[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 129 (Thursday, July 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-16449]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: July 7, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Managing Migratory Bird Subsistence Hunting in Alaska; Strategy
for Regulating the Spring and Summer Taking of Migratory Birds in
Alaska for Subsistence Purposes
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of final environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Notice is to inform the public of the availability of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) final environmental
assessment (EA) evaluating alternatives for resolving the problem of
ongoing spring and summer migratory bird subsistence hunting. This
notice also makes available to the public the substance of the
Service's proposed Finding of No Significant Impact which results from
the EA. The Service has finalized the selection of the preferred
alternative set out in the EA, i.e., to amend the 1916 Convention
Between the United States and Great Britain for the Protection of
Migratory Birds (Convention) to allow a regulated migratory bird
subsistence harvest during what is now the closed period of March 10 to
September 1. The final EA is available from the Service upon request at
either of the addresses provided below (See ADDRESSES: and/or FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:).
DATES: The decision stated in the Finding of No Significant Impact will
be effective no earlier than August 8, 1994.
ADDRESSES: The contact point for this matter is: Director (FWS/MBMO),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 634 ARLSQ, 1849 C St., NW., Washington,
DC 20240; or Regional Director (MBC), Region 7, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503. Any comments received
on previous drafts are available for public inspection during normal
business hours in Room 634 Arlington Square Building, 4401 No. Fairfax
Drive, Arlington, VA 22203; or, for those comments originating within
Alaska, 3rd Floor, Room 3387, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska
99503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Keith A. Morehouse, Staff
Specialist, Office of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 634 ARLSQ, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240 (703/358-
1714); or Mr. Robin West, Migratory Bird Coordinator, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503 (907/786-
3423).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Subsistence hunting of migratory birds for
cultural and nutritional purposes occurs in Alaska and in the far
northern areas of Canada as a customary and traditional activity during
the closed period (between March 10 and September 1) required by the
Convention and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.),
which implements the terms of the Convention. Apparently, the framers
of the Convention were aware of migratory bird subsistence hunting
activity but unaware of the extent to which it was needed and practiced
by far northern rural peoples. Thus, the Convention provides
inadequately for this particular subsistence use, with the result that
much of the current subsistence hunting activity is illegal. However,
restricting subsistence hunting to a time period outside of that in
which birds are available neither provides equitable access to the
resource nor accommodates customary and traditional uses. Because the
Service recognizes the legitimate need for equitable access to the
migratory bird resource for subsistence purposes, regulatory strategies
have been under evaluation which would bring about successful
resolution of the problem. The Service has recently completed the
environmental assessment process regarding this issue and the results
are contained in the final EA titled ``Regulation of Migratory Bird
Subsistence Hunting in Alaska,'' dated May 1994. All comments received
during the review of the draft EA have been considered in the
preparation of the final EA. The Service has also completed a proposed
Finding of No Significant Impact for the EA process, which is as
follows:
Finding of No-Significant Impact
Finding of no significant impact for managing migratory bird
subsistence hunting in Alaska
On the basis of the final environmental assessment analysis
contained in the document titled ``Managing Migratory Bird
Subsistence Hunting in Alaska'' and dated May 1994, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service finds that no significant impacts will result
from the action to be taken to amend the 1916 Convention Between the
U.S. and Great Britain [For Canada] For the Protection of Migratory
Birds (Convention). The Service examined five alternatives for
dealing with the subsistence hunting of migratory bird issue, which
are: (1) maintaining the status quo; (2) expanding the universe of
cooperative agreements; (3) enforcing the terms of the current
Convention; (4) amending the Convention; and (5) amending the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act to allow subsistence hunting outside of
the Convention. Action modifiers which specify how subsistence
harvest of migratory birds would be managed were considered in
conjunction with the five alternatives. Amendment of the Convention
is the Service's preferred strategy for resolving problems
associated with the illegal subsistence hunting of migratory birds
by far northern peoples in Alaska and Canada.
Of the five alternatives considered, only amending the
Convention responds to problems created by its current provisions
for subsistence harvest. Selection of this alternative, amending the
Convention, is based on the following factors: The Convention
currently proscribes hunting for migratory birds during the period
March 10 to September 1, except under very limited circumstances;
there is an existing need for the customary and traditional use of
migratory bird resources that must be accommodated; accommodation of
this need recognizes existing levels of use and will not
significantly increase levels of harvest; migratory birds used for
subsistence purposes are generally not available when harvest is
allowed under the Convention; regulatory mechanisms now available to
management agencies to monitor and control harvest will be enhanced
by this action; and that, because the same subsistence harvest
problems exist within Canada because of inadequacies in the
Convention, amendment is the best alternative for ensuring the
future of the North American migratory bird resource. Also, there is
a preponderance of public opinion that believes amending the
Convention is the most satisfactory way of dealing with the
migratory bird subsistence hunting issue.
Based upon my review and evaluation of the enclosed
environmental assessment and other supporting documentation, I have
determined that the action that is anticipated to be taken to
regulate migratory bird subsistence hunting in Alaska is not a major
Federal action which would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Accordingly, preparation
of an environmental impact statement on the proposed action is not
required.
The EA presents a menu of action modifiers that allow the Service a
range of approaches to regulating subsistence harvest within an amended
Convention. Action modifiers selected that specify how the Service
would regulate a migratory bird subsistence harvest, as well as
associated principles that are intended to guide the process, are as
follows: First, the subsistence harvest should be available to Alaska
Natives and other qualified residents residing in designated
subsistence harvest areas; Second, the Service believes that nothing in
this action should grant entitlement, rights or preference of some
users over any other users of migratory birds in the U.S. As with sport
hunting, promulgation of appropriate regulations will be the vehicle
for opening subsistence hunting season(s). A management system would be
established that allows coordination among user groups, State and
Federal interests, and the Flyway Councils. All the ordinary strategies
of bag limits, seasons, species restrictions, quotas, management units,
zones, etc., could be used to manage, as appropriate. Windows of
harvest opportunity would be set that would vary from area to area, but
would, to the maximum extent possible, protect breeding birds; Third,
the migratory bird and/or migratory bird egg subsistence harvest should
be regionally limited, e.g., Southeast and Southcentral Alaska
generally would be excluded because of fall harvest options, and urban
areas such as the North Star Borough would be similarly excluded.
Communities outside of the proposed inclusion areas should be allowed
to petition for consideration of hunting opportunity based on specific
criteria including past and ongoing customary and traditional take of
migratory birds for food during the closed season; Fourth, birds should
be taken for food, for personal and family use and could be shared
within the communities. Items crafted from non-edible by-products could
be utilized for personal, cultural or ceremonial uses. Birds, parts,
eggs and craft items may be bartered or traded in limited quantities
but may not be sold; Fifth, variable levels of harvest should be set
that fluctuate with population numbers. However, it is the Service's
goal that there should be no significant increase in levels of harvest
in the future beyond the variable levels referenced above. Harvest of
eggs should be considered for all traditional species. However, limited
harvest of waterfowl eggs would be considered where it is shown as an
established customary use and egg resources from nonwaterfowl species
are not available; and Sixth, there should be moderate enforcement in
cooperation with subsistence users. That is, enforcement for this
activity should be consistent with enforcement during the other part of
the year and sufficiently great on an as-needed basis to help ensure
compliance.
Since international agreement negotiations of the U.S. Department
of State are not bound by agency NEPA process results, the foregoing
position of the Service represents the desired, but may not be the
actual, results of Convention amendment. However, it is the Service's
intent to pursue amendment results which incorporate these features.
Dated: July 1, 1994.
Bruce Blanchard,
Acting Director.
[FR Doc. 94-16449 Filed 7-6-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M