Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Late-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations, 53536-53561 [2011-21484]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53536-53561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21484]



[[Page 53535]]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 166

August 26, 2011

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 20





Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Late Season Migratory 
Bird Hunting Regulations; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 53536]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2011-0014; 91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
RIN 1018-AX34


Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Late-Season 
Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) is 
proposing to establish the 2011-12 late-season hunting regulations for 
certain migratory game birds. We annually prescribe frameworks, or 
outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the number 
of birds that may be taken and possessed in late seasons. These 
frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of seasons and 
limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels compatible with 
population and habitat conditions.

DATES: You must submit comments on the proposed migratory bird hunting 
late-season frameworks by September 6, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the 
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R9-
MB-2011-0014.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R9-MB-2011-0014; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 
2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mailed or faxed comments. We will post all 
comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we 
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public 
Comments section below for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 2011

    On April 8, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 
19876) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a 
background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations 
process, and addressed the establishment of seasons, limits, and other 
regulations for hunting migratory game birds under Sec. Sec.  20.101 
through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 
2011-12 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal 
Register notifications were also identified in the April 8 proposed 
rule.
    Further, we explained that all sections of subsequent documents 
outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines were organized under 
numbered headings. Those headings are:

1. Ducks
    A. General Harvest Strategy
    B. Regulatory Alternatives
    C. Zones and Split Seasons
    D. Special Seasons/Species Management
    i. September Teal Seasons
    ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
    iii. Black Ducks
    iv. Canvasbacks
    v. Pintails
    vi. Scaup
    vii. Mottled Ducks
    viii. Wood Ducks
    ix. Youth Hunt
    x. Mallard Management Units
    xi. Other
2. Sea Ducks
3. Mergansers
4. Canada Geese
    A. Special Seasons
    B. Regular Seasons
    C. Special Late Seasons
5. White-Fronted Geese
6. Brant
7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
8. Swans
9. Sandhill Cranes
10. Coots
11. Moorhens and Gallinules
12. Rails
13. Snipe
14. Woodcock
15. Band-Tailed Pigeons
16. Doves
17. Alaska
18. Hawaii
19. Puerto Rico
20. Virgin Islands
21. Falconry
22. Other

    Subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring 
attention. Therefore, it is important to note that we will omit those 
items requiring no attention, and remaining numbered items will be 
discontinuous and appear incomplete.
    On June 22, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR 
36508) a second document providing supplemental proposals for early- 
and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations. The June 22 
supplement also provided detailed information on the 2011-12 regulatory 
schedule and announced the SRC and Flyway Council meetings.
    On June 22 and 23, 2011, we held open meetings with the Flyway 
Council Consultants at which the participants reviewed information on 
the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and 
developed recommendations for the 2011-12 regulations for these species 
plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and 
the Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl seasons in designated 
States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway; and extended 
falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and discussed preliminary 
information on the status of waterfowl as it relates to the development 
and selection of the regulatory packages for the 2011-12 regular 
waterfowl seasons. On July 26, 2011, we published in the Federal 
Register (76 FR 44730) a third document specifically dealing with the 
proposed frameworks for early-season regulations. In late August 2011, 
we will publish a rulemaking establishing final frameworks for early-
season migratory bird hunting regulations for the 2011-12 season.
    On July 27-28, 2011, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council 
Consultants, at which the participants reviewed the status of waterfowl 
and developed recommendations for the 2011-12 regulations for these 
species. This document deals specifically with proposed frameworks for 
the late-season migratory bird hunting regulations. It will lead to 
final frameworks from which States may select season dates, shooting 
hours, areas, and limits.
    We have considered all pertinent comments received through July 29, 
2011, on the April 8 and June 22, 2011, rulemaking documents in 
developing this document. In addition, new proposals for certain late-
season regulations are provided for public comment. The comment period 
is specified above under DATES. We will publish final regulatory 
frameworks for late-season migratory game bird hunting in the Federal 
Register on or around September 21, 2011.

Population Status and Harvest

    The following paragraphs provide preliminary information on the 
status of waterfowl and information on the status and harvest of 
migratory shore and upland game birds excerpted from various reports. 
For more detailed information on methodologies and results, you may 
obtain complete copies of the various reports at the address indicated 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our Web

[[Page 53537]]

site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html.

Waterfowl Breeding and Habitat Survey

    Federal, provincial, and State agencies conduct surveys each spring 
to estimate the size of breeding populations and to evaluate the 
conditions of the habitats. These surveys are conducted using fixed-
wing aircraft, helicopters, and ground crews and encompass principal 
breeding areas of North America, covering an area over 2.0 million 
square miles. The traditional survey area comprises Alaska, Canada, and 
the northcentral United States, and includes approximately 1.3 million 
square miles. The eastern survey area includes parts of Ontario, 
Quebec, Labrador, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New 
Brunswick, New York, and Maine, an area of approximately 0.7 million 
square miles.
    Overall, habitat conditions during the 2011 Waterfowl Breeding 
Population and Habitat Survey were characterized by average to above-
average moisture and a normal winter and spring across the traditional 
and eastern survey areas. The exception was the west-central portion of 
the traditional survey area that received below-average moisture. The 
total pond estimate (Prairie Canada and United States combined) was 8.1 
 0.2 million. This was 22 percent above the 2010 estimate 
and 62 percent above the long-term average (1974-2010) of 5.0  0.03 million ponds. The 2011 estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada 
was 4.9  0.2 million. This was 31 percent above last year's 
estimate (3.7  0.2 million) and 43 percent above the long-
term average (1961-2010; 3.4  0.03 million). The 2011 pond 
estimate for the north-central United States was 3.2  0.1 
million, which was similar to last year's estimate (2.9  
0.1 million) and 102 percent above the long-term average (1974-2010; 
1.6  0.02 million). Additional details of the 2011 Survey 
were provided in the July 26 Federal Register and are available from 
our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html.
Breeding Population Status
    In the traditional survey area, which includes strata 1-18, 20-50, 
and 75-77, the total duck population estimate was 45.6  0.8 
[SE] million birds. This estimate represents an 11 percent increase 
over last year's estimate of 40.9  0.7 million birds and 
was 35 percent above the long-term average (1955-2010). Estimated 
mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) abundance was 9.2  0.3 million 
birds, which was 9 percent above the 2010 estimate of 8.4  
0.3 million birds and 22 percent above the long-term average. Estimated 
abundance of gadwall (A. strepera; 3.3  0.2 million) was 
similar to the 2010 estimate and 80 percent above the long-term 
average. Estimated abundance of American wigeon (A. americana; 2.1 
 0.1 million) was 14 percent below the 2010 estimate and 20 
percent below the long-term average. The estimated abundance of green-
winged teal (A. crecca) was 2.9  0.2 million, which was 17 
percent below the 2010 estimate and 47 percent above their long-term 
average. The estimate of blue-winged teal abundance (A. discors) was 
8.9  0.4 million, which was 41 percent above the 2010 
estimate and 91 percent above their long-term average. The estimate for 
northern pintails (A. acuta; 4.4  0.3 million) was 26 
percent above the 2010 estimate, and similar to the long-term average. 
The northern shoveler estimate (A. clypeata) was 4.6  0.2 
million, which was 14 percent above the 2010 estimate and 98 percent 
above the long-term average. Redhead abundance (Aythya americana; 1.4 
 0.1 million) was 27 percent above the 2010 estimate and 
106 percent above the long-term average. The canvasback estimate (A. 
valisineria; 0.7  0.05 million) was similar to the 2010 
estimate and 21 percent above the long-term average. Estimated 
abundance of scaup (A. affinis and A. marila combined; 4.3  
0.3 million) was similar to that of 2010 and 15 percent below the long-
term average of 5.1  0.05 million.
    The eastern survey area was restratified in 2005 and is now 
composed of strata 51-72. Estimated abundance of mallards in the 
eastern survey area was 0.4  0.1 million, which was similar 
to the 2010 estimate and the long-term average (1990-2010). Abundance 
estimates of green-winged teal, ring-necked duck (A. collaris), 
goldeneyes (common [Bucephala clangula] and Barrow's [B. islandica]), 
and mergansers (red-breasted [Mergus serrator], common [M. merganser], 
and hooded [Lophodytes cucullatus]) were all similar to their 2010 
estimates and long-term averages. The American black duck (Anas 
rubripes) estimate was 0.55  0.04 million, which was 
similar to the 2010 estimate and 13 percent below the long-term average 
of 0.63 million.
Fall Flight Estimate
    The mid-continent mallard population is composed of mallards from 
the traditional survey area (revised in 2008 to exclude Alaska 
mallards), Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and was estimated to be 
11.9  1.1 million birds. This was similar to the 2010 
estimate of 10.3  0.9 million in 2010.
    See section 1.A. Harvest Strategy Considerations for further 
discussion of the implications of this information for this year's 
selection of the appropriate hunting regulations.

Status of Geese and Swans

    We provide information on the population status and productivity of 
North American Canada geese (Branta canadensis), brant (B. bernicla), 
snow geese (Chen caerulescens), Ross's geese (C. rossii), emperor geese 
(C. canagica), white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons), and tundra swans 
(Cygnus columbianus). Production of arctic-nesting geese depends 
heavily upon the timing of snow and ice melt, and on spring and early 
summer temperatures. In 2011, snowmelt timing was average to slightly 
below average throughout most of the important goose breeding areas, 
and most of North America will see average, or slightly below-average, 
fall flights of geese this year. Conditions in the central Arctic, 
especially near Queen Maud Gulf, improved relative to last year's very 
late spring, so improved production of snow and Ross's geese and mid-
continent white-fronted geese is expected. Gosling production of Canada 
goose populations that migrate to the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways 
should generally be good in 2011, with the possible exceptions of the 
Eastern Prairie and Mississippi Valley populations. Conditions 
throughout Alaska and northwestern Canada were very good. As a result, 
Pacific Flyway white-fronted geese, brant, and most Canada geese 
experienced average to above-average production. Indices of wetland 
abundance in the Canadian and U.S. prairies in 2011 were generally 
excellent, and were particularly improved relative to 2010 in Canada. 
This likely improved nesting and brood rearing success of temperate-
nesting Canada geese this year. However, flooding along many river 
systems may have destroyed some nests. Well-above or near-average 
wetland abundance in the United States and Canadian prairie regions and 
mild spring temperatures in many other temperate regions will likely 
improve production of Canada geese that nest at southern latitudes. 
Primary abundance indices decreased (>-10 percent) for 7 goose 
populations and increased (<= 10 percent) for 10 goose populations from 
2010 to 2011. Indices of 12 other populations remained similar among 
these years. Primary abundance indices decreased for western tundra 
swans and remained unchanged for eastern tundra swans. The following 
populations displayed

[[Page 53538]]

significant (P< 0.05) positive trends during the most recent 10-year 
period: Mississippi Flyway Giant, Short Grass Prairie, and Hi-line 
Canada geese; Western Arctic Wrangel Island and Western Central Flyway 
light geese; Pacific white-fronted geese and Pacific brant. Only the 
Atlantic Flyway Resident goose population showed a significant negative 
10-year trend.

Waterfowl Harvest and Hunter Activity

    National surveys of migratory bird hunters were conducted during 
the 2009 and 2010 hunting seasons. About 1.1 million waterfowl hunters 
harvested 13,139,800 ( 4 percent) ducks and 3,327,000 
( 5 percent) geese in 2009, and about 1.1 million waterfowl 
hunters harvested 14,796,700 ( 4 percent) ducks and 
3,169,900 ( 5 percent) geese in 2010. Mallard, green-winged 
teal, gadwall, blue-winged/cinnamon teal, and wood duck (Aix sponsa) 
were the 5 most-harvested duck species in the United States, and Canada 
goose was the predominant species in the goose harvest. Coot hunters 
(about 31,100 in 2009 and 50,500 in 2010) harvested 219,000 ( 34 percent) coots in 2009 and 302,600 ( 50 percent) 
in 2010.

Review of Public Comments and Flyway Council Recommendations

    The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the April 8, 
2011 Federal Register, opened the public comment period for migratory 
game bird hunting regulations. The supplemental proposed rule, which 
appeared in the June 22, 2011 Federal Register, discussed the 
regulatory alternatives for the 2011-12 duck hunting season. Late-
season comments are summarized below and numbered in the order used in 
the April 8 and June 22 Federal Register documents. We have included 
only the numbered items pertaining to late-season issues for which we 
received written comments. Consequently, the issues do not follow in 
successive numerical or alphabetical order.
    We received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils. Some 
recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due 
to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks 
performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's 
frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were 
received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are 
summarized below.
    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 8 and June 22, 2011 Federal Register documents.

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management are: (A) Harvest Strategy Considerations, (B) Regulatory 
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. The categories correspond to previously published 
issues/discussion, and only those containing substantial 
recommendations are discussed below.

A. Harvest Strategy Considerations

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended the adoption of the ``liberal'' 
regulatory alternative.
    Service Response: We continue to use Adaptive Harvest Management 
(AHM) protocols that allow hunting regulations to vary among Flyways in 
a manner that recognizes each Flyway's unique breeding-ground 
derivation of mallards. In 2008, we described and adopted a protocol 
for regulatory decision-making for the newly defined stock of western 
mallards (73 FR 43290; July 24, 2008). For the 2011 hunting season, we 
continue to believe that the prescribed regulatory choice for the 
Pacific Flyway should be based on the status of this western mallard 
breeding stock, while the regulatory choice for the Mississippi and 
Central Flyways should depend on the status of the recently redefined 
mid-continent mallard stock. We also recommend that the regulatory 
choice for the Atlantic Flyway continue to depend on the status of 
eastern mallards.
    For the 2011 hunting season, we are continuing to consider the same 
regulatory alternatives as those used last year. The nature of the 
``restrictive,'' ``moderate,'' and ``liberal'' alternatives has 
remained essentially unchanged since 1997, except that extended 
framework dates have been offered in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal'' 
regulatory alternatives since 2002. Also, in 2003, we agreed to place a 
constraint on closed seasons in the Mississippi and Central Flyways 
whenever the midcontinent mallard breeding-population size (as defined 
prior to 2008; traditional survey area plus Minnesota, Michigan, and 
Wisconsin) was > 5.5 million.
    Optimal AHM strategies for the 2011-12 hunting season were 
calculated using: (1) Harvest-management objectives specific to each 
mallard stock; (2) the 2011 regulatory alternatives; and (3) current 
population models and associated weights for midcontinent, western, and 
eastern mallards. Based on this year's survey results of 9.46 million 
midcontinent mallards (traditional survey area minus Alaska plus 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan), 4.89 million ponds in Prairie 
Canada, 798,413 western mallards (382,588 and 415,825 respectively in 
California-Oregon and Alaska) and 746,000 eastern mallards (strata 51-
54, 56 and the northeastern United States), the prescribed regulatory 
choice for all four Flyways is the ``liberal'' alternative.
    Therefore, we concur with the recommendations of the Atlantic, 
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils regarding selection 
of the ``liberal'' regulatory alternative and propose to adopt the 
``liberal'' regulatory alternative, as described in the June 22, 2011, 
Federal Register.

C. Zones and Split Seasons

    In the August 25, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 52398) and the 
September 23, 2010, final rule (75 FR 58250), we announced our 
intention to propose changes to the existing zone and split season 
guidelines for possible implementation in 2011 for use in State 
selections for the 2011-12 hunting seasons. In the April 8, 2011, 
proposed rule (76 FR 19876) we provided specific details of the 
previously announced proposed changes to the guidelines, announced the 
availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) we prepared on 
the proposed changes to the guidelines, and provided a brief summary of 
the anticipated impacts of the preferred alternative. In the June 22 
and July 26, 2011, proposed rules (76 FR 36508 and 76 FR 44730, 
respectively), we continued to discuss our April 8 proposal. This rule 
for the 2011-12 hunting season continues that discussion and announces 
our final decision on these guidelines.
Background
    We annually issue regulations permitting the sport hunting of 
migratory birds. Zones and split seasons are ``special regulations'' 
designed to distribute hunting opportunities and harvests according to 
temporal, geographic, and demographic variability in waterfowl and 
other migratory game bird populations. For ducks, States have been 
allowed the option of dividing their allotted hunting days into two (or 
in some cases, three) segments to take

[[Page 53539]]

advantage of species-specific peaks of abundance or to satisfy hunters 
in different areas who want to hunt during the peak of waterfowl 
abundance in their area. However, the split-season option does not 
fully satisfy many States who wish to provide a more equitable 
distribution of harvest opportunities. Therefore, we also have allowed 
the establishment of independent seasons in two or more zones within 
States for the purpose of providing more equitable distribution of 
harvest opportunity for hunters throughout the State.
    In 1978, we prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the use of 
zones to set duck hunting regulations. A primary tenet of the 1978 EA 
was that zoning would be for the primary purpose of providing equitable 
distribution of duck hunting opportunities within a State or region and 
not for the purpose of increasing total annual waterfowl harvest in the 
zoned areas. In fact, target harvest levels were to be adjusted 
downward if they exceeded traditional levels as a result of zoning. 
Subsequently, we conducted a review of the use of zones and split 
seasons in 1990.
    Currently, every 5 years, States are afforded the opportunity to 
change the zoning and split season configuration within which they set 
their annual duck hunting regulations. While the schedule of ``open 
seasons'' for making changes to splits and zones is being evaluated in 
the recently released draft supplemental environmental impact statement 
(SEIS) for the migratory bird hunting program (see NEPA Considerations 
in the April 8, 2011, proposed rule (76 FR 19876) for further 
information), the specific guidelines for choosing splits and zones are 
not a part of that evaluation. The current guidelines have remained 
unchanged since 1996.
Public Comments
    The Flyway Council recommendations and public comments discussed 
below include recommendations and comments from both the 2010-11 
regulatory process and the current 2011-12 regulatory process. 
Recommendations and comments from the 2010-11 regulatory process were 
included in the August 25, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 52398) and the 
September 23, 2010, final rule (75 FR 58250).
    Council Recommendations: Last year, the Atlantic, Central, and 
Pacific Flyway Councils recommended that the Service allow 3 zones, 
with 2-way splits in each zone, and 4 zones with no splits as 
additional zone/split-season options for duck seasons during 2011-15. 
The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi 
Flyway Council recommended that the Service allow 3 zones with the 
season split into 2 segments in each zone, 4 zones with no splits, and 
2 zones with the season split into 3 segments in each zone as 
additional zone/split-season options for duck seasons during 2011-15. 
In addition, all four Flyway Councils recommended that States with 
existing grandfathered status be allowed to retain that status.
    This year, the Atlantic Flyway Council recommended allowing States 
two periods for selecting their zone and split options: spring 2011 for 
currently offered options, and spring 2012 for possible additional 
available options. The Mississippi Flyway Council, while urging us to 
provide new options for zones/split-season criteria for use during the 
2011-12 regulations cycle season, noted, however, that some States may 
not be able to use these new criteria even if they are approved this 
spring because of their internal regulations-setting process. Thus, 
they requested extending the open season for States to select zone/
split-season configurations through the 2012 regulations cycle. The 
Central and Pacific Flyway Councils recommended extending the current 
open season for States to select regular season zone/split 
configurations for 2011-15 through June 2012.
    Written Comments in 2010: The National Flyway Council requested 
that the Service allow 3 zones, with 2-way splits in each zone, and 4 
zones with no splits as additional zone/split-season options for duck 
seasons during 2011-15.
    The Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources requested that the Service allow 3 
zones, with 2-way splits in each zone, and 4 zones with no splits as 
additional zone/split-season options for duck seasons during 2011-15.
    The Delta Waterfowl Foundation, the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, 
the LaCrosse County Conservation Alliance, the Governor of Illinois, 
and several individuals expressed support for the Flyway Councils' 
recommended changes to the existing zone and split season guidelines.
    Written Comments in 2011: The Mississippi and Central Flyway 
Councils and the States of Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, New 
York, Wisconsin and Wyoming expressed their support for our April 8 
proposal to modify the zones and split season guidelines to allow up to 
four zones (no splits) and up to three zones with two splits, including 
all grandfathered arrangements. Both the Councils and States supported 
the extension of the open season for State selections of zone and split 
season configurations into the 2012-13 regulatory cycle. There was also 
widespread support for the creation of a Human Dimensions Working Group 
that is capable of advancing informed decision-making frameworks for 
explicitly considering human dimensions aspects of waterfowl management 
issues. The States appreciated our efforts to assess the potential 
impacts of changes in the criteria on duck harvest, and believed that 
such impacts would be minimal.
    Six non-governmental organizations from Illinois and 106 
individuals from Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin expressed support for 
the Flyway Councils' recommended changes to the guidelines. Twenty 
individuals did not support changing the guidelines, while four 
individuals supported the abolishment of zone and split season criteria 
all together.
Service Decision
    In 1990, because of concerns about the proliferation of zones and 
split seasons for duck hunting, we conducted a cooperative review and 
evaluation of the historical use of zone/split options. This review did 
not show that the proliferation of these options had increased harvest 
pressure; however, the ability to detect the impact of zone/split 
configurations was poor because of unreliable response variables, the 
lack of statistical tests to differentiate between real and perceived 
changes, and the absence of adequate experimental controls. 
Consequently, we established guidelines to provide a framework for 
controlling the proliferation of changes in zone/split options. The 
guidelines identified a limited number of zone/split configurations 
that could be used for duck hunting and restricted the frequency of 
changes in these configurations to 5-year intervals.
    In 1996, we revised the guidelines to provide States greater 
flexibility in using their zone/split arrangements. In 2005, in further 
response to recommendations from the Flyway Councils, we considered 
changes to the zone/split guidelines. After our review, however, we 
concluded that the current guidelines need not be changed. We further 
stated that the guidelines would be used for future open seasons (70 FR 
55667; September 22, 2005).
    However, while we continue to support the use of guidelines for 
providing a stable framework for controlling the number of changes to 
zone/split options, last August (75 FR

[[Page 53540]]

52398; August 25, 2010) we noted the consensus position among all the 
Flyway Councils on their proposal and expressed our sensitivity to the 
States' desires for flexibility in addressing concerns of the hunting 
public which, in part, provided the motivation for this recommendation. 
Furthermore, we also expressed our continued support of the 
recommendations from the 2008 Future of Waterfowl Management Workshop 
that called for a greater emphasis on the effects of management actions 
on the hunting public. Thus, we announced that we planned to propose 
that two specific additional options be added to the existing zone and 
split season criteria governing State selection of waterfowl zones and 
splits. The additional options would include four zones with no splits 
and three zones with the option for 2-way (2-segment) split seasons in 
one, two, or all three zones. Otherwise, the criteria and rules 
governing the application of those criteria would remain unchanged.
    When we announced our intention to propose adding the Flyway 
Councils' recommended two options to the existing zone and split season 
guidelines, we also stated that we needed additional time to explore 
all the possible implications and impacts of such changes in the zone 
and split season guidelines in order to provide the public with all the 
necessary information for their consideration and comment. We also 
noted that existing human dimensions data on the relationship of 
harvest regulations, and specifically zones and splits, to hunter 
recruitment, retention, and/or satisfaction are equivocal or lacking. 
In the face of uncertainty over the effects of management actions, the 
waterfowl management community has broadly endorsed adaptive management 
and the principles of informed decision-making as a means of accounting 
for and reducing that uncertainty. The necessary elements of informed 
decision-making include: clearly articulated objectives, explicit 
measurable attributes for objectives, identification of a suite of 
potential management actions, some means of predicting the consequences 
of management actions with respect to stated objectives, and, finally, 
a monitoring program to compare observations with predictions as a 
basis for learning, policy adaptation, and more informed decision-
making. Currently, none of these elements are used to support decision-
making that involves human dimensions considerations. Because the 
Flyways indicated that additional zone/split options were important for 
addressing hunter recruitment, retention, and satisfaction issues, we 
saw this proposed change as an opportunity to advance an informed 
decision-making framework that explicitly considers human dimensions 
issues.
    To that end, we requested that the National Flyway Council marshal 
the expertise and resources of the Human Dimensions Working Group to 
develop explicit human dimensions objectives related to expanding zone 
and split options and a study plan to evaluate the effect of the 
proposed action in achieving those objectives. It was our hope that the 
study plan would include hypotheses and specific predictions about the 
effect of changing zone/split criteria on stated human dimensions 
objectives, and monitoring and evaluation methods that would be used to 
test those predictions. We stated that we believed that insights gained 
through such an evaluation would be invaluable in furthering the 
ongoing dialogue regarding fundamental objectives of waterfowl 
management and an integrated and coherent decision framework for 
advancing those objectives. We further stated that we would review the 
objectives and study plan at our February 2011 SRC meeting and consider 
this plan, along with public and Flyway comments on the proposed change 
to the zones and splits criteria, along with any required National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis, in 
making a final decision on a course of action in 2011.
    We reviewed the objectives and the study plan at our February 2011 
SRC meeting and our June 22-23 SRC meeting and detailed our review in 
the July 26 proposed rule. At that time, we stated that while we 
remained supportive of the Flyway Councils' desire to expand the 
existing zone and split season criteria, the adequacy of the National 
Flyway Council's human dimensions study design that we required last 
year (75 FR 58250; September 23, 2010) as part of our initial intent 
and proposal still did not meet our expectations. Thus, the Councils 
and the Service committed to form a smaller working group to help 
resolve these differences, and that we would consider a revised study 
proposal as soon as it was available. Further, assuming an acceptable 
study plan could be agreed upon, we would consider offering the 
expanded zone/split criteria to States in both the current year's 
regulation cycle and again in the 2012-13 regulations cycle.
    Consequently, since the June 22-23 SRC meeting, the four Flyway 
Councils and the National Flyway Council submitted a revised study plan 
to examine the human dimensions aspects of revisions to the zones and 
split season criteria. This new study plan meets the original 
objectives laid out in the August 25, 2010, and the September 23, 2010, 
rules and we support the Flyway Councils' recommendation to expand the 
criteria to allow two additional options that States may use to 
configure duck zones and split seasons within their boundaries. 
Further, we appreciate the efforts of the four Flyway Councils and the 
National Flyway Council to revise the study plan to examine the human 
dimensions aspects of this issue.
    As we have previously stated, those States that are capable of 
implementing these new guidelines this year may do so. However, for 
those States not able to implement changes this year, we are committed 
to extending the current open season into 2012, and we ask that States 
provide us with any changes to their zone and split season 
configuration by May 1, 2012, for use during the 2012-13 season. After 
this open period, the next regularly-scheduled open season for changes 
to zone and split season configurations will be in 2016, for use during 
the 2016-20 period. In order to allow sufficient time for States to 
solicit public input regarding their selections of zone and split 
season configurations in 2016, we will reaffirm the criteria during the 
2015 late-season regulations process. At that time we will notify 
States that changes to zone and split season configurations should be 
provided to the Service by May 1, 2016.
Guidelines for Duck Zones and Split Seasons
    The following zone/split-season guidelines apply only for the 
regular duck season:
    (1) A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a 
contiguous boundary, for which independent dates may be selected for 
the regular duck season.
    (2) Consideration of changes for management-unit boundaries is not 
subject to the guidelines and provisions governing the use of zones and 
split seasons for ducks.
    (3) Only minor (less than a county in size) boundary changes will 
be allowed for any grandfathered arrangement, and changes are limited 
to the open season.
    (4) Once a zone/split option is selected during an open season, it 
must remain in place for the following 5 years.
    Any State may continue the configuration used in the previous

[[Page 53541]]

5-year period. If changes are made, the zone/split-season configuration 
must conform to one of the following options:
    (1) No more than four zones with no splits,
    (2) Split seasons (no more than 3 segments) with no zones, or
    (3) No more than three zones with the option for 2-way (2-segment) 
split seasons in one, two, or all zones.
Grandfathered Zone/Split Arrangements
    When we first implemented the zone/split guidelines in 1991, 
several States had completed experiments with zone/split arrangements 
different from our original options. We offered those States a one-time 
opportunity to continue (``grandfather'') those arrangements, with the 
stipulation that only minor changes could be made to zone boundaries. 
If any of those States now wish to change their zone/split arrangement:
    (1) The new arrangement must conform to one of the 3 options 
identified above; and
    (2) The State cannot go back to the grandfathered arrangement that 
it previously had in place.
Management Units
    We will continue to utilize the specific limitations previously 
established regarding the use of zone and split seasons in special 
management units, including the High Plains Mallard Management Unit. We 
note that the original justification and objectives established for the 
High Plains Mallard Management Unit provided for additional days of 
hunting opportunity at the end of the regular duck season. In order to 
maintain the integrity of the management unit, current guidelines 
prohibit simultaneous zoning and/or 3-way split seasons within a 
management unit and the remainder of the State. Removal of this 
limitation would allow additional proliferation of zone/split 
configurations and compromise the original objectives of the management 
unit.
Impacts of Proposed Change
    We prepared an EA on the proposed zone and split season guidelines 
and provide a brief summary of the anticipated impacts of the preferred 
alternative with regard to the guidelines. Specifics of each of the 
four alternatives we analyzed can be found on our Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at https://www.regulations.gov.
    In summary, we anticipate that the proposed changes to the 
guidelines, specifically adopting the preferred alternative, would 
result in an increase in the number of exposure days (days in which 
ducks are exposed to hunting) throughout a hunting season, but would 
vary by Flyway. Whereas the maximum potential impact on duck harvest 
may be small in some Flyways (e.g., < 3 percent increase in the Pacific 
Flyway), the impact in other Flyways may be much higher (e.g., up to 25 
percent in the Mississippi Flyway). More specifically, regression 
analysis of the number of duck exposure days and number of duck zones 
within a State indicated that the addition of one zone in all States 
(excluding grandfathered States) could result in up to a 17 percent 
increase in the national duck harvest (or approximately 2.2 million 
birds) above the ``no change'' alternative (13.8 million ducks). It is 
important to note that this estimate is for total duck harvest 
nationwide, and we would expect the potential percentage increases to 
vary among Flyways, States, and species. Additionally, we recognize 
that our analysis utilizes assumptions that may not be fully realized 
during implementation of the new guidelines. For example, our analysis 
assumes that all States that are eligible to make changes to their 
zones-splits configurations will actually make such changes. However, 
many States have indicated that they will not avail themselves of new 
options available to them. This would lower the realized increase in 
harvest in a particular Flyway; thus, the magnitude of any potential 
increase in harvest would likely be lower than the estimated 17 
percent.
    Additionally, we annually prepare a biological opinion under 
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.), prior to establishing annual hunting regulations for 
migratory birds. Regulations promulgated as a result of this 
consultation remove or alleviate chances of conflict between seasons 
for migratory game birds and endangered and threatened species and 
their critical habitats.
    We also do not believe the preferred alternative would recruit new 
hunters, and therefore hunter numbers would probably remain similar to 
2008 levels, when the last economic analysis was conducted. However, if 
increasing the possible number of zones and split season configurations 
encourages current hunters to spend more days afield, we would expect a 
slight increase in expenditures. Therefore, the national estimate of 
the consumer surplus expected under this alternative may be slightly 
higher than the estimate of $317 million annually (range of $274 
million to $362 million [2007$]) that we would expect under the ``no 
change'' alternative. In general, the non-hunting public has not 
expressed an opinion about zoning and split seasons in the past. Within 
this large group, individuals opposed to hunting will likely object to 
increased zoning and/or split seasons if they believe it will enhance 
or encourage hunting. Others generally favor more restrictive 
regulations, and some further believe that all hunting should be 
discontinued. We note that the four Flyway Councils support the 
preferred alternative. Duck hunter numbers would likely be similar to 
that of 2008, which would maintain the current level of revenues to the 
States and Service through sales of waterfowl hunting licenses and duck 
stamps. While this alternative potentially could increase hunter 
expenditures above the current level of $1.2 billion (2007$), we have 
no specific information available that would allow an accurate 
estimation of this increase. However, we believe any potential increase 
would likely be negligible.
    The EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is available by 
either writing to the address indicated under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT in the preamble of this proposed rule or by viewing on our Web 
site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at https://www.regulations.gov.
Response to Other Comments
    With regard to abolishing the zones and splits criteria, we 
disagree. Implementation of the criteria for zones and splits was meant 
to stem the increasing proliferation of zoning and split seasons, which 
complicated the assessment of the impacts of harvest regulations on 
duck populations. We believe the use of zoning criteria provides a 
certain level of stability to duck regulations, which enhance the 
assessment of the impacts of other regulations (e.g., season length and 
bag limit) on duck populations.

D. Special Seasons/Species Management

iii. Black Ducks
    In 2008, U.S. and Canadian waterfowl managers developed an interim 
harvest strategy that will be employed by both countries until a formal 
strategy based on the principles of AHM is completed. We detailed this 
interim strategy in the July 24, 2008, Federal Register (73 FR 43290). 
The interim harvest strategy is prescriptive, in that it calls for no 
substantive changes in hunting regulations unless the black duck 
breeding population, averaged over the most recent 3 years, exceeds or 
falls

[[Page 53542]]

below the long-term average breeding population by 15 percent or more. 
The strategy is designed to share the black duck harvest equally 
between the two countries; however, recognizing incomplete control of 
harvest through regulations, it will allow realized harvest in either 
country to vary between 40 and 60 percent.
    Each year in November, Canada publishes its proposed migratory bird 
hunting regulations for the upcoming hunting season. Thus, last fall 
the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) used the interim strategy to 
establish its proposed black duck regulations for the 2011-12 season, 
based on the most current data available at that time: breeding 
population estimates for 2008, 2009, and 2010, and an assessment of 
parity based on harvest estimates for the 2005-09 hunting seasons. 
Although updates of both breeding population estimates and harvest 
estimates are now available, the United States will base its 2011-12 
black duck regulations on the same data CWS used, to ensure comparable 
application of the strategy. The long-term (1998-2007) breeding 
population mean estimate is 929,100, and the 2008-10, 3-year running 
mean estimate is 858,300. From 2005-09, 45 percent of the black duck 
harvest occurred in Canada and 55 percent in the United States; this 
falls within the accepted parity bounds of 40 and 60 percent. Based on 
these estimates, no restriction or liberalization of black duck harvest 
is warranted.
iv. Canvasbacks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a full season for canvasbacks 
with a 1-bird daily bag limit. Season lengths would be 60 days in the 
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, 74 days in the Central Flyway, and 
107 days in the Pacific Flyway.
    Service Response: Since 1994, we have followed a canvasback harvest 
strategy that if canvasback population status and production are 
sufficient to permit a harvest of one canvasback per day nationwide for 
the entire length of the regular duck season, while still attaining a 
projected spring population objective of 500,000 birds, the season on 
canvasbacks should be opened. A partial season would be permitted if 
the estimated allowable harvest was within the projected harvest for a 
shortened season. If neither of these conditions can be met, the 
harvest strategy calls for a closed season on canvasbacks nationwide. 
In 2008 (73 FR 43290; July 24, 2008), we announced our decision to 
modify the Canvasback Harvest Strategy to incorporate the option for a 
2-bird daily bag limit for canvasbacks when the predicted breeding 
population the subsequent year exceeds 725,000 birds.
    This year's spring survey resulted in an estimate of 692,000 
canvasbacks. This was statistically similar to the 2010 estimate of 
585,000 canvasbacks and 21 percent above the 1955-2010 average. The 
estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada was 4.9 million, which was 31 
percent above last year and 43 percent above the long-term average. 
Based on updated harvest predictions using data from recent hunting 
seasons, the canvasback harvest strategy predicts a 2012 canvasback 
population of 756,000 birds under a liberal duck season with a 1-bird 
daily bag limit and 697,000 with a 2-bird daily bag limit. Because the 
predicted 2012 population under the 1-bird daily bag limit is greater 
than 500,000, while the prediction under the 2-bird daily bag limit is 
less than 725,000, the canvasback harvest strategy stipulates a full 
canvasback season with a 1-bird daily bag limit for the upcoming 
season.
v. Pintails
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a full season for pintails, 
consisting of a 2-bird daily bag limit and a 60-day season in the 
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, a 74-day season in the Central 
Flyway, and a 107-day season in the Pacific Flyway.
    Service Response: The current derived pintail harvest strategy was 
adopted by the Service and Flyway Councils in 2010 (75 FR 44856; July 
29, 2010). For this year, optimal regulatory strategies were calculated 
with: (1) An objective of maximizing long-term cumulative harvest, 
including a closed-season constraint of 1.75 million birds, (2) the 
regulatory alternatives and associated predicted harvest, and (3) 
current population models and their relative weights. Based on this 
year's survey results of 4.43 million pintails observed and a mean 
latitude of 51.7, the optimal regulatory choice for all four Flyways is 
the ``liberal'' alternative with a 2-bird daily bag limit.
vi. Scaup
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended use of the ``moderate'' 
regulation package, consisting of a 60-day season with a 2-bird daily 
bag in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, a 74-day season with a 2-
bird daily bag limit in the Central Flyway, and an 86-day season with a 
3-bird daily bag limit in the Pacific Flyway.
    Service Response: In 2008, we adopted and implemented a new scaup 
harvest strategy (73 FR 43290 on July 24, 2008, and 73 FR 51124 on 
August 29, 2008) with initial ``restrictive,'' ``moderate,'' and 
``liberal'' regulatory packages adopted for each Flyway. Further 
opportunity to revise these packages was afforded prior to the 2009-10 
season and modifications by the Mississippi and Central Flyway Councils 
were endorsed by the Service in July 2009 (74 FR 36870; July 24, 2009). 
These packages will remain in effect for at least 3 years prior to 
their re-evaluation.
    The 2011 breeding population estimate for scaup is 4.32 million, up 
2 percent from, but statistically similar to, the 2010 estimate of 4.24 
million. Total estimated scaup harvest for the 2010-11 season was 
358,000 birds. Based on updated model parameter estimates, the optimal 
regulatory choice for scaup is the ``moderate'' package in all four 
Flyways.
vii. Mottled Ducks
    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended 
removal of the restriction in Texas requiring a 5-day delay in the 
opening date of the mottled duck season from the opening of the general 
duck season (i.e., must be closed the first 5 days of the duck season).
    Service Response: We remain concerned about the status of mottled 
ducks, particularly those in the Western Gulf Coast Population (WGCP). 
In 2009, the Central and Mississippi Flyways implemented restrictions 
in either bag limit or season length in an attempt to achieve harvest 
reductions we believed were appropriate given the status of those 
mottled ducks. In the Central Flyway, the restrictions included a delay 
of 5 days in the opening date when dusky ducks (mottled duck, black 
duck and their hybrids, or Mexican-like duck) may be taken in Texas. 
Although the harvest estimates associated with those restrictions did 
not achieve the targeted 30 percent reduction, the reduction approached 
what we believed was appropriate for the current status of the WGCP. 
Therefore, we do not support removal of this restriction and believe 
that regulations in effect for the last two hunting seasons are 
appropriate for the 2011-12 season, including the delay in

[[Page 53543]]

the opening date in which dusky ducks may be taken in Texas.
xii. Other
    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council and the Upper-
Region Regulations Committee of the Mississippi Flyway Council 
recommended that the daily and possession bag limits for redheads 
during the 2011-12 duck hunting season be 3 and 6, respectively.
    Service Response: While we recognize the desire to provide 
additional hunting opportunity for redheads, at this time we do not 
support the recommendations to increase the daily bag limit of redheads 
from 2 to 3 birds. As we have done with other species (such as 
canvasbacks, pintails, etc.), we believe that changes to redhead daily 
bag limits should only be considered with guidance from an agreed-upon 
harvest strategy that is supported by all four Flyway Councils and the 
Service. Thus, we suggest that the Flyways work collaboratively to 
develop a redhead harvest strategy, which would include: (1) Clearly 
defined and agreed-upon management objectives; (2) clearly defined 
regulatory alternatives; and (3) a model that can be used to predict 
population responses to harvest mortality. If the development of a 
harvest strategy for redheads is a priority for the Flyways, a 
conceptual framework for a redhead harvest strategy could be discussed 
at the Harvest Management Working Group meeting in November 2011. 
However, we note that if the Flyway Councils wish to implement a 
redhead harvest strategy for the 2012-13 season, a draft strategy needs 
to be available for review and discussion by the February 2012 Service 
Regulations Committee (SRC) meeting, finalized by the Flyways Councils 
at their March 2012 meetings, and forwarded as a recommendation for SRC 
consideration at the early season SRC meeting (June 2012).

4. Canada Geese

B. Regular Seasons

    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended 
increasing the Canada goose daily bag limit from 3 to 5 geese in the 
east-tier States.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended several changes to dark 
goose season frameworks. More specifically, they recommended:
    1. Within the basic dark goose bag limit for California, Oregon, 
and Washington: remove the dark goose bag limit exception for Oregon of 
not more than one cackling Canada or Aleutian Canada geese per day.
    2. Within the Northwest Special Permit Zone for Oregon: increase 
the dark goose bag limit exception of not more than 2 cackling Canada 
or Aleutian Canada geese per day to not more than 3 cackling Canada or 
Aleutian Canada geese per day.
    3. Within the Tillamook County Management Area of the Northwest 
Special Permit Zone for Oregon: increase the dark goose bag limit from 
not more than 3 per day, including not more than 2 cackling Canada or 
Aleutian Canada geese, to not more than 4 per day, provided this total 
include not more than 3 cackling Canada or Aleutian Canada geese.
    4. Within the Northwest Zone for Oregon: restrict the bag limit for 
cackling Canada and Aleutian Canada geese to not more than 3 cackling 
Canada or Aleutian Canada geese per day within the overall daily dark 
goose bag limit of not more than 4 per day.
    5. Within the South Coast Zone for Oregon: remove the dark goose 
bag limit exception, within the basic dark goose bag limit, of up to 4 
cackling Canada and Aleutian Canada geese per day.
    6. Within the Southwest Zone for Oregon: remove the dark goose bag 
limit exception, within the basic dark goose bag limit, of up to 4 
cackling Canada and Aleutian Canada geese per day.
    7. In Washington's Areas 2A and 2B (Southwest Quota Zone): increase 
the daily bag limit from 2 to 3 cackling geese.
    8. In California's Northeastern Zone: remove the restrictions on 
small Canada geese (Aleutian and cackling geese).
    9. Increase the daily bag limit for Canada geese in the Pacific 
Flyway portion of Colorado from 3 birds to 4 birds, and possession 
limit from 6 to 8 birds.
    10. In Idaho, consolidate the current goose zones to correspond 
with duck hunting zones.
    Service Response: We do not support the Central Flyway Council's 
recommendation to increase the dark goose daily bag limit in the east-
tier States from 3 to 5 geese. While we agree that the Flyway's 
proposed bag limit increase would likely result in an increased harvest 
of resident Canada geese (Great Plains Population), there are other 
Canada goose populations that would also be subjected to additional 
harvest pressure, including the Tall Grass Prairie (TGP), Western 
Prairie, and the Eastern Prairie populations. We recognize the 
continuing problems posed by increasing numbers of resident Canada 
geese and that migrant populations of Canada geese in the Central 
Flyway are above objective levels. We also understand the Flyway's 
desire to provide as much hunting opportunity on these geese as 
possible, and we share the philosophy that hunting, not control 
permits, should be the primary tool used to manage populations of game 
birds. However, we also recognize that hunting is not necessarily the 
most appropriate or effective tool to address these issues in all 
areas. Although States have used some of the additional tools provided 
to them through annual hunting regulations, Statewide Special Canada 
goose permits, and implementation of the preferred alternative in the 
Resident Canada Goose Environmental Impact Statement, we believe 
several of these tools are not being used to the extent available. 
Thus, we encourage the States to work with Service staff to better 
identify the most appropriate tool, or tools, for the various 
situations and conflicts in the affected States. Further, as we stated 
last year (75 FR 58250; September 23, 2010), we believe that more 
progress needs to be made regarding monitoring Canada goose populations 
in east-tier States, as well as collaboration with the Mississippi 
Flyway regarding impacts to shared goose resources, including progress 
on a revision to the TGP Population Management Plan. We would consider 
increasing bag limits in the future if progress is made on these 
fronts, particularly on the management plan.
    We support all of the Pacific Flyway goose recommendations. 
Originally, Oregon's Tillamook County Management Area was established 
to provide protection for Aleutian Canada geese originating from Semidi 
Island, Alaska. Modification of the closure area, as proposed by the 
Council, will reduce the closure area by approximately 22 percent. 
However, the Council notes that the original closure area included non-
goose use areas and the refuge recommended reducing the closure area as 
the Semidi Island birds do not use the entire closure area. Most of the 
proposed newly open area constitutes agricultural lands, primarily 
dairy pastures and hay fields, and opening these lands to goose hunting 
is expected to help relieve depredations caused by wintering geese. 
While we expect goose harvest in the Management Area to increase due to 
this proposed change, harvest will continue to be monitored by check 
station and goose distribution and collar surveys, focused on Semidi 
birds.
    The recommendations for removal of small Canada goose restrictions 
in eastern Oregon and for 1-bird daily bag limit increases to address 
agricultural

[[Page 53544]]

damage issues in Oregon and Washington are not expected to increase 
harvest of these populations substantially. We believe these 
populations are at levels that can sustain these minor increases in 
harvest without jeopardy to their long-term sustainability. However, we 
note that long-term solutions to agricultural depredation issues will 
not be completely addressed through harvest regulations and encourage 
the States of the Pacific Flyway to continue to work to implement the 
other approaches detailed in the Flyway's Canada goose depredation 
plan.
    The proposed removal of within bag limit restrictions on small 
Canada geese (Aleutian and cackling Canada geese) in California's 
Northeastern Zone is intended to simplify goose hunting regulations and 
we expect little or no increase in harvest. Few, if any, Aleutian geese 
occur in that portion of California and despite restrictive daily bag 
limits, the abundance of cackling geese in the Klamath Basin has 
declined from the tens of thousands in the late 1990s to essentially 
zero in recent years as cackling goose distribution has shifted 
northward. However, since that time, the Aleutian Canada goose 
population has grown from less than 1,000 birds in 1976 to over 110,000 
in 2011.
    Regarding the proposed increase in the daily bag limit in Colorado 
from 3 to 4 Canada geese, we note that removal of this more restrictive 
bag limit makes it consistent with most of the remainder of the flyway. 
Further, population measurement data support an increase in the bag 
limit as counts from both the spring breeding survey and post-hunting 
indices have increased over the last 3 years.
    In Idaho, the recommendation to consolidate the current goose zones 
to correspond with duck hunting zones is intended to reduce regulatory 
complexity in State and Federal regulations. We have no issue with this 
recommendation.

C. Special Late Seasons

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
changing Rhode Island's experimental late Canada goose season status to 
operational.
    Service Response: We agree with the Council's recommendation to 
change the status of Rhode Island's late Canada goose season from 
experimental to operational. Based on band recovery data submitted by 
the Council, there were no direct recoveries of migrant geese and the 
special late season meets the established criteria for special Canada 
goose seasons of <20 percent migrant harvest. Further, between 1997-
2011, only 7 banded Canada geese recovered were migrants (all of which 
were indirect recoveries).

5. White-Fronted Geese

    Council Recommendations: The Mississippi and Central Flyway 
Councils recommended that the white-fronted goose season option of a 
72-day season be increased to 74 days and the 86-day season option be 
increased to 88 days. Daily bag limits associated with each season 
option would remain unchanged.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended extending the latest closing 
date for white-fronted geese in California's Sacramento Valley Special 
Management Zone to December 28 and in California's Balance of State 
Zone to March 10.
    Service Response: We support the 2-day increase in the season 
length in the Mississippi and Central Flyways. These increases are 
consistent with the newly revised management plan for mid-continent 
white-fronted geese.
    We also support the Pacific Flyway Councils recommendations to 
extend the framework closing dates in California's Balance of State 
Zone and the Sacramento Valley Special Management Area (SMA). In the 
Balance of State Zone, expanding the framework closing date to March 10 
is intended to allow additional hunting opportunity and potentially 
reduce goose crop depredation complaints. The Council notes that the 
white-fronted goose population is currently about 700,000 birds and 
above the population goal of 300,000 birds. In the SMA, extending the 
closing date to December 28 is expected to increase the harvest of 
Pacific white-fronted geese while still protecting the less numerous 
Tule subspecies. Tule Greater white-fronted geese currently number 
approximately 14,578 based on preliminary indirect population 
estimates. However, over-lapping this relatively small number of Tule 
geese are burgeoning populations of Pacific Greater white-fronted geese 
within the SMA. The Council estimates that the harvest of Tule geese 
are low, as determined by measurements of hunter-harvested white-
fronted geese at public hunting areas within the SMA; and the range of 
hunter-harvested adult Tule geese at the public hunt areas in the SMA 
since 1999 has ranged from a low of 13 (2005-06) to a high of 86 (2000-
01). We agree with the Council's assessment.

Public Comments

    The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever possible, to 
afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking 
process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written 
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed 
regulations. Before promulgating final migratory game bird hunting 
regulations, we will consider all comments we receive. These comments, 
and any additional information we receive, may lead to final 
regulations that differ from these proposals. You may submit your 
comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the 
methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments 
sent by e-mail o