annual
changes in the study will be even more
likely to preclude a meaningful
evaluation. For these reasons the
Service proposes to continue the zoning
experiment in Indiana with boundaries
unchanged from those used in 1984.
In the September 14, 1984, Federal
Register (at 49 FR 36277) the Service
identified 7 areas of concern that were
noted in the 22 comments received in
opposition to the proposal to apply
Central Flyway duck season length and
Mississippi Flyway bag limits to the
West Zone in Louisiana beginning in the
1985-86 duck hunting season. The
Service intends to fully explore those
concerns in an Environmental
Assessment targeted for publication in
early 1986. The Service will consult with
the flyway councils during their summer
meetings (July) on the various concerns
that have been expressed about the
proposed duck hunting regulations for
Louisiana. Because of these Service
initiatives and the reduced number of
mallards and northern pintails breeding
on the prairies of west central Canada,
the Service believes a decision on the
proposed duck hunting regulations for
Louisiana should be deferred in 1985 to
provide all interested parties time to
further review and evaluate all issues.
Therefore, the Service proposes no
change, at this time, in the 1985-86 duck
hunting season frameworks for
Louisiana from those of 1984-85.
14. Goose and brantseasons. The
Service corrects the first sentence of the
statement on Central Flyway goose
hunting regulations in the July 1, 1980,
Federal Register (at 45 FR 44545) as
follows: The CentralFlyway Council
proposed that season, bog and
possession limits for dark and light
geese be establishedindependently,
* * * The omission of "season" was an
oversight.

23465

The Central Flyway Council, by letter
dated April 25,1985, recommended that
Kansas be given the option to establish
management units for setting light goose
(includes snow, blue, and Ross') hunting
seasons. Kansas had requested the
following units:
Unit 1. Consists of that area of Kansas east
of U.S. Highway 75 and north of Interstate
Highway 70.
Unit2. Consists of the remainder of the
State.
By establishing these two units, the
northeast area of Kansas would be able
to continue to take advantage of the
opportunity of the extended light goose
hunting framework initiated in 1984,
while the remainder of the State could
take advantage of art early, more
traditional light goose hunting season.
The Council indicated Kansas' proposal
is consistent with objectives and
strategies of the Mid-Continent Snow
Goose Management Plan.
By letter dated April 9 and April 17,
1985, respectively, the LaCrosse County
Conservation Alliance and a
Congressional representative from
Wisconsin expressed their support for
Wisconsin's request, as noted in the
March 14, 1985, Federal Register at 50
FR 10286, for a 70-day Canada goose
season in the State's Mississippi River
Zone.
By letter dated April 22, 1985, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources expressed their concern for
the increasing Canada goose
depredation problems in the vicinity of
Horicon National Wildlife Refuge. The
State contends that the 25-day season in
1984 magnified the depredation
problems in Wisconsin because
landowners could not use hunting as a
tool to keep geese off key crop fields for
the usual 40-day period. As a short-term
solution to this problem the State seeks
a 40-day hunting season in the Horicon
and Central zones to occur within the
periods October 12-November 16 and
December 7-15.
Wisconsin believes long term
approaches to the depredation problems
should consider placing future quota
increases into the Horicon Zone,
improved depredations control
techniques, and longer season options
with multiple splits or day hunts.
Wisconsin reports it is necessary to
order goose application forms and tags
soon. In the absence of any action by
the Mississippi Flyway Council MVP
(Mississippi Valley Population of
Canada geese) Committee in March the
State seeks Service agreement on these
recommendations.

23466

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules

Response: The Service concurs with
the Central Flyway Council
recommendation regarding light goose
hunting in Kansas.
The Service remains hopeful that
additional recommendations concerning
management of MVP geese will be
forthcoming from the Mississippi
Flyway Council. Discussions between
the Service and States are proceeding
however, in an effort to improve'the
managenient of this flock while
recognizing individual State needs. The
Mississippi River Zone in Wisconsin
will be considered in a later document.
The Service recognizes the importance
of goose depredation problems in
Wisconsin and elsewhere. However, the
recommendation by Wisconsin
represents a sharp departure from the
regulations jointly developed with the
MVP States in 1984. The Service
believes it essential-to consider
comments from all sources before
reaching a decision on the Wisconsin
proposal, and defers action until the
late-season regulations are considered
in August.
16. Sandhill cranes. The Pacific
Flyway Council, by letter dated April 11,
1985, and the Central Flyway Council,
by letter dated April 25, 1985,
recommended the experimental sandhill
crane-Canada goose season in Lincoln
County, Wyoming be given operational
status but the framework dates be
changed from September 1-14 to
September 1-22. The Pacific Flyway
Council also recommended the
experimental sandhill crane season in
Arizona be given operational status but
the season length framework be
changed from 4 days to 6 days.
Response: The Service concurs with
the recommendations of both Councils
for operational status of the two
experimental seasons and the minor
framework change in each.
21. Woodcock. Twenty-one State
conservation agencies and 7 individuals
submitted written comments on the
proposed changes (reductions) in daily
bag, season length, and season
framework for woodcock in Atlantic
Flyway States. Comments addressed the
changes as proposed in the March 14,
1985, Federal Register (50 FR 10287) and
as discussed in-greater detail in the
Environmental Assessment "Proposed
Hunting Regulations on Eastern
Population of Woodcock, 1985"
announced in the February 5, 1985,
Federal Register (50 FR 4994).
The States of Rhode Island, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Florida,
West Virginia, Massachusetts,
Oklahoma, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine,
New York, Vermont, South Carolina,
Indiana, Virginia, and Pennsylvania

expressly or implicitly endorsed the
proposed changes.
Tennessee agreed in principle to the
need for regulatory changes in the
Atlantic Flyway, but requested that
there be no changes in the Mississippi
Flyway.
Texas did not endorse the proposed
changes on the grounds that they were
not restrictive enough to effectively
reduce harvests of woodcock. The State
recommended reducing the daily bag
limit to 1 or 2, or closing the season
entirely. Additionally, West Virginia
and Connecticut, who generally
endorsed the proposed changes,
suggested that further restrictions may
be desirable.
Louisiana, New Jersey, and Maryland
did not endorse the proposed changes in
hunting regulations principally on the
grounds that such changes may be
ineffective and inappropriate because
unfavorable habitat change, not hunting,
is the underlying cause of the decline of
woodcock in the Atlantic Flyway.
Vermont, while generally endorsing
the proposed changes, requested
exception from the October I framework
opening date so that they may open
their woodcock season on the last
Saturday of September concurrent with
the State's hunting seasons on resident
game species. New Jersey requested
exemption from the 10-day penalty
normally taken by them for selecting
zoning as a woodcock harvest strategy.
Several States commented on the
adequacy of woodcock survey data and
urged the Service to improve or develop
methods for monitoring population
status, hunter success, and, in particular,
for estimating harvest at the national
level.
Six individuals commented on the
Environmental Assessment and the
proposed changes. Detailed technical
comments and observations regarding a
variety of woodcock ecology and
management issues were offered by 3 of
the individuals that will be responded to
outside of this document. Based on
personal data and observations, 2
individuals urged the Service restrict
woodcock hunting regulations while 1
individual questioned the reported
decline in woodcock numbers and the
necessity of harvest restrictions.
Response: The proposed changes
represent a significant reduction in
opportunities to harvest woodcock and
likely will significantly reduce harvests
of woodcock. Effecting further harvest
reductions would require severe
restrictions that do not appear to be
warranted at this time. More restrictive
regulations would disproportionately
affect States and categories of hunters
as discussed in detail in the

Environmental Assessment, page 10
under "Impacts of Alternatives Other
Than the Proposed Action." More
restrictive regulations would likely be
opposed by many woodcock hunters
and State conservation agencies.
The Service recognizes that long-term
loss of breeding habitat has been the
fundamental cause of the decline of
woodcock in the Atlantic Flyway and
that relationships among hunting
regulations, harvests, and the decline
are not understood well. Nonetheless,
various sources of information on hunter
success indicate that this population is
no longer capable of sustaining former
levels of harvest. The Service believes
that the proposed regulatory changes
are necessary to bring harvest
opportunities to a level commensurate
with the current population status. The
changes cannot assure a positive
response in the woodcock population
but will provide a margin of security in
the uncertainty of whether and how
harvests come into play in the decline of
Atlantic Flyway woodcock.
The Service does not favor Vermont's
request for a framework opening date of
the last Saturday in September and
believes that the option for New Jersey
to zone for woodcock hunting should
continue to include a 10-day penalty
applied to the framework season length.
The Service recognizes that while the
existing woodcock surveys generally
have provided satisfactory results, some
refinements are possible. Work on
improving procedures for analyzing
singing-ground survey data is near
completion, and the Service proposes to
begin similar work to improve use of
wing-collection survey data. Improved
procedures for monitoring hunter
success, an important factor to be
considered in evaluating effects of the
proposed regulatory changes, will be
developed. The Service also is testing
the feasibility of estimating harvests of
woodcock and other migratory game
birds by adjusting certain data from
existing State and Federal harvest
surveys. At this time the Service prefers
taking this approach to the problem
rather than by instituting a mandatory
permit or stamp to be required by
hunters.
25. Migratory bird hunting seasons in
Alaska. By letter dated April 11, 1985,
the Pacific Flyway Council
recommended no change in season
frameworks for Alaska except that the
sandhill crane bag limits framework be
increased to 3 sandhill cranes per day
and 6 in possession.
Response: The Service concurs with
the recommendation.

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules
29. MigratoryBirdHunting on Indian
Reservationsand Ceded Lands
In the March 23,1984 Federal Register
(49 FR 11125-11126), the Service
announced the intention to permit more
flexibility in migratory bird hunting
regulations for Indians on Federal
Indian reservations. The Service
proposed guidelines that would permit
tribes with recognized reserved hunting
rights to select season dates that
differed from those in the surrounding
State(s) with respect to the times when
hunting seasons may occur for migratory
game birds for which hunting is
permitted under Federal regulations. In
all other respects (e.g., season length,
bag limits, and basic regulations], the
1984 proposed guidelines would have
required the adoption of regulations that
are consistent with those established by
the Fish and Wildlife Service in the
general frameworks for migratory bird
hunting. Under the March 23 proposal,
the special regulations would apply only
to tribal members on Federal Indian
reservations, and non-Indians or nontribal members would continue to be
subject to the regulations established for
application elsewhere in the State. In
presenting the guidelines, the Service
emphasized the need for a
comprehensive and coordinated
approach to management of migratory
birds and asked that any tribal proposal
be accompanied by a detailed
evaluation plan.
The Service received 15 letters
concerning the proposed guidelines from
Indian tribal officials or their attorneys.
Ten letters related to Chippewa bands
on four reservations in Minnesota and
the Wisconsin Chippewa tribes. The
remainder came from the Colorado
River Indian Tribes, Parker, Arizona;
San Carols Indian Tribe, San Carlos,
Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe,
Whiteriver, Arizona; Navajo Nation,
Window Rock, Arizona; and the
Penobscot Nation, Old Town, Maine.
The Service also received letters from
the Pacific Flyway Council and from
conservation agency officials in 17
States.
State letters expressed concern
regarding the cumulative adverse effects
that special regulations might have on
waterfowl populations if a large number
of tribes participated, and most States
urged that proposals be reviewed by
flyway councils before any special
seasons are approved. Indian tribes
supported the Service's efforts to
accommodate their reserved hunting
rights. However, they requested greater
flexibility than the Service proposed, as
described below.
Four tribes (Colorado River, Navajo,
San Carlos Apache, and White

Mountain Apache) contended that they
have gained recognized authority to
manage wildlife resources on their
reservations as a result of recent
Federal court decisions, and that their
management options are not limited by
hunting regulations established by
State(s) in which the reservations are
located. The Penobscot Nation pointed
out that settlement of its Native claims
granted the tribe full wildlife
management authority on its Indian
Territory, as well as on its smaller
reservation. All of these tribes wanted
the option of allowing both tribal and
non-tribal members to hunt migratory
birds on their reservations (or Indian
Territory) on dates that are within
annual Federal frameworks but that
may differ from those established in
States in which the reservations are
located. Two tribes made specific
proposals; the Navajo Nation requested
uniform hunting regulations for both
tribal and non-tribal members
throughout its reservation (in parts of
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah). The
White Mountain Apache Tribe
requested a September opening of the
bandtailed pigeon season for both tribal
and non-tribal hunters on it reservation.
The season dates requested by both
tribes are within Federal frameworks
but differ from those in'the surrounding
State(s).
Chippewa tribes in Minnesota and
Wisconsin asked for more
accommodation for tribal members only.
The Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Wildlife Commission, Odanah,
Wisconsin, representing six Wisconsin
Chippewa tribes, pointed out that the
tribes have gained a judicially
recognized right to hunt on ceded lands
and wished to establish a migratory bird
hunting season for tribal members on
these lands in Wisconsin. The
Commission indicated that the tribes
want an earlier and longer season for
ducks and other species that usually are
not hunted in Wisconsin until October..
The Commission also requested more
flexibility in daily bag and possession
limits for Canada geese, but stated that
the tribes would observe other Federal
regulations. Finally, four bands of the
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe (Grand
Portage, Leech Lake, Mille Lacs, and
White Earth) stressed that their
members are not bound by migratory
bird hunting regulations established for
States and waterfowl flyways.
In summary, the tribal requests can be
categorized into three types: (1) Onreservation hunting (including Indian
Territory) by both tribal and non-tribal
members, with hunting by non-tribal
members to take place within Federal
frameworks but on dates different from

23467

those selected by surrounding State(s);
(2) on-reservation hunting by tribal
members only, outside of usual Federal
frameworks; 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.
After reviewing the communications
received inresponse to the March 1984
criteria, the Service proposes now to
establish the following revised
guidelines that would apply to tribes
with recognized reserved hunting rights:
A. On-reservationhunting, tribaland
non-tribalmembers. On Federal
reservations and Indian Territory where
tribes have full wildlife management
authority over hunting by tribal and
non-tribal members, or where the
surrounding State(s) have no objections,
the Service may establish hunting
seasons for both tribal and non-tribal
members that may differ from those in
the State(s) in which the reservations
are located. Opening and closing dates
and season length for non-tribal
members on these reservations would
still have to be within the annual
frameworks for migratory bird hunting
seasons established by the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and all other Federal
regulations also would apply to nontribal hunters (bag and possession limits
and basic regulations). Season length
and opening and closing dates for
hunting by tribal members on their
reservations could be established in
accordance with proposed guideline B,
below. On reservations where tribes do
not have full management authority over
hunting by non-tribal members or have
not received State approval, non-tribal
members could hunt on the reservation
only when the season also is open in the
surrounding State(s), and non-tribal
hunters would be bound by all other
migratory bird hunting regulations
established in the State(s). This
guideline will accommodate requests
made by the Navajo Nation and White
Mountain Apache Tribe. These two
tribes indicated that the proposed
hunting regulations on their reservations
would apply to both tribal and nontribal members. However, other tribes
with recognized reserved hunting rights
and management authority could
request regulations that differed for
tribal and non-tribal members.
B. On-reservationhunting, tribal
members only. The Service may
establish earlier opening or later closing
dates and longer migratory bird hunting
seasons for tribal members to hunt
within the boundaries of Federal Indian
reservations. Such earlier openings

23468

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules

could be outside of usual Federal
frameworks but would still have to be
consistent with the closed season
requirements of the 1916 Migratory Bird
Treaty with Canada. The Service would
negotiate with tribes that request bag
limits different than those provided in
Federal frameworks. These special
regulations would be available only for
tribes that have recognized reserved
hunting rights. Based on comments
received from tribes, the Service
anticipates that most seasons permitted
under this guideline will begin in midSeptember and end when the migratory
bird season closes in the surrounding
State(s). This guideline should
accommodate opening date and season
length requests from the various bands
of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe.
C. Off-reservation hunting on ceded
lands, tribalmembers only. In
consultation with tribes and the affected
State(s), the Service may establish
earlier opening or later closing dates
and longer migratory bird hunting
seasons for tribal members with a
judicially recognized right to hunt on
ceded lands. As is the case in paragraph
B above, such openings could be outside
of the usual Federal frameworks but
would have to be otherwise consistent
with the closed season provisons of the
1916 Migratory Bird Treaty with
Canada. The Service would negotiate
with tribes that request bag limits
different than those provided in Federal
frameworks. The special regulations
would apply only to ceded lands now in
public ownership. Non-tribal members
would be permited to hunt on ceded
lands only at times when the State
migratory bird season is open on these
lands. The Service anticipates that such
seasons for tribal members generally
would begin in mid-September and end
with closure of the regular State
migratory bird hunting season. This
guideline should provide the flexibility
in opening date and season length
requested by the Great Lakes Indian
Fish and Wildlife Commission (for the
Wisconsin Chippewa tribes).
Tribes that wish to establish special
migratory bird hunting seasons under
any of these guidelines should submit a
proposal to the Office of Migratory Bird
Management (MBMO) with a copy to
the appropriate Service regional office
shown at the end of this document. The
proposal should include (1) the
requested hunting season dates and
other details regarding regulations to be
observed; (2) harvest anticipated under
the requested regulations; (3) methods
that will be employed to measure or
monitor harvest; (4) steps that will be
taken to limit level of harvest, where it

could be shown that failure to limit such
harvest would impact seriously on the
migratory bird resource; and (5) tribal
capabilities to establish and enforce
migratory bird hunting regulations. The
Service will review proposals on a caseby-case basis and may request
modifications based on the conservation
needs of the affected species. In most
instances, hunting regulations approved
by the Service will be established on an
experimental basis until harvest
estimates have evaluated and
confirmed.
Before developing these proposed
revised guidelines, the Service prepared
a draft environmental assessment that
addresses Indian hunting rights, reviews
available information on the current
status of migratory bird hunting on
Federal Indian reservations, and
evaluates the impact that adoption of
the proposed new guidelines likely will
have on migratory birds. Copies of the
assessment may be obtained from
MBMO. Written comments and
suggestions concerning the assessment
should be sent to MBMO by July 8, 1985.
Comments and tribal requests
concerning the proposed guidelines for
migratory bird hunting on Indian
reservations and ceded lands must be
received no later than July 1, 1985.
Generally, the Service believes that
the guidelines, when made final, will
provide appropriate flexibility for Indian
tribes to exercise their reserved hunting
rights, and that it is unlikely that
adoption of the new criteria would
adversely impact the population status
of migratory birds. The remaining area
of concern relates to special hunting
seasons that could be established on
reservations where tribes have
management authority over non-tribal
hunters and wish to develop hunting
programs for non-tribal members. A
large influx of non-tribal hunters onto a
given reservation at a time when the
season is closed in the surrounding
State(s) could result in excessive

adverse harvests for a particular
species. The requests received thus far
from tribes with this authority are
unlikely to result in such adverse
impacts, however, and the Service
intends to establish experimental
season dates on the Navajo, White
Mountain Apache, and possibly on other
such reservations, beginning with the
1985-86 hunting season. Nevertheless,
given the potential for adverse impacts
to occur, all requests for special seasons
which involve non-tribal hunters will be
strictly scrutinized and dealt with on a
case-by-case basis.
The Service also plans to continue
discussions with the Chippewa Tribe in
Minnesota and with the Great Lakes
Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission
and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, with the aim of developing
mutually acceptable daily bag and
possession limits and other hunting
regulations that can be implemented
during the 1985-86 hunting season, or as
soon thereafter as possible. Regulations
established under these guidelines may
be implemented through a Memorandum
of Understanding with a given band or
tribe.
The question of special migratory bird
hunting regulations on Indian
reservations and ceded lands is
complex, and unforeseen circumstances
may arise that are not adequately
addressed in the guidelines proposed
here. However, these proposed
guidelines may serve to clarify
situations where special regulations are
appropriate, as well as where they are
not. Migratory birds are an international
resource and their conservation is of
paramount concern. It is essential that
the Service, tribes, and flyway councils
cooperate closely on this important
issue. The Service intends to pursue
ways in which this can best be
accomplished within the present system
of developing and implementing
migratory bird hunting regulations.

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE REGIONAL OFFICES
[Address Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife service]
States

Addrecs

Telephone

California. Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washing- Lloyd 500 Bldg.. S Ie 1692. 500 NE Multnon'ah
503/231-6118
ton.
Street, Portland, OR 97232.
Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas .........................
P.O. Box 1306, 500 Gold Avenue SW-Rm. 1306,
505/766-2321
Albuquerque, NM 87103.
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Federal Building, Fort Snel:ing,
Twin Cities, MN
612/725-3563
Ohio, Wisconsin,
55111.
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Gcoig!a. Kentucky, Lou- Richard B. Russell Fed. Bldg.. Room 1200. 75
404/221-3588
isiana. Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Spring Street SW,Atlanta, GA 30303.
Tennessee.
Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, One Gateway Canter, Suite 700, Newton, Comer, 617/965-5100
Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
MA 02158.
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vigln!a, Vermont.
West Virginia.
Colorado, Kansas, Montana. North Dakota, Nebras- P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO
303/236-7920
ka, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming.
80225.
Alaska ...................................................................................
1011 E. Tudor Road. Anchorage, AK 99503 ..................
907/786-3542

Federal Register / VoL 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules
Public Comment Invited

Based on the results of migratory
game bird studies now in progress and
with due consideration for any data or
views submitted by interested parties,
the possible amendments resulting from
this supplemental rulemaking will
specify open seasons, shooting hours,
and bag and possession limits for
designated migratory game birds in the
United States, including Alaska, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
The Director intends that finally
adopted rules be as responsive as
possible to all concerned interests. He
therefore desires to obtain the
comments and suggestions of the public,
other concerned governmental agencies,
and private interests on these proposals
and will take into consideration the
comments received. Such comments,
and any additional information
received, may lead the Director to adopt
final regulations that differ from these
proposals.
Special circumstances are involved in
the establishment of these regulations
which limit the amount of time which
the Service can allow for public
comment. Specifically, two
considerations compress the time in
which the rulemaking process must
operate: the need, on the one hand, to

establish final rules at a point enough in
the summer to allow affected State
agencies to appropriately adjust their
licensing the regulatory mechanisms,
and, on the other hand, the
unavailability before mid-June of
specific, reliable data on this year's
status of some migratory shore and
upland game bird populations.
Therefore, the Service believes that to
allow comment periods past the dates
specified earlier is contrary to the public
interest.
Comment Procedure

It is the policy of the Department of
the Interior, whenever practicable, to
afford the public an opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking process.
Accordingly, interested persons may
participate in the rulemaking process by
submitting written comments to the
Director (FWS/MBMO), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, Man Interior Building, Room
3252, Washington, D.C. 20240.

Comments received will be available for
public inspection during normal
business hours at the Service's office in
Room 536, Matomic Building, 1717 H

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
All relevant comments on proposals
will be considered provided those for
Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands are received no later than

June 20, 1985; those on early season
proposals (except Alaska, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) are
received no later than July 15, 1985; and
those on late season proposals are
received by August 19, 1985. Comments
and tribal requests concerning the
proposed guidelines for migratory bird
hunting on Indian reservations and
ceded lands will be considered provided
they are received no later than July 1,
1985. The Service will consider all
comments, but substantive response to
individual comments may not be
provided.
Flyway Council Meetings
Department of the Interior
respresentatives will be present at the
following meetings of flyway councils:
Atlantic Flyway-Cherry Hill, NJ (Hyatt
Cherry Hill Hotel) July 29-30
MississippiFlyway-Indianapolis,IN
(Speedway Motel) July 28-29
CentralFlyway-Bismarck, ND
(Kirkwood Motor Inn) July 28-30
PacificFlyway-Reno, NV (Sundowner
Hotel) July 28
Although agendas are not yet
available, these meetings usually
commence at 8:30 to 9 a.m. on the days
indicated, however, the Central Flyway
Council meeting will commence at 10
a.m., July 28
NEPA Consideration
The "Final Environmental Statement
for the Issuance of Annual Regulations
Permitting the Sport Hunting of
Migratory Birds (FES 75-54)" was filed
with Council on Environmental Quality
on June 6, 1975, and notice of
availability was published in Federal
Register on June 13, 1975 (40 FR 25241).
In addition, several environmental
assessments have been prepared on
specific matters which serve to
supplement the material in the Final
Environmental Statement. Copies of
these documents are available from the
Service at the address indicated above.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act provides that, "The Secretary shall
review other programs administered by
him and utilize such programs in
furtherance of the purposes of this Act,"
and "by taking such action necessary to
insure that any action authorized,
funded, or carried out * * * is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of
such endangered or threatened species
or result in the destruction or
modification of habitat of such species
* * * which is determined to be
critical."
Section 7 consultations are presently
underway regarding both the early and

23469

late season regulatory proposals. It is
possible that the findings from the
consultation, which will be included in a
biological opinion, may cause
modification of some of the regulatory
measures proposed in this document.
Any modifications that may be desirable
will be reflected in the final frameworks
for Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands, scheduled for publication in the
Federal Register on or about July 11,
1985; those for other early seasons on or
about July 26, 1985; and for later seasons
on or about September 2, 1985.
Hunting regulations are designed,
among other things, to remove or
alleviate chances of conflict between
seasons for migratory game birds and
the protection and conservation of
endangered and threatened species and
their habitats.
The Service's biological opinions
resulting from its consultation under
section 7 are considered public
documents and are available for public
inspection in the Office of Endangered
Species, and the Office of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C. 20240.
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive
Order 12291
In the Federal Register dated March
14, 1985, (50 FR 10276), the Service
reported measures it had undertaken to
comply with requirements of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
Executive Order. These included
preparing a Determination of Effects and
an updated Final Regulatory Impact
Analysis, and publication of a summary
of the letter. This information is
included in the present document by
reference. As noted in the above Federal
Register publication, the Service plans
to issue its Memorandum of Law for the
migratory bird hunting regulations at the
same time the first of the annual hunting
rules is finalized. This rule does not
contain any information collection
requiring approval by OMB under 44
U.S.C. 3504.
Authorship
The primary author of this proposed
rulemaking is Morton M. Smith, Office
of Migratory Bird Management, working
under the direction of Rollin D.
Sparrowe, Chief.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Hunting, Wildlife, Exports, Imports,
Transportation.

23470

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 1985 / Proposed Rules

Dated May 30, 1985.
Susan Recce,

Acting Assistant SecretaryforFish and
Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 85-13451 Filed 6-4-85; 8:45 am]
BILUNG CODE 4310-55-h!

50 CFR Part 32
Refuge-Specific Hunt!ng Regulations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) proposes to emend certain
regulations in 50 CFR Part 32 that
pertain to migratory game bird, upland
game, and big game hunting on
individual national wildlife refuges.
Refuge hunting programs are reviewed
annually to determine whether the
r-gulations governing individual refuge
I unts should be modified. Changing*
environmental conditions, State and
Federal regulations, and other factors
affecting wildlife populations and
habitats may warrant such amendments.
The modifications would ensure the
continued compatibility of hunting with
the purposes for which the individual
refuges involved were established and,
to the extent practical, make refuge
hunting programs consistent with State
regulations.
DATE: Comments must be received on or
before July 5, 1985.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
addressed to the Associate DirectorWildlife Resources, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 18th and C Streets,
NW, Room 3252, Washington, D.C.
20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James F. Ci!!ett, Division of Refune
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 18th and C Streets, NW, Room
2343, Washington, D.C. 20240; Telephone
(202) 343-4311.
SUPPLEMfATARY INFORMATION: 50

CFR

Part 32 coritains the provisions that
govern hunting on national wildlife
refuges. Hunting is regulated on refuges
for three basic reasons: (1] To properly
manage the wildlife resource, (2) to
protect other refuge values, and (3) to
ensure refuge user safety. On many
refuges, the Service policy of adopting
State hunting regulationn is an adequate
way of meeting these objectives. On the
other refuges, it is necessary for the
Service to issue hunting regulations that
supplement State regulations to ensure
that the Service meets its management
responsibilities, as outlined under the
section entitled "Conformance with

Statutory and Regulatory Authorities."
Refuge-specific hunting regulations are
issued only at the time of, or after the
determination and publication of, the
opening of a wildlife refuge to migratory
game bird, upland game, or big game
hunting. These regulations may list the
wildlife species that may be hunted,
seasons, bag limits, methods of hunting,
descriptions of open areas, and other
provisions. On September 19, 1984, at 49
FR 36736, the Service codified refugespecific regulations for migratory game
bird, upland game, and big game
hunting. Subsequent rulemakings at 49
FR 38642, 49 FR 37093, 49 FR 43549, and
49 FR 50049 corrected, amended, or
added to these regulations.
The Service reviews refjge hunting
programs annually to determine if
modifications in the regulations
governing individual refuge hunts are
necessary. Changing environmental
conditions, State and Federal
regulations, and other factors affecting
wildlife populations and habitats may
warrant that refuge-specific hunting
regulations be modified, relaxed, or
made more stringent. This ensures the
continued compatibility of hunting with
the purposes for which individual
refuges were established and, to the
extent practical, makes refuge hunting
programs consistent with State
regulations. This proposed rule would
amend and supplement certain refugespecific regulations in 50 CFR Part 32,
§ § 32.12, 32.22, and 32.32, which pertain
to migratory game bird, upland game,
and big game hunting, respectively.
The policy of the Department of the
Interior is, whenever practicable, to
afford the public an opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking process. It
is, therefore, the purpose of this
proposed rulemaking to seek public
input regarding the proposed
amendments to refuge-specific
regulations for migratory game bird,
upland game, and big game hunting.
Accordingly, interested persons may
submit written comments, suggestions,
or objections concerning this proposal to
the Associate Director-Wildlife
Resources (address above) by the end of
the comment period. All substantive
comments will be considered by the
Department prior to issuance of a final
rule.
Conformance With Statutory and
Regulatory Authorities
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 19r,6, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 668dd), ar.d the Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 (10 U.S.C. 460k)
govern the administration and public
use of national wildlife refuges.
Specifically, section 4(d(1)(A) of the

Refuge Administration Act authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to permit
the use of any area within the Refuge
System for any purpose, including but
not limited to hunting, fishing, public
recreation and accommodations, and
access, when he determines that such
uses are compatible with major
purposes for which the areas were
established.
The Refuge Recreation Act authorizes
the Secretary to administer areas within
the Refuge System for public recreation
as an appropriate incidental or
secondary use only to the extent that it
is practicable and not inconsistent with
the primary objectives for which the
areas were established. Refuge
Recreation Act also authorizes the
Secretary to issue regulations to carry
out the purposes of the Act.
Hunting plans are developed for each
hunting program on a refuge prior to the
opening of the refuge to hunting. In some
cases, refuge-specific hunting
regulations are included as a part of the
hunting plan to ensure the compatibility
of the hunting programs with the
purposes for which the affected refuges
were established. Initial compliance
with the Refuge Administration and
Refuge Recreation Acts is ensured when
the hunting plans are developed, and the
determinations required by these Acts
are made prior to the addition of refuges
to the lists of areas open to hunting in 50
CFR. Continued compliance is ensured
by annual review of hunting programs
and regulations.
Economic Effect
Executive Order 12291, "Federal
Regulation," of February 17, 1981,
requires the preparation of regulatory
impact analyses for major rules. A major
rule is one likely to result in an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or
more; a major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries,
government agencies or geographic
regions; or significant adverse effects on
the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises. The Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) further requires the preparation of
flexibility analyses for rules that will
have a significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities, which include
small businesses, organizations or
governmental jurisdictions.
The proposed amendments to the
codified refuge-specific hunting
regulations would make relatively minor
adjustments to existing hunting
programs. The regulations are not
expected to have any gross economic
effect and will not cause an increase in