[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