Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Frameworks for Late-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations, 53882-53906 [E7-18546]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 182 (Thursday, September 20, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53882-53906]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18546]



[[Page 53881]]

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

Part VI





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 20



Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Frameworks for Late[dash]Season Migratory 
Bird Hunting Regulations; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 182 / Thursday, September 20, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 53882]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

RIN 1018-AV12


Migratory Bird Hunting; Final Frameworks for Late-Season 
Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) prescribes final 
late-season frameworks from which States may select season dates, 
limits, and other options for the 2007-08 migratory bird hunting 
seasons. These late seasons include most waterfowl seasons, the 
earliest of which commences on September 22, 2007. The effect of this 
final rule is to facilitate the States'( selection of hunting seasons 
and to further the annual establishment of the late-season migratory 
bird hunting regulations.

DATES: This rule takes effect on September 20, 2007.

ADDRESSES: States should send their season selections to: 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. You may inspect comments during normal business 
hours at our 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.
    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.
    On June 20 and 21, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council 
Consultants, at which the participants reviewed information on the 
current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed 
recommendations for the 2007-08 regulations for these species plus 
regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the 
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 as it relates to the development 
and selection of the regulatory packages for the 2007-08 regular 
waterfowl seasons. On July 23, 2007, we published in the Federal 
Register (72 FR 40194) a third document specifically dealing with the 
proposed frameworks for early-season regulations. In the August 28, 
2007, Federal Register (72 FR 49622), we published final frameworks for 
early migratory bird hunting seasons from which wildlife conservation 
agency officials from the States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands 
selected 2007-08 early-season hunting dates, hours, areas, and limits. 
On August 30, 2007, we published a final rule in the Federal Register 
(72 FR 50164) amending subpart K of title 50 CFR part 20 to set hunting 
seasons, hours, areas, and limits for early seasons.
    On August 1-2, 2007, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council 
Consultants, at which the participants reviewed the status of waterfowl 
and developed recommendations for the 2007-08 regulations for these 
species. On August 31, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 
FR 50613) the proposed frameworks for the 2007-08 late-season migratory 
bird hunting regulations. This document establishes final frameworks 
for late-season migratory bird hunting regulations for the 2007-08 
season. We will publish State selections in the Federal Register as 
amendments to Sec. Sec.  20.101 through 20.107, and 20.109 of title 50 
CFR part 20.

Population Status and Harvest

    A brief summary of information on the status and harvest of 
waterfowl excerpted from various reports was included in the August 31 
supplemental proposed rule. For more detailed information on 
methodologies and results, complete copies of the various reports are 
available at the address indicated under ADDRESSES or from our Web site 
at https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/reports.html.

Review of Public Comments and Flyway Council Recommendations

    The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the April 
11, 2007, Federal Register, opened the public comment period for 
migratory game bird hunting regulations. The supplemental proposed 
rule, which appeared in the June 8, 2007, Federal Register, discussed 
the regulatory alternatives for the 2007-08 duck hunting season. Late-
season comments are summarized below and numbered in the order used in 
the April 11 Federal Register. We have included only the numbered items 
pertaining to late-season issues for which we received written 
comments. Consequently, the issues do not follow in direct 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.

General

    Written Comments: An individual commenter protested the entire 
migratory bird hunting regulations process, the killing of all 
migratory birds, and the Flyway Council process.
    Service Response: Our long-term objectives continue to include 
providing opportunities to harvest portions of certain migratory game 
bird populations and to limit harvests to levels compatible with each 
population's ability to maintain healthy, viable numbers. Having taken 
into account the zones of temperature and the distribution, abundance, 
economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of flight of 
migratory birds, we believe that the hunting seasons provided herein 
are compatible with the current status of migratory bird populations 
and long-term population goals. Additionally, we are obligated to, and 
do, give serious consideration to all information received as public

[[Page 53883]]

comment. While there are problems inherent with any type of 
representative management of public-trust resources, we believe that 
the Flyway-Council system of migratory bird management has been a 
longstanding example of State-Federal cooperative management since its 
establishment in 1952. However, as always, we continue to seek new ways 
to streamline and improve the process.

1. Ducks

    Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest 
management are: (A) Harvest Strategy Considerations, (B) Regulatory 
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. The categories correspond to previously published 
issues/discussion, and only those containing recommendations are 
discussed below.
A. Harvest Strategy Considerations
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Pacific Flyway Councils 
and the Upper- and Lower-Regulations Committees of the Mississippi 
Flyway Council recommended the adoption of the ``liberal'' regulatory 
alternative.
    The Central Flyway Council also recommended the ``liberal'' 
alternative. However, as part of their Hunter's Choice experiment, they 
recommended continuation of the following bag limits:

    In Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, the 
daily bag limit would be six ducks, with species and sex 
restrictions as follows: Five mallards (no more than two of which 
may be females), two redheads, two scaup, two wood ducks, one 
pintail, one mottled duck, and one canvasback. For pintails and 
canvasbacks, the season length would be 39 days, which may be split 
according to applicable zones/split duck hunting configurations 
approved for each State.
    In Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, the 
daily bag limit would be five ducks, with species and sex 
restrictions as follows: Two scaup, two redheads, and two wood 
ducks, and only one from the following group--hen mallards, mottled 
ducks, pintails, canvasbacks.

    Service Response: As we stated in the July 23 and August 31 
proposed rules, we are continuing development of an Adaptive Harvest 
Management (AHM) protocol that would allow hunting regulations to vary 
among Flyways in a manner that recognizes each Flyway's unique 
breeding-ground derivation of mallards. Until such time, however, for 
the 2007 hunting season, we believe that the prescribed regulatory 
choice for the Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyways should 
continue to depend on the status of midcontinent mallards and that the 
regulatory choice for the Atlantic Flyway should continue to depend on 
the status of eastern mallards. Investigations of the dynamics of 
western mallards (and their potential effect on regulations in the 
West) are continuing; therefore we are not yet prepared to recommend an 
AHM protocol for this mallard stock.
    For the 2007 hunting season, we considered the same regulatory 
alternatives as those used last year. The nature of the restrictive, 
moderate, and liberal alternatives has remained essentially unchanged 
since 1997, except that extended framework dates have been offered in 
the moderate and liberal regulatory alternatives since 2002. Also, we 
agreed in 2003 to place a constraint on closed seasons in the western 
three Flyways whenever the midcontinent mallard breeding-population 
size (traditional survey area plus Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin) 
is [gteqt]5.5 million.
    Optimal AHM strategies for the 2007 hunting season were calculated 
using: (1) Harvest-management objectives specific to each mallard 
stock; (2) the 2007 regulatory alternatives; and (3) current population 
models and associated weights for midcontinent and eastern mallards. 
Based on this year's survey results of 9.05 million midcontinent 
mallards (traditional survey area plus MN, WI, and MI), 5.04 million 
ponds in Prairie Canada, and 906,900 eastern mallards, we believe the 
appropriate regulatory choice for all four Flyways is the ``liberal'' 
alternative.
    Therefore, we concur with the recommendations of the Atlantic, 
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific Flyway Councils regarding selection 
of the ``liberal'' regulatory alternative and will adopt the 
``liberal'' regulatory alternative, as described in the June 8 Federal 
Register.
    Regarding Hunter's Choice, we support the Central Flyway's 
continuation of a 3-year evaluation of the Hunter's Choice duck bag 
limit. The Central Flyway's Hunter's Choice regulations are intended to 
limit harvest on pintails and canvasbacks in a manner similar to the 
season-within-a-season regulations. Hunter's Choice regulations should 
also reduce harvests of mottled ducks and hen mallards, while 
maintaining full hunting opportunity on abundant species such as drake 
mallards. For the species included in the aggregate bag limit, the 
harvest of one species is intended to ``buffer'' the harvest of the 
others, thus reducing the harvest of all species included in the one-
bird category. The Central Flyway has accumulated 4 years of baseline 
information on harvests resulting from ``season-within-a-season'' 
regulations in the Central Flyway; the season length for pintails and 
canvasbacks in season-within-a-season States under the ``liberal'' 
alternative will be 39 days.
    Five States (Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and 
Wyoming) were randomly assigned to Hunter's Choice regulations and the 
remaining five States (Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and 
Oklahoma) serve as controls (season-within-a-season regulations) as the 
evaluation proceeds. The overall duck daily bag limit is reduced from 
six to five for the Hunter's Choice States.
    While we continue to support the Central Flyway's Hunter's Choice 
experiment, we reiterate that we believe implementation of this 
experiment should not preclude any future changes in hunting 
regulations that may be deemed necessary on an annual basis for any 
other duck species in the Central Flyway, if such changes are deemed 
necessary.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
iii. Black Ducks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council and the Upper- 
and Lower-Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council 
recommended that black duck harvest regulations remain unchanged for 
the 2007-08 season.
    Service Response: For the 2007-08 hunting season, we support the 
Flyway Councils' recommendations for no change in hunting regulations 
for black ducks. However, we are disappointed that progress towards 
development of an international harvest strategy stalled during recent 
discussions with the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. It is our 
understanding that a number of key points were debated, but consensus 
could not be reached on two major issues: A suitable harvest rate 
objective and equitable allocation of the harvest between Canada and 
the United States. It remains our objective to reach final agreement on 
the international harvest strategy in time to inform decisions for the 
2008-09 regulatory cycle. To do so, we will provide a facilitated 
forum, involving representatives from the Service, the Canadian 
Wildlife Service, and the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, to reach 
consensus on the parity issue and any other remaining issues that 
currently stand in the way of completing and implementing this revised 
approach to black duck harvest management. Failure to reach agreement 
in time for next year's regulations development cycle will result in 
our use of the best available information to recommend regulations 
necessary to

[[Page 53884]]

bring harvests in line with the black duck harvest potential.
iv. Canvasbacks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Pacific Flyway Councils 
and the Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 
Council recommended a full season for canvasbacks consisting of a 2-
bird daily bag limit and a 60-day season in the Atlantic and 
Mississippi Flyways, and 107-day season in the Pacific Flyway.
    The Central Flyway Council, as part of their Hunter's Choice 
experiment, recommended a full season (74 days) for canvasbacks with a 
1-bird daily bag limit in Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, 
and Wyoming and a 39-day season with a 1-bird daily bag limit in 
Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
    Service Response: Since 1994, we have followed a canvasback harvest 
strategy that if canvasback population status and production are 
sufficient to permit a harvest of one canvasback per day nationwide for 
the entire length of the regular duck season, while still attaining a 
projected spring population objective of 500,000 birds, the season on 
canvasbacks should be opened. A partial season would be permitted if 
the estimated allowable harvest was within the projected harvest for a 
shortened season. If neither of these conditions can be met, the 
harvest strategy calls for a closed season on canvasbacks nationwide.
    This year's spring survey resulted in a record high estimate of 
865,000 canvasbacks. This was 25 percent above the 2006 estimate of 
691,000 canvasbacks and 53 percent above the 1955-2006 average. The 
estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada was 5.04 million, which was 13 
percent above last year and 49 percent above the long-term average. The 
size of the spring population, together with above-average expected 
production due to the good habitat conditions, results in an allowable 
harvest in the United States of 467,900 birds for the 2007-08 season. 
The expected canvasback harvest with a 1-bird daily bag limit for the 
entire season is expected to be about 120,000 birds. Available data 
indicates that adding a second canvasback to the daily bag limit is 
expected to increase harvest about 25 percent, or to approximately 
150,000 birds in the United States. The current harvest strategy has no 
provisions for daily bag limits greater than one bird. However, with 
the record high breeding population recorded this spring and the 
expected good recruitment, the strategy would project population growth 
even with a 2-bird daily bag limit. Therefore, we are in support of the 
Atlantic, Mississippi, and Pacific Flyway Councils' recommendations to 
increase the daily bag limit for canvasbacks to two birds for the 2007-
08 season. We also support the Central Flyway Council's recommendation 
to leave canvasback limits unchanged in the Central Flyway to allow 
continuation of the Hunter's Choice experiment in that Flyway.
    We continue to support the canvasback harvest strategy and the 
model adopted in 1994. However, this strategy was developed primarily 
due to concerns about low population levels, and as such, did not 
address circumstances encountered this year of record high abundance 
and the potential for increased daily bag limits. We believe there is 
reasonable opportunity to allow a limited increase in the daily bag 
limit this year without compromising the population(s ability to 
sustain a breeding population in excess of 500,000 canvasbacks next 
spring.
    We note, however, that departures from existing harvest strategies 
are not actions that we generally condone, nor will we make an 
exception to the canvasback strategy next year, even if similar 
circumstances exist, without an explicit modification to the existing 
strategy allowing for daily bag limits greater than one bird. Over the 
next year, we are willing to discuss the possibility of revising the 
strategy with the Flyway Councils and other interested parties. Because 
the population model has performed relatively well to date, we believe 
that the most productive area for discussion involves examination of 
the harvest management objectives of this strategy, with an emphasis on 
allowing bag limits greater than one bird. We believe that such a 
revision should carefully consider the potential ramifications of such 
changes on the expected frequency of closed and partial seasons for 
this species in the future.
    Due to the relative lateness of this development, the generally 
earlier opening of duck seasons in Alaska (September 1), and the 
anticipated level of harvest in Alaska, we will exclude Alaska from the 
increase in the daily bag limit this year, as was recommended by the 
Pacific Flyway Council, with the State of Alaska's concurrence. 
However, we believe that Alaska should fully engage in review of 
population objectives and remain a part of the overall harvest strategy 
for this species. Additionally, explicit provisions for Alaska should 
be considered in any proposed modifications to the strategy that might 
be forthcoming from the Flyways for the next regulatory cycle.
v. Pintails
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic and Pacific Flyway Councils 
and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a full season for pintails 
consisting of a 1-bird daily bag limit and a 60-day season in the 
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways, and a 107-day season in the Pacific 
Flyway.
    The Central Flyway Council, as part of their Hunter's Choice 
experiment, recommended a full season (74 days) for pintails with a 1-
bird daily bag limit in Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and 
Wyoming and a 39-day season with a 1-bird daily bag limit in Colorado, 
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
    Service Response: In the July 23 Federal Register, we approved the 
incorporation of a compensatory harvest mortality model into the 
decision-making framework used in the pintail harvest strategy. Within 
that framework, the compensatory model serves as an alternative 
hypothesis regarding the effect of harvest mortality on population 
growth. The two alternative models have been assigned weights based on 
their respective abilities to predict historic pintail breeding 
populations. These weights, representing the current strength of 
evidence favoring each model, determine the influence each model has on 
the annual regulatory choice for pintails. A document describing the 
current pintail harvest strategy with these technical improvements is 
posted on the Service's webpage (https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
reports/reports.html).
    Based on this revised strategy, along with an observed spring 
breeding population of 3.34 million, an overflight-bias-corrected 
breeding population of 4.34 million and a projected fall flight of 5.29 
million pintails, the Pintail Harvest Strategy prescribes a full season 
and a 1-bird daily bag limit in all Flyways. Under the ``liberal'' 
season length, this regulation is expected to result in a harvest of 
569,000 pintails and an observed breeding population estimate of 3.24 
million in 2008, not considering any potential effect from continuation 
of the Hunter's Choice evaluation in the Central Flyway.
    Furthermore, we agree with the Central Flyway Council's 
recommendation to adopt a 39-day ``season-within-a-season'' for 
pintails in Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. We 
understand

[[Page 53885]]

that this departure from the pintail strategy is a necessary part of 
the experimental Hunter's Choice season.
vi. Scaup
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic, Central, and Pacific Flyway 
Councils and the Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended no changes in scaup harvest 
regulations for 2007. All the Flyway Councils reiterated their support 
for the cooperative development of a comprehensive scaup harvest 
management strategy.
    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. The 2007 breeding population estimate for scaup is 
3.45 million, essentially unchanged from the 2006 estimate, and the 
third lowest estimate on record.
    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 
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 (https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/reports.html). A 
number of concerns about the proposed strategy were raised by the 
Flyway Councils and States.
    In the July 23 Federal Register, we addressed these concerns and 
stated that while we continue to support the technical assessment of 
scaup harvest potential, we were sensitive to the concerns expressed by 
the Flyway Councils about the policy and social aspects of 
implementation of the proposed strategy at this time. More 
specifically, we agreed that more dialogue about the nature of harvest 
management objectives and regulatory alternatives was 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, and having considered all of these concerns, we agreed 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. However, we further stated that our decision did 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 remain disappointed that collectively we have not made the 
progress anticipated in the development of a viable strategy to manage 
harvest that acknowledges the uncertainty about what factors are really 
influencing scaup numbers, but at the same time provides guidance on 
what changes in regulations are still appropriate. Although we remain 
very concerned about the continued decline in scaup numbers and other 
evidence that this species is not doing well, we are not changing scaup 
regulations for the 2007-08 hunting season. Our decision is based on 
several important factors. First, we believe that the hunting seasons 
provided herein are compatible with the current status of scaup. 
Second, we have a firm understanding that a harvest strategy will be 
available for 2008-09 and that outstanding policy issues will be 
resolved and incorporated into a final strategy in time for adoption in 
June 2008. And lastly, we believe that this additional year of harvest 
strategy development will not compromise our long term goals for scaup. 
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 causal factors which might explain the continued 
scaup decline.
    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.
vii. Mottled Ducks
    While we are not implementing any changes in mottled duck hunting 
regulations at this time, we remain concerned about mottled duck 
status, especially those in the Western Gulf Coast region of Louisiana 
and Texas. However, we commend the progress made on the management of 
mottled ducks over the past year-and-a-half, including the 
identification of two management populations and work on range-wide 
breeding surveys in Florida and the Western Gulf Coast. We are 
committed to managing the Western Gulf Coast as a single stock of 
birds, and acknowledge the challenges that are associated with a 
population boundary that includes more than one Flyway. We request that 
both the Central and Mississippi Flyways work together to consider how 
a reduction in harvest, by as much as 30 percent if necessary, can be 
achieved with regulatory changes. We are confident that the Flyways 
will be able to adequately address harvest management of mottled ducks 
as a single Western Gulf Coast population unit, and we look forward to 
considering a coordinated proposal during the 2008-09 regulatory cycle. 
During the coming year, we will continue to explore methods to assess 
mottled duck population status and refine our understanding of 
population and harvest dynamics.
    Further, we recognize that the mottled duck is an integral part of 
the Central Flyway's Hunter's Choice bag-limit experiment, and we 
support continued

[[Page 53886]]

inclusion of the mottled duck among those species with a bag-limit 
restriction in the experiment as requested by the Central Flyway 
Council. However, we reiterate that if it is determined that further 
reductions in harvest, or a different approach to harvest reduction, 
are warranted at any time over the course of the Hunter's Choice 
experiment, we will make those necessary changes. Thus, the continued 
implementation of this experiment will not preclude any future changes 
in hunting regulations that may be deemed necessary on an annual basis 
for mottled ducks.
viii. Youth Hunt
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
that tundra swans be added to the list of eligible species legal to 
hunt during special youth waterfowl hunts and that we allow the take of 
tundra swans during the special youth waterfowl hunt day(s) to those 
individuals holding a valid permit/tag. Further, the Council 
recommended that this proposed take occur regardless of whether the 
youth hunt day(s) are inside or outside the current tundra swan hunting 
framework.
    Service Response: Currently, tundra swans may be taken by 
individuals holding a valid permit/tag at any time during the open 
season without any additional provisions. Since tundra swan harvests 
are tightly controlled in each State where a limited number of permits 
are issued, we see no reason not to allow youth to harvest a tundra 
swan, as they will still have to possess a valid tag that is issued by 
random draw prior to the hunting season. Further, we note that the 
revised (2007) Eastern Population Tundra Swan Management plan advocates 
the issuance of tundra swan hunt permits during youth waterfowl days, 
regardless of whether these youth waterfowl hunting days are inside or 
outside the current framework. Thus, we approve the addition of tundra 
swans to the list of eligible species for youth swan hunts and allowing 
the take of tundra swans inside or outside the tundra swan hunting 
frameworks.

4. Canada Geese

B. Regular Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council forwarded a 
number of recommendations concerning Canada geese. First, the Council 
recommended the approval of a minor change in the delineation of High 
and Low North Atlantic Population (NAP) harvest zones in New York. They 
further recommended that Connecticut's NAP zones be adjusted to account 
for the current harvest distribution of NAP and resident Canada geese 
and to simplify zone boundaries. In Resident Population (RP) areas, the 
Council recommended the allowance of an 80-day Canada goose hunting 
season, with a 5-bird daily bag limit, and a 3-way split. In the RP 
harvest area of New York, they further recommend that the framework 
closing date be extended to March 10, beginning this fall. They 
recommended reclassifying a small portion of the Northeast Goose Hunt 
Zone in Northampton County, North Carolina, to a Southern James Bay 
Population (SJBP) Hunt Zone designation. Lastly, they recommended that 
the SJBP Canada goose harvest strategy be revised in the SJBP 
Management Plan before changes to the SJBP harvest areas or season 
liberalization are considered in both Flyways.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a number of changes in Canada 
goose zones, seasons lengths, and bag limits for several States in the 
Flyway. These changes are an outgrowth of the evolution of Canada goose 
harvest management philosophy in the Flyway. The change in philosophy 
in the Flyway is driven by the increasing numbers of giant Canada geese 
and the diminishing importance of interior Canada geese to goose 
harvest opportunities in the Flyway. The large numbers of giant Canada 
geese in most States appear to be buffering, to some extent, hunting 
pressure on interior Canada geese. These changes will allow States to 
evaluate the potential of this buffering effect as well as the impacts 
of stable regulations on interior Canada goose populations.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended several changes for dark 
goose regulations. In the West Tier, they recommended an increase in 
season length (from 95 to 107 days) in Colorado and an increase in bag 
limit (from 3 to 4) in Colorado and Texas. In the East Tier, they 
recommended removing the Big Stone Power Plant area restriction in 
South Dakota.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended the following area, bag, and 
season length changes described below:
    1. Increase the bag limit to 6 geese per day in the California 
Northeastern and Balance-of-State Zones;
    2. Increase the daily bag limit for small Canada geese in the 
California Balance-of-State Zone to 6 geese per day;
    3. Eliminate the closed zone of Tillamook County, Oregon, include 
the county in the NW Oregon Permit Goose Zone, and establish a daily 
bag limit of dark geese of 3 including not more than 2 cackling or 
Aleutian geese; and
    4. Revise Idaho zone designations for 4 counties, to move all parts 
of Power County from Zone 3 to Zone 5 and move Blaine and Camas 
Counties and Cassia County within Minidoka National Wildlife Refuge 
from Zone 3 to Zone 4.
    Service Response: We concur with the Atlantic Flyway Council's 
recommendations to adjust delineation of High and Low NAP harvest zones 
in New York and Connecticut to account for the current harvest 
distribution of NAP. The Atlantic Flyway Management Plan for NAP Canada 
geese allows for a two-tiered approach to harvest management for this 
population. ``High Harvest'' zones are defined as those areas within 
each State containing 70% or more of all NAP leg band recoveries, 
whereas ``Low Harvest'' areas are all other areas of each State within 
existing NAP zones. Use of High and Low harvest zones allows States to 
increase and direct harvest opportunity towards RP geese in areas where 
relatively few NAP geese will be affected.
    Under this revised delineation, New York's High and Low harvest 
zones would contain approximately 83% and 17%, respectively, of all NAP 
band returns, still well within the management plan criteria. In 
Connecticut, only 11% of all NAP recoveries have occurred in the NAP-L 
zone since delineation (2002) of these harvest zones, and no NAP 
recoveries have occurred in the proposed area of change. Both of these 
changes would not only allow for more harvest of RP geese, but would 
have minimal impact to NAP geese.
    We also concur with the Atlantic Flyway Council's recommendations 
regarding frameworks for RP harvest areas. Resident Canada geese are 
overabundant in many areas of the Atlantic Flyway and currently number 
approximately 1.2 million birds, or nearly double the goal in the 
Atlantic Flyway Resident Canada Goose Management Plan of 650,000 geese. 
Allowance of an 80-day season, combined with the 25-day special Canada 
goose season in September, and the 2-day Youth Waterfowl Hunting Days, 
would potentially allow 107 days of harvest opportunity for RP geese, 
the maximum allowed under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Further, 
allowing 3-way splits within the regular season would provide States 
with greater flexibility for setting their seasons. All of these 
objectives are consistent with those identified in the Service's 2005 
Final Environmental Impact Statement

[[Page 53887]]

on Resident Canada Goose Management (70 FR 69985, November 18, 2005). 
Since RP areas were first established in 2002 (with 70-day seasons and 
a 5-bird daily limit), available band recovery data from the first 3 
seasons (2002-2004) indicate that harvest of migrant geese (AP, NAP, 
and SJBP) has been negligible. Further, the March 10 closing date in 
New York will not adversely impact AP geese migrating north in early 
spring as data indicate that AP geese make only minimal use of the RP 
area in New York. Lastly, delays in opening framework dates will be 
maintained to avoid any harvest of migrant geese during peak fall 
movements (e.g., early to mid October in New York) to southern regions 
of the Flyway.
    We also agree with the Atlantic Flyway Council's recommendation to 
reclassify a small portion of the Northeast Goose Hunt Zone in 
Northampton County, North Carolina, to an SJBP Hunt Zone designation. 
Northampton County currently includes portions of two Canada goose hunt 
zones--an AP zone designation and an SJBP zone designation. Over the 
last 15 years, the AP zone in North Carolina has decreased in size due 
to contemporary information regarding locations of migrant Canada goose 
flocks and population affiliation. While Northampton County does hold 
migrant geese from both the AP and SJBP, the Flyway's original intent 
in including this small portion of Northampton County in the AP zone 
occurred at a time when the AP population was reduced throughout the 
entire Flyway, and when the Service's and Flyway's goal was to provide 
maximum protection to AP geese in North Carolina. Since then, AP geese 
have rebounded from low numbers in the late 1990s, and the hunting of 
AP geese in North Carolina has been relaxed to some extent.
    We do not agree with the framework changes and season 
liberalizations proposed by the Mississippi Flyway Council to the SJBP 
harvest areas. SJBP Canada geese are managed through a management plan 
developed cooperatively by the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways. In 
recent years, the Mississippi Flyway has undergone major changes in 
their philosophical approach to Canada goose management. As a result, 
the Mississippi Flyway Council has instituted changes in their 
regulatory approach to MVP, SJBP, and RP Canada goose management. While 
the Mississippi Flyway Council believes that their 2007-08 proposals 
for SJBP regulations are consistent with the current management plan, 
the Atlantic Flyway Council believes that more dialogue is needed on 
these proposals before they can support them. Given the lack of 
consensus between the two Flyways, we do not support changes to SJBP 
regulations at this time. We encourage the two Flyways to revise the 
SJBP management plan to reflect evolving philosophies of Canada goose 
management in general.
    We concur with the Central Flyway's recommendation to increase the 
season length from 95 to 107 days for dark geese in Colorado and 
increase the daily bag limit in Colorado and Texas. The 2005-07 average 
(211,627) of mid-winter counts for the Hi-Line Population of Canada 
geese remains well above the established objective level (>85,000). 
Further, the 2005-07 average (200,821) of mid-winter counts for the 
Shortgrass Prairie Population of Canada geese also remains above the 
established population objective (150,000-200,000). Given the status of 
these populations and the established population objective levels, we 
agree that the proposed increase in season length in Colorado and the 
daily bag limit increases in Colorado and Texas are commensurate with 
the status of the populations.
    Regarding the Central Flyway Council's recommendation to remove the 
Big Stone Power Plant area restriction in South Dakota, we agree. The 
restriction was put in place in 1997 due to potential concerns related 
to the status of Eastern Prairie Population (EPP) Canada geese. These 
geese nest in the Hudson Bay Lowlands of Manitoba and concentrate 
primarily in Manitoba, Minnesota, and Missouri during winter. The 2007 
spring estimate of EPP geese was 217,500, 17 percent higher than the 
2006 estimate. Spring estimates have increased an average of 3 percent 
per year over the last 10 years. Furthermore, the estimated number of 
productive geese in 2007 increased from 2006 and reached a record-high 
level. We see no reason to continue this restriction.
    We also concur with all of the recommendations forwarded by the 
Pacific Flyway Council. We support the changes proposed and recognize 
that the changes in California and Oregon are intended to address 
increasing depredation problems associated with Aleutian Canada geese. 
Aleutian Canada geese continue to increase rapidly and currently are 
above the population objective levels identified in the Flyway 
management plan. We further note that Pacific Flyway white-fronted 
geese and Aleutian Canada geese are at the highest population levels 
that have been observed in the last 15 years. The proposed increased 
harvest opportunity will help address depredation concerns in northwest 
California and southwest Oregon associated with both of these 
populations. The other changes proposed for Canada geese in Washington, 
Utah, and Nevada, are relatively minor boundary changes in harvest 
zones or bag limit increases that will help address depredation 
concerns in these States and will not impact the harvest of other 
Canada goose populations of management concern in the Flyway. The 
proposed zone boundary change in Idaho is an administrative change and 
is not expected to have any measurable impact on the goose harvest from 
these areas.
C. Special Late Seasons
    Council Recommendations: The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations 
Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended a 3-year 
experimental late Canada goose season for a 30-county area in Indiana 
during February 1-15. The 15-day season would be designed to increase 
harvests of local giant Canada geese.
    Service Response: We concur with the Council on the creation of an 
experimental late Canada goose season in Indiana. The 2007 population 
estimate for Mississippi Flyway Giant Population Canada geese (MFGP) 
breeding in Indiana is 125,000, and the established population goal is 
80,000. While Indiana has used special September Canada goose seasons 
to control locally-breeding MFGP, complaints regarding breeding MFGP in 
Indiana continue to increase. We agree that a special late goose season 
could help control Indiana's breeding Canada goose population. 
Available collar and harvest data indicate that the proposed 
experimental area is comprised of well above 80 percent non-migrant 
geese, as required by the current criteria.

6. Brant

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommends a 
50-day season with a 2-bird daily bag limit for Atlantic brant.
    Service Response: We concur with the Atlantic Flyway Council 
recommendation. The 2007 Mid-Winter Index (MWI) for Atlantic brant was 
150,559. While the Brant Management Plan prescribes a 50-day season 
with a 2-bird daily bag limit when the MWI estimate falls within 
125,000-150,000, and consideration of a 60-day season with a 3-bird 
daily bag limit when the MWI estimate is above 150,000, the outlook for 
productivity is below average due to highly variable conditions on the 
main breeding grounds. Thus, we agree with the

[[Page 53888]]

Council that an increase of 20 days (from last year's 30-day season) 
without the associated daily bag limit increase is a conservative 
approach to harvest management for the upcoming season.

National Environmental Policy Act (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). Annual NEPA considerations are covered under a 
separate Environmental Assessment (EA), ``Duck Hunting Regulations for 
2007-08,'' and an August 27, 2007, Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI). Copies of the EA and FONSI are available upon request from the 
address indicated under 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 we 
announced in a March 9, 2006, Federal Register notice (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

    Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 
1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that, ``The Secretary shall review 
other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in 
furtherance of the purposes of this Act'' (and) shall ``insure that any 
action authorized, funded, or carried out * * * is not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of [critical] habitat * * *.'' Consequently, we conducted formal 
consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations 
would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or 
threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification 
of their critical habitat. Findings from these consultations are 
included in a biological opinion, which concluded that the regulations 
are not likely to adversely affect any endangered or threatened 
species. Additionally, these findings may have caused modification of 
some regulatory measures previously proposed, and the final frameworks 
reflect any such modifications. Our biological opinions resulting from 
this section 7 consultation are public documents available for public 
inspection at the address indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 
1990-96, 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 
million to $1.064 billion, with a mid-point 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.
    This year, due to limited data availability, we partially updated 
the 2004 analysis, but restricted our analysis to duck hunting. Results 
indicate that the total consumer surplus of the annual duck hunting 
frameworks is on the order of $222 to $360 million, with a mid-point 
estimate of $291 million. We plan to perform a full update of the 
analysis in 2008. Copies of the updated 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-2007Update.pdf.

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 1990-95. 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/reports/SpecialTopics/EconomicAnalysis-
Final-2004.pdf.
    This year, due to limited data availability, we partially updated 
the 2004 analysis, but restricted our analysis to duck hunting. Results 
indicate that the duck hunters would spend between $291 million and 
$473.5 million at small businesses in 2007. We plan to perform a full 
update of the analysis in 2008 when the full results from the 2006 
National Hunting and Fishing Survey is available. Copies of the updated 
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-2007Update.pdf.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This 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 has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 
However, because this rule establishes 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 regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (PRA). There are no new information collections in this rule that 
would require OMB approval under the PRA. The existing various 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed under 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 the surveys 
associated with the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and 
assigned clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 2/29/2008). This 
information is used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary

[[Page 53889]]

national surveys to improve our harvest estimates for all migratory 
game birds in order to better manage these populations.
    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 
rulemaking will 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 rule, has determined that this 
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 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 will not result in the physical occupancy of 
property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking 
of any property. In fact, these rules allow hunters to exercise 
otherwise unavailable privileges and, therefore, reduce restrictions on 
the use of private and public property.

Energy Effects--Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this 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

    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. Thus, 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 the April 11 proposed rule we 
solicited proposals for special migratory bird hunting regulations for 
certain Tribes on Federal Indian reservations, off-reservation trust 
lands, and ceded lands for the 2007-08 migratory bird hunting season. 
The resulting proposals were contained in a separate rulemaking. By 
virtue of these actions, we have consulted with all the 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.

Regulations Promulgation

    The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its 
nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, we intend that 
the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment. Thus, 
when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established 
what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment. 
In doing this, we recognized that when the comment period closed, time 
would be of the essence. That is, if there were a delay in the 
effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking, States 
would have insufficient time to select season dates and limits; to 
communicate those selections to us; and to establish and publicize the 
necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions. We 
therefore find that ``good cause'' exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and these frameworks 
will, therefore, take effect immediately upon publication.
    Therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 
3, 1918), as amended (16 U.S.C. 703-711), we prescribe final frameworks 
setting forth the species to be hunted, the daily bag and possession 
limits, the shooting hours, the season lengths, the earliest opening 
and latest closing season dates, and hunting areas, from which State 
conservation agency officials will select hunting season dates and 
other options. Upon receipt of selections, we will publish in the 
Federal Register a final rulemaking amending 50 CFR part 20 to reflect 
seasons, limits, and shooting hours for the conterminous United States 
for the 2007-08 hunting season.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20

    Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

    The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2007-08 
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-712 and 16 U.S.C. 742 
a-j.

    Dated: September 14, 2007.
David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

PART 20--[AMENDED]

Final Regulations Frameworks for 2007-08 Late Hunting Seasons on 
Certain Migratory Game Birds

    Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and delegated 
authorities, the Department has approved the following frameworks for 
season lengths, shooting hours, bag and possession limits, and outside 
dates within which States may select seasons for hunting waterfowl and 
coots between the dates of September 1, 2007, and March 10, 2008.

General

    Dates: All outside dates noted below are inclusive.
    Shooting and Hawking (taking by falconry) Hours: Unless otherwise

[[Page 53890]]

specified, from one-half hour before sunrise to sunset daily.
    Possession Limits: Unless otherwise specified, possession limits 
are twice the daily bag limit.

Flyways and Management Units

Waterfowl Flyways

    Atlantic Flyway--includes Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, 
Virginia, and West Virginia.
    Mississippi Flyway--includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 
Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
    Central Flyway--includes Colorado (east of the Continental Divide), 
Kansas, Montana (Counties of Blaine, Carbon, Fergus, Judith Basin, 
Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Wheatland, and all counties east thereof), 
Nebraska, New Mexico (east of the Continental Divide except the 
Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South 
Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (east of the Continental Divide).
    Pacific Flyway--includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, 
Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and those portions of Colorado, 
Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming not included in the Central Flyway.

Management Units

    High Plains Mallard Management Unit--roughly defined as that 
portion of the Central Flyway that lies west of the 100th meridian.
    Definitions: For the purpose of hunting regulations listed below, 
the collective terms ``dark'' and ``light'' geese include the following 
species:
    Dark geese: Canada geese, white-fronted geese, brant (except in 
California, Oregon, Washington, and the Atlantic Flyway), and all other 
goose species except light geese.
    Light geese: snow (including blue) geese and Ross' geese.
    Area, Zone, and Unit Descriptions: Geographic descriptions related 
to late-season regulations are contained in a later portion of this 
document.
    Area-Specific Provisions: Frameworks for open seasons, season 
lengths, bag and possession limits, and other special provisions are 
listed below by Flyway.

Waterfowl Seasons in the Atlantic Flyway

    In the Atlantic Flyway States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, 
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and 
Virginia, where Sunday hunting is prohibited statewide by State law, 
all Sundays are closed to all take of migratory waterfowl (including 
mergansers and coots).

Special Youth Waterfowl Hunting Days

    Outside Dates: States may select two consecutive days (hunting days 
in Atlantic Flyway States with compensatory days) per duck-hunting 
zone, designated as ``Youth Waterfowl Hunting Days,'' in addition to 
their regular duck seasons. The days must be held outside any regular 
duck season on a weekend, holiday, or other non-school day when youth 
hunters would have the maximum opportunity to participate. The days may 
be held up to 14 days before or after any regular duck-season 
frameworks or within any split of a regular duck season, or within any 
other open season on migratory birds.
    Daily Bag Limits: The daily bag limits may include ducks, geese, 
tundra swans, mergansers, coots, moorhens, and gallinules and would be 
the same as those allowed in the regular season. Flyway species and 
area restrictions would remain in effect.
    Shooting Hours: One-half hour before sunrise to sunset.
    Participation Restrictions: Youth hunters must be 15 years of age 
or younger. In addition, an adult at least 18 years of age must 
accompany the youth hunter into the field. This adult may not duck hunt 
but may participate in other seasons that are open on the special youth 
day. Tundra swans may only be taken by participants possessing 
applicable tundra swan permits.

Atlantic Flyway

Ducks, Mergansers, and Coots

    Outside Dates: Between the Saturday nearest September 24 (September 
22) and the last Sunday in January (January 27).
    Hunting Seasons and Duck Limits: 60 days. The daily bag limit is 6 
ducks, including no more than 4 mallards (2 hens), 2 scaup, 1 black 
duck, 1 pintail, 2 canvasbacks, 1 mottled duck, 1 fulvous whistling 
duck, 2 wood ducks, 2 redheads, and 4 scoters.
    Closures: The season on harlequin ducks is closed.
    Sea Ducks: Within the special sea duck areas, during the regular 
duck season in the Atlantic Flyway, States may choose to allow the 
above sea duck limits in addition to the limits applying to other ducks 
during the regular duck season. In all other areas, sea ducks may be 
taken only during the regular open season for ducks and are part of the 
regular duck season daily bag (not to exceed 4 scoters) and possession 
limits.
    Merganser Limits: The daily bag limit of mergansers is 5, only 2 of 
which may be hooded mergansers. In States that include mergansers in 
the duck bag limit, the daily limit is the same as the duck bag limit, 
only two of which may be hooded mergansers.
    Coot Limits: The daily bag limit is 15 coots.
    Lake Champlain Zone, N