Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings, 40194-40214 [E7-14071]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 140 (Monday, July 23, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40194-40214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14071]



[[Page 40193]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 20



 Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory 
Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 140 / Monday, July 23, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 40194]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AV12


Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season 
Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) 
is proposing to establish the 2007-08 early-season hunting regulations 
for certain migratory game birds. We annually prescribe frameworks, or 
outer limits, for dates and times when hunting may occur and the 
maximum number of birds that may be taken and possessed in early 
seasons. Early seasons may open as early as September 1, and include 
seasons in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 
These frameworks are necessary to allow State selections of specific 
final seasons and limits and to allow recreational harvest at levels 
compatible with population status and habitat conditions.

DATES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet to 
consider and develop proposed regulations for late-season migratory 
bird hunting and the 2008 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence 
seasons in Alaska on August 1 and 2, 2007. All meetings will commence 
at approximately 8:30 a.m. You must submit comments on the proposed 
migratory bird hunting-season frameworks for Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto 
Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other early seasons by August 2, 2007, 
and for the forthcoming proposed late-season frameworks by August 30, 
2007.

ADDRESSES: The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee will meet 
in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Arlington Square 
Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Send your 
comments on the proposals to the Chief, 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. All 
comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of 
the public record. You may inspect comments during normal business 
hours at the Service's office in room 4107, 4501 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Blohm, Chief, or Ron W. Kokel, 
Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
(703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 2007

    On April 11, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 
18328) a proposal to amend 50 CFR part 20. The proposal provided a 
background and overview of the migratory bird hunting regulations 
process, and dealt with the establishment of seasons, limits, proposed 
regulatory alternatives for the 2007-08 duck hunting season, and other 
regulations for hunting migratory game birds under Sec. Sec.  20.101 
through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K. Major steps in the 
2007-08 regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal 
Register notifications were also identified in the April 11 proposed 
rule. Further, we explained that all sections of subsequent documents 
outlining hunting frameworks and guidelines were organized under 
numbered headings. As an aid to the reader, we reiterate those headings 
here:

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. 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. 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

    Subsequent documents will refer only to numbered items requiring 
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.
    On June 8, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR 31789) 
a second document providing supplemental proposals for early- and late-
season migratory bird hunting regulations and the regulatory 
alternatives for the 2007-08 duck hunting season. The June 8 supplement 
also provided detailed information on the 2007-08 regulatory schedule 
and announced the Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee (SRC) 
and Flyway Council meetings.
    This document, the third in a series of proposed, supplemental, and 
final rulemaking documents for migratory bird hunting regulations, 
deals specifically with proposed frameworks for early-season 
regulations. It will lead to final frameworks from which States may 
select season dates, shooting hours, and daily bag and possession 
limits for the 2007-08 season. We have considered all pertinent 
comments received through July 6, 2007, on the April 11 and June 8, 
2007, rulemaking documents in developing this document. In addition, 
new proposals for certain early-season regulations are provided for 
public comment. Comment periods are specified above under DATES. We 
will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons in the 
Federal Register on or about August 20, 2007.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

    Participants at the June 20-21, 2007, meetings reviewed information 
on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and 
developed 2007-08 migratory game bird regulations recommendations for 
these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, 
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; special September waterfowl 
seasons in designated States; special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic 
Flyway; and extended falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and 
discussed preliminary information on the status of waterfowl. 
Participants at the previously announced August 1-2, 2007, meetings 
will review information on the current status of waterfowl and develop 
recommendations for the 2007-08 regulations pertaining to regular

[[Page 40195]]

waterfowl seasons and other species and seasons not previously 
discussed at the early-season meetings. In accordance with Department 
of the Interior policy, these meetings are open to public observation 
and you may submit comments to the Director on the matters discussed.

Population Status and Harvest

    The following paragraphs provide preliminary information on the 
status of waterfowl and information on the status and harvest of 
migratory shore and upland game birds excerpted from various reports. 
For more detailed information on methodologies and results, you may 
obtain complete copies of the various reports at the address indicated 
under ADDRESSES or from our Web site at https://fws.gov/migratorybirds/
reports.

May Breeding Waterfowl and Habitat Survey

    Federal, provincial, and State agencies conduct surveys each spring 
to estimate the size of breeding populations and to evaluate the 
conditions of the habitats. These surveys are conducted using fixed-
wing aircraft and helicopters and encompass principal breeding areas of 
North America, and cover over 2.0 million square miles. The Traditional 
survey area comprises Alaska, Canada, and the northcentral United 
States, and includes approximately 1.3 million square miles. The 
Eastern survey area includes parts of Ontario, Quebec, Labrador, 
Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, New 
York, and Maine, an area of approximately 0.7 million square miles.
    Overall, habitat conditions for breeding waterfowl in 2007 are 
fairly similar or slightly improved compared to conditions in 2006.
Canadian Prairies
    For the third year in a row, habitat conditions were good-to-
excellent in the northern grasslands and parklands of southern 
Saskatchewan and southern Manitoba. Three years of plentiful 
precipitation has generally maintained or improved the quality of the 
wetland and upland vegetation in this region. However, some areas of 
the parklands of southern Saskatchewan experienced severe flooding due 
to record amounts of spring runoff. This runoff may have flooded some 
nests. The southern grasslands of Saskatchewan and Manitoba were dry, 
and in fair or poor condition. Conditions in southern Alberta, which 
have generally been fair or poor for much of the last decade, improved 
for the second consecutive year. Improvements this year came largely as 
a result of melting of large snowpacks and wet soil conditions, which 
caused above-average natural runoff volume in many river basins.
U.S. Prairies
    Habitat conditions in U.S. prairies are highly variable, and mostly 
ranged from good to poor. The drought conditions seen last year in the 
Eastern Dakotas were improved by abundant fall and winter 
precipitation, especially in eastern South Dakota. Exceptionally heavy 
rain events during May helped to improve conditions in eastern Montana 
and parts of the Dakotas. Unfortunately, the area covered by the May 
rains did not include the high quality duck habitat of the Missouri 
Coteau region in the Eastern Dakotas. Although the May rains occurred 
after many ducks had moved through the survey area, the precipitation 
should benefit renesting birds and improve the quality of vegetation in 
wetlands and uplands, thereby aiding brood survival.
Bush (Alaska, Northern Manitoba, Northern Saskatchewan, Western 
Ontario)
    Habitat in the bush regions of the traditional survey area were 
mostly classified as good due to a normal spring break-up and generally 
good water conditions in the beaver ponds, river deltas, and small 
lakes and ponds that are characteristic of this region. Spring 
phenology and water levels varied slightly in local areas. For example 
spring was slightly late in the Old Crow Flats, slightly early in the 
Yukon Delta, and it was slightly drier in the Yukon Flats compared to 
other regions in Alaska, but habitat conditions were still generally 
good across the bush region. The exceptions were the slightly drier 
conditions in northwest Saskatchewan and central Alberta. There is also 
the potential for some flooding in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Eastern Survey Area
    The boreal forests of the eastern survey area were generally in 
good or excellent condition this spring, except for a few drier patches 
in Northern Quebec, that were in fair condition. Spring arrived early 
in the James and Hudson Bay Lowlands for the third consecutive year, 
and habitat conditions were classified as excellent. In eastern and 
southern Ontario, the winter snowpack was below normal, however, a good 
frost seal, spring runoff, and spring storms left this region in good 
condition at the time of the survey. Storms following the survey period 
produced local flooding of some nesting habitat. Wetland basins in 
Quebec were adequately charged and spring temperatures were near 
normal. There was some potential for flooding of nests in Maine and the 
Maritimes due to heavy rain during mid-May, but this was not as 
problematic as it has been during the past few years. Newfoundland and 
Labrador experienced a late spring compared to the last 5 years, with 
northernmost part of the survey region in Labrador still frozen in late 
May. However, this region was still considered to be in good condition.

Status of Teal

    The estimate of blue-winged teal numbers from the Traditional 
Survey Area is 6.7 million. This represents a 14 percent increase from 
2006 and is 48 percent above the 1955-2006 average.

Sandhill Cranes

    Compared to increases recorded in the 1970s, annual indices to 
abundance of the Mid-Continent Population (MCP) of sandhill cranes have 
been relatively stable since the early 1980s. The Central Platte River 
Valley, Nebraska, spring index for 2007, uncorrected for visibility 
bias, was 302,600 sandhill cranes. The photo-corrected, 3-year average 
for 2004-06 was 378,420, which is within the established population-
objective range of 349,000-472,000 cranes. All Central Flyway States, 
except Nebraska, allowed crane hunting in portions of their States 
during 2006-07. About 10,120 hunters participated in these seasons, 
which was similar to the number that participated in the previous year 
season. Hunters harvested 17,631 MCP cranes in the U.S. portion of the 
Central Flyway during the 2006-07 seasons, which was 3 percent lower 
than the estimated harvest for the previous year. The retrieved harvest 
of MCP cranes in hunt areas outside the Central Flyway (Arizona, New 
Mexico, Alaska, Canada, and Mexico combined) was estimated at 13,048 
during 2006-07. The preliminary estimate for the North American MCP 
sport harvest, including crippling losses, was 35,341 birds, which is 3 
percent lower than the previous year's estimate. The long-term (1982-
2004) trends for the MCP indicate that harvest has been increasing at a 
higher rate than population growth.
    The fall 2006 pre-migration survey for the Rocky Mountain 
Population (RMP) was not completed due to engine problems with the 
survey aircraft. The 3-year average for 2003-05 was 19,633 sandhill 
cranes, which is within established population objectives of 17,000-
21,000 for the RMP. Hunting

[[Page 40196]]

seasons during 2006-07 in portions of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New 
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, resulted in a harvest of 907 RMP cranes, a 
29 percent increase from the harvest of 702 the year before, and a 
record high harvest for this population.

Woodcock

    Singing-ground and Wing-collection Surveys were conducted to assess 
the population status of the American woodcock (Scolopax minor). The 
Singing-ground Survey is intended to measure long-term changes in 
woodcock population levels. Singing-ground Survey data indicated that 
the numbers of displaying American woodcock in the Eastern Region in 
2007 declined 11.6 percent from 2006; however, the Central Region was 
unchanged. We note that measurement of short-term (i.e., annual) trends 
tend to give estimates with larger variances and is more prone to be 
influenced by climatic factors that may affect local counts during the 
survey. For example, it is possible that the decrease observed in the 
Eastern Region this year may have been due in part to late season 
snowfalls that portions of the Northeast received after woodcock 
arrived on the breeding grounds.
    There was no significant trend in woodcock heard in either the 
Eastern or Central Regions during 1997-2007. This represents the fourth 
consecutive year since 1992 that the 10-year trend estimate for either 
region did not indicate a significant decline. There were long-term 
(1968-2007) declines of 2.0 percent per year in the Eastern Region and 
1.8 percent per year in the Central Region. Wing-collection survey data 
indicate that the 2006 recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the 
Eastern Region (1.5 immatures per adult female) was 7 percent lower 
than the 2005 index, and 8 percent lower than the long-term average. 
The recruitment index for the U.S. portion of the Central Region (1.6 
immatures per adult female) was 11 percent higher than the 2005 index, 
and 2 percent higher than the long-term average.

Band-Tailed Pigeons and Doves

    A rangewide survey for the Pacific Coast Band-tailed Pigeon 
Population was initiated on an experimental basis in 2001 and became 
operational in 2004. Pigeons are counted at selected mineral sites 
throughout their range in British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and 
California. Results are used as an index to determine the population 
trend over time. Rangewide trend estimates showed an increase in 
Pacific Coast pigeons during 2001-2006 of over 10 percent/year. Pigeon 
counts at more than half of mineral sites (54 percent) increased in 
2006. In 2006, there were 44 sites counted.
    Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data are used to monitor the Interior 
Band-tailed Pigeon Population. Analyses of BBS data over the most 
recent 10 years (1997-2006) showed a significant decline, while there 
was no trend indicated between 1968 and 2006. For the Pacific Coast 
Population, the preliminary 2006 harvest estimate from the Harvest 
Information Program (HIP) was 16,600 pigeons. For the Interior 
Population, the preliminary harvest estimate was 1,600 pigeons.
    Analyses of Mourning Dove Call-count Survey data over the most 
recent 10 years indicated no significant trend for doves heard in 
either the Eastern or Western Management Units, while the Central Unit 
showed a significant decline. Over the 42-year period 1966-2007, all 3 
units exhibited significant declines in mourning doves heard. In 
contrast, for doves seen over the 10-year period, no significant trends 
were found in any of the three Management Units. For doves seen over 42 
years, no trend was found in the Eastern and Central Units, while a 
significant decline was indicated for the Western Unit. The preliminary 
2006 harvest estimate for the United States was 19,245,300 doves, a 13 
percent decrease from 2005. A banding project is underway to obtain 
current information in order to develop mourning dove population models 
for each unit to provide guidance for improving our decision-making 
process with respect to harvest management.
    The two key states with a white-winged dove population are Arizona 
and Texas. California and New Mexico have much smaller populations. In 
Arizona, the white-winged dove population showed a significant decline 
between 1962 and 1980. To adjust harvest with population size, the bag 
limits, season length, and shooting hours have been reduced over the 
years, most recently in 1988. These regulations changes appear to have 
slowed the decline, and in recent years, the harvest has stabilized at 
around 110,000 birds per year. Arizona is currently experiencing the 
greatest drought in recorded history. In 2007, the Call-count index was 
24.6. According to HIP surveys, the 2006 harvest estimate was 107,400 
doves.
    In Texas, white-winged doves continue to expand their breeding 
range and are even extending into the northeast part of the state. 
Nesting is essentially confined to urban areas, but appears to be 
expanding to exurban areas. Concomitant with this range expansion has 
been a dramatic increase in whitewing abundance. Moreover, because 
until recently, whitewing populations were not surveyed outside south 
Texas, the population increase has probably been even more dramatic. A 
new distance sampling protocol was implemented for Central and South 
Texas for 2007. It is anticipated that this protocol will be 
implemented statewide in 2008, which should give the ability to obtain 
a good estimate of white-winged dove abundance in Texas. The 2007 data 
were not available at the time of this report. However, 2006 surveys in 
Central Texas indicated a population in this region of 991,103 to 
1,394,300 whitewings. Preliminary harvest estimates suggest that, 
during the 2006-07 season, 2,165,128 white-winged doves were harvested 
statewide. This includes approximately 278,000 whitewings harvested 
during the special white-winged dove season in the Special White-winged 
Dove Zone, and approximately 319,000 white-wings harvested during the 
same period outside the Special Zone. Total statewide harvest 
represents a slight, but not necessarily significant, change from the 
previous season of 1,840,536 whitewings.
    In California, BBS data indicate that there has been a significant 
increase in the population between 1968 and 2006 while no trend was 
indicated over the most recent 10 years. According to HIP surveys, the 
preliminary harvest estimate for 2006 was 55,200. In New Mexico, both 
the long- and short-term trends show a significant increase. In 2006, 
the estimated harvest was 66,100 doves.
    White-tipped doves are maintaining a relatively stable population 
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. They are most abundant in 
cities and, for the most part, are not available to hunting. White-
winged dove distance sampling in the Valley included white-tipped doves 
for the first time in 2007. However, these data were not available at 
the time of this report. Once available, they should provide, for the 
first time, an estimate of actual white-tipped dove abundance in Texas. 
During the 2006-07 season, an estimated total of 150,521 white-tipped 
doves were killed in Texas. This is essentially unchanged from the 
2005-06 estimate of 144,302 doves.

Review of Public Comments

    The preliminary proposed rulemaking (April 11 Federal Register) 
opened the public comment period for migratory game bird hunting 
regulations and announced the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 
2007-08 duck hunting season. Comments concerning

[[Page 40197]]

early-season issues and the proposed alternatives are summarized below 
and numbered in the order used in the April 11 Federal Register 
document. Only the numbered items pertaining to early-seasons issues 
and the proposed regulatory alternatives for which written comments 
were received are included. Consequently, the issues do not follow in 
consecutive numerical or alphabetical order.
    We received recommendations from all four Flyway Councils. Some 
recommendations supported continuation of last year's frameworks. Due 
to the comprehensive nature of the annual review of the frameworks 
performed by the Councils, support for continuation of last year's 
frameworks is assumed for items for which no recommendations were 
received. Council recommendations for changes in the frameworks are 
summarized below.
    We seek additional information and comments on the recommendations 
in this supplemental proposed rule. New proposals and modifications to 
previously described proposals are discussed below. Wherever possible, 
they are discussed under headings corresponding to the numbered items 
in the April 11 Federal Register document.

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy; (B) Regulatory 
Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season 
lengths, and bag limits; (C) Zones and Split Seasons; and (D) Special 
Seasons/Species Management. The categories correspond to previously 
published issues/discussions, and only those containing substantial 
recommendations are discussed below.

A. General Harvest Strategy

    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that 
regulations changes be restricted to one step per year, both when 
restricting as well as liberalizing hunting regulations.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that the proposal developed 
by the Service for a revised protocol for managing the harvest of 
mallards in Western North America be implemented in 2008. The Council 
stated that this delay is needed to fully understand and pick a 
management objective, to incorporate explicit consideration of mallards 
derived from those portions of Alberta that contribute mallards to the 
Pacific Flyway, to determine how this strategy relates to Alaska's 
early season regulations, and to investigate the addition of 
alternative models.
    Service Response: As we stated in the April 11 Federal Register, we 
intend to continue use of adaptive harvest management (AHM) to help 
determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2007-08 season. 
AHM is a tool that permits sound resource decisions in the face of 
uncertain regulatory impacts, as well as providing a mechanism for 
reducing that uncertainty over time. The current AHM protocol is used 
to evaluate four alternative regulatory levels based on the population 
status of mallards (special hunting restrictions are enacted for 
certain species, such as canvasbacks, scaup, and pintails).
    In recent years, the prescribed regulatory alternative for the 
Pacific, Central, and Mississippi Flyways has been based on the status 
of mallards and breeding-habitat conditions in central North America 
(Federal survey strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77, and State surveys in 
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the April 11 Federal Register, 
we also stated our intent for the 2007 hunting season to consider 
setting hunting regulations in the Pacific Flyway based on the status 
and dynamics of a newly defined stock of ``western'' mallards. For now, 
western mallards would be defined as those breeding in Alaska (as based 
on Federal surveys in strata 1-12), and in California and Oregon (as 
based on State-conducted surveys). However, upon further review of the 
issue, we agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to 
delay implementation of the revised protocol for managing the harvest 
of mallards in Western North America until 2008 for the reasons 
identified by the Council. Delaying implementation of the revised 
protocol until 2008 should allow us and the Council to more effectively 
consider these management concerns.
    Finally, 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 will 
continue this protocol for the 2007-08 season.
    Regarding incorporation of a one-step constraint into the AHM 
process, as we stated in the June 24, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 
36794), and last year in the May 30, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 
30786), our incorporation of a one-step constraint into the AHM process 
was addressed by the AHM Task Force of the International Association of 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA) in its report and recommendations. 
This recommendation will be included in considerations of potential 
changes to the set of regulatory alternatives at a yet to be determined 
later date.
    We will propose a specific regulatory alternative for each of the 
Flyways during the 2007-08 season after survey information becomes 
available later this summer. More information on AHM is located at 
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mgmt/AHM/AHM-intro.htm.

D. Special Seasons/Species Management

i. September Teal Seasons
    Utilizing the criteria developed for the teal season harvest 
strategy, this year's estimate of 6.7 million blue-winged teal from the 
Traditional Survey Area indicates that a 16-day September teal season 
is appropriate in 2007.
iii. Black Ducks
    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council endorsed the draft 
International Harvest Strategy for Black Ducks developed by the Black 
Duck AHM Working Group until such time that a full AHM model is 
available and requested a dialogue with the Service on options for 
implementing harvest restrictions, assuming harvest restrictions are 
warranted.
    Service Response: In the April 11 Federal Register we announced our 
intent to propose the specifics of a joint black duck harvest strategy 
with Canada in this rule. The draft strategy consisted of a maximum 
harvest rate for the continental black duck population, as well as 
criteria for maintaining approximate parity in harvest between the two 
countries. However, although the Mississippi Flyway Council approved 
the draft strategy, the Atlantic Flyway Council did not, due to 
concerns over several technical issues. Thus, further consultations are 
required between all parties to determine an acceptable upper limit to 
the overall harvest rate, procedures for determining whether the 
realized harvest rate is below this limit, procedures for determining 
whether the distribution of harvest between the countries is 
acceptable, and rules for changing regulations if the harvest-rate and 
parity criteria are not met. We will continue to work with the Black 
Duck Adaptive Harvest Management Working Group to refine the black duck 
strategy to address outstanding concerns. We hope to present a revised 
strategy to the Flyway

[[Page 40198]]

Councils prior to their summer Flyway meetings.
v. Pintails
    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended 
that the proposal developed by the Service for the addition of a 
compensatory model for Northern Pintail harvest management be 
incorporated in 2007 and that work continue on improving the harvest 
management decision-making process for pintail. Additionally, the 
Council urged the Service to complete its banding needs assessment and 
to work with the Flyways and the Canadian Wildlife Service to improve 
the basic biological data to more fully inform decision making.
    Written Comments: An individual expressed support for liberalizing 
pintail limits as we continue to refine the pintail harvest strategy.
    Service Response: We concur with the Pacific Flyway Council's 
proposal to incorporate a compensatory model of harvest into the 
existing pintail harvest strategy and agree that this strategy will 
benefit by including this alternative model. We also believe that 
further technical improvements should be pursued with the objective of 
achieving a more fully adaptive strategy in the future. Lastly, we 
appreciate the Council's continued support for improving this strategy 
and remain committed to making the best regulatory decisions possible 
based on application of the best scientific approaches we can 
cooperatively develop.
vi. Scaup
    Council Recommendations: The Central Flyway Council recommended not 
implementing a scaup harvest strategy that uses an objective function 
based on Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY). They suggested that scaup 
regulatory alternatives for the Central Flyway in 2009 be based on the 
most recent 3-year running mean of the May Breeding Population 
estimates (BPOP) as follows:
    a. BPOP mean > 4.0 million, daily bag limit of 3.
    b. BPOP mean 3.25-4.0 million, daily bag limit of 2.
    c. BPOP mean 2.5-3.25 million, daily bag limit of 1.
    d. BPOP mean < 2.5 million, Hunter's Choice or 1-bird daily bag 
limit with a season-within-a-season.
    The Pacific Flyway Council was supportive of the proposed approach 
outlined in the recently proposed Service assessment and decision-
making framework to inform scaup harvest management, and endorsed a 
shoulder strategy of less than Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY). In 
developing regulation packages to implement the framework, the Council 
further requested recognition of flyway differences in scaup 
populations and harvest potential.
    Written Comments: We received comments from the Atlantic, 
Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils; wildlife agencies in the 
States of Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, 
Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; 5 non-
governmental organizations; and 13 individuals. None of the commenters 
supported the implementation of the proposed scaup strategy at this 
time and all expressed various technical, biological, social, and 
policy concerns with the Service's scaup assessment and draft decision-
making framework (summarized below).
    Service Response: The continental scaup (greater Aythya marila and 
lesser Aythya affinis combined) population has experienced a long-term 
decline over the past 20 years. Over the past several years in 
particular, we have continued to express our growing concern about the 
status of scaup. Last year, we stated that we did not change scaup 
harvest regulations with the firm understanding that a draft harvest 
strategy would be available for Flyway Council review prior to the 
winter meetings (71 FR 55654, September 22, 2006) and be in place to 
guide development of scaup hunting regulations in 2007. As part of this 
effort, we developed an assessment framework that uses available data 
to help predict the effects of harvest and other uncontrollable 
environmental factors on the scaup population. After extensive review 
that we believe resulted in substantial improvements, the final 
technical assessment was presented during the Winter Flyway Technical 
Section meetings and made available for public review in the April 11 
Federal Register. We stated then, and continue to believe, that this 
technical assessment represents an objective and comprehensive 
synthesis of data relevant to scaup harvest management and can help 
frame a scientifically-sound scaup harvest strategy. We note that 
results of the assessment suggest that a reduction in scaup harvest is 
commensurate with the current population status of scaup. Based on this 
updated technical assessment, a proposed scaup harvest strategy was 
made available for public review in the June 8 Federal Register. The 
proposed harvest strategy included initial Service recommendations on a 
harvest management objective and proposed Flyway-specific harvest 
allocations, as well as an additional analysis that predicted scaup 
harvest from various combinations of Flyway-specific season lengths and 
bag limits (www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports).
    We received a number of comments on the proposed assessment. Some 
comments were very general in nature or related to fundamental concerns 
about the models we used or the assumptions we made in the assessment. 
Other comments were more specific and technical in nature. We have 
attempted to respond to the more general, broad-based comments, 
concerns, and issues in this proposed rule. A more detailed, technical 
response to other comments received can be found at (www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds/reports).
    Many of the comments concerned scaup population biology. However, 
it is important to recognize that a full understanding of these 
biological processes does not presently exist even for mallards, a 
species where we have accumulated a significant amount of information. 
The primary purpose of management models is to provide a tool to 
predict rather than to explain. If data are abundant, it may be 
possible to do both. But with scaup, and probably most other species 
besides mallards, we often must rely on more empirical models (i.e., 
models that lack details of biological processes). Nonetheless, these 
models must be well supported by data, allow us to make reasonable 
predictions, and be updated as experience allows. The logistic growth 
model is an empirical model that has proven to be robust for describing 
patterns in population abundance for a large variety of species and, in 
the case of scaup, efficiently uses available data.
    Some commenters focused on the use of a yield curve, which depicts 
the relationship between sustainable harvests and breeding population 
size. Yield curves are derived from specific hypotheses concerning 
fundamental aspects of population biology. They underlie modern harvest 
theory and actually have been the basis for optimizing harvests and 
regulations in mid-continent and eastern mallards, black ducks, and 
other stocks for some time.
    Another common misconception was that the proposed scaup harvest 
assessment uses a single model to describe scaup dynamics. The 
accounting for uncertainty is perhaps more obvious with other harvest 
assessment frameworks used by the Service, such as mid-continent 
mallards, because we use four discrete models with mechanistic names 
(e.g.,

[[Page 40199]]

additive hunting mortality and weakly density-dependent reproduction) 
to describe mallard population dynamics. Nonetheless, while the scaup 
assessment framework utilizes a single functional form (the logistic 
growth model), it still accounts for the high degree of uncertainty in 
the model parameters (e.g., carrying capacity, intrinsic rate of 
growth).
    Several commenters questioned the need to restrict hunting 
opportunity if harvest is not likely the cause of the scaup population 
decline. We acknowledge that the decline in scaup since the early 1980s 
was most likely driven by large-scale changes in environmental 
conditions. Regardless, smaller populations have less harvestable 
surpluses than large populations, everything else being equal. In 
addition, harvest rates of scaup appear to have increased while the 
harvest potential of scaup appears to have declined. The proposed 
strategy seeks to make scaup harvest commensurate with current 
population status.
    Several common concerns involved misconceptions about the 
assumptions we made in the assessment or disagreement with some of the 
associated inferences and underlying assumptions. The first was that 
within the proposed assessment framework, all scaup harvest is assumed 
to be additive because no correlation has been demonstrated between 
harvest and population size. We must note, however, that it is not 
possible to make any inference about additive hunting mortality with a 
correlation between harvest and population size without explicitly 
accounting for possible density-dependent and other environmental 
factors. We do acknowledge that a standard logistic model with harvest 
incorporated does assume that hunting mortality is additive. However, 
the logistic model upon which the assessment framework is based 
incorporates a scaling factor to allow for the possibility of 
compensatory harvest mortality. Additionally, the logistic model allows 
for compensation for hunting losses in subsequent breeding seasons 
through both the survival and recruitment processes.
    The second concern related to inferences from the assessment was 
that the estimated carrying capacity (K) for scaup is 8.2 million when 
the population has never been that high. The scaup assessment suggests 
that population size would only reach this level in the complete 
absence of harvest and if there were no further deterioration in 
habitat conditions. Under the proposed assessment, we are the first to 
acknowledge that considerable uncertainty exists in the estimate of K 
(95% credibility interval for K is 5.7-12.2 million). However, for 
purposes of developing the harvest strategy for scaup, it is important 
to note that the uncertainty surrounding any estimate of K can be 
accounted for within the assessment framework.
    The third concern was that the logistic model employed by the 
Service for scaup does not account for the fact that the reproductive 
value of some cohorts is higher than others and thus, for example, 
shooting a female has the same effect on the population as shooting a 
male. It is true that the logistic model does not distinguish among 
age-sex cohorts. Unfortunately, available data are not sufficient to 
support a more detailed model. In addition, accounting for age and sex-
specific effects of hunting mortality would be of little practical use 
unless the age and sex composition of the harvest could be controlled, 
which we do not believe is the case.
    A final concern was that the carrying capacity (K) of scaup is 
changing over time and, therefore, historical data cannot be used as a 
basis to determine allowable harvests. However, a review of historical 
data does suggest that scaup population dynamics have changed since the 
early 1980s and that this change has resulted in lower harvest 
potential. The assessment framework used permits model parameters like 
K to be updated annually so changes can be tracked. If history is not a 
useful guide to the future, no modeling effort based on data will 
provide useful information for harvest management. Further, in the 
absence of a model, decisions about hunting regulations would be 
subjective and not supported by our biological knowledge.
    While we continue to support the technical assessment of scaup 
harvest potential, we are sensitive to the concerns expressed by the 
Flyway Councils about the policy and social aspects of implementation 
of the proposed strategy at this time. Specifically, we agree that more 
dialogue about the nature of harvest management objectives and 
regulatory alternatives is necessary for successful implementation of 
the strategy. Failure to agree on crucial policy aspects of the 
proposed strategy in a timely fashion increases the risk that more 
drastic regulatory measures may be necessary in the future. In 
preparation for that dialogue, we reiterate our longstanding objections 
to State-specific regulations and encourage the Flyway Councils to 
focus efforts on achieving consensus around Flyway-wide regulatory 
alternatives. Secondly, we recognize that additional effort is 
necessary over the coming year to communicate the rationale for a scaup 
strategy and possible regulatory changes to the Flyways and the public. 
We intend to review progress on policy issues at the winter 2008 SRC 
meeting and anticipate significant progress by that time.
    Having considered all of these concerns, we agree that another year 
is needed to develop consensus on a harvest strategy for scaup. We 
believe that one year is sufficient time to resolve all outstanding 
issues and it is our intent to implement a strategy in 2008. This does 
not preclude the possibility that we would consider possible changes to 
scaup harvest regulations for the 2007-08 hunting season, based on 
population status. We will work with the Flyway Councils to resolve 
outstanding issues and to continue ongoing cooperative efforts to 
improve the monitoring programs and databases upon which scaup 
regulatory decisions are based. These include: Evaluation of potential 
biases in population estimates, expansion and improvement of population 
surveys, and a feasibility assessment of a broad-scale scaup banding 
program. Additionally, we will continue retrospective analyses of 
existing databases to assist in the identification of casual factors 
which might explain the continued scaup decline.
    Finally, we acknowledge that many misconceptions about our 
technical assessment of scaup harvest potential exist and commit to 
continued work with the Flyway Councils to reach a common understanding 
about the true strengths, limitations, and implications of this 
framework. Throughout this process, we will continue to incorporate 
reviews or model refinements that are supported by data.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council made several 
recommendations dealing with early Canada goose seasons. First, the 
Council recommended allowing the experimental seasons in portions of 
Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Vermont 
to become operational in 2007. Lastly, the Council recommended that the 
Service allow the use of special regulations (electronic calls, 
unplugged guns, extended hunting hours) later than September 15 during 
existing September Canada goose hunting

[[Page 40200]]

seasons in Atlantic Flyway States. Use of these special regulations 
would be limited to the geographic areas of States that were open to 
hunting and under existing September season ending dates as approved by 
the Service for the 2007 regulation cycle.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the closing dates for 
Canada goose hunting during the September goose season in the Northwest 
goose zone of Minnesota be extended through September 22 to coincide 
with the remainder of the state with a waiver of the experimental 
season requirements of collecting Canada goose parts.
    Service Response: We support the Atlantic Flyway Council's request 
to make the experimental seasons in portions of Florida, Georgia, New 
York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Vermont operational in 2007. 
Data and analysis submitted by the Council shows a minimal impact of 
these seasons on migrant stocks of Canada geese and demonstrates that 
they meet the criteria for establishment of special early Canada goose 
hunting seasons.
    We also support the Atlantic Flyway Council's desire to increase 
opportunities to harvest resident Canada geese during special early 
Canada goose hunting seasons. In many areas of the Flyway, resident 
Canada geese remain overabundant. Recent spring population surveys 
continue to estimate that approximately 1 million geese reside in the 
States of the Atlantic Flyway--a number far in excess of the Flyway's 
established goal of 650,000 resident geese. Allowing the use of these 
special expanded hunting methods would be consistent with our August 
10, 2006, final rule on resident Canada goose management (71 FR 45964) 
and November 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement on resident 
Canada goose management, would have a minimal impact on migrant Canada 
goose populations, would contribute to maximizing the harvest of 
resident Canada geese in the Flyway, would allow greater flexibility to 
affected States, would be consistent with the Atlantic Flyway Resident 
Canada Goose Management Plan, and would provide a simplified, 
consistent set of regulations throughout the September Canada goose 
season.
    We do not support the Mississippi Flyway Council's request to 
extend the framework closing date for the September goose season in the 
Northwest Goose Zone of Minnesota to September 22. Special September 
Canada goose seasons were implemented for the purpose of controlling 
local breeding populations or nuisance geese that nest primarily in the 
conterminous United States (60 FR 45021). Prior to 1995, in order to 
implement a special season, each State was required to conduct a 3-year 
evaluation to determine whether the take of non-target Canada goose 
populations (migrants) exceeded 10 percent of the harvest. This 
evaluation requirement was removed in 1995 for special seasons held 
September 1-15, but remained in effect for all such seasons, or 
extensions of seasons, after September 15.
    In 1999, Minnesota received approval to initiate a 3-year 
experimental extension of the September goose season from September 15-
22. Minnesota was granted a 1-year extension of the experiment in 2002. 
Minnesota's experiment did not include the Northwest Goose Zone, due to 
concerns (at that time) about the status and potential impacts to 
migrant Canada geese, particularly Eastern Prairie Population (EPP) 
Canada geese. While parts collection, harvest, and banding data 
obtained in the evaluation of Minnesota's experiment indicated that 
migrant geese in areas adjacent to the Northwest Goose Zone comprised 
less than 5 percent of the harvest, granting an extension of the 
framework closing date without conducting an experiment would be 
contrary to established criteria for such seasons. Although the 
magnitude of expected harvest of migrant geese during September 16-22 
in the Northwest Goose Zone is small, a waiver of the evaluation 
criteria will likely invite requests for similar waivers. Further, we 
recognize that collection of sufficient parts collection and harvest 
data in the Northwest zone is problematic. However, we are open to 
working with Minnesota to develop an appropriate evaluation plan.

B. Regular Seasons

    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that the 
framework opening date for all species of geese for the regular goose 
seasons in Michigan and Wisconsin be September 16, 2007.
    Service Response: We concur. As we stated last year (71 FR 51406), 
we agree with the objective to increase harvest pressure on resident 
Canada geese in the Mississippi Flyway and will continue to consider 
the opening dates in both States as exceptions to the general Flyway 
opening date, to be reconsidered annually.

9. Sandhill Cranes

    Council Recommendations: The Central and Pacific Flyway Councils 
recommended using the 2006 Rocky Mountain Population sandhill crane 
harvest allocation of 1,321 birds, as proposed in the allocation 
formula, using the 2003-2005 3-year running average.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended initiating a limited hunt 
for Lower Colorado River sandhill cranes in Arizona, with the goal of 
the hunt being a limited harvest of 5 cranes in January. To limit 
harvest, Arizona would issue permits to hunters and require mandatory 
check of all harvested cranes. To limit disturbance of wintering 
cranes, Arizona would restrict the hunt to one 3-day period. Arizona 
would also coordinate with the National Wildlife Refuges where cranes 
occur.
    Service Response: Greater and lesser sandhill cranes are presently 
hunted in parts of their range and have been divided into management 
populations based on their geographic distribution during Fall and 
Winter. The current Flyway Management Plan for the Lower Colorado River 
Valley Population (LCRVP) of sandhill cranes allows for hunting of this 
population when the wintering population exceeds 2,500 cranes, a 
population level now exceeded. In 2005, the Pacific Flyway Council 
proposed a limited open season on this population. In response to 
proposal, we stated in the August 29, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 
51406) that while we were in general support of allowing a very 
limited, carefully controlled harvest of sandhill cranes from this 
population, we did not believe that this limited harvest was of 
immediate concern, and recommended that prior to initiating such a 
season, a more detailed harvest strategy be developed by the Flyway 
Council. We stated that this harvest strategy should be included as an 
appendix to the management plan prior to any hunting season being 
initiated. The Pacific Flyway has modified the management plan as 
recommended.
    We prepared a draft environmental assessment (DEA) considering the 
action to begin a limited harvest of sandhill cranes from the LCRVP by 
reviewing current management strategies and population objectives, and 
examining alternatives to current management programs. The preferred 
alternative in the DEA was to institute the limited season. We made 
this DEA available for public comment and received only two responses. 
We have addressed these

[[Page 40201]]

comments and prepared a final environmental assessment (FEA).
    Based on our FEA, we will authorize a limited experimental season 
for this population of sandhill cranes as requested by the Pacific 
Flyway Council. All of the described requirements in the management 
plan and the FEA will apply to this 3-year experiment. Further, we will 
work with the participating Pacific Flyway States to meet the 
monitoring and assessment requirements described in the management plan 
for the evaluation of this experimental season. In addition, we 
encourage the participating States to work with us to improve our 
understanding and management of this important group of sandhill 
cranes.
    The FEA can be obtained by writing Robert Trost, Pacific Flyway 
Representative, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory 
Bird Management, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181, or it 
may be viewed via the Service's home page at https://fws.gov/
migratorybirds/reports.

14. Woodcock

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
allowing compensatory days for woodcock hunting in States where Sunday 
hunting is prohibited by State law.
    Service Response: In 1995, the Atlantic Flyway Council asked the 
Service to reconsider its longstanding policy of denying compensatory 
days to those States that forego hunting opportunity due to State laws 
that prohibit Sunday hunting. We agreed to work with the Flyway Council 
to ``frame'' or better clarify this issue with regard to aspects such 
as Federal authority, number of States involved, migratory birds 
affected, harvest impacts, framework adjustments, etc. In 1997, the 
Council again requested that we grant compensatory days for States in 
their Flyway that were closed to waterfowl hunting statewide on Sunday 
by State law. The Council's requested compensatory days applied to 
waterfowl seasons only and not to other migratory game birds (62 FR 
44234). We granted this request and stipulated that all Sundays would 
be closed to all take of migratory waterfowl and that other migratory 
game species were not eligible for compensatory days. Furthermore, only 
States in the Atlantic Flyway that prohibited Sunday hunting statewide 
by State law prior to 1997 were eligible for compensatory days for 
waterfowl.
    We are sensitive to the Atlantic Flyway's desire to provide 
additional woodcock hunting opportunity, and acknowledge the 
longstanding difficulties some States have in reversing statutes that 
prevent hunting on Sundays. However, granting a request for 
compensatory days for hunting American woodcock would be contrary to 
the agreement reached between the Service and the Flyway Council that 
limited granting of compensatory days to waterfowl hunting. We also 
note that the ability to hunt on Sundays may provide more opportunities 
for hunter recruitment than the allowance of compensatory days.
    Further, we do not view this as a good time to liberalize woodcock 
regulations. Although we cannot attribute a cause-and-effect 
relationship between 1997 woodcock harvest restrictions and improved 
woodcock population status, the stabilization of woodcock trends in 
both the Eastern and Central Region is encouraging.

16. Mourning Doves

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council and the Upper- 
and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 
Council recommended that, based on criteria set forth in the current 
version of the Mourning Dove Harvest Management Strategy for the 
Eastern Management Unit (EMU), no changes in bag limit and season 
length components of the mourning dove harvest framework are warranted. 
They both further recommended that EMU States should be offered the 
choice of either a 12-bird daily bag limit and 70-day season or a 15-
bird daily bag limit and 60-day season for the 2007-08 mourning dove 
hunting season, with a standardized 15-bird daily bag limit and 70-day 
season beginning with the 2008-09 mourning dove hunting season. The 
standardized bag limit and season length will then be used as the 
``moderate'' harvest option for revising the Initial Mourning Dove 
Harvest Management Strategy.
    Service Response: We concur with the recommendation to maintain the 
current bag limit and season length options of 70 days with a 12-bird 
daily bag limit or 60 days with a 15-bird daily bag for the 2007-08 
season. However, we recommend that the proposal to standardize this 
framework as a 70-day season length with a 15-bird daily bag limit, 
beginning with the 2008-09 season, be included in ongoing discussions 
on the interim harvest strategy for the Eastern Management Unit, rather 
than considered at this time. While it is our understanding that this 
framework represents the ``moderate'' harvest option for the Eastern 
Unit's harvest strategy, we anticipate that these interim strategies, 
representing each of the three management units, will be introduced at 
the January 2008 SRC meeting, and formally proposed and finalized prior 
to the early-season SRC meeting next June.

18. Alaska

    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended 
maintaining status quo in the Alaska early-season framework, except for 
increasing the dark goose daily bag limit in selected units to provide 
more harvest opportunity for white-fronted geese.
    Service Response: We concur. Pacific white-fronted geese are nearly 
70 percent above current management objectives at 509,000 birds. The 
Council's proposed liberalization of white-front limits to as many as 6 
per day within most of the range is consistent with liberalizations in 
Pacific Flyway coastal states. Further, the Council's recommendation is 
crafted to avoid additional harvest in units where Tule white-fronts 
occur (Units 1-16), and retains the restrictions on cackling geese on 
the primary breeding and staging areas (Unit 9E and 18) because the 
population is below objective.

Public Comments Solicited

    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 received. 
Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to 
final regulations that differ from these proposals. We invite 
interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting 
written comments to the address indicated under the caption ADDRESSES. 
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.
    Special circumstances involved in the establishment of these 
regulations limit the amount of time that we can allow for public 
comment. Specifically, two

[[Page 40202]]

considerations compress the time in which the rulemaking process must 
operate: (1) The need to establish final rules at a point early enough 
in the summer to allow affected State agencies to appropriately adjust 
their licensing and regulatory mechanisms; and (2) the unavailability, 
before mid-June, of specific, reliable data on this year's status of 
some waterfowl and migratory shore and upland game bird populations. 
Therefore, we believe that to allow comment periods past the dates 
specified in DATES is contrary to the public interest. Before 
promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting regulations, we will 
take into consideration all comments received during the comment 
period. Such comments, and any additional information received, may 
lead to final regulations that differ from these proposals.
    You may inspect comments received on the proposed annual 
regulations during normal business hours at the Service's Division of 
Migratory Bird Management office in 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 received 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 a notice of availability in the Federal Register on June 
16, 1988 (53 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 (see 
ADDRESSES).
    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 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). A scoping report 
summarizing the scoping comments and scoping meetings is available 
either at the address indicated under ADDRESSES or on our Web site at 
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.

Endangered Species Act Consideration

    Prior to issuance of the 2007-08 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 this Act 
may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental 
rulemaking documents.

Executive Order 12866

    The migratory bird hunting regulations are economically significant 
and were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 
Executive Order 12866. As such, a cost/benefit analysis was initially 
prepared in 1981. This analysis was subsequently revised annually from 
1990 through 1996, updated in 1998, and updated again in 2004. It is 
further discussed below under the heading Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
Results from the 2004 analysis indicate that the expected welfare 
benefit of the annual migratory bird hunting frameworks is on the order 
of $734 to $1,064 million, with a midpoint estimate of $899 million. 
Copies of the cost/benefit analysis are available upon request from the 
address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site at https://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/SpecialTopics/EconomicAnalysis-
Final-2004.pdf.
    Executive Order 12866 also requires each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand. We invite comments on how to 
make this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions 
such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly 
stated? (2) Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that 
interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping 
and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or 
reduce its clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to understand if it 
were divided into more sections? (5) Is the description of the rule in 
the ``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble helpful in 
understanding the rule? (6) What else could we do to make the rule 
easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department 
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, 
or e-mail to Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    These 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 discussed under Executive Order 12866. This 
analysis was revised annually from 1990 through 1995. In 1995, the 
Service issued a Small Entity Flexibility Analysis (Analysis), which 
was subsequently updated in 1996, 1998, and 2004. 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 2004 Analysis was based on the 2001 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 between $481 million and $1.2 billion at small 
businesses in 2004. Copies of the Analysis are available upon request 
from the address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site at 
https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/repor