[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19876-19887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8404]



[[Page 19875]]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 68

April 8, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 20



 Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2011-12 Migratory Game Bird Hunting 
Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals and 
Requests for 2013 Spring and Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest 
Proposals in Alaska; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 68 / Friday, April 8, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 19876]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

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


Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2011-12 Migratory Game Bird 
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal 
Proposals and Requests for 2013 Spring and Summer Migratory Bird 
Subsistence Harvest Proposals in Alaska

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 2011-12 hunting season. We annually 
prescribe outside limits (frameworks) within which States may select 
hunting seasons. This proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule, 
describes the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2011-12 duck 
hunting seasons, requests proposals from Indian Tribes that wish to 
establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations on Federal 
Indian reservations and ceded lands, and requests proposals for the 
2013 spring and summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska. 
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: You must submit comments on the proposed changes to the zone and 
split season guidelines for duck hunting and the associated draft 
environmental assessment on or before May 15, 2011. You must submit 
comments on the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2011-12 duck 
hunting seasons on or before June 24, 2011. Following subsequent 
Federal Register publications, you will be given an opportunity to 
submit comments for proposed early-season frameworks by July 29, 2011, 
and for proposed late-season frameworks and subsistence migratory bird 
seasons in Alaska by August 31, 2011. Tribes must submit proposals and 
related comments on or before June 1, 2011. Proposals from the Co-
management Council for the 2013 spring and summer migratory bird 
subsistence harvest season must be submitted to the Flyway Councils and 
the Service on or before June 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the 
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R9-
MB-2011-0014.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R9-MB-2011-0014; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 
2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mailed or faxed comments. We will post all 
comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we 
will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public 
Comments section below for more information).
    Send your proposals for the 2013 spring and summer migratory bird 
subsistence season in Alaska to the Executive Director of the Co-
management Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, 
Anchorage, AK 99503; or fax to (907) 786-3306; or e-mail to 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel, at: Division of 
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department 
of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20240; (703) 358-1714. For information on the migratory bird 
subsistence season in Alaska, contact Fred Armstrong, (907) 786-3887, 
or Donna Dewhurst, (907) 786-3499, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 
E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 99503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.
    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 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.
    The process includes two separate regulations-development 
schedules, based on early and late hunting season regulations. Early 
hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in Alaska, 
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other 
than waterfowl (i.e., dove, woodcock, etc.); and special early 
waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. Early hunting 
seasons generally begin before October 1. Late hunting seasons 
generally start on or after October 1 and include most waterfowl 
seasons not already established.
    There are basically no differences in the processes for 
establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each 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

[[Page 19877]]

Service is required 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, or outside limits, are established for season 
lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, 
migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of State 
and Federal governments. After Service establishment of final 
frameworks for hunting seasons, the 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.

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 2011-12 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 2011-12 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 2011-12 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations 
(Preliminary) in this document. We published definitions of waterfowl 
flyways and mourning dove management units, as well as 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 2011-12

    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. Because of the late dates when 
certain portions of these data become available, we anticipate 
abbreviated comment periods on some proposals. Special circumstances 
limit the amount of time we can allow for public comment on these 
regulations.
    Specifically, two considerations compress the time for the 
rulemaking process: The need, on one hand, to establish final rules 
early enough in the summer to allow resource agencies to select and 
publish season dates and bag limits before the beginning of hunting 
seasons and, on the other hand, the lack of current status data on most 
migratory game birds until later in the summer. Because the regulatory 
process is strongly influenced by the times when information is 
available for consideration, we divide the regulatory process into two 
segments: Early seasons and late seasons (further described and 
discussed above in the Background and Overview section).
    Major steps in the 2011-12 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
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. Mourning Doves
17. White-Winged and White-Tipped Doves
18. Alaska
19. Hawaii
20. Puerto Rico
21. Virgin Islands
22. Falconry
23. 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.
    We will publish final regulatory alternatives for the 2011-12 duck 
hunting seasons in mid-July. We will publish proposed early season 
frameworks in mid-July and late season frameworks in mid-August. We 
will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about 
August 16, 2011, and those for late seasons on or about September 15, 
2011.

Request for 2013 Spring and Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest 
Proposals in Alaska

Background

    The 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds between 
the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) established a closed 
season for the taking of migratory birds between March 10 and September 
1. Residents of northern Alaska and Canada traditionally harvested 
migratory birds for nutritional purposes during the spring and summer 
months. The 1916 Convention and the subsequent 1936 Mexico Convention 
for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals provide for the 
legal subsistence harvest of migratory birds and their eggs in Alaska 
and Canada during the closed season by indigenous inhabitants.
    On August 16, 2002, we published in the Federal Register (67 FR 
53511) a final rule that established procedures for incorporating 
subsistence management into the continental migratory bird management 
program. These regulations, developed under a new co-management process 
involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and 
Alaska Native representatives, established an annual procedure to 
develop harvest guidelines for implementation of a spring and summer 
migratory bird subsistence harvest. Eligibility and inclusion 
requirements necessary to participate in the spring and summer 
migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska are outlined in 50 CFR part 
92.
    This proposed rule calls for proposals for regulations that will 
expire on

[[Page 19878]]

August 31, 2013, for the spring and summer subsistence harvest of 
migratory birds in Alaska. Each year, seasons will open on or after 
March 11 and close before September 1.

Alaska Spring and Summer Subsistence Harvest Proposal Procedures

    We will publish details of the Alaska spring and summer subsistence 
harvest proposals in later Federal Register documents under 50 CFR part 
92. The general relationship to the process for developing national 
hunting regulations for migratory game birds is as follows:
    a. Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council. The public may 
submit proposals to the Co-management Council during the period of 
November 1-December 15, 2011, to be acted upon for the 2013 migratory 
bird subsistence harvest season. Proposals should be submitted to the 
Executive Director of the Co-management Council, listed above under the 
caption ADDRESSES.
    b. Flyway Councils.
    1. The Co-management Council will submit proposed 2013 regulations 
to all Flyway Councils for review and comment. The Council's 
recommendations must be submitted before the Service Regulations 
Committee's last regular meeting of the calendar year in order to be 
approved for spring and summer harvest beginning April 2 of the 
following calendar year.
    2. Alaska Native representatives may be appointed by the Co-
management Council to attend meetings of one or more of the four Flyway 
Councils to discuss recommended regulations or other proposed 
management actions.
    c. Service Regulations Committee. The Co-management Council will 
submit proposed annual regulations to the Service Regulations Committee 
(SRC) for their review and recommendation to the Service Director. 
Following the Service Director's review and recommendation, the 
proposals will be forwarded to the Department of the Interior for 
approval. Proposed annual regulations will then be published in the 
Federal Register for public review and comment, similar to the annual 
migratory game bird hunting regulations. Final spring and summer 
regulations for Alaska will be published in the Federal Register in the 
preceding winter after review and consideration of any public comments 
received.
    Because of the time required for review by us and the public, 
proposals from the Co-management Council for the 2013 spring and summer 
migratory bird subsistence harvest season must be submitted to the 
Flyway Councils and the Service by June 15, 2012, for Council comments 
and Service action at the late-season SRC meeting.

Review of Public Comments

    This proposed rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory 
alternatives for the 2011-12 duck hunting seasons. This proposed 
rulemaking also describes other recommended changes or specific 
preliminary proposals that vary from the 2010-11 final frameworks (see 
August 30, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 52873) for early seasons and 
September 23, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 58250) for late seasons) 
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 2011-12 
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, the 
request for Tribal proposals, and the request for Alaska migratory bird 
subsistence seasons 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:

Regions 1 and 8 (California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, 
and the Pacific Islands)--Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-4181; (503) 231-6164.
Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)--Jeff Haskins, 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)--Jane West, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal 
Building, One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MN 55111-4056; (612) 713-
5432.
Region 4 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, South 
Carolina, and Tennessee)--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)--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 
Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589; (413) 253-8576.
Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South 
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 
25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, CO 80225; (303) 236-8145.
Region 7 (Alaska)--Russ Oates, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 
East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503; (907) 786-3423.

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 and length, and for 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

[[Page 19879]]

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 2011-12 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;
    (3) Methods employed to monitor harvest (mail-questionnaire survey, 
bag checks, etc.);
    (4) Steps that will be taken to limit level of harvest, where it 
could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would seriously 
impact the migratory game bird resource; and
    (5) Tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory game 
bird hunting regulations.
    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 2011-12 hunting season 
should submit their proposals as soon as possible, but no later than 
June 1, 2011.
    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 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 e-mail 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Before 
including your address, phone number, e-mail 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 http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Room 4107, 
4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
    For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific 
comment periods. We will consider, but possibly 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.

NEPA Consideration

    NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document 
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual 
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. 
We published notice of availability in the Federal Register on June 16, 
1988 (53

[[Page 19880]]

FR 22582). We published our Record of Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 
FR 31341). 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.
    In a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register 
(70 FR 53376), we announced our intent to develop a new Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the migratory bird hunting 
program. Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as 
detailed in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 12216). We 
released the draft SEIS on July 9, 2010 (75 FR 39577). The draft SEIS 
is available either by writing to the address indicated under ADDRESSES 
or by viewing our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.
    Because the draft EIS does not specifically cover the composition 
and details of the zone and split season guidelines, we have also 
prepared a separate environmental assessment on the proposed changes to 
the zone and split season guidelines for duck hunting. It is available 
either by writing to the address indicated under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT or by viewing on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at http://www.regulations.gov.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Before issuance of the 2011-12 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.

Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this 
proposed rule is significant and has reviewed this rule under Executive 
Order 12866. OMB bases its determination of regulatory significance 
upon the following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
    An economic analysis was prepared for the 2008-09 season. This 
analysis was based on data from the 2006 National Hunting and Fishing 
Survey, the most recent year for which data are available (see 
discussion in Regulatory Flexibility Act section below). 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 2007-08 season, (2) Issue moderate 
regulations allowing more days than those in alternative 1, and (3) 
Issue liberal regulations identical to the regulations in the 2007-08 
season. For the 2008-09 season, we chose alternative 3, with an 
estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $205-$270 million. We 
also chose alternative 3 for the 2009-10 and the 2010-11 seasons. At 
this time, we are proposing no changes to the season frameworks for the 
2011-12 season, and as such, we will again consider these three 
alternatives. However, final frameworks will be dependent on population 
status information available later this year. For these reasons, we 
have not conducted a new economic analysis, but the 2008-09 analysis is 
part of the record for this rule and is available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or at http://www.regulations.gov at 
Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2011-0014.

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, and 2008. 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 2008 Analysis was based on the 2006 National 
Hunting and Fishing Survey and the U.S. Department of Commerce's County 
Business Patterns, from which it was estimated that migratory bird 
hunters would spend approximately $1.2 billion at small businesses in 
2008. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request from the 
Division of Migratory Bird Management (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT) or from our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/SpecialTopics.html#HuntingRegs or 
at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R9-MB-2011-0014.

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

    We examined these proposed regulations under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The various 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed under

[[Page 19881]]

regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, subpart K, are utilized in 
the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations. 
Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements 
of our Migratory Bird Surveys and assigned control number 1018-0023 
(expires 3/31/2011). This information is used to provide a sampling 
frame for voluntary national surveys to improve our harvest estimates 
for all migratory game birds in order to better manage these 
populations.
    OMB has also approved the information collection requirements of 
the Alaska Subsistence Household Survey, an associated voluntary annual 
household survey used to determine levels of subsistence take in 
Alaska, and assigned control number 1018-0124 (expires 4/30/2013).
    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number.

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 
Executive Order 12988.

Takings Implication Assessment

    In accordance with Executive Order 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

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this proposed 
rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 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), Executive Order 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 2011-12 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 Executive Order 13132, 
these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not 
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.

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 2011-12 
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712, 
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.

    Dated: March 11, 2011.
Will Shafroth,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish Wildlife and Parks.

Proposed 2011-12 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. We are proposing 
a change to the existing guidelines for the establishment of zone and 
split seasons for duck hunting (see C. Zones and Splits Seasons). No 
other changes from the final 2010-11 frameworks established on August 
30 and September 23, 2010 (75 FR 52873 and 75 FR 58250) 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 2011-12 
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 special hunting restrictions for species of special 
concern, such as canvasbacks, scaup, and pintails).
Pacific, Central and Mississippi Flyways
    Until 2008, we based the prescribed regulatory alternative for the 
Pacific, Central, and Mississippi Flyways on the status of mallards and 
breeding-habitat

[[Page 19882]]

conditions in central North America (Federal survey strata 1-18, 20-50, 
and 75-77, and State surveys in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). In 
2008, we based hunting regulations upon the breeding stock that 
contributes primarily to each Flyway. In the Pacific Flyway, we set 
hunting regulations based on the status and dynamics of a newly defined 
stock of ``western'' mallards. Western mallards are those breeding in 
Alaska (as based on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in California 
and Oregon (as based on State-conducted surveys). 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 not included in the Western mallard 
stock, as defined above.
    For the 2011-12 season, we recommend continuing to use independent 
optimization to determine the optimum regulations. This means that we 
would develop regulations for mid-continent mallards and western 
mallards independently, based upon the breeding stock that contributes 
primarily to each Flyway. We detailed implementation of this new AHM 
decision framework in the July 24, 2008, Federal Register (73 FR 
43290).
Atlantic Flyway
    Since 2000, we have prescribed a regulatory alternative for the 
Atlantic Flyway 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). We recommend 
continuation of this protocol for the 2011-12 season.
Final 2011-2012 AHM Protocol
    We will detail the final AHM protocol for the 2011-12 season in the 
early-season proposed rule, which we will publish in mid-July (see 
Schedule of Regulations Meetings and Federal Register Publications at 
the end of this proposed rule for further information). We will propose 
a specific regulatory alternative for each of the Flyways during the 
2011-12 season after survey information becomes available in late 
summer. More information on AHM is located at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Management/AHM/AHM-intro.htm.

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 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 2011-12, we are proposing to maintain the same regulatory 
alternatives that were in effect last year (see accompanying table for 
specifics of the proposed 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. We will announce final regulatory alternatives in mid-
July. We will accept public comments until June 25, 2011, and you 
should send your comments to an address listed under the caption 
ADDRESSES.

C. Zones and Split Seasons

    In the August 25, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 52398) and the 
September 23, 2010, final rule (75 FR 58250), we announced our 
intention to propose changes to the existing zone and split season 
guidelines for possible implementation in 2011 for use in State 
selections for the 2011-12 hunting seasons. This proposed rule for the 
2011-12 hunting season continues that intention and discussion.
Background
    We annually issue regulations permitting the sport hunting of 
migratory birds. Zones and split seasons are ``special regulations'' 
designed to distribute hunting opportunities and harvests according to 
temporal, geographic, and demographic variability in waterfowl and 
other migratory game bird populations. For ducks, States have been 
allowed the option of dividing their allotted hunting days into two (or 
in some cases, three) segments to take advantage of species-specific 
peaks of abundance or to satisfy hunters in different areas who want to 
hunt during the peak of waterfowl abundance in their area. However, the 
split-season option does not fully satisfy many States who wish to 
provide a more equitable distribution of harvest opportunities. 
Therefore, we also have allowed the establishment of independent 
seasons in two or more zones within States for the purpose of providing 
more equitable distribution of harvest opportunity for hunters 
throughout the State.
    In 1978, we prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the use of 
zones to set duck hunting regulations. A primary tenet of the 1978 EA 
was that zoning would be for the primary purpose of providing equitable 
distribution of hunting opportunity within a State or region and not 
for the purpose of increasing total annual waterfowl harvest in the 
zoned areas. In fact, harvest levels were to be adjusted downward if 
they exceeded traditional levels as a result of zoning. Subsequently, 
we conducted a review of the use of zones and split seasons in 1990.
    Currently, every 5 years, States are afforded the opportunity to 
change the zoning and split season configuration within which they set 
their annual duck hunting regulations. While the schedule of ``open 
seasons'' for making changes to splits and zones is being evaluated in 
the recently released draft supplemental environmental impact statement 
(SEIS) for the migratory bird hunting program (see NEPA Considerations 
for further information), the specific guidelines for choosing splits 
and zones are not a part of that evaluation. The current guidelines 
have remained unchanged since 1996.
Public Comments
    The Flyway Council recommendations and public comments discussed 
below are from the 2010-11 regulatory process and were also included in 
the August 25, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 52398) and the September 23, 
2010, final rule (75 FR 58250).
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils recommended that the Service allow 3 zones, with 2-way splits 
in each zone, and 4 zones with no splits as additional zone/split-
season options for duck seasons during 2011-15.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the Service allow 3 zones 
with the season split into 2 segments in each zone, 4 zones with no 
splits, and 2 zones with the season split into 3 segments in each zone 
as additional zone/split-season options for duck seasons during 2011-
15.
    In addition, all four Flyway Councils recommended that States with 
existing grandfathered status be allowed to retain that status.

[[Page 19883]]

    Written Comments: The National Flyway Council requested that the 
Service allow 3 zones, with 2-way splits in each zone, and 4 zones with 
no splits as additional zone/split-season options for duck seasons 
during 2011-15.
    The Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources requested that the Service allow 3 
zones, with 2-way splits in each zone, and 4 zones with no splits as 
additional zone/split-season options for duck seasons during 2011-15.
    The Delta Waterfowl Foundation, the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation, 
the LaCrosse County Conservation Alliance, the Governor of Illinois, 
and several individuals expressed support for the Flyway Councils' 
recommended changes to the existing zone and split season guidelines.
Service Response and Proposal
    In 1990, because of concerns about the proliferation of zones and 
split seasons for duck hunting, we conducted a cooperative review and 
evaluation of the historical use of zone/split options. This review did 
not show that the proliferation of these options had increased harvest 
pressure; however, the ability to detect the impact of zone/split 
configurations was poor because of unreliable response variables, the 
lack of statistical tests to differentiate between real and perceived 
changes, and the absence of adequate experimental controls. 
Consequently, we established guidelines to provide a framework for 
controlling the proliferation of changes in zone/split options. The 
guidelines identified a limited number of zone/split configurations 
that could be used for duck hunting and restricted the frequency of 
changes in these configurations to 5-year intervals.
    In 1996, we revised the guidelines to provide States with greater 
flexibility in using their zone/split arrangements. In 2005, in further 
response to recommendations from the Flyway Councils, we considered 
changes to the zone/split guidelines. After our review, however, we 
concluded that the current guidelines need not be changed. We further 
stated that the guidelines would be used for future open seasons (70 FR 
55667, September 22, 2005).
    However, while we continue to support the use of guidelines for 
providing a stable framework for controlling the number of changes to 
zone/split options, we note the consensus position among all the Flyway 
Councils on their proposal and are sensitive to the States' desires for 
flexibility in addressing concerns of the hunting public, which, in 
part, provided the motivation for this recommendation. Furthermore, we 
remain supportive of the recommendations from the 2008 Future of 
Waterfowl Management Workshop that called for a greater emphasis on the 
effects of management actions on the hunting public. Thus, we are 
proposing that two specific additional options be added to the existing 
zone and split season criteria governing State selection of waterfowl 
zones and splits. The additional options would include four zones with 
no splits and three zones with the option for 2-way (2-segment) split 
seasons in one or both zones. Otherwise, the criteria and rules 
governing the application of those criteria would remain unchanged.
    In making this proposal and in our review of the Flyway Council 
comments and recommendations, we note that existing human dimensions 
data on the relationship of harvest regulations, and specifically zones 
and splits, to hunter recruitment, retention, and/or satisfaction are 
equivocal or lacking. In the face of uncertainty over the effects of 
management actions, the waterfowl management community has broadly 
endorsed adaptive management and the principles of informed decision-
making as a means of accounting for and reducing that uncertainty. The 
necessary elements of informed decision-making include: clearly 
articulated objectives, explicit measurable attributes for objectives, 
identification of a suite of potential management actions, some means 
of predicting the consequences of management actions with respect to 
stated objectives, and, finally, a monitoring program to compare 
observations with predictions as a basis for learning, policy 
adaptation, and more informed decision-making. Currently, none of these 
elements are used to support decision-making that involves human 
dimensions considerations. Accordingly, we see this as an opportunity 
to advance an informed decision-making framework that explicitly 
considers human dimensions issues.
    To that end, we requested that the National Flyway Council marshal 
the expertise and resources of the Human Dimensions Working Group to 
develop explicit human dimensions objectives related to expanding zone 
and split options and a study plan to evaluate the effect of the 
proposed action in achieving those objectives. It is our hope that the 
study plan would include hypotheses and specific predictions about the 
effect of changing zone/split criteria on stated human dimensions 
objectives, and monitoring and evaluation methods that would be used to 
test those predictions.
    We believe that insights gained through such an evaluation would be 
invaluable in furthering the ongoing dialogue regarding fundamental 
objectives of waterfowl management and an integrated and coherent 
decision framework for advancing those objectives. We reviewed the 
objectives and study plan at our February 2, 2011, SRC meeting. We will 
consider this plan, along with public and Flyway comments on the 
proposed change to the zones and splits criteria, and with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis on 
this proposal (see discussion in Impacts of Proposed Change), in making 
a final decision on a course of action this year. It remains our hope 
that any changes to the existing guidelines for duck zones and split 
seasons would be implemented in 2011 and would affect State selections 
for early and late migratory bird hunting seasons for the 2011-12 
seasons. However, we are cognizant of necessary Flyway Council, State, 
and public review of this proposal, and implementation of any changes 
may not be possible this year, especially considering the additional 
time necessary for States to adequately conduct their own public review 
of possible zone and split season scenarios and ultimate formulation of 
a decision. Thus, we are open to either delaying implementation of any 
finalized changes in the guidelines to next year or possibly allowing 
States to have up to 2 years to decide on a course of action for the 
next 5 years. We welcome comment on this aspect of our proposal.
Proposed Guidelines for Duck Zones and Split Seasons
    The following zone/split-season guidelines apply only for the 
regular duck season:
    (1) A zone is a geographic area or portion of a State, with a 
contiguous boundary, for which independent dates may be selected for 
the regular duck season.
    (2) Consideration of changes for management-unit boundaries is not 
subject to the guidelines and provisions governing the use of zones and 
split seasons for ducks.
    (3) Only minor (less than a county in size) boundary changes will 
be allowed for any grandfathered arrangement, and changes are limited 
to the open season.
    (4) Once a zone/split option is selected during an open season, it 
must remain in place for the following 5 years.
    Any State may continue the configuration used in the previous 5-

[[Page 19884]]

year period. If changes are made, the zone/split-season configuration 
must conform to one of the following options:
    (1) No more than four zones with no splits,
    (2) Split seasons (no more than 3 segments) with no zones, or
    (3) No more than three zones with the option for 2-way (2-segment) 
split seasons in one, two, or all zones.
Grandfathered Zone/Split Arrangements
    When we first implemented the zone/split guidelines in 1991, 
several States had completed experiments with zone/split arrangements 
different from our original options. We offered those States a one-time 
opportunity to continue (``grandfather'') those arrangements, with the 
stipulation that only minor changes could be made to zone boundaries. 
If any of those States now wish to change their zone/split arrangement:
    (1) The new arrangement must conform to one of the 3 options 
identified above; and
    (2) The State cannot go back to the grandfathered arrangement that 
it previously had in place.
Management Units
    We will continue to utilize the specific limitations previously 
established regarding the use of zone and split seasons in special 
management units, including the High Plains Mallard Management Unit. We 
note that the original justification and objectives established for the 
High Plains Mallard Management Unit provided for additional days of 
hunting opportunity at the end of the regular duck season. In order to 
maintain the integrity of the management unit, current guidelines 
prohibit simultaneous zoning and/or 3-way split seasons within a 
management unit and the remainder of the State. Removal of this 
limitation would allow additional proliferation of zone/split 
configurations and compromise the original objectives of the management 
unit.

Impacts of Proposed Change

    We prepared an EA on the proposed zone and split season guidelines 
and provide a brief summary of the anticipated impacts of the preferred 
alternative (specifics are detailed in Service Response and Proposal) 
with regard to the guidelines. Specifics of each of the four 
alternatives we analyzed can be found on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at http://www.regulations.gov.
    In summary, we anticipate that the proposed changes to the 
guidelines, specifically adopting the preferred alternative, would 
result in an increase in the number of exposure days (days in which 
ducks are exposed to hunting) throughout a hunting season. We estimate 
that the addition of one duck zone in all States could increase the 
number of duck exposure days by 5 to 25 percent, depending on Flyway. 
Further, regression analysis of the number of duck exposure days and 
number of duck zones within a State indicated that the addition of one 
zone in all States (excluding grandfathered States) could result in up 
to a 17 percent increase in the national duck harvest (or approximately 
2.2 million birds) above the ``no change'' alternative (13.8 million 
ducks). It is important to note that this estimate is for total duck 
harvest nationwide, and we would expect the potential percentage 
increases to vary between Flyways, States, and species. While 
limitations in data preclude us from making any reliable estimates on 
other than a Flyway scale for all ducks, we estimate that the 
percentage increase in the Mississippi Flyway could be 25 percent, 
while the percent increase in the Pacific Flyway would likely be less 
than 3 percent. However, it is highly unlikely that all States 
(especially grandfathered States) would take advantage of these 
proposed changes and choose to add a zone; thus, the magnitude of any 
potential increase in harvest would likely be lower than the estimated 
17 percent.
    Additionally, we annually prepare a biological opinion under 
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
1531 et seq.) prior to establishing annual hunting regulations for 
migratory birds. Regulations promulgated as a result of this 
consultation remove or alleviate chances of conflict between seasons 
for migratory game birds and endangered and threatened species and 
their critical habitats (see Endangered Species Act Consideration 
section of the preamble of this proposed rule for further information 
and discussion).
    We also do not believe the preferred alternative would recruit new 
hunters, and therefore hunter numbers would probably remain similar to 
2008 levels, when the last economic analysis was conducted. However, if 
increasing the possible number of zones and split season configurations 
encourages current hunters to spend more days afield, we would expect a 
slight increase in expenditures. Therefore, the national estimate of 
the consumer surplus expected under this alternative may be slightly 
higher than the estimate of $317 million annually (range of $274 
million to $362 million [2007$]) that we would expect under the ``no 
change'' alternative. In general, the non-hunting public has not 
expressed an opinion about zoning and split seasons in the past. Within 
this large group, individuals opposed to hunting will likely object to 
increased zoning and/or split seasons if they believe it will enhance 
or encourage hunting. Others generally favor more restrictive 
regulations, and some further believe that all hunting should be 
discontinued. We note that the four Flyway Councils support the 
preferred alternative. Duck hunter numbers would likely be similar to 
that of 2008, which would maintain the current level of revenues to the 
States and Service through sales of waterfowl hunting licenses and duck 
stamps. While this alternative potentially could increase hunter 
expenditures above the current level of $1.2 billion (2007$), we have 
no specific information available that would allow an accurate 
estimation of this increase. However, we believe any potential increase 
would likely be negligible.
    The EA is available by either writing to the address indicated 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the preamble of this proposed 
rule or by viewing on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds, or at http://www.regulations.gov.
    After the comment period ends, we will analyze comments received 
and determine whether to: (1) Prepare a final EA and Finding of No 
Significant Impact and authorize [the preferred alternative], (2) 
reconsider our preferred alternative, or (3) determine that an 
Environmental Impact Statement should be prepared.

14. Woodcock

    In 2008, we completed a review of available woodcock population 
databases to assess their utility for developing a woodcock harvest 
strategy. Concurrently, we requested that the Atlantic, Mississippi, 
and Central Flyway Councils appoint members to a working group to 
cooperate with us on developing a woodcock harvest strategy. In 
February 2010, the working group completed a draft interim harvest 
strategy for consideration by the Flyway Councils at their March 2010 
meetings.
    The working group's draft interim harvest strategy provides a 
transparent framework for making regulatory decisions for woodcock 
season length and bag limit while we work to improve monitoring and 
assessment protocols for this species. While the strategy's objective 
is to set woodcock harvest at a level commensurate with population, 
data limitations preclude accurately assessing harvest potential at 
this time. Thus, the strategy's thresholds for changing regulations are 
based on the

[[Page 19885]]

premise that further population declines would result in decreased 
harvest, while population increases would allow for additional harvest. 
The working group recommended that the interim harvest strategy be 
implemented for the 2011-12 hunting season, that the Service and Flyway 
Councils evaluate the strategy after 5 years, and that we continue to 
assess the feasibility of developing a derived harvest strategy.
    In the May 13, 2010, Federal Register (75 FR 27144), we stated that 
following review and comment by the Flyway Councils, we would announce 
our intentions whether to propose the draft strategy. Given the 
unanimous Flyway Council approval of the working group's draft interim 
harvest strategy, we concurred with the three Flyway Councils and 
proposed adoption of the strategy in the July 29, 2010, Federal 
Register (75 FR 44856) beginning in the 2011-12 hunting season for a 
period of 5 years (2011-15). Based on public comment, we finalized 
adoption of the strategy in the August 30, 2010, Federal Register (75 
FR 52873) and stated that we planned to implement the strategy 
beginning with the 2011-12 hunting season. Specifics of the interim 
harvest strategy can be found at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewsPublicationsReports.html.

16. Mourning Doves

    In 2006 (see July 28, 2006, Federal Register, 71 FR 43008), we 
approved guidelines for the use of zone/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.
    The next open season for changes to dove zone/split configurations 
will be this year for the 2011-15 period. The guidelines are 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/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/
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., 2006-10.
    (4) The zone/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 2011-15 period, any State may continue the configuration 
used in 2007-10. If changes are made, the zone/split-season 
configuration must conform to one of the options listed above.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 19886]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP11.007


[[Page 19887]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08AP11.008

[FR Doc. 2011-8404 Filed 4-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C