Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2016-17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; Notice of Meetings, 47387-47398 [2015-19318]
Download as PDF
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 151
August 6, 2015
Part XV
Department of the Interior
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2016–17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; Notice
of Meetings; Proposed Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
06AUP12
47388
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0034:
FF09M21200–156–FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 1018–BA70
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed
2016–17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary) With
Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals;
Notice of Meetings
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of
supplemental information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (hereinafter the Service or we)
proposes to establish annual hunting
regulations for certain migratory game
birds for the 2016–17 hunting season.
We annually prescribe outside limits
(frameworks) within which States may
select hunting seasons. This proposed
rule provides the regulatory schedule,
announces the Service Migratory Bird
Regulations Committee and Flyway
Council (SRC) meetings, describes the
regulatory alternatives for the 2016–17
duck hunting seasons, and requests
proposals from Indian tribes that wish
to establish special migratory game bird
hunting regulations on Federal Indian
reservations and ceded lands. Migratory
game bird hunting seasons provide
opportunities for recreation and
sustenance; aid Federal, State, and tribal
governments in the management of
migratory game birds; and permit
harvests at levels compatible with
migratory game bird population status
and habitat conditions.
DATES:
Comments: Following subsequent
Federal Register notices, you will be
given an opportunity to submit
comments on this proposed rule and the
subsequent proposed frameworks by
January 15, 2016. Tribes must submit
proposals and related comments on or
before December 1, 2015.
Meetings: The SRC will meet to
consider and develop proposed
regulations for migratory game bird
hunting on October 20–21, 2015.
Meetings on both days will commence
at approximately 8:30 a.m.
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–HQ–MB–2015–
0034.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–HQ–
MB–2015–0034; Division of Policy,
Performance, and Management
Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike,
Falls Church, VA 22041.
We will not accept emailed or faxed
comments. We will post all comments
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the Web site. See the Public
Comments section, below, for more
information.
Meetings: The SRC will meet at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600
American Boulevard, Bloomington, MN
55437.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron
W. Kokel at: Division of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, MS:
MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church,
VA 22041; (703) 358–1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
New Process for the Annual Migratory
Game Bird Hunting Regulations
As part of DOI’s retrospective
regulatory review, we developed a
schedule for migratory game bird
hunting regulations that is more
efficient and will provide dates much
earlier than was possible under the old
process. This will make planning much
easier for the States and all parties
interested in migratory bird hunting.
Beginning with the 2016–17 hunting
season, we are using a new schedule for
establishing our annual migratory game
bird hunting regulations. We will
combine the current early- and lateseason regulatory actions into a single
process, based on predictions derived
from long-term biological information
and established harvest strategies that
will establish migratory bird hunting
seasons much earlier than the system
we have used for many years. Under the
new process, we will develop proposed
hunting season frameworks for a given
year in the fall of the prior year. We will
finalize those frameworks a few months
later, thereby enabling the State
agencies to select and publish their
season dates in early summer.
This proposed rule is the first in a
series of rules implementing this new
process. This year, there will be a onetime overlap in the regulatory processes
for the 2015–16 and 2016–17 seasons.
Background and Overview
Migratory game birds are those bird
species so designated in conventions
between the United States and several
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
foreign nations for the protection and
management of these birds. Under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.
703–712), the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to determine when ‘‘hunting,
taking, capture, killing, possession, sale,
purchase, shipment, transportation,
carriage, or export of any * * * bird, or
any part, nest, or egg’’ of migratory game
birds can take place, and to adopt
regulations for this purpose. These
regulations are written after giving due
regard to ‘‘the zones of temperature and
to the distribution, abundance,
economic value, breeding habits, and
times and lines of migratory flight of
such birds’’ and are updated annually
(16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This responsibility
has been delegated to the Service as the
lead Federal agency for managing and
conserving migratory birds in the
United States. However, migratory game
bird management is a cooperative effort
of State, Tribal, and Federal
governments.
The Service develops migratory game
bird hunting regulations by establishing
the frameworks, or outside limits, for
season lengths, bag limits, and areas for
migratory game bird hunting.
Acknowledging regional differences
in hunting conditions, the Service has
administratively divided the Nation into
four Flyways for the primary purpose of
managing migratory game birds. Each
Flyway (Atlantic, Mississippi, Central,
and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a
formal organization generally composed
of one member from each State and
Province in that Flyway. The Flyway
Councils, established through the
International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), also assist
in researching and providing migratory
game bird management information for
Federal, State, and Provincial
governments, as well as private
conservation agencies and the general
public.
The process for adopting migratory
game bird hunting regulations, located
at 50 CFR part 20, is constrained by
three primary factors. Legal and
administrative considerations dictate
how long the rulemaking process will
last. Most importantly, however, the
biological cycle of migratory game birds
controls the timing of data-gathering
activities and thus the dates on which
these results are available for
consideration and deliberation.
For the regulatory cycle, Service
biologists gather, analyze, and interpret
biological survey data and provide this
information to all those involved in the
process through a series of published
status reports and presentations to
Flyway Councils and other interested
parties. Because the Service is required
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
06AUP12
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
to take abundance of migratory game
birds and other factors into
consideration, the Service undertakes a
number of surveys throughout the year
in conjunction with Service Regional
Offices, the Canadian Wildlife Service,
and State and Provincial wildlife
management agencies. To determine the
appropriate frameworks for each
species, we consider factors such as
population size and trend, geographical
distribution, annual breeding effort, the
condition of breeding and wintering
habitat, the number of hunters, and the
anticipated harvest. After frameworks
are established for season lengths, bag
limits, and areas for migratory game bird
hunting, States may select season dates,
bag limits, and other regulatory options
for the hunting seasons. States may
always be more conservative in their
selections than the Federal frameworks,
but never more liberal.
Service Migratory Bird Regulations
Committee Meetings
The SRC will meet October 20–21,
2015, to review information on the
current status of migratory game birds
and develop 2016–17 migratory game
bird regulations recommendations for
these species. In accordance with
Departmental policy, these meetings are
open to public observation. You may
submit written comments to the Service
on the matters discussed.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Announcement of Flyway Council
Meetings
Service representatives will be
present at the individual meetings of the
four Flyway Councils this September
and October. Although agendas are not
yet available, these meetings usually
commence at 8 a.m. on the days
indicated. Several of the meetings will
be conducted via conference call.
Atlantic Flyway Council: October 6.
Mississippi Flyway Council:
September 30.
Central Flyway Council: October 8,
Holiday Inn and Suites, 6900 Tower
Road, Denver, CO.
Pacific Flyway Council: September 22.
Notice of Intent To Establish Open
Seasons
This document announces our intent
to establish open hunting seasons and
daily bag and possession limits for
certain designated groups or species of
migratory game birds for 2016–17 in the
contiguous United States, Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands, under §§ 20.101 through 20.107,
20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50
CFR part 20.
For the 2016–17 migratory game bird
hunting season, we will propose
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
regulations for certain designated
members of the avian families Anatidae
(ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae
(doves and pigeons); Gruidae (cranes);
Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and
gallinules); and Scolopacidae
(woodcock and snipe). We describe
these proposals under Proposed 2016–
17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary) in this
document. We published definitions of
waterfowl flyways and mourning dove
management units, and a description of
the data used in and the factors affecting
the regulatory process, in the March 14,
1990, Federal Register (55 FR 9618).
Regulatory Schedule for 2016–17
This document is the first in a series
of proposed, supplemental, and final
rulemaking documents for migratory
game bird hunting regulations. We will
publish additional supplemental
proposals for public comment in the
Federal Register as population, habitat,
harvest, and other information become
available. Major steps in the 2016–17
regulatory cycle relating to open public
meetings and Federal Register
notifications are illustrated in the
diagram at the end of this proposed rule.
All publication dates of Federal
Register documents are target dates.
All sections of this and subsequent
documents outlining hunting
frameworks and guidelines are
organized under numbered headings.
These headings are:
1. Ducks
A. General Harvest Strategy
B. Regulatory Alternatives
C. Zones and Split Seasons
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. September Teal Seasons
ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
iii. Black Ducks
iv. Canvasbacks
v. Pintails
vi. Scaup
vii. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
47389
17. Alaska
18. Hawaii
19. Puerto Rico
20. Virgin Islands
21. Falconry
22. Other
Later sections of this and subsequent
documents will refer only to numbered
items requiring your attention.
Therefore, it is important to note that we
will omit those items requiring no
attention, and remaining numbered
items will be discontinuous and appear
incomplete.
The regulatory alternatives for the
2016–17 duck hunting seasons are
contained at the end of this document.
We will publish proposed season
frameworks in mid-December 2015. We
will publish final regulatory frameworks
in late February 2016.
Review of Public Comments
This proposed rulemaking contains
the regulatory alternatives for the 2016–
17 duck hunting seasons. This proposed
rulemaking also describes other
recommended changes or specific
preliminary proposals that vary from the
2015–16 regulations and issues
requiring early discussion, action, or the
attention of the States or tribes. We will
publish responses to all proposals and
written comments when we develop
final frameworks for the 2016–17
season. We seek additional information
and comments on this proposed rule.
Consolidation of Notices
For administrative purposes, this
document consolidates the notice of
intent to establish open migratory game
bird hunting seasons and the request for
tribal proposals with the preliminary
proposals for the annual hunting
regulations-development process. We
will publish the remaining proposed
and final rulemaking documents
separately. For inquiries on tribal
guidelines and proposals, tribes should
contact the following personnel:
Region 1 (Idaho, Oregon, Washington,
Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands)—
Nanette Seto, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland,
OR 97232–4181; (503) 231–6164.
Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, and Texas)—Greg Hughes,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103; (505)
248–7885.
Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio,
and Wisconsin)—Dave Scott, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 5600 American
Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN
55437–1458; (612) 713–5101.
Region 4 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
06AUP12
47390
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico
and Virgin Islands, South Carolina, and
Tennessee)—Laurel Barnhill, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century
Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, GA
30345; (404) 679–4000.
Region 5 (Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
Virginia, and West Virginia)—Pam
Toschik, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA
01035–9589; (413) 253–8610.
Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana,
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, and Wyoming)—Casey Stemler,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
25486, Denver Federal Building,
Denver, CO 80225; (303) 236–8145.
Region 7 (Alaska)—Pete Probasco,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011
East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503;
(907) 786–3423.
Region 8 (California and Nevada)—
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800
Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825–
1846; (916) 414–6727.
Requests for Tribal Proposals
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Background
Beginning with the 1985–86 hunting
season, we have employed guidelines
described in the June 4, 1985, Federal
Register (50 FR 23467) to establish
special migratory game bird hunting
regulations on Federal Indian
reservations (including off-reservation
trust lands) and ceded lands. We
developed these guidelines in response
to tribal requests for our recognition of
their reserved hunting rights, and for
some tribes, recognition of their
authority to regulate hunting by both
tribal and nontribal members
throughout their reservations. The
guidelines include possibilities for:
(1) On-reservation hunting by both
tribal and nontribal members, with
hunting by nontribal members on some
reservations to take place within Federal
frameworks, but on dates different from
those selected by the surrounding
State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal
members only, outside of usual Federal
frameworks for season dates, season
length, and daily bag and possession
limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal
members on ceded lands, outside of
usual framework dates and season
length, with some added flexibility in
daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, tribal regulations
established under the guidelines must
be consistent with the annual March 10
to September 1 closed season mandated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
by the 1916 Convention Between the
United States and Great Britain (for
Canada) for the Protection of Migratory
Birds (Convention). The guidelines are
applicable to those tribes that have
reserved hunting rights on Federal
Indian reservations (including offreservation trust lands) and ceded lands.
They also may be applied to the
establishment of migratory game bird
hunting regulations for nontribal
members on all lands within the
exterior boundaries of reservations
where tribes have full wildlife
management authority over such
hunting, or where the tribes and affected
States otherwise have reached
agreement over hunting by nontribal
members on non-Indian lands.
Tribes usually have the authority to
regulate migratory game bird hunting by
nonmembers on Indian-owned
reservation lands, subject to our
approval. The question of jurisdiction is
more complex on reservations that
include lands owned by non-Indians,
especially when the surrounding States
have established or intend to establish
regulations governing migratory bird
hunting by non-Indians on these lands.
In such cases, we encourage the tribes
and States to reach agreement on
regulations that would apply throughout
the reservations. When appropriate, we
will consult with a tribe and State with
the aim of facilitating an accord. We
also will consult jointly with tribal and
State officials in the affected States
where tribes may wish to establish
special hunting regulations for tribal
members on ceded lands. It is
incumbent upon the tribe and/or the
State to request consultation as a result
of the proposal being published in the
Federal Register. We will not presume
to make a determination, without being
advised by either a tribe or a State, that
any issue is or is not worthy of formal
consultation.
One of the guidelines provides for the
continuation of tribal members’ harvest
of migratory game birds on reservations
where such harvest is a customary
practice. We do not oppose this harvest,
provided it does not take place during
the closed season required by the
Convention, and it is not so large as to
adversely affect the status of the
migratory game bird resource. Since the
inception of these guidelines, we have
reached annual agreement with tribes
for migratory game bird hunting by
tribal members on their lands or on
lands where they have reserved hunting
rights. We will continue to consult with
tribes that wish to reach a mutual
agreement on hunting regulations for
on-reservation hunting by tribal
members.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Tribes should not view the guidelines
as inflexible. We believe that they
provide appropriate opportunity to
accommodate the reserved hunting
rights and management authority of
Indian tribes while also ensuring that
the migratory game bird resource
receives necessary protection. The
conservation of this important
international resource is paramount.
Use of the guidelines is not required if
a tribe wishes to observe the hunting
regulations established by the State(s) in
which the reservation is located.
Details Needed in Tribal Proposals
Tribes that wish to use the guidelines
to establish special hunting regulations
for the 2016–17 migratory game bird
hunting season should submit a
proposal that includes:
(1) The requested migratory game bird
hunting season dates and other details
regarding the proposed regulations;
(2) Harvest anticipated under the
proposed regulations; and
(3) Tribal capabilities to enforce
migratory game bird hunting
regulations.
For those situations where it could be
shown that failure to limit Tribal
harvest could seriously impact the
migratory game bird resource, we also
request information on the methods
employed to monitor harvest and any
potential steps taken to limit level of
harvest.
A tribe that desires the earliest
possible opening of the migratory game
bird season for nontribal members
should specify this request in its
proposal, rather than request a date that
might not be within the final Federal
frameworks. Similarly, unless a tribe
wishes to set more restrictive
regulations than Federal regulations will
permit for nontribal members, the
proposal should request the same daily
bag and possession limits and season
length for migratory game birds that
Federal regulations are likely to permit
the States in the Flyway in which the
reservation is located.
Tribal Proposal Procedures
We will publish details of tribal
proposals for public review in later
Federal Register documents. Because of
the time required for review by us and
the public, Indian tribes that desire
special migratory game bird hunting
regulations for the 2016–17 hunting
season should submit their proposals no
later than December 1, 2015. Tribes
should direct inquiries regarding the
guidelines and proposals to the
appropriate Service Regional Office
listed above under the caption
Consolidation of Notices. Tribes that
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
06AUP12
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
request special migratory game bird
hunting regulations for tribal members
on ceded lands should send a courtesy
copy of the proposal to officials in the
affected State(s).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Public Comments
The Department of the Interior’s
policy is, whenever practicable, to
afford the public an opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking process.
Accordingly, we invite interested
persons to submit written comments,
suggestions, or recommendations
regarding the proposed regulations.
Before promulgation of final migratory
game bird hunting regulations, we will
take into consideration all comments we
receive. Such 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 email or fax or to an
address not listed in the ADDRESSES
section. Finally, we will not consider
hand-delivered comments that we do
not receive, or mailed comments that
are not postmarked, by the date
specified in the DATES section. We will
post all comments in their entirety—
including your personal identifying
information—on https://
www.regulations.gov. Before including
your address, phone number, email
address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. Comments and materials we
receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this proposed rule, will be available for
public inspection on https://
www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Division of Migratory Bird
Management, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls
Church, VA 22041.
For each series of proposed
rulemakings, we will establish specific
comment periods. We will consider, but
may not respond in detail to, each
comment. As in the past, we will
summarize all comments we receive
during the comment period and respond
to them after the closing date in any
final rules.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Consideration
The programmatic document,
‘‘Second Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement:
Issuance of Annual Regulations
Permitting the Sport Hunting of
Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),’’ filed
with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013,
addresses NEPA compliance by the
Service for issuance of the annual
framework regulations for hunting of
migratory game bird species. We
published a notice of availability in the
Federal Register on May 31, 2013 (78
FR 32686), and our Record of Decision
on July 26, 2013 (78 FR 45376). We also
address NEPA compliance for waterfowl
hunting frameworks through the annual
preparation of separate environmental
assessments, the most recent being
‘‘Duck Hunting Regulations for 2014–
15,’’ with its corresponding August 21,
2014, finding of no significant impact.
In addition, an August 1985
environmental assessment entitled
‘‘Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting
Regulations on Federal Indian
Reservations and Ceded Lands’’ is
available from the address indicated
under the caption FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Before issuance of the 2016–17
migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will comply with
provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531–1543; hereinafter the Act), to
ensure that hunting is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any species designated as endangered or
threatened or modify or destroy its
critical habitat and is consistent with
conservation programs for those species.
Consultations under section 7 of the Act
may cause us to change proposals in
this and future supplemental proposed
rulemaking documents.
Regulatory Planning and Review
(Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides
that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review
all significant rules. OIRA has reviewed
this rule and has determined that this
rule is significant because it would have
an annual effect of $100 million or more
on the economy.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of
E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the nation’s regulatory
system to promote predictability, to
reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
47391
tools for achieving regulatory ends. The
executive order directs agencies to
consider regulatory approaches that
reduce burdens and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public
where these approaches are relevant,
feasible, and consistent with regulatory
objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based
on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for
public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed
this rule in a manner consistent with
these requirements.
An economic analysis was prepared
for the 2013–14 season. This analysis
was based on data from the 2011
National Hunting and Fishing Survey,
the most recent year for which data are
available (see discussion in Regulatory
Flexibility Act section below). We will
use this analysis again for the 2016–17
season. This analysis estimated
consumer surplus for three alternatives
for duck hunting (estimates for other
species are not quantified due to lack of
data). The alternatives are (1) issue
restrictive regulations allowing fewer
days than those issued during the 2012–
13 season, (2) issue moderate
regulations allowing more days than
those in alternative 1, and (3) issue
liberal regulations identical to the
regulations in the 2012–13 season. For
the 2013–14 season, we chose
Alternative 3, with an estimated
consumer surplus across all flyways of
$317.8–$416.8 million. We also chose
alternative 3 for the 2009–10, the 2010–
11, the 2011–12, the 2012–13, the 2014–
15, and the 2015–16 seasons. The 2013–
14 analysis is part of the record for this
rule and is available at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0034.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The annual migratory bird hunting
regulations have a significant economic
impact on substantial numbers of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed
the economic impacts of the annual
hunting regulations on small business
entities in detail as part of the 1981 costbenefit analysis. This analysis was
revised annually from 1990–95. In 1995,
the Service issued a Small Entity
Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which
was subsequently updated in 1996,
1998, 2004, 2008, and 2013. The
primary source of information about
hunter expenditures for migratory game
bird hunting is the National Hunting
and Fishing Survey, which is conducted
at 5-year intervals. The 2013 Analysis
was based on the 2011 National Hunting
and Fishing Survey and the U.S.
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
06AUP12
47392
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Department of Commerce’s County
Business Patterns, from which it was
estimated that migratory bird hunters
would spend approximately $1.5 billion
at small businesses in 2013. Copies of
the Analysis are available upon request
from the Division of Migratory Bird
Management (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or from https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket No.
FWS–HQ–MB–2015–0034.
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section. To better help us revise the
rule, your comments should be as
specific as possible. For example, you
should tell us the numbers of the
sections or paragraphs that are unclearly
written, which sections or sentences are
too long, the sections where you feel
lists or tables would be useful, etc.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act
This proposed rule is a major rule
under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined
above, this rule would have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more. However, because this rule
would establish hunting seasons, we do
not plan to defer the effective date
under the exemption contained in 5
U.S.C. 808(1).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain
any new information collection that
requires approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor
and you are not required to respond to
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. OMB has reviewed and
approved the information collection
requirements associated with migratory
bird surveys and assigned the following
OMB control numbers:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
• 1018–0019—North American
Woodcock Singing Ground Survey
(expires 5/31/2018).
• 1018–0023—Migratory Bird
Surveys (expires 6/30/2017). Includes
Migratory Bird Harvest Information
Program, Migratory Bird Hunter
Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and
Parts Collection Survey.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
We have determined and certify, in
compliance with the requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2
U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this proposed
rulemaking would not impose a cost of
$100 million or more in any given year
on local or State government or private
entities. Therefore, this rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
The Department, in promulgating this
proposed rule, has determined that this
proposed rule will not unduly burden
the judicial system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988.
Takings Implication Assessment
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this
proposed rule, authorized by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not
have significant takings implications
and does not affect any constitutionally
protected property rights. This rule
would not result in the physical
occupancy of property, the physical
invasion of property, or the regulatory
taking of any property. In fact, these
rules would allow hunters to exercise
otherwise unavailable privileges and,
therefore, reduce restrictions on the use
of private and public property.
Energy Effects—Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects
when undertaking certain actions.
While this proposed rule is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is
not expected to adversely affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
this action is not a significant energy
action and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), E.O.
13175, and 512 DM 2, we have
evaluated possible effects on Federallyrecognized Indian tribes and have
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determined that there are no effects on
Indian trust resources. However, in this
proposed rule, we solicit proposals for
special migratory bird hunting
regulations for certain Tribes on Federal
Indian reservations, off-reservation trust
lands, and ceded lands for the 2016–17
migratory bird hunting season. The
resulting proposals will be contained in
a separate proposed rule. By virtue of
these actions, we have consulted with
Tribes affected by this rule.
Federalism Effects
Due to the migratory nature of certain
species of birds, the Federal
Government has been given
responsibility over these species by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually
prescribe frameworks from which the
States make selections regarding the
hunting of migratory birds, and we
employ guidelines to establish special
regulations on Federal Indian
reservations and ceded lands. This
process preserves the ability of the
States and tribes to determine which
seasons meet their individual needs.
Any State or Indian tribe may be more
restrictive than the Federal frameworks
at any time. The frameworks are
developed in a cooperative process with
the States and the Flyway Councils.
This process allows States to participate
in the development of frameworks from
which they will make selections,
thereby having an influence on their
own regulations. These rules do not
have a substantial direct effect on fiscal
capacity, change the roles or
responsibilities of Federal or State
governments, or intrude on State policy
or administration. Therefore, in
accordance with E.O. 13132, these
regulations do not have significant
federalism effects and do not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Wildlife.
Authority
The rules that eventually will be
promulgated for the 2016–17 hunting
season are authorized under 16 U.S.C.
703–711, 16 U.S.C. 712, and 16 U.S.C.
742 a–j.
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
06AUP12
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Dated: July 9, 2015.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks.
Proposed 2016–17 Migratory Game
Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary)
Pending current information on
populations, harvest, and habitat
conditions, and receipt of
recommendations from the four Flyway
Councils, we may defer specific
regulatory proposals. No changes from
the 2015–16 frameworks are being
proposed at this time. Other issues
requiring early discussion, action, or the
attention of the States or tribes are
contained below:
1. Ducks
Categories used to discuss issues
related to duck harvest management are:
(A) General Harvest Strategy, (B)
Regulatory Alternatives, (C) Zones and
Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. Only those
containing substantial recommendations
are discussed below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. General Harvest Strategy
We propose to continue using
adaptive harvest management (AHM) to
help determine appropriate duckhunting regulations for the 2016–17
season. AHM permits sound resource
decisions in the face of uncertain
regulatory impacts and provides a
mechanism for reducing that
uncertainty over time. We use AHM to
evaluate four alternative regulatory
levels for duck hunting based on the
population status of mallards. (We enact
other hunting regulations for species of
special concern, such as canvasbacks,
scaup, and pintails).
Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and
Pacific Flyways
The prescribed regulatory alternative
for the Atlantic, Mississippi, Central,
and Pacific Flyways is based on the
status of mallards that contributes
primarily to each Flyway. In the
Atlantic Flyway, we set hunting
regulations based on the population
status of mallards breeding in eastern
North America (Federal survey strata
51–54 and 56, and State surveys in New
England and the mid-Atlantic region). In
the Central and Mississippi Flyways, we
set hunting regulations based on the
status and dynamics of mid-continent
mallards. Mid-continent mallards are
those breeding in central North America
(Federal survey strata 13–18, 20–50, and
75–77, and State surveys in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the Pacific
Flyway, we set hunting regulations
based on the status and dynamics of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
western mallards. Western mallards are
those breeding in Alaska and the
northern Yukon Territory (as based on
Federal surveys in strata 1–12), and in
California and Oregon (as based on
State-conducted surveys).
For the 2016–17 season, we
recommend continuing to use
independent optimization to determine
the optimal regulatory choice for each
mallard stock. This means that we
would develop regulations for eastern
mallards, mid-continent mallards and
western mallards independently, based
upon the breeding stock that contributes
primarily to each Flyway. We detailed
implementation of this AHM decision
framework for western and midcontinent mallards in the July 24, 2008,
Federal Register (73 FR 43290) and for
eastern mallards in the July 20, 2012,
Federal Register (77 FR 42920).
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) Changes to the AHM
Process
For the 2016–17 season, the current
early- and late-season regulatory actions
will be combined into a new single
process. Migratory bird hunting
regulations will be based on predictions
from models derived from long-term
biological information or the most
recently collected monitoring data, and
established harvest strategies. Since
1995, the Service and Flyway Councils
have applied the principles of adaptive
management to inform harvest
management decisions in the face of
uncertainty while trying to learn about
system (bird populations) responses to
harvest regulations and environmental
changes. Prior to the timing and process
changes necessary for implementation
of SEIS 2013, the annual AHM process
began with the observation of the
system’s state each spring followed by
an updating of model weights and the
derivation of an optimal harvest policy
that was then used to make a statedependent decision (i.e., breeding
population estimates were used with a
policy matrix to inform harvest
regulatory decisions). The system’s state
then evolves over time in response to
the decision and natural variation in
population dynamics. The following
spring, the monitoring programs observe
the state of the system and the iterative
decision-making process continues
forward in time. However, with the
changes in decision timing specified by
the SEIS, the post-survey AHM process
will not be possible because monitoring
information describing the system’s
state will not be available at the time the
decision must be made. As a result, the
optimization framework used to derive
the current harvest policy can no longer
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
47393
calculate current and future harvest
values as a function of the current
system’s and model’s states. To address
this issue, we adjusted the optimization
procedures to calculate harvest values
conditional on the last observed state of
the system and regulatory decision.
Results and analysis of our work is
contained in a technical report that
provides a summary of revised methods
and assessment results based on
updated AHM protocols developed in
response to the preferred alternative
specified in the SEIS. The report
describes necessary changes to
optimization procedures and decision
processes for the implementation of
AHM for midcontinent, eastern and
western mallards, northern pintails, and
scaup decision frameworks.
Results indicate that the necessary
adjustments to the optimization
procedures and AHM protocols to
account for changes in decision timing
are not expected to result in major
changes to expected management
performance for mallard, pintail, and
scaup AHM. In general, pre-survey (or
pre-SEIS necessary changes) harvest
policies were similar to harvest policies
based on new post-survey (or post-SEIS
necessary changes) AHM protocols. We
found some subtle differences in the
degree to which strategies exhibited
knife-edged regulatory changes in the
pre-survey policies with a reduction in
the number of cells indicating moderate
regulations. In addition, pre-survey
policies became more liberal when the
previous regulatory decisions were more
conservative. These patterns were
consistent for each AHM decisionmaking framework. Overall, a
comparison of simulation results of the
pre- and post-survey protocols did not
suggest substantive changes in the
frequency of regulations or in the
expected average population size. These
results suggest that the additional form
of uncertainty that the change in
decision timing introduces is not
expected to limit our expected harvest
management performance with the
adoption of the pre-survey AHM
protocols.
A complete copy of the AHM report
can be found on https://
www.regulations.gov or at https://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/
management/AHM/
SEIS&AHMReportFinal.pdf.
Final 2016–17 AHM Protocol
We will detail the final AHM protocol
for the 2016–17 season in the
supplemental proposed rule, which we
will publish in mid-December (see
Schedule of Biological Information
Availability, Regulations Meetings and
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
06AUP12
47394
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register Publications for the
2016–17 Seasons at the end of this
proposed rule for further information).
We will propose a specific regulatory
alternative for each of the Flyways to
use for their 2016–17 seasons after
information becomes available in late
August 2015.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
The basic structure of the current
regulatory alternatives for AHM was
adopted in 1997. In 2002, based upon
recommendations from the Flyway
Councils, we extended framework dates
in the ‘‘moderate’’ and ‘‘liberal’’
regulatory alternatives by changing the
opening date from the Saturday nearest
October 1 to the Saturday nearest
September 24, and by changing the
closing date from the Sunday nearest
January 20 to the last Sunday in
January. These extended dates were
made available with no associated
penalty in season length or bag limits.
At that time we stated our desire to keep
these changes in place for 3 years to
allow for a reasonable opportunity to
monitor the impacts of framework-date
extensions on harvest distribution and
rates of harvest before considering any
subsequent use (67 FR 12501; March 19,
2002).
For 2016–17, we propose to utilize the
same regulatory alternatives that are in
effect for the 2015–16 season (see
accompanying table for specifics of the
regulatory alternatives). Alternatives are
specified for each Flyway and are
designated as ‘‘RES’’ for the restrictive,
‘‘MOD’’ for the moderate, and ‘‘LIB’’ for
the liberal alternative.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
C. Zones and Split Seasons
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
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
up to four zones within States for the
purpose of providing more equitable
distribution of harvest opportunity for
hunters throughout the State.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
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. Subsequent to the 1978 EA, we
conducted a review of the use of zones
and split seasons in 1990. In 2011, we
prepared a new EA analyzing some
specific proposed changes to the zone
and split season guidelines. The current
guidelines were then finalized in 2011
(76 FR 53536; August 26, 2011).
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. The next regularly
scheduled open season for changes to
zone and split season configurations is
in 2016, for use during the 2016–20
period. However, as we discussed in the
September 23, 2014, Federal Register
(79 FR 56864), and the April 13, 2015,
Federal Register (80 FR 19852), we are
implementing significant changes to the
annual regulatory process as outlined in
the 2013 SEIS. As such, the previously
identified May 1, 2016, due date for
zone and split season configuration
changes that was developed under the
current regulatory process, is too late for
those States wishing to change zone and
split season configurations for
implementation in the 2016–17 season.
Under the new regulatory schedule we
anticipate publishing the proposed rule
for all 2016–17 migratory bird seasons
sometime this fall—approximately 30
days after the SRC meeting (which is
scheduled for October 27–29, 2015). A
final rule tentatively would be
published 75 days after the proposed
rule (but no later than April 1). This
schedule would preclude inclusion of
new zone descriptions in the proposed
rule as had been done in past open
seasons and would not be appropriate
because it would preclude the ability for
the public to comment on these new
individual State zone descriptions.
Therefore, we need to include any new
proposed 2016–20 zone descriptions in
the 2016–17 hunting seasons proposed
rule document that will tentatively be
published in mid-December this year.
Considering all of the above, we will
utilize a two-phase approach. For those
States wishing to change zone and split
season configurations in time for the
2016–17 season, we will need to receive
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
new configuration and zone
descriptions by December 1, 2015.
States that do not send in new zone and
split season configuration changes until
the previously identified May 1, 2016,
deadline will have those changes
implemented in the 2017–18 hunting
season. The next scheduled open season
would remain in 2021 for the 2021–25
seasons.
For the current open season, the
guidelines for duck zone and split
season configurations will be as follows:
Guidelines for Duck Zones and Split
Seasons
The following zone and 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 and 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 5year period. If changes are made, the
zone and 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 and Split
Arrangements
When we first implemented the zone
and split guidelines in 1991, several
States had completed experiments with
zone and 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 and split
arrangement:
(1) The new arrangement must
conform to one of the 3 options
identified above; and
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
06AUP12
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(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 zones
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 3way split seasons within a management
unit and the remainder of the State.
Removal of this limitation would allow
additional proliferation of zone and
split configurations and compromise the
original objectives of the management
unit.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
i. September Teal Seasons
For the 2016–17, we will utilize the
2015 breeding population estimate of
8.3 million blue-winged teal from the
traditional survey area and the criteria
developed for the teal season harvest
strategy. Thus, we will propose a 16-day
September teal season in the Atlantic,
Central, and Mississippi Flyways for
2016.
iv. Canvasbacks
Since 1994, we have followed a
canvasback harvest strategy whereby 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
an objective of 500,000 birds the
following spring, the season on
canvasbacks should be opened. A
partial season would be allowed if the
estimated allowable harvest was below
that associated with a 1-bird daily bag
limit for the entire 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.
Since the current harvest strategy
relies on information that will not yet be
available at the time we need to
establish proposed frameworks under
the new regulatory process, the current
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
canvasback harvest management
strategy will no longer be usable for the
2016–17 season and beyond. At this
time we do not have a new harvest
strategy to propose for use in the future.
Thus, we will review the most recent
information on canvasback populations,
habitat conditions, and harvests with
the goal of compiling the best
information available for use in making
a harvest management decision. We will
share these results with the Flyways
during their fall meetings, with the
intention of adopting a one-time
decision-making approach in October
for the 2016–17 seasons. Over the next
year, we will work with the Flyway
technical committees and councils to
develop a new harvest strategy for use
in subsequent years.
6. Brant
As we discussed in the June 11 (80 FR
33223) and July 21 (80 FR 43266), 2015,
Federal Registers, for the 2015–16
Atlantic brant season, we will continue
to use the existing Flyway Cooperative
Management Plan for this species to
determine the appropriate hunting
regulations. However, as we discuss
below, the process for determining
regulations for the 2016–17 season will
need to be modified. In the April 30,
2014 (79 FR 24512), and the April 13,
2015 (80 FR 19852), Federal Registers,
we discussed how, under the new
regulatory process, the current earlyand late-season regulatory actions will
be combined into a new, single process
beginning with the 2016–17 seasons.
Regulatory proposals will be developed
using biological data from the preceding
year(s), model predictions, and/or most
recently accumulated data that are
available at the time the proposals are
being formulated. Individual harvest
strategies will be modified using data
from the previous year(s) because the
current year’s data would not be
available for many of the strategies.
Further, we stated that during this
transition period, harvest strategies and
prescriptions would be modified to fit
into the new regulatory schedule.
Atlantic brant is one such species that
will require some modifications to the
regulatory process that we have largely
used since 1992 to establish the annual
frameworks.
In developing the annual proposed
frameworks for Atlantic brant in the
past, the Atlantic Flyway Council and
the Service used the number of brant
counted during the Mid-winter
Waterfowl Survey (MWS) in the
Atlantic Flyway, and took into
consideration the brant population’s
expected productivity that summer. The
MWS is conducted each January, and
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
47395
expected brant productivity is based on
early-summer observations of breeding
habitat conditions and nesting effort in
important brant nesting areas. Thus, the
data under consideration were available
before the annual Flyway and SRC
decision-making meetings took place in
late July. Although the existing
regulatory alternatives for Atlantic brant
were developed by factoring together
long-term productivity rates (observed
during November and December
productivity surveys) with estimated
observed harvest under different
framework regulations, the primary
decision-making criterion for selecting
the annual frameworks was the MWS
count.
In the April 13, 2015, Federal
Register, we presented the major steps
in the 2016–17 regulatory cycle relating
to biological information availability,
open public meetings, and Federal
Register notifications. Under the new
regulatory schedule due to be
implemented this fall and winter for the
2016–17 migratory bird hunting
regulations, neither the expected 2016
brant production information (available
summer 2016) nor the 2016 MWS count
(conducted in January 2016) will be
available this October, when the
decisions on proposed Atlantic brant
frameworks for the 2016–17 seasons
must be made. However, the 2016 MWS
will be completed and winter brant data
will be available by the expected
publication of the final frameworks (late
February 2016). Therefore, following
discussions with the Atlantic Flyway
Council this fall, we will be proposing
frameworks for Atlantic brant in 2016–
17 using the process and alternatives
very similar to that laid out in the July
21, 2015, Federal Register.
For a more detailed discussion of the
various technical aspects of the new
regulatory process, we refer the reader
to the 2013 SEIS on our Web site at
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/
management/AHM/
SEIS&AHMReportFinal.pdf.
9. Sandhill Cranes
As we discussed in the July 21, 2015,
Federal Register (80 FR 43266), the
current harvest strategy used to
calculate the allowable harvest of Rocky
Mountain Population (RMP) of sandhill
cranes does not fit well within the the
new regulatory process, similar to the
Atlantic brant issue discussed above
under 6. Brant. Currently, results of the
fall survey of RMP sandhill cranes,
upon which the annual allowable
harvest is based, will continue to be
released between December 15 and
January 31 each year, which is after the
date for which proposed frameworks
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
06AUP12
47396
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
will be formulated in the new regulatory
process. If the usual procedures for
determining allowable harvest were
used, data 2–4 years old would be used
to determine the annual allocation for
RMP sandhill cranes. Due to the
variability in fall survey counts and
recruitment for this population, and
their impact on the annual harvest
allocations, we agree that relying on
data that is 2–4 years old is not ideal.
Thus, we agreed that a formula to
determine the annual allowable harvest
for RMP sandhill cranes should be used
under the new regulatory schedule and
proposed to use as such. That formula
uses information on abundance and
recruitment collected annually through
operational monitoring programs, as
well as constant values based on past
research or monitoring for survival of
fledglings to breeding age and harvest
retrieval rate. The formula is:
H=C×P×R×L×f
Where:
H = total annual allowable harvest;
C = the average of the three most recent,
reliable fall population indices;
P = the average proportion of fledged chicks
in the fall population in the San Luis
Valley during the most recent 3 years for
which data are available;
R = estimated recruitment of fledged chicks
to breeding age (current estimate is 0.5);
L = retrieval rate of 0.80 (allowance for an
estimated 20 percent crippling loss based
on hunter interviews); and
f = (C/16,000) (a variable factor used to adjust
the total harvest to achieve a desired
effect on the entire population)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
We note that this proposed formula is
identical to that used in the current
Pacific and Central Flyway management
plan for this population.
A final estimate for the allowable
harvest would be available to publish in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
Jkt 235001
the final rule, allowing us to use data
that is 1–3 years old, as is currently
practiced. We look forward to
continuing discussions and work on the
RMP crane issue with the Central and
Pacific Flyway Councils this summer
and fall in preparation for the 2016–17
season.
16. Doves
As we discussed in the April 13 and
July 21, 2015, Federal Registers, 2016 is
the next open season for changes to
dove zone and split configurations for
the 2016–20 period. The current
guidelines were approved in 2006 (see
July 28, 2006, Federal Register, 71 FR
43008), for the use of zones and split
seasons for doves with implementation
beginning in the 2007–08 season. While
the initial period was for 4 years (2007–
10), we further stated that beginning in
2011, zoning would conform to a 5-year
period.
As discussed above under C. Zones
and Split Seasons for ducks, because of
unintentional and unanticipated issues
with changing the regulatory schedule
for the 2016–17 season, we have
decided that a two-phase approach is
appropriate. For those States wishing to
change zone and split season
configurations in time for the 2016–17
season, we will need to receive that new
configuration and zone descriptions by
December 1, 2015. For those States that
do not send in zone and split season
configuration changes until the
previously identified May 1, 2016, we
will implement those changes in the
2017–18 hunting season. The next
normally scheduled open season will be
in 2021 for the 2021–25 seasons.
For the current open season, the
guidelines for dove zone and split
season configurations will be as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Guidelines for Dove Zones and Split
Seasons in the Eastern and Central
Mourning Dove Management Units
(1) A zone is a geographic area or
portion of a State, with a contiguous
boundary, for which independent
seasons may be selected for dove
hunting.
(2) States may select a zone and split
option during an open season. The
option must remain in place for the
following 5 years except that States may
make a one-time change and revert to
their previous zone and split
configuration in any year of the 5-year
period. Formal approval will not be
required, but States must notify the
Service before making the change.
(3) Zoning periods for dove hunting
will conform to those years used for
ducks, e.g., 2016–20.
(4) The zone and split configuration
consists of two zones with the option for
3-way (3-segment) split seasons in one
or both zones. As a grandfathered
arrangement, Texas will have three
zones with the option for 2-way (2segment) split seasons in one, two, or all
three zones.
(5) States that do not wish to zone for
dove hunting may split their seasons
into no more than 3 segments.
For the 2016–20 period, any State
may continue the configuration used in
2011–15. If changes are made, the zone
and split-season configuration must
conform to one of the options listed
above. If Texas uses a new configuration
for the entirety of the 5-year period, it
cannot go back to the grandfathered
arrangement that it previously had in
place.
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
06AUP12
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Jkt 235001
ATLANTIC FLYWAY
MOD
I
I
LIB
RES
Beginning
Shooting
Time
1/2 hr.
before
sunrise
1/2 hr.
before
sunrise
1/2 hr.
before
sunrise
1/2 hr.
before
sunnse
1/2 hr.
before
sunrise
1/2 hr
before
sunrise
1/2 hr.
before
sunrise
1/2 hr.
before
sunrise
1/2 hr
before
sunrise
1/2 hr.
before
sunrise
1/2 hr
before
sunrise
1/2 hr.
before
sunrise
Ending
Shooting
Time
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Sunset
Fmt 4701
Opening
Date
Oct1
Sat nearest
Sept 24
Sat nearest
Sept 24
Sat nearest
Oct1
Sat nearest
Sept 24
Sat nearest
Sept 24
Sat nearest
Oct 1
Sat nearest
Sept 24
Sat nearest
Sept 24
Sat nearest
Oct1
Sat nearest
Sept 24
Sat nearest
Sept 24
Jan. 20
Sfmt 4725
Closing
Date
Last Sunday
in Jan.
Last Sunday
in Jan.
Sun. nearest Last Sunday
Jan. 20
in Jan.
Last Sunday
in Jan.
Season
Length (in days)
30
45
60
30
45
60
39
60
74
60
86
107
Daily Bag
3
6
6
3
6
6
3
6
6
4
7
7
4/2
2/1
4/1
4/2
3/1
5/1
5/2
3/1
5/2
7/2
PO 00000
RES
MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY
LIB
I MOD I
Frm 00011
Sun. nearest Last Sunday Last Sunday
Jan. 20
in Jan.
in Jan
RES
CENTRAL FLYWAY (a)
LIB
I MOD I
Sun. nearest Last Sunday Last Sunday
Jan. 20
in Jan.
in Jan.
PACIFIC FLYWAY (b)(c)
RES
MOD
LIB
I
I
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
Species/Sex Limits within the Overall Daily Bag Limit
Mallard (Total/Female)
(a)
(b)
06AUP12
(c)
3/1
4/2
In the High Plains Mallard Management Unit, all regulations would be the same as the remainder of the Central Flyway, with the exception of season length. Additional days would
be allowed under the various alternatives as follows: restrictive- 12, moderate and liberal- 23. Under all alternatives, additional days must be on or after the Saturday nearest
December 10.
In the Columbia Basin Mallard Management Unit, all regulations would be the same as the remainder of the Pacific Flyway, with the exception of season length. Under all alternatives
except the liberal alternative, an additional? days would be allowed.
In Alaska, framework dates, bag limits, and season length would be different from the remainder of the Pacific Flyway. The bag limit (depending on the area) would be 5-8 under the restrictive
alternative, and 7-10 under the moderate and liberal alternatives. Under all alternatives, season length would be 107 days and framework dates would be Sep. 1- Jan. 26.
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES FOR DUCK HUNTING DURING THE 2016-17 SEASON
47397
EP06AU15.019
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
47398
SURVEY & ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
March- June, 2015
SPRING POPULATION SURVEYS
MEETING SCHEDULE
FEDERAL REGISTER SCHEDULE
II
II
PO 00000
I
June 25,2015- Falls Church, VA
SRC Meeting (nonregulatory)
I
Frm 00012
August 15, 2015
II
ATERFOWL & WE BLESS STATUS REPORT~I
Fmt 4701
September 1, 2015
AHM REPORT w'OPTIMAL ALTERNATIVES,
MCP CRANE STATUS INFORMATION,
MOURNING DOVE and WOODCOCK
II_
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\06AUP12.SGM
I
Flyway Tech And Council Meetings
I
REGULATORYALTERNAT~ES
August 15, 2015
PROPOSED RULEMAKING (PRELIMINARY)
WITH STATUS INFORMATION
and ISSUES
II
Service Regulations Committee
Regulatory Meeting
September 1- October 15, 2015
I
October 20-21, 2015- Bloomington, MN
I
December 1, 2015
ZONE & SPLIT SEASON SELECTIONS DUE
December 10, 2015
FOR 20161MPLEMENTA TION
PROPOSED SEASON FRAMEWORKS
(30 Day Comment Period)
December 15, 2015- January 31, 2016
RMP, EP, and LCRVP CRANE, SWAN
BRANT, and GOOSE
MWS STATUS INFORMATION
06AUP12
I
March 14-18, 2016 (at North Am. Coni)
Flyway Council Mtgs (non regulatory)
I
II
II
May 1, 2016
ZONE & SPLIT SEASON SELECTIONS DUE
II
FOR 20171MPLEMENTA TION
February 25, 2016
FINAL SEASON FRAMEWORKS
June 1, 2016
ALL HUNTING SEASONS SELECTIONS
(Season Selections Due Apri/30)
I
EP06AU15.020
September 1, 2016 and later
ALL HUNTING SEASONS
I
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Jkt 235001
[FR Doc. 2015–19318 Filed 8–5–15; 8:45 am]
22:31 Aug 05, 2015
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
SCHEDULE OF BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION AVAILABILITY, REGULATIONS MEETINGS AND
FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATIONS FOR THE 2016-17 SEASONS
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47387-47398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19318]
[[Page 47387]]
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 151
August 6, 2015
Part XV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2016-17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals;
Notice of Meetings; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 151 / Thursday, August 6, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 47388]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0034: FF09M21200-156-FXMB1231099BPP0]
RIN 1018-BA70
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2016-17 Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal
Proposals; Notice of Meetings
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service or
we) proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for certain
migratory game birds for the 2016-17 hunting season. We annually
prescribe outside limits (frameworks) within which States may select
hunting seasons. This proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule,
announces the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee and Flyway
Council (SRC) meetings, describes the regulatory alternatives for the
2016-17 duck hunting seasons, and requests proposals from Indian tribes
that wish to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations
on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. Migratory game bird
hunting seasons provide opportunities for recreation and sustenance;
aid Federal, State, and tribal governments in the management of
migratory game birds; and permit harvests at levels compatible with
migratory game bird population status and habitat conditions.
DATES:
Comments: Following subsequent Federal Register notices, you will
be given an opportunity to submit comments on this proposed rule and
the subsequent proposed frameworks by January 15, 2016. Tribes must
submit proposals and related comments on or before December 1, 2015.
Meetings: The SRC will meet to consider and develop proposed
regulations for migratory game bird hunting on October 20-21, 2015.
Meetings on both days will commence at approximately 8:30 a.m.
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-HQ-
MB-2015-0034.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0034; Division of Policy, Performance, and
Management Programs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC; 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.
We will not accept emailed or faxed comments. We will post all
comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the Web site. See the Public Comments section, below, for
more information.
Meetings: The SRC will meet at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
5600 American Boulevard, Bloomington, MN 55437.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel at: Division of Migratory
Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, MS: MB, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041; (703)
358-1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
New Process for the Annual Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations
As part of DOI's retrospective regulatory review, we developed a
schedule for migratory game bird hunting regulations that is more
efficient and will provide dates much earlier than was possible under
the old process. This will make planning much easier for the States and
all parties interested in migratory bird hunting. Beginning with the
2016-17 hunting season, we are using a new schedule for establishing
our annual migratory game bird hunting regulations. We will combine the
current early- and late-season regulatory actions into a single
process, based on predictions derived from long-term biological
information and established harvest strategies that will establish
migratory bird hunting seasons much earlier than the system we have
used for many years. Under the new process, we will develop proposed
hunting season frameworks for a given year in the fall of the prior
year. We will finalize those frameworks a few months later, thereby
enabling the State agencies to select and publish their season dates in
early summer.
This proposed rule is the first in a series of rules implementing
this new process. This year, there will be a one-time overlap in the
regulatory processes for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons.
Background and Overview
Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in
conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for
the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to determine when ``hunting, taking, capture, killing,
possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or
export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest, or egg'' of migratory game
birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These
regulations are written after giving due regard to ``the zones of
temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value,
breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such
birds'' and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This
responsibility has been delegated to the Service as the lead Federal
agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United
States. However, migratory game bird management is a cooperative effort
of State, Tribal, and Federal governments.
The Service develops migratory game bird hunting regulations by
establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag
limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting.
Acknowledging regional differences in hunting conditions, the
Service has administratively divided the Nation into four Flyways for
the primary purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway
(Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a
formal organization generally composed of one member from each State
and Province in that Flyway. The Flyway Councils, established through
the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA),
also assist in researching and providing migratory game bird management
information for Federal, State, and Provincial governments, as well as
private conservation agencies and the general public.
The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations,
located at 50 CFR part 20, is constrained by three primary factors.
Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rulemaking
process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of
migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering activities
and thus the dates on which these results are available for
consideration and deliberation.
For the regulatory cycle, Service biologists gather, analyze, and
interpret biological survey data and provide this information to all
those involved in the process through a series of published status
reports and presentations to Flyway Councils and other interested
parties. Because the Service is required
[[Page 47389]]
to take abundance of migratory game birds and other factors into
consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys throughout
the year in conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the Canadian
Wildlife Service, and State and Provincial wildlife management
agencies. To determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, we
consider factors such as population size and trend, geographical
distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and
wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest.
After frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and
areas for migratory game bird hunting, States may select season dates,
bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons.
States may always be more conservative in their selections than the
Federal frameworks, but never more liberal.
Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings
The SRC will meet October 20-21, 2015, to review information on the
current status of migratory game birds and develop 2016-17 migratory
game bird regulations recommendations for these species. In accordance
with Departmental policy, these meetings are open to public
observation. You may submit written comments to the Service on the
matters discussed.
Announcement of Flyway Council Meetings
Service representatives will be present at the individual meetings
of the four Flyway Councils this September and October. Although
agendas are not yet available, these meetings usually commence at 8
a.m. on the days indicated. Several of the meetings will be conducted
via conference call.
Atlantic Flyway Council: October 6.
Mississippi Flyway Council: September 30.
Central Flyway Council: October 8, Holiday Inn and Suites, 6900
Tower Road, Denver, CO.
Pacific Flyway Council: September 22.
Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons
This document announces our intent to establish open hunting
seasons and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated
groups or species of migratory game birds for 2016-17 in the contiguous
United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands,
under Sec. Sec. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K
of 50 CFR part 20.
For the 2016-17 migratory game bird hunting season, we will propose
regulations for certain designated members of the avian families
Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons);
Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and gallinules);
and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these proposals
under Proposed 2016-17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations
(Preliminary) in this document. We published definitions of waterfowl
flyways and mourning dove management units, and a description of the
data used in and the factors affecting the regulatory process, in the
March 14, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR 9618).
Regulatory Schedule for 2016-17
This document is the first in a series of proposed, supplemental,
and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting
regulations. We will publish additional supplemental proposals for
public comment in the Federal Register as population, habitat, harvest,
and other information become available. Major steps in the 2016-17
regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register
notifications are illustrated in the diagram at the end of this
proposed rule. All publication dates of Federal Register documents are
target dates.
All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining hunting
frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These
headings are:
1. Ducks
A. General Harvest Strategy
B. Regulatory Alternatives
C. Zones and Split Seasons
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. September Teal Seasons
ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
iii. Black Ducks
iv. Canvasbacks
v. Pintails
vi. Scaup
vii. 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
Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to
numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to
note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, and
remaining numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.
The regulatory alternatives for the 2016-17 duck hunting seasons
are contained at the end of this document. We will publish proposed
season frameworks in mid-December 2015. We will publish final
regulatory frameworks in late February 2016.
Review of Public Comments
This proposed rulemaking contains the regulatory alternatives for
the 2016-17 duck hunting seasons. This proposed rulemaking also
describes other recommended changes or specific preliminary proposals
that vary from the 2015-16 regulations and issues requiring early
discussion, action, or the attention of the States or tribes. We will
publish responses to all proposals and written comments when we develop
final frameworks for the 2016-17 season. We seek additional information
and comments on this proposed rule.
Consolidation of Notices
For administrative purposes, this document consolidates the notice
of intent to establish open migratory game bird hunting seasons and the
request for tribal proposals with the preliminary proposals for the
annual hunting regulations-development process. We will publish the
remaining proposed and final rulemaking documents separately. For
inquiries on tribal guidelines and proposals, tribes should contact the
following personnel:
Region 1 (Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and the Pacific
Islands)--Nanette Seto, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th
Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164.
Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)--Greg Hughes,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, NM 87103;
(505) 248-7885.
Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Ohio, and Wisconsin)--Dave Scott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5600
American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458; (612) 713-
5101.
Region 4 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
[[Page 47390]]
Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, South
Carolina, and Tennessee)--Laurel Barnhill, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, GA 30345; (404)
679-4000.
Region 5 (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia)--Pam Toschik, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589;
(413) 253-8610.
Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)--Casey Stemler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, CO 80225;
(303) 236-8145.
Region 7 (Alaska)--Pete Probasco, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 786-3423.
Region 8 (California and Nevada)--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846; (916) 414-6727.
Requests for Tribal Proposals
Background
Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed
guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR
23467) to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations on
Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and
ceded lands. We developed these guidelines in response to tribal
requests for our recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for
some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both
tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. The
guidelines include possibilities for:
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members,
with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place
within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected
by the surrounding State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual
Federal frameworks for season dates, season length, and daily bag and
possession limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands,
outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added
flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines
must be consistent with the annual March 10 to September 1 closed
season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and
Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds
(Convention). The guidelines are applicable to those tribes that have
reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-
reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also may be applied to
the establishment of migratory game bird hunting regulations for
nontribal members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of
reservations where tribes have full wildlife management authority over
such hunting, or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have
reached agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian
lands.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird
hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our
approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations
that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the
surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations
governing migratory bird hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such
cases, we encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on
regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When
appropriate, we will consult with a tribe and State with the aim of
facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and
State officials in the affected States where tribes may wish to
establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded
lands. It is incumbent upon the tribe and/or the State to request
consultation as a result of the proposal being published in the Federal
Register. We will not presume to make a determination, without being
advised by either a tribe or a State, that any issue is or is not
worthy of formal consultation.
One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal
members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such
harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest,
provided it does not take place during the closed season required by
the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the
status of the migratory game bird resource. Since the inception of
these guidelines, we have reached annual agreement with tribes for
migratory game bird hunting by tribal members on their lands or on
lands where they have reserved hunting rights. We will continue to
consult with tribes that wish to reach a mutual agreement on hunting
regulations for on-reservation hunting by tribal members.
Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. We believe
that they provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved
hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while also
ensuring that the migratory game bird resource receives necessary
protection. The conservation of this important international resource
is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes
to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which
the reservation is located.
Details Needed in Tribal Proposals
Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting
regulations for the 2016-17 migratory game bird hunting season should
submit a proposal that includes:
(1) The requested migratory game bird hunting season dates and
other details regarding the proposed regulations;
(2) Harvest anticipated under the proposed regulations; and
(3) Tribal capabilities to enforce migratory game bird hunting
regulations.
For those situations where it could be shown that failure to limit
Tribal harvest could seriously impact the migratory game bird resource,
we also request information on the methods employed to monitor harvest
and any potential steps taken to limit level of harvest.
A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the migratory
game bird season for nontribal members should specify this request in
its proposal, rather than request a date that might not be within the
final Federal frameworks. Similarly, unless a tribe wishes to set more
restrictive regulations than Federal regulations will permit for
nontribal members, the proposal should request the same daily bag and
possession limits and season length for migratory game birds that
Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the Flyway in
which the reservation is located.
Tribal Proposal Procedures
We will publish details of tribal proposals for public review in
later Federal Register documents. Because of the time required for
review by us and the public, Indian tribes that desire special
migratory game bird hunting regulations for the 2016-17 hunting season
should submit their proposals no later than December 1, 2015. Tribes
should direct inquiries regarding the guidelines and proposals to the
appropriate Service Regional Office listed above under the caption
Consolidation of Notices. Tribes that
[[Page 47391]]
request special migratory game bird hunting regulations for tribal
members on ceded lands should send a courtesy copy of the proposal to
officials in the affected State(s).
Public Comments
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable,
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking
process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed
regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will take into consideration all comments we receive.
Such 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 email or fax or to an address not listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered
comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not
postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section. We will post
all comments in their entirety--including your personal identifying
information--on https://www.regulations.gov. Before including your
address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire
comment--including your personal identifying information--may be made
publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Comments and materials
we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing
this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours,
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird
Management, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.
For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific
comment periods. We will consider, but may not respond in detail to,
each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments we receive
during the comment period and respond to them after the closing date in
any final rules.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Consideration
The programmatic document, ``Second Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations
Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (EIS 20130139),'' filed
with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on May 24, 2013,
addresses NEPA compliance by the Service for issuance of the annual
framework regulations for hunting of migratory game bird species. We
published a notice of availability in the Federal Register on May 31,
2013 (78 FR 32686), and our Record of Decision on July 26, 2013 (78 FR
45376). We also address NEPA compliance for waterfowl hunting
frameworks through the annual preparation of separate environmental
assessments, the most recent being ``Duck Hunting Regulations for 2014-
15,'' with its corresponding August 21, 2014, finding of no significant
impact. In addition, an August 1985 environmental assessment entitled
``Guidelines for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian
Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is available from the address indicated
under the caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Before issuance of the 2016-17 migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will comply with provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act), to
ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or
destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation
programs for those species. Consultations under section 7 of the Act
may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental
proposed rulemaking documents.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant
rules. OIRA has reviewed this rule and has determined that this rule is
significant because it would have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy.
E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for
improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
An economic analysis was prepared for the 2013-14 season. This
analysis was based on data from the 2011 National Hunting and Fishing
Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see
discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). We will use
this analysis again for the 2016-17 season. This analysis estimated
consumer surplus for three alternatives for duck hunting (estimates for
other species are not quantified due to lack of data). The alternatives
are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those
issued during the 2012-13 season, (2) issue moderate regulations
allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal
regulations identical to the regulations in the 2012-13 season. For the
2013-14 season, we chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer
surplus across all flyways of $317.8-$416.8 million. We also chose
alternative 3 for the 2009-10, the 2010-11, the 2011-12, the 2012-13,
the 2014-15, and the 2015-16 seasons. The 2013-14 analysis is part of
the record for this rule and is available at https://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0034.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The annual migratory bird hunting regulations have a significant
economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We analyzed the
economic impacts of the annual hunting regulations on small business
entities in detail as part of the 1981 cost-benefit analysis. This
analysis was revised annually from 1990-95. In 1995, the Service issued
a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which was subsequently
updated in 1996, 1998, 2004, 2008, and 2013. The primary source of
information about hunter expenditures for migratory game bird hunting
is the National Hunting and Fishing Survey, which is conducted at 5-
year intervals. The 2013 Analysis was based on the 2011 National
Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S.
[[Page 47392]]
Department of Commerce's County Business Patterns, from which it was
estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend approximately $1.5
billion at small businesses in 2013. Copies of the Analysis are
available upon request from the Division of Migratory Bird Management
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or from https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-MB-2015-0034.
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This proposed rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined
above, this rule would have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. However, because this rule would establish hunting
seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption
contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection
that requires approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. OMB has reviewed and approved the
information collection requirements associated with migratory bird
surveys and assigned the following OMB control numbers:
1018-0019--North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey
(expires 5/31/2018).
1018-0023--Migratory Bird Surveys (expires 6/30/2017).
Includes Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program, Migratory Bird
Hunter Surveys, Sandhill Crane Survey, and Parts Collection Survey.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this
proposed rulemaking would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in
any given year on local or State government or private entities.
Therefore, this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that this proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and
that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O.
12988.
Takings Implication Assessment
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this proposed rule, authorized by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant takings
implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected
property rights. This rule would not result in the physical occupancy
of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory
taking of any property. In fact, these rules would allow hunters to
exercise otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce
restrictions on the use of private and public property.
Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211
E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed rule is a
significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, it is not expected to
adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this
action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have
evaluated possible effects on Federally-recognized Indian tribes and
have determined that there are no effects on Indian trust resources.
However, in this proposed rule, we solicit proposals for special
migratory bird hunting regulations for certain Tribes on Federal Indian
reservations, off-reservation trust lands, and ceded lands for the
2016-17 migratory bird hunting season. The resulting proposals will be
contained in a separate proposed rule. By virtue of these actions, we
have consulted with Tribes affected by this rule.
Federalism Effects
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from
which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory
birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on
Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the
ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their
individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive
than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed
in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This
process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks
from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on
their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct
effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of
Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or
administration. Therefore, in accordance with E.O. 13132, these
regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
federalism summary impact statement.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Authority
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2016-17
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
[[Page 47393]]
Dated: July 9, 2015.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Proposed 2016-17 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary)
Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat
conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway
Councils, we may defer specific regulatory proposals. No changes from
the 2015-16 frameworks are being proposed at this time. Other issues
requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the States or
tribes are contained below:
1. Ducks
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest
management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. Only those containing substantial recommendations
are discussed below.
A. General Harvest Strategy
We propose to continue using adaptive harvest management (AHM) to
help determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2016-17
season. AHM permits sound resource decisions in the face of uncertain
regulatory impacts and provides a mechanism for reducing that
uncertainty over time. We use AHM to evaluate four alternative
regulatory levels for duck hunting based on the population status of
mallards. (We enact other hunting regulations for species of special
concern, such as canvasbacks, scaup, and pintails).
Atlantic, Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways
The prescribed regulatory alternative for the Atlantic,
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways is based on the status of
mallards that contributes primarily to each Flyway. In the Atlantic
Flyway, we set hunting regulations based on the population status of
mallards breeding in eastern North America (Federal survey strata 51-54
and 56, and State surveys in New England and the mid-Atlantic region).
In the Central and Mississippi Flyways, we set hunting regulations
based on the status and dynamics of mid-continent mallards. Mid-
continent mallards are those breeding in central North America (Federal
survey strata 13-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the Pacific Flyway, we set hunting
regulations based on the status and dynamics of western mallards.
Western mallards are those breeding in Alaska and the northern Yukon
Territory (as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in
California and Oregon (as based on State-conducted surveys).
For the 2016-17 season, we recommend continuing to use independent
optimization to determine the optimal regulatory choice for each
mallard stock. This means that we would develop regulations for eastern
mallards, mid-continent mallards and western mallards independently,
based upon the breeding stock that contributes primarily to each
Flyway. We detailed implementation of this AHM decision framework for
western and mid-continent mallards in the July 24, 2008, Federal
Register (73 FR 43290) and for eastern mallards in the July 20, 2012,
Federal Register (77 FR 42920).
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) Changes to the AHM
Process
For the 2016-17 season, the current early- and late-season
regulatory actions will be combined into a new single process.
Migratory bird hunting regulations will be based on predictions from
models derived from long-term biological information or the most
recently collected monitoring data, and established harvest strategies.
Since 1995, the Service and Flyway Councils have applied the principles
of adaptive management to inform harvest management decisions in the
face of uncertainty while trying to learn about system (bird
populations) responses to harvest regulations and environmental
changes. Prior to the timing and process changes necessary for
implementation of SEIS 2013, the annual AHM process began with the
observation of the system's state each spring followed by an updating
of model weights and the derivation of an optimal harvest policy that
was then used to make a state-dependent decision (i.e., breeding
population estimates were used with a policy matrix to inform harvest
regulatory decisions). The system's state then evolves over time in
response to the decision and natural variation in population dynamics.
The following spring, the monitoring programs observe the state of the
system and the iterative decision-making process continues forward in
time. However, with the changes in decision timing specified by the
SEIS, the post-survey AHM process will not be possible because
monitoring information describing the system's state will not be
available at the time the decision must be made. As a result, the
optimization framework used to derive the current harvest policy can no
longer calculate current and future harvest values as a function of the
current system's and model's states. To address this issue, we adjusted
the optimization procedures to calculate harvest values conditional on
the last observed state of the system and regulatory decision.
Results and analysis of our work is contained in a technical report
that provides a summary of revised methods and assessment results based
on updated AHM protocols developed in response to the preferred
alternative specified in the SEIS. The report describes necessary
changes to optimization procedures and decision processes for the
implementation of AHM for midcontinent, eastern and western mallards,
northern pintails, and scaup decision frameworks.
Results indicate that the necessary adjustments to the optimization
procedures and AHM protocols to account for changes in decision timing
are not expected to result in major changes to expected management
performance for mallard, pintail, and scaup AHM. In general, pre-survey
(or pre-SEIS necessary changes) harvest policies were similar to
harvest policies based on new post-survey (or post-SEIS necessary
changes) AHM protocols. We found some subtle differences in the degree
to which strategies exhibited knife-edged regulatory changes in the
pre-survey policies with a reduction in the number of cells indicating
moderate regulations. In addition, pre-survey policies became more
liberal when the previous regulatory decisions were more conservative.
These patterns were consistent for each AHM decision-making framework.
Overall, a comparison of simulation results of the pre- and post-survey
protocols did not suggest substantive changes in the frequency of
regulations or in the expected average population size. These results
suggest that the additional form of uncertainty that the change in
decision timing introduces is not expected to limit our expected
harvest management performance with the adoption of the pre-survey AHM
protocols.
A complete copy of the AHM report can be found on https://www.regulations.gov or at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/AHM/SEIS&AHMReportFinal.pdf.
Final 2016-17 AHM Protocol
We will detail the final AHM protocol for the 2016-17 season in the
supplemental proposed rule, which we will publish in mid-December (see
Schedule of Biological Information Availability, Regulations Meetings
and
[[Page 47394]]
Federal Register Publications for the 2016-17 Seasons at the end of
this proposed rule for further information). We will propose a specific
regulatory alternative for each of the Flyways to use for their 2016-17
seasons after information becomes available in late August 2015.
B. Regulatory Alternatives
The basic structure of the current regulatory alternatives for AHM
was adopted in 1997. In 2002, based upon recommendations from the
Flyway Councils, we extended framework dates in the ``moderate'' and
``liberal'' regulatory alternatives by changing the opening date from
the Saturday nearest October 1 to the Saturday nearest September 24,
and by changing the closing date from the Sunday nearest January 20 to
the last Sunday in January. These extended dates were made available
with no associated penalty in season length or bag limits. At that time
we stated our desire to keep these changes in place for 3 years to
allow for a reasonable opportunity to monitor the impacts of framework-
date extensions on harvest distribution and rates of harvest before
considering any subsequent use (67 FR 12501; March 19, 2002).
For 2016-17, we propose to utilize the same regulatory alternatives
that are in effect for the 2015-16 season (see accompanying table for
specifics of the regulatory alternatives). Alternatives are specified
for each Flyway and are designated as ``RES'' for the restrictive,
``MOD'' for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal alternative.
C. Zones and Split Seasons
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 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 up to four 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.
Subsequent to the 1978 EA, we conducted a review of the use of zones
and split seasons in 1990. In 2011, we prepared a new EA analyzing some
specific proposed changes to the zone and split season guidelines. The
current guidelines were then finalized in 2011 (76 FR 53536; August 26,
2011).
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. The next regularly scheduled
open season for changes to zone and split season configurations is in
2016, for use during the 2016-20 period. However, as we discussed in
the September 23, 2014, Federal Register (79 FR 56864), and the April
13, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR 19852), we are implementing
significant changes to the annual regulatory process as outlined in the
2013 SEIS. As such, the previously identified May 1, 2016, due date for
zone and split season configuration changes that was developed under
the current regulatory process, is too late for those States wishing to
change zone and split season configurations for implementation in the
2016-17 season. Under the new regulatory schedule we anticipate
publishing the proposed rule for all 2016-17 migratory bird seasons
sometime this fall--approximately 30 days after the SRC meeting (which
is scheduled for October 27-29, 2015). A final rule tentatively would
be published 75 days after the proposed rule (but no later than April
1). This schedule would preclude inclusion of new zone descriptions in
the proposed rule as had been done in past open seasons and would not
be appropriate because it would preclude the ability for the public to
comment on these new individual State zone descriptions. Therefore, we
need to include any new proposed 2016-20 zone descriptions in the 2016-
17 hunting seasons proposed rule document that will tentatively be
published in mid-December this year.
Considering all of the above, we will utilize a two-phase approach.
For those States wishing to change zone and split season configurations
in time for the 2016-17 season, we will need to receive new
configuration and zone descriptions by December 1, 2015. States that do
not send in new zone and split season configuration changes until the
previously identified May 1, 2016, deadline will have those changes
implemented in the 2017-18 hunting season. The next scheduled open
season would remain in 2021 for the 2021-25 seasons.
For the current open season, the guidelines for duck zone and split
season configurations will be as follows:
Guidelines for Duck Zones and Split Seasons
The following zone and 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 and 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 5-
year period. If changes are made, the zone and 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 and Split Arrangements
When we first implemented the zone and split guidelines in 1991,
several States had completed experiments with zone and 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 and split arrangement:
(1) The new arrangement must conform to one of the 3 options
identified above; and
[[Page 47395]]
(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 zones 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 and split
configurations and compromise the original objectives of the management
unit.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. September Teal Seasons
For the 2016-17, we will utilize the 2015 breeding population
estimate of 8.3 million blue-winged teal from the traditional survey
area and the criteria developed for the teal season harvest strategy.
Thus, we will propose a 16-day September teal season in the Atlantic,
Central, and Mississippi Flyways for 2016.
iv. Canvasbacks
Since 1994, we have followed a canvasback harvest strategy whereby
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 an objective of 500,000
birds the following spring, the season on canvasbacks should be opened.
A partial season would be allowed if the estimated allowable harvest
was below that associated with a 1-bird daily bag limit for the entire
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.
Since the current harvest strategy relies on information that will
not yet be available at the time we need to establish proposed
frameworks under the new regulatory process, the current canvasback
harvest management strategy will no longer be usable for the 2016-17
season and beyond. At this time we do not have a new harvest strategy
to propose for use in the future. Thus, we will review the most recent
information on canvasback populations, habitat conditions, and harvests
with the goal of compiling the best information available for use in
making a harvest management decision. We will share these results with
the Flyways during their fall meetings, with the intention of adopting
a one-time decision-making approach in October for the 2016-17 seasons.
Over the next year, we will work with the Flyway technical committees
and councils to develop a new harvest strategy for use in subsequent
years.
6. Brant
As we discussed in the June 11 (80 FR 33223) and July 21 (80 FR
43266), 2015, Federal Registers, for the 2015-16 Atlantic brant season,
we will continue to use the existing Flyway Cooperative Management Plan
for this species to determine the appropriate hunting regulations.
However, as we discuss below, the process for determining regulations
for the 2016-17 season will need to be modified. In the April 30, 2014
(79 FR 24512), and the April 13, 2015 (80 FR 19852), Federal Registers,
we discussed how, under the new regulatory process, the current early-
and late-season regulatory actions will be combined into a new, single
process beginning with the 2016-17 seasons. Regulatory proposals will
be developed using biological data from the preceding year(s), model
predictions, and/or most recently accumulated data that are available
at the time the proposals are being formulated. Individual harvest
strategies will be modified using data from the previous year(s)
because the current year's data would not be available for many of the
strategies. Further, we stated that during this transition period,
harvest strategies and prescriptions would be modified to fit into the
new regulatory schedule. Atlantic brant is one such species that will
require some modifications to the regulatory process that we have
largely used since 1992 to establish the annual frameworks.
In developing the annual proposed frameworks for Atlantic brant in
the past, the Atlantic Flyway Council and the Service used the number
of brant counted during the Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey (MWS) in the
Atlantic Flyway, and took into consideration the brant population's
expected productivity that summer. The MWS is conducted each January,
and expected brant productivity is based on early-summer observations
of breeding habitat conditions and nesting effort in important brant
nesting areas. Thus, the data under consideration were available before
the annual Flyway and SRC decision-making meetings took place in late
July. Although the existing regulatory alternatives for Atlantic brant
were developed by factoring together long-term productivity rates
(observed during November and December productivity surveys) with
estimated observed harvest under different framework regulations, the
primary decision-making criterion for selecting the annual frameworks
was the MWS count.
In the April 13, 2015, Federal Register, we presented the major
steps in the 2016-17 regulatory cycle relating to biological
information availability, open public meetings, and Federal Register
notifications. Under the new regulatory schedule due to be implemented
this fall and winter for the 2016-17 migratory bird hunting
regulations, neither the expected 2016 brant production information
(available summer 2016) nor the 2016 MWS count (conducted in January
2016) will be available this October, when the decisions on proposed
Atlantic brant frameworks for the 2016-17 seasons must be made.
However, the 2016 MWS will be completed and winter brant data will be
available by the expected publication of the final frameworks (late
February 2016). Therefore, following discussions with the Atlantic
Flyway Council this fall, we will be proposing frameworks for Atlantic
brant in 2016-17 using the process and alternatives very similar to
that laid out in the July 21, 2015, Federal Register.
For a more detailed discussion of the various technical aspects of
the new regulatory process, we refer the reader to the 2013 SEIS on our
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/AHM/SEIS&AHMReportFinal.pdf.
9. Sandhill Cranes
As we discussed in the July 21, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR
43266), the current harvest strategy used to calculate the allowable
harvest of Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) of sandhill cranes does not
fit well within the the new regulatory process, similar to the Atlantic
brant issue discussed above under 6. Brant. Currently, results of the
fall survey of RMP sandhill cranes, upon which the annual allowable
harvest is based, will continue to be released between December 15 and
January 31 each year, which is after the date for which proposed
frameworks
[[Page 47396]]
will be formulated in the new regulatory process. If the usual
procedures for determining allowable harvest were used, data 2-4 years
old would be used to determine the annual allocation for RMP sandhill
cranes. Due to the variability in fall survey counts and recruitment
for this population, and their impact on the annual harvest
allocations, we agree that relying on data that is 2-4 years old is not
ideal. Thus, we agreed that a formula to determine the annual allowable
harvest for RMP sandhill cranes should be used under the new regulatory
schedule and proposed to use as such. That formula uses information on
abundance and recruitment collected annually through operational
monitoring programs, as well as constant values based on past research
or monitoring for survival of fledglings to breeding age and harvest
retrieval rate. The formula is:
H = C x P x R x L x f
Where:
H = total annual allowable harvest;
C = the average of the three most recent, reliable fall population
indices;
P = the average proportion of fledged chicks in the fall population
in the San Luis Valley during the most recent 3 years for which data
are available;
R = estimated recruitment of fledged chicks to breeding age (current
estimate is 0.5);
L = retrieval rate of 0.80 (allowance for an estimated 20 percent
crippling loss based on hunter interviews); and
f = (C/16,000) (a variable factor used to adjust the total harvest
to achieve a desired effect on the entire population)
We note that this proposed formula is identical to that used in the
current Pacific and Central Flyway management plan for this population.
A final estimate for the allowable harvest would be available to
publish in the final rule, allowing us to use data that is 1-3 years
old, as is currently practiced. We look forward to continuing
discussions and work on the RMP crane issue with the Central and
Pacific Flyway Councils this summer and fall in preparation for the
2016-17 season.
16. Doves
As we discussed in the April 13 and July 21, 2015, Federal
Registers, 2016 is the next open season for changes to dove zone and
split configurations for the 2016-20 period. The current guidelines
were approved in 2006 (see July 28, 2006, Federal Register, 71 FR
43008), for the use of zones and split seasons for doves with
implementation beginning in the 2007-08 season. While the initial
period was for 4 years (2007-10), we further stated that beginning in
2011, zoning would conform to a 5-year period.
As discussed above under C. Zones and Split Seasons for ducks,
because of unintentional and unanticipated issues with changing the
regulatory schedule for the 2016-17 season, we have decided that a two-
phase approach is appropriate. For those States wishing to change zone
and split season configurations in time for the 2016-17 season, we will
need to receive that new configuration and zone descriptions by
December 1, 2015. For those States that do not send in zone and split
season configuration changes until the previously identified May 1,
2016, we will implement those changes in the 2017-18 hunting season.
The next normally scheduled open season will be in 2021 for the 2021-25
seasons.
For the current open season, the guidelines for dove zone and split
season configurations will be as follows:
Guidelines for Dove Zones and Split Seasons in the Eastern and Central
Mourning Dove Management Units
(1) A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a
contiguous boundary, for which independent seasons may be selected for
dove hunting.
(2) States may select a zone and split option during an open
season. The option must remain in place for the following 5 years
except that States may make a one-time change and revert to their
previous zone and split configuration in any year of the 5-year period.
Formal approval will not be required, but States must notify the
Service before making the change.
(3) Zoning periods for dove hunting will conform to those years
used for ducks, e.g., 2016-20.
(4) The zone and split configuration consists of two zones with the
option for 3-way (3-segment) split seasons in one or both zones. As a
grandfathered arrangement, Texas will have three zones with the option
for 2-way (2-segment) split seasons in one, two, or all three zones.
(5) States that do not wish to zone for dove hunting may split
their seasons into no more than 3 segments.
For the 2016-20 period, any State may continue the configuration
used in 2011-15. If changes are made, the zone and split-season
configuration must conform to one of the options listed above. If Texas
uses a new configuration for the entirety of the 5-year period, it
cannot go back to the grandfathered arrangement that it previously had
in place.
[[Page 47397]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU15.019
[[Page 47398]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06AU15.020
[FR Doc. 2015-19318 Filed 8-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P