[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