Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed Frameworks for Early-Season Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations; Notice of Meetings, 43290-43312 [E8-16515]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 143 (Thursday, July 24, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43290-43312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16515]



[[Page 43289]]

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

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. 73, No. 143 / Thursday, July 24, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 43290]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 20

[FWS-R9-MB-2008-0032; 91200-1231-9BPP-L2]
RIN 1018-AV62


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 2008-09 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. This proposed 
rule also provides the final regulatory alternatives for the 2008-09 
duck hunting seasons.

DATES: You must submit comments on the proposed early-season frameworks 
by August 4, 2008. The Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee 
(SRC) will meet to consider and develop proposed regulations for late-
season migratory bird hunting and the 2009 spring/summer migratory bird 
subsistence seasons in Alaska on July 30 and 31, 2008. All meetings 
will commence at approximately 8:30 a.m. Following later Federal 
Register documents, you will be given an opportunity to submit comments 
for proposed late-season frameworks and subsistence migratory bird 
seasons in Alaska by August 31, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the 
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: 1018-AV62; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, 
VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).
    The SRC will meet in room 200 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service's Arlington Square Building, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, 
VA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20240; (703) 358-1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulations Schedule for 2008

    On May 28, 2008, we published in the Federal Register (73 FR 30712) 
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, 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 2008-09 
regulatory cycle relating to open public meetings and Federal Register 
notifications were also identified in the May 28 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. Wood ducks
    ix. Youth Hunt
2. Sea Ducks
3. Mergansers
4. Canada Geese
    A. Special Seasons
    B. Regular Seasons
    C. Special Late Seasons
5. White-fronted Geese
6. Brant
7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
8. Swans
9. Sandhill Cranes
10. Coots
11. Moorhens and Gallinules
12. Rails
13. Snipe
14. Woodcock
15. Band-tailed Pigeons
16. Mourning Doves
17. White-winged and White-tipped Doves
18. Alaska
19. Hawaii
20. Puerto Rico
21. Virgin Islands
22. Falconry
23. Other

    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 18, 2008, we published in the Federal Register (73 FR 
34692) a second document providing supplemental proposals for early- 
and late-season migratory bird hunting regulations. The June 18 
supplement also provided detailed information on the 2008-09 regulatory 
schedule and announced the 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 and the regulatory alternatives for the 2008-09 duck 
hunting seasons. It will lead to final frameworks from which States may 
select season dates, shooting hours, and daily bag and possession 
limits for the 2008-09 season.
    We have considered all pertinent comments received through June 30, 
2008, on the May 28 and June 18, 2008, 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 
17, 2008.

Service Migratory Bird Regulations Committee Meetings

    Participants at the June 25-26, 2008, meetings reviewed information 
on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and 
developed 2008-09 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 July 30-31, 2008, meetings 
will review information on the current

[[Page 43291]]

status of waterfowl and develop recommendations for the 2008-09 
regulations pertaining to regular 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our Web site at https://
fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/report.html.

Waterfowl Breeding 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, helicopters, and ground crews and encompass principal 
breeding areas of North America, covering an area 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 during the 2008 May waterfowl survey 
were characterized in many areas by a delayed spring compared to 
several preceding years. Drought in many parts of the traditional 
survey area contrasted sharply with record amounts of snow and rainfall 
in the eastern survey area.

Traditional Survey Area (U.S. and Canadian Prairies)

    Although spring was delayed in much of the traditional survey area, 
field crews reported that habitat conditions were suitable for nesting 
at the time of the survey. Much of the prairie potholes experienced 
drought conditions this spring and many semi-permanent wetlands and 
livestock dugouts were dry. At the time of the survey this area was 
considered to be in fair to poor condition, with the exceptions being 
regions with temporary and seasonal water in southeastern South Dakota, 
and areas of western South Dakota that received abundant rain and 
snowfall in early May; conditions were classified as good in both of 
these areas. Parts of the prairie pothole region experienced heavy 
rains following completion of the survey. This may improve habitat 
conditions for late nesters and may improve the success of re-nesting 
attempts.
    The parklands were drier in 2008 than in 2007 when excess water 
created much additional waterfowl habitat; still, this area was 
classified as fair to good overall with most seasonal and semi-
permanent wetlands full. A late April snowstorm recharged wetlands in 
some areas of the northern parklands and these areas were classified as 
excellent.

Bush (Alaska, Northern Manitoba, Northern Saskatchewan, Northwest 
Territories, Yukon Territory, Western Ontario)

    In the boreal forest, spring break-up was later in 2008 than in 
recent years, with locally variable snowfall and, consequently, 
variable runoff that resulted in habitat conditions ranging from fair 
in the east to good in the west. Most large lakes were still frozen on 
May 20 in the Northwest Territories; however, warmer temperatures in 
late May led to habitat conditions suitable for nesting during the 
survey period. Good conditions were present throughout Alaska, with 
slightly late spring conditions in some coastal areas.

Eastern Survey Area

    In the eastern survey area, a cold winter with heavy snows and 
colder than average spring temperatures delayed spring conditions by 1-
2 weeks relative to the early springs of preceding years. An exception 
was northern Quebec, which experienced an early spring with most ice 
melting by the last week of May. Quickly rising temperatures combined 
with spring rains led to flooding in parts of Maine and the Maritimes, 
which disrupted spring nesting phenology; as a result habitat 
conditions in these areas were classified as fair. Elsewhere in the 
East, abundant water in most lakes and wetlands resulted in habitat 
conditions being classified as good or excellent.

Status of Teal

    The estimate of blue-winged teal numbers from the Traditional 
Survey Area is 6.6 million. This represents a 1.0 percent decrease from 
2007 and is 45 percent above the 1955-2007 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 2008, uncorrected for visibility 
bias, was 472,128 sandhill cranes. The photo-corrected, 3-year average 
for 2005-07 was 364,281, 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 2007-08. About 9,808 hunters 
participated in these seasons, which was similar to the number that 
participated in the previous season. Hunters harvested 18,610 MCP 
cranes in the U.S. portion of the Central Flyway during the 2007-08 
seasons, which was 6 percent higher than the estimated harvest for the 
previous year. The retrieved harvest of MCP cranes in hunt areas 
outside of the Central Flyway (Arizona, Pacific Flyway portion of New 
Mexico, Alaska, Canada, and Mexico combined) was 13,567 during 2007-08. 
The preliminary estimate for the North American MCP sport harvest, 
including crippling losses, was 36,567 birds, which is similar to 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 2007 pre-migration survey for the Rocky Mountain 
Population (RMP) resulted in a record high count of 22,822 cranes. The 
3-year average for 2004, 2005, and 2007 (no survey was conducted in 
2006) was 20,732 sandhill cranes, which is within established 
population objectives of 17,000-21,000 for the RMP. Hunting seasons 
during 2007-08 in portions of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, 
Utah, and Wyoming, resulted in a harvest of 820 RMP cranes, a 10 
percent decrease from the harvest of 907 the year before.

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 for 2008 
indicate that the number of displaying woodcock in the Eastern Region 
in 2008 was unchanged from 2007, while the Central Region experienced a 
9.2 percent decline. However, we note that measurement of short-term 
(i.e., annual) trends tends to give estimates with larger variances and

[[Page 43292]]

is more prone to be influenced by climatic factors that may affect 
local counts during the survey.There was no significant trend in 
woodcock heard in the Eastern Region during 1998-2008; however, there 
was a declining trend of -1.5 percent per year in the Central Region. 
This represents the fifth consecutive year that the 10-year trend 
estimate for the Eastern Region did not indicate a significant decline, 
while it is the first time since 2003 that the Central Region had a 
declining trend. There were long-term (1968-2008) declines of 1.2 
percent per year in the Eastern Region and 1.1 percent per year in the 
Central Region.
    Wing-collection Survey data indicate that the 2007 recruitment 
index for the U.S. portion of the Eastern Region (1.6 immatures per 
adult female) was 4 percent higher than the 2006 index, and 4 percent 
lower than the long-term average. The recruitment index for the U.S. 
portion of the Central Region (1.5 immatures per adult female) was 10 
percent lower than the 2006 index and 8 percent below the long-term 
average.

Band-tailed Pigeons and Doves

    Annual counts of Interior band-tailed pigeons seen and heard per 
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) route have not changed significantly since 
implementation of the BBS in 1966; however, they decreased 
significantly over the last 10 years. The 2007 harvest was estimated to 
be 4,800 birds. For Pacific Coast band-tailed pigeons, annual BBS 
counts of birds seen and heard per route have decreased since 1966, but 
they have not changed significantly over the last 10 years. According 
to the Pacific Coast Mineral Site Survey, annual counts of Pacific 
Coast band-tailed pigeons seen per mineral site have increased 
significantly since the survey was experimentally implemented in 2001. 
The 2007 harvest was estimated to be 12,700 birds.
    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 43-year period, 1966-2007, all 3 
units exhibited significant declines. In contrast, for doves seen over 
the 10-year period, no significant trends were found for any of the 
three Management Units. Over 43 years, no trend was found for doves 
seen in the Eastern and Central Units while a significant decline was 
indicated for the Western Unit. The preliminary 2007 harvest estimate 
for the United States was 20,550,000 doves. A banding program is 
underway to obtain current information in order to develop mourning 
dove population models for each Management 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.
    The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) monitors white-winged 
dove populations by means of a call-count survey to provide an annual 
index to population size. The index peaked at a mean of 52.3 doves 
heard per route in 1968, but fell precipitously in the late 1970s. The 
index has stabilized to around 25 doves per route in the last few 
years. In 2008, the mean number of doves heard per route was 26.9. AGFD 
also monitors harvest. Harvest during the 15-day season (September 1-
15) peaked in the late 1960s at ~740,000 birds and has since stabilized 
at around 100,000 birds. The 2007 Harvest Information Program (HIP) 
estimate was 127,600 birds. In 2007, Arizona redesigned their dove 
harvest survey questionnaire to sample only from hunters registered 
under HIP. In the future, AGFD and HIP harvest estimates should be more 
comparable than they have been in the past.
    In Texas, white-winged doves continue to expand their breeding 
range. Nesting by whitewings has been recorded in most counties, except 
for the northeastern part of the state primarily. Nesting is 
essentially confined to urban areas, but appears to be expanding to 
exurban areas. Concomitant with this range expansion has been a 
continuing increase in whitewing abundance. A new DISTANCE sampling 
protocol was implemented for Central and South Texas for 2007, and 
expanded in 2008 so that coverage is almost statewide. Once fully 
implemented, biologists should have the ability to obtain a good 
estimate of white-winged dove abundance in Texas. While 2008 data were 
not available at this time, 2007 surveys indicated an estimated 
abundance throughout surveyed areas (representing about 20 percent of 
the State) of about 2,300,000 whitewings. Total Statewide harvest has 
averaged about 2 million birds annually.
    The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department is working to improve 
management of white-winged doves in Texas in the following ways: (1) 
Expanding current surveys of spring populations to encompass areas 
throughout the State that now have breeding populations; (2) Completing 
the Tamaulipas-Texas White-winged Dove Strategic Plan so that there are 
consistent and comparable harvest management strategies, surveys, 
research, and data collection across the breeding range of the species; 
(3) Expanding operational banding in 2008 that was begun in 2007 to 
derive estimates of survival and harvest rates; (4) Implementing a 
wing-collection survey for recruitment rates in lieu of the feeding 
flight and production surveys; (5) Estimating probability of detection 
for more accurate estimates of breeding populations within urban 
environments; and (6) Evaluating and estimating reproductive success in 
urban areas to better estimate population increases.
    In California, BBS data (although imprecise due to a small sample 
size) indicate that there has been a significant increase in the 
population between 1968 and 2007. According to HIP surveys, the 
preliminary harvest estimate for 2007 was 67,900. In New Mexico, BBS 
data (very imprecise due to a small sample size) also showed a 
significant increase over the long term. In 2007, the estimated harvest 
was 64,000.
    White-tipped doves are believed to be maintaining a relatively 
stable population in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of Texas. 
DISTANCE sampling procedures in the LRGV include whitetips. However, 
until the sampling frame includes rural Rio Grande corridor habitats, 
not many whitetips will be reported. Sampling frame issues are expected 
to be resolved by next year. However, annual white-tipped dove harvest 
during the special season is only averaging 3,000-4,000 birds.

Review of Public Comments

    The preliminary proposed rulemaking (May 28 Federal Register) 
opened the public comment period for migratory game bird hunting 
regulations and announced the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 
2008-09 duck hunting season. Comments concerning early-season issues 
and the proposed alternatives are summarized below and numbered in the 
order used in the May 28 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

[[Page 43293]]

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 May 28 Federal Register document.

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 
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) 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. Both 
Committees further recommended not implementing the western mallard 
Adaptive Harvest Management (AHM) protocol.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended not implementing the western 
mallard AHM protocol.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended implementing the Service's 
proposal for a revised protocol for managing the harvest of mallards in 
Western North America. They further recommended inclusion of the 
following initial components:
    (1) Regulation packages that are currently in place in the Pacific 
Flyway and generally described as Liberal, Moderate, Restrictive, and 
Closed, with associated target harvest rates of 12, 8, 4, and 0 
percent, respectively;
    (2) A harvest objective that corresponds to no more than 95 percent 
of the Maximum Sustained Yield (MSY) on the yield curve (they further 
note that current harvest estimates suggest that the current Pacific 
Flyway mallard harvest is at 80 percent of MSY);
    (3) Consider use of a weighting factor within the decision matrix 
that would soften the knife-edge effect of optimal policies when 
regulation changes are warranted;
    (4) No change in the duck regulation provisions for Alaska, except 
implementation through the western mallard AHM strategy;
    (5) An optimization based only on western mallards; and
    (6) Clarification of the impacts of removing Alaska from the mid-
continent mallard strategy.
    They also requested that the Service explore options of 
incorporating mallards and other waterfowl stocks derived from surveyed 
areas in Canada important to the Pacific Flyway (e.g., Alberta, 
Northwest Territories) into the decision process in the future.
    Service Response: As we stated in the May 28 Federal Register, we 
intend to continue use of adaptive harvest management (AHM) to help 
determine appropriate duck-hunting regulations for the 2008-09 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 May 28 Federal Register, we 
also stated our intent for the 2008-09 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).
    We agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to 
implement the western mallard AHM protocol for the 2008-09 hunting 
season. However, implementation of this new AHM decision framework for 
western mallards requires several other considerations. First, we 
believe that implementation of this new protocol necessitates that we 
``rescale'' the closed season constraint in the existing mid-continent 
mallard (identified above as those breeding in central North America) 
AHM strategy to 4.75 million mallards from the existing 5.5 million 
mallards. This ``rescaling'' is necessary to adjust for removing 
mallards breeding in Alaska from the mid-continent population and 
assigning them to the western mallard population. Second, the optimal 
regulatory policies for western mallards (and mid-continent mallards) 
would be based on independent optimization. That is, the optimum 
regulations for mid-continent mallards and western mallards would be 
determined independently, and based upon the breeding stock that 
contributes primarily to each Flyway (western mallards for the Pacific 
Flyway and mid-continent mallards for the Central and Mississippi 
Flyways). Third, that the current regulatory alternatives remain in 
place for the Pacific Flyway, while we continue to work with the Flyway 
to develop regulatory options necessary to effect a substantive 
increase or decrease in the harvest rate of western mallards. And 
lastly, regulations in Alaska would continue to be addressed as an 
early season issue and future consideration of Alaska regulatory 
changes would be based on the status of the western

[[Page 43294]]

mallards rather than mid-continent mallards.
    Additionally, 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 2008-09 season.
    Regarding incorporation of a one-step constraint into the AHM 
process, our incorporation of a one-step constraint into the AHM 
process was addressed by the AHM Task Force of the Association of Fish 
and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) 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. Currently, there is no consensus on behalf of the Flyway Councils 
on how to modify the regulatory alternatives. We believe that the new 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird 
hunting program (see NEPA Consideration section), currently in 
preparation, may be an appropriate venue for considering such changes 
in a more comprehensive manner that involves input from all Flyways.
    We will propose a specific regulatory alternative for each of the 
Flyways during the 2008-09 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.

B. Regulatory Alternatives

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
that the current restriction of two hens in the 4-bird mallard daily 
bag limit be removed from the ``liberal'' package in the Atlantic 
Flyway to allow the harvest of 4 mallards of any sex.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council and the Central Flyway Council recommended 
that regulatory alternatives for duck hunting seasons remain the same 
as those used in 2007.
    Service Response: We do not support the Atlantic Flyway Council's 
proposal to remove the hen mallard restriction in the ``liberal'' 
alternative for the Atlantic Flyway. The AHM approach requires that the 
regulatory packages remain relatively constant over time to insure 
relatively consistent expected impacts of the various harvest 
management alternatives. Additionally, we strongly support the 
development and inclusion of a process to review and revise the basic 
regulatory packages. As we stated above, we believe that the new 
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird 
hunting program (see NEPA Consideration section), currently in 
preparation, may be an appropriate venue for considering such changes 
in a more comprehensive manner that involves input from all Flyways. We 
do not support a frequent and/or piecemeal approach to the review and 
revision of the basic regulatory packages and believe that such an 
approach would not be consistent with the existing AHM process.
    Therefore, the regulatory alternatives proposed in the May 28 
Federal Register will be used for the 2008-09 hunting season (see 
accompanying table for specifics). In 2005, the AHM regulatory 
alternatives were modified to consist only of the maximum season 
lengths, framework dates, and bag limits for total ducks and mallards. 
Restrictions for certain species within these frameworks that are not 
covered by existing harvest strategies will be addressed during the 
late-season regulations process. For those species with harvest 
strategies (canvasbacks, pintails, black ducks, and scaup), those 
strategies will be used for the 2008-09 hunting season.

D. Special Seasons/Species Management

i. September Teal Seasons
    Utilizing the criteria developed for the teal season harvest 
strategy, this year's estimate of 6.6 million blue-winged teal from the 
traditional survey area indicates that a 16-day September teal season 
in the Central and Mississippi Flyway and a 9-day September teal season 
in the Atlantic Flyway is appropriate in 2008.
iii. Black Ducks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council endorsed the 
interim international harvest strategy for black ducks, with the 
following modifications: (1) The original criteria of a 25 percent 
change in the 5-year running average from the long-term (1998-2007) 
breeding population (BPOP) should be changed to a 15 percent change 
measured by a 3-year running average, and (2) the original criteria of 
a 5-year running average to measure parity should be changed to a 3-
year running average.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council endorsed the agreement in concept and the 
interim approach to the harvest management of black ducks as outlined 
by the Black Duck International Management Group.
    Service Response: For several years we have consulted with the 
Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils, the Canadian Wildlife 
Service, and provincial wildlife agencies in eastern Canada concerning 
the development of an international harvest strategy for black ducks. 
As we described in the June 18 Federal Register, in 2008, U.S. and 
Canadian waterfowl managers developed a draft interim harvest strategy 
that was designed to be employed by both countries over the next three 
seasons (2008-09 to 2010-11), allowing time for the development of a 
formal strategy based on the principles of Adaptive Harvest Management. 
The interim harvest strategy is prescriptive, in that it would call for 
no substantive changes in hunting regulations unless the black duck 
breeding population, averaged over the most recent 3 years, exceeds or 
falls below the long-term average breeding population by 15 percent or 
more. It would allow additional harvest opportunity (commensurate with 
the population increase) if the 3-year average breeding population 
exceeds the long-term average by 15 percent or more, and would require 
reduction of harvest opportunity if the 3-year average falls below the 
long-term average by 15 percent or more. The strategy is designed to 
share the black duck harvest equally between the two countries; 
however, recognizing incomplete control of harvest through regulations, 
it will allow realized harvest in either country to vary between 40 and 
60 percent.
    We support the interim international black duck harvest strategy 
put forward by the International Black Duck Management Group and 
propose to adopt its use for the 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 seasons, 
unless it is supplanted by a new, fully adaptive strategy prior to the 
2010-11 season. We note that this strategy was recommended by the 
Mississippi Flyway Council, and differs from the Atlantic Flyway 
Council's recommendation only in that it employs a 5-year running 
average to assess harvest parity between Canada and the United States, 
rather than the 3-year average recommended by the Atlantic Flyway 
Council. We support the 5-year average negotiated in the International 
Agreement.
iv. Canvasbacks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
that the canvasback harvest strategy be

[[Page 43295]]

modified to include a provision to allow a daily bag limit of 2 
canvasbacks when the predicted breeding population is greater than 
750,000 birds.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended an alternative canvasback 
harvest management strategy that uses threshold levels based on 
breeding population size in order to determine bag limits. These 
threshold levels would allow 2 canvasbacks per day when the population 
is above 800,000, 1 canvasback per day when the population is between 
400,000 and 800,000, and close the season when the population drops 
below 400,000.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended maintaining the current 
canvasback harvest strategy and updating harvest predictions in the 
current model.
    The Pacific Flyway Council requested revision of the canvasback 
harvest strategy to include a harvest management prescription for a 
two-bird, full season option when the canvasback breeding population 
and predicted harvest will sustain the population at or above 600,000.
    Service Response: In the May 28 and June 18 Federal Registers, we 
indicated our support for modification of the existing canvasback 
strategy to allow for a 2-bird daily bag limit when the projected 
breeding population in the next year exceeds an established threshold 
level. Our support was contingent on receiving Flyway Council and 
public input regarding the exact threshold level to be employed for the 
bag limit increase. Based on our recent biological assessment this 
threshold should fall between 600,000 and 750,000 canvasbacks projected 
as the next year's breeding population.
    After consideration of the various Flyway Council proposals, we 
have modified the existing canvasback harvest strategy to allow a 2-
bird bag when the breeding population in the following year is 
projected to be at least 725,000 birds. This approach is consistent 
with the guidance previously offered by the Service. Further, we prefer 
to retain use of the existing canvasback strategy rather than replace 
it with the more prescriptive approach advocated by the Upper- and 
Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council. 
In addition, we will undertake a review of the existing canvasback 
strategy and model structures as time and opportunity permit.
v. Pintails
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
several modifications and considerations for the proposed pintail 
derived harvest strategy. They recommended we continue exploration of a 
derived strategy versus a prescribed strategy and consider a closure 
constraint. They also commented that Flyway-specific bag limits may not 
be needed to maintain the desired harvest distribution.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended continued use of the current 
prescribed northern pintail harvest management strategy until they can 
see further modeling results of emphasizing a management objective that 
minimizes the frequency of closed and partial seasons.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that the proposed derived 
pintail harvest strategy not be adopted and recommended continued use 
of the current prescribed strategy.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended that the current prescribed 
harvest management protocol for pintail be continued in 2008.
    Service Response: Based on Flyway Council comments and 
recommendations, we propose to continue the use of the current pintail 
harvest strategy for the 2008-09 season. We will continue to work with 
the Flyway Councils to address their concerns on a derived strategy 
over the next year.
vi. Scaup
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
implementation of the proposed scaup harvest strategy in 2008 
conditional upon several modifications:
    (1) A harvest management objective that achieves 95 percent of the 
long-term cumulative harvest when the breeding population is less than 
4.0 million birds;
    (2) Seasons remain open when the breeding population is at or above 
2 million scaup;
    (3) Agreement to use alternative methodology developed by the 
Atlantic Flyway Technical Section to predict scaup harvests in the 
Atlantic Flyway;
    (4) Allow a ``hybrid'' season option for the Atlantic Flyway that 
allows for at least 20 days of the general duck season to have a daily 
bag limit of at least 2 while the remaining days would have a daily bag 
limit of 1;
    (5) A ``restrictive'' harvest package in the Atlantic Flyway 
consisting of a 20-day season with a daily bag limit of 2, and a 40-day 
season with a daily bag limit of 1;
    (6) A ``moderate'' harvest package in the Atlantic Flyway 
consisting of a 60-day season with a daily bag limit of 2;
    (7) A ``liberal'' harvest package in the Atlantic Flyway consisting 
of a 60-day season with a daily bag limit of 3;
    (8) Designation of the proposed strategy as ``interim'' and subject 
to immediate reconsideration if alternative/competing scaup population 
models are available that will inform management decisions; and
    (9) Reconsideration of the model elements after 3 years.
    The Council also urged us to expedite the exploration of 
alternative/competing models describing scaup population dynamics that 
may be used to inform a harvest management strategy.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council recommended we not adopt the proposed scaup 
harvest strategy and urged us to delay implementation until some 
alternative models can be developed.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that we delay implementation 
of the proposed scaup harvest strategy until alternative models are 
developed and evaluated.
    The Pacific Flyway Council supported the implementation of a scaup 
harvest strategy in 2008, with the following conditions:
    (1) A ``shoulder'' strategy objective that corresponds to 95 
percent of MSY;
    (2) Revision of harvest prediction models to provide a greater 
capacity to predict Pacific Flyway scaup harvest; and
    (3) Revision of flyway harvest allocations to recognize proportions 
of greater scaup in flyway harvests.
    They also urged us to continue to work on alternative models to 
incorporate into the decision framework as soon as possible.
    Written Comments: Several non-governmental organizations expressed 
concerns about the proposed scaup harvest strategy and potential scaup 
bag limit reductions. Both organizations urged consideration of 
alternative models. One organization also submitted a detailed review 
of the scaup harvest strategy by a review panel.
    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

[[Page 43296]]

2007 breeding population estimate for scaup was 3.45 million, 
essentially unchanged from the 2006 estimate, and the third lowest 
estimate on record.
    In the May 28 Federal Register, we reviewed the actions we have 
taken over the last few years to synthesize data relevant to scaup 
harvest management and frame a scientifically-sound scaup harvest 
strategy (for a complete list of reports see https://www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds/reports/reports.html). We also solicited Flyway Council 
feedback regarding alternative approaches to developing and 
implementing a scaup harvest strategy, seeking specific feedback on 
three alternative courses of action:
    (1) Delay implementation of any strategy and continue to work on 
the alternative model(s) of population dynamics;
    (2) Implement the strategy proposed in the June 8 and July 23, 
2007, Federal Registers (72 FR 31789 and 72 FR 40194) and continue to 
work on the alternative model(s); or
    (3) Discontinue work on alternative models and implement the 
strategy proposed last year.
    In addition, we sought feedback from the Flyway Councils regarding 
several policy issues. These included the specific objectives that 
would be used to derive a scaup harvest strategy, the appropriate 
Flyway-specific harvest models that will be used in part to determine 
Flyway-specific regulatory alternatives, and feedback regarding flyway-
specific combinations of bag limit and season length that would meet 
target harvest levels under each regulatory package (restrictive, 
moderate, and liberal).
    After considering Flyway Council feedback, we proposed in the June 
18 Federal Register to adopt the scaup harvest strategy as originally 
proposed last year (June 8 and July 23, 2007, Federal Registers, 72 FR 
31789 and 72 FR 40194). We stated then, and continue to believe, that 
an informed, scientifically-based decision process is far preferable to 
any other approach. Further, we noted that we had been patient in 
allowing additional time for review of the proposed strategy by the 
Flyway Councils and general public. We acknowledge and support the 
comments received that suggest additional models based on changing 
carrying capacity should be investigated and used if they can be 
developed and are supported by existing scaup population data. However, 
we note that we consider all strategies currently employed for species-
specific harvest regulation to be subject to further analysis, review 
and improvement as new information becomes available, and we intend to 
pursue such improvements for the proposed scaup strategy.
    We have considered the Flyway Councils' recommendations. At this 
time, we believe that the decision-making framework for scaup proposed 
last year provides the best available scientific basis for regulatory 
decision-making. Thus, we propose to implement this harvest strategy 
for scaup in 2008.
    Regarding the specifics of the various Flyway Council 
recommendations on the proposed strategy, we support the recommendation 
of the Pacific Flyway Council to implement a revised version of the 
Pacific Flyway harvest model since this model does provide for slightly 
improved harvest predictions over our initially proposed model.
    While we do not support the alternative harvest model proposed by 
the Atlantic Flyway Council, we understand the Council's concerns 
regarding the initial harvest model we proposed and request that the 
Flyway continue to work with us to develop a harvest model with broader 
support within the Atlantic Flyway.
    We also support the recommendations of the Atlantic and Pacific 
Flyway Councils that the harvest management objective for scaup should 
be to achieve 95 percent of the maximum sustainable harvest. We do not 
currently support the Atlantic Flyway Council's recommendations that an 
objective of 95 percent of maximum sustainable harvest be in effect 
until the scaup population exceeds a breeding population of 4 million 
and that a closed season constraint of 2 million scaup be included in 
the objective function. We believe that these particular 
recommendations should be reviewed and considered by all four Flyways.
    We also do not accept the Pacific Flyway's recommendation that the 
flyway-specific harvest allocation be modified to reflect the 
distribution of harvest of greater and lesser scaup based on the belief 
that the status of greater scaup is not of concern. The monitoring 
programs for scaup do not currently support species-specific management 
and we believe that additional effort is required to ascertain the 
species-specific status and harvest potential of greater and lesser 
scaup prior to considering this recommendation further. Additionally, 
we feel that any questions of harvest allocation need to be addressed 
broadly by all four flyways as this recommendation would alter the 
harvest allocation for all flyways.
    Finally, we do not support the Atlantic Flyway Council's 
recommendation for a hybrid season as it is currently presented. We are 
concerned that this season configuration may not result in the 
necessary harvest reduction under a ``restrictive'' package due to the 
timing and duration of the 2-bird daily bag portion of the season that 
potentially could be selected by individual States.
    Consistent with all harvest strategies, we remain committed to 
working with the Flyway Councils to continue to refine the assessment 
and decision-making framework and to improve the scientific basis for 
scaup regulatory decisions.
    Given our decision to implement the strategy in 2008, it is 
critical that we receive recommendations from the Flyway Councils this 
July on season lengths and daily bag limits that would define Flyway-
specific ``restrictive,'' ``moderate,'' and ``liberal'' regulatory 
alternatives that are predicted to achieve Flyway-specific harvest 
allocations under each package. It is our intent that, once defined, 
these packages would remain fixed in each Flyway for a period of 3 
years at which time they would be re-examined in light of realized 
scaup harvests.
    Lastly, we would like to acknowledge the report of the scaup 
harvest strategy review panel, but note that many of the committee's 
concerns have been previously addressed during the development and 
review process that has been ongoing since 2003. However, several 
comments dealt with specific technical issues that we agree are worthy 
of additional investigation. Nonetheless, we do not believe that such 
work precludes the use of the best assessment currently available to 
determine the appropriate level of harvest of scaup. Much of the focus 
of the comments received has been toward the development of competing 
models, and we acknowledge that such model(s) would be desirable. We 
note, however, that alternative models as described in the review panel 
report do not presently exist and that there are considerable technical 
hurdles to their development. Specific details of the review panel's 
report, all the comments received, and our more detailed technical 
responses can be found on our Web site at https://fws.gov/
migratorybirds/reports/report.html or at https://www.regulations.gov.
viii. Wood Ducks
    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council provided the 
following comments on the proposed wood duck harvest strategy:
    (1) The Council endorses the use of the Potential Biological 
Removal method for calculating allowable harvest;

[[Page 43297]]

    (2) Adult males should be the cohort to monitor;
    (3) The management objective should be MSY, with the test criteria 
that the upper 95 percent confidence interval of the 3-year running 
average of both northern and region-wide adult male observed kill rates 
not exceed MSY based on their respective allowable kill rates;
    (4) Should monitoring show impact on northern males, the harvest 
strategy should revert to a 2-bird daily bag limit;
    (5) Bag limits should be allowed to differ between flyways; and
    (6) The strategy should be adopted in 2008.
    The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the 
Mississippi Flyway Council endorsed use of the Potential Biological 
Removal method to assess wood duck harvest potential and provided the 
following guidance on outstanding wood duck harvest management policy 
issues:
    (1) Monitor adult male kill rates from the Atlantic and Mississippi 
Flyways combined to determine whether actual kill rates exceed 
allowable kill rates;
    (2) Use the point of Maximum Sustained Yield (\1/2\ 
rmax), combined with a test criteria requirement that the 
upper 95 percent confidence interval of the observed kill rate be below 
the allowable kill rate, as the management objective;
    (3) Allow wood duck bag limits to differ between the Atlantic and 
Mississippi Flyways; and
    (4) Implement in the 2008-09 season.
    The Central Flyway Council recommended that the Central Flyway be 
included in the development and implementation of the wood duck harvest 
strategy for the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways.
    Written Comments: In a joint recommendation submitted at the June 
25 Service Regulations Committee meeting, the Atlantic, Mississippi, 
and Central Flyway Councils recommended:
    (1) Endorsement of the use of the Potential Biological Removal 
(PBR) method for calculating allowable harvest;
    (2) Bag limits should be allowed to differ between flyways;
    (3) The cohorts to monitor for the Atlantic Flyway are both range-
wide and northern adult males banded in the Atlantic Flyway:
    (4) The cohort to monitor for the Mississippi and Central Flyways 
is range-wide adult males banded in the Mississippi and Central Flyway;
    (5) The management objective should be allowable kill rate (AKR), 
with the test criteria that the upper 95% confidence interval of the 3-
year running average of the monitored cohort observed kill rates not 
exceed AKR;
    (6) The strategy, including 3-bird bag limit, should be adopted for 
an experimental 3-year period beginning in 2008; and
    (7) The Service should calculate allowable kill rates that are 
specific to the Atlantic Flyway, and specific to the Central and 
Mississippi Flyways combined before the experimental period is 
complete.
    Service Response: In the May 28 Federal Register, we reported on 
the significant technical progress that had been made in estimating the 
harvest potential of wood ducks in the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway. 
This progress included our preparation of a scoping document describing 
how our assessment of the harvest potential could fit within an overall 
harvest strategy for wood ducks (see https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
reports/reports.html).
    While we have not formally proposed a wood duck harvest strategy, 
we stated our support for a wood duck harvest strategy based on the 
Potential Biological Removal method, with the management objective of 
95 percent confidence that harvest will not exceed an allowable kill 
rate equal to the estimated harvest rate which would achieve the 
maximum long-term sustainable harvest. We further stated in the June 18 
Federal Register that we planned to evaluate feedback from the Flyways 
in order to make a determination whether it would be feasible to 
consider implementation of a wood duck harvest strategy for the 
Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways in 2008. After considering 
the Flyway Councils' comments and recommendations, we do not support 
adoption of a wood duck harvest strategy at this time. We do, however, 
continue to strongly support the development of such a strategy and 
request the Flyways continued help and cooperation in developing one. 
Our delay in adopting the strategy is based largely on the fact that 
our current assessment of harvest potential did not evaluate an east/
west split, nor did it consider separate monitoring of kill rates of 
Atlantic Flyway and Mississippi/Central Flyway wood ducks, which would 
be required by this new proposal. Additionally, we support an approach 
that treats the eastern population of wood ducks as a whole and are 
willing to work with the Flyways to determine the appropriate cohort 
for monitoring kill rates. We believe that additional dialogue is 
needed to decide upon the appropriate monitoring cohort, and clarify 
other aspects of this new proposal. We look forward to continued work 
with the Flyway Councils to complete this important harvest strategy.

4. Canada Geese

A. Special Seasons

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended 
allowing a 10-day experimental extension of the September Resident 
Canada goose season in Delaware from September 16 to September 25 
consistent with September Canada goose seasons in Atlantic Population 
(AP) zones in the adjacent States of Pennsylvania and New Jersey and 
other States in the Atlantic Flyway. They requested that this 
experimental season be permitted for a 3-year period, at which time an 
analysis of direct band recoveries will be conducted to determine if 
the harvest of AP Canada geese exceeds 10 percent of the overall goose 
harvest during Delaware's 10-day extension of the early season. This 
extended season will not incorporate the ``expanded hunting methods'' 
and would be implemented in 2008.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended allowing Wyoming to modify 
its current framework that allows 4 geese per season to a 4-bird 
possession limit.
    Service Response: We support the Atlantic Flyway Council's request 
to allow a 10-day extension of Delaware's September Canada goose season 
on an experimental basis for 3 years. We note that Delaware's 
evaluation plan meets the criteria currently set forth by the Service 
for experimental Canada goose seasons. Further, we would also note that 
we plan to review the efficacy of these criteria in the near future, 
but we do not believe that such a review will have any impact on this 
proposal.
    We also support the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation 
regarding Wyoming and note that this requested possession limit change 
falls within previously established frameworks for September Canada 
goose seasons.

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, 2008.
    Service Response: We concur. As we stated last year (72 FR 40194), 
we agree with the objective to increase harvest pressure on resident 
Canada geese in the Mississippi Flyway and will continue to

[[Page 43298]]

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 2008 Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) sandhill 
crane harvest allocation of 1,633 birds as proposed in the allocation 
formula using the 3-year running average. They further recommended that 
a new RMP greater sandhill crane hunt area be established in Uinta 
County, Wyoming.
    The Pacific Flyway Council recommended modifying Wyoming's RMP hunt 
areas by: (1) Expanding the hunt area in Lincoln County to include the 
Hams Fork drainage, and (2) expanding Area 6 in the Bighorn Basin to 
include all of Park, Bighorn, Hot Springs and Washakie Counties. The 
Council also recommended initiating a limited hunt for Lower Colorado 
River sandhill cranes in Arizona, with the goal of the hunt being a 
limited harvest of 6 cranes in January. To limit harvest, Arizona would 
issue permit tags to hunters and require mandatory checking 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: Last year the Pacific Flyway Council recommended, 
and we approved, the establishment of a limited hunt for the Lower 
Colorado River Valley Population (LCRVP) of sandhill cranes in Arizona 
(72 FR 49622). However, the population inventory on which the LCRVP 
hunt plan is based was not completed last year. Thus, the Arizona Game 
and Fish Department chose to not conduct the hunt last year. We 
continue to support the continuation of the 3-year experimental 
framework for this hunt conditional on successful monitoring being 
conducted as called for in the Flyway hunt plan for this population.
    Our final environmental assessment (FEA) on this new hunt 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/
reports.html or at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Regarding the establishment of a new RMP greater sandhill crane 
hunt area in Uinta County, Wyoming, and the Pacific Flyway Council's 
recommended modification of several of Wyoming's RMP hunt areas, we 
agree. All of these areas are within existing RMP hunt plans and RMP 
harvest is controlled by the RMP crane harvest allocation identified in 
the RMP hunt plan.

16. Mourning Doves

    Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council and the Upper- 
and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway 
Council recommended that States within the Eastern Management Unit 
should be offered a 70-day season and 15-bird daily bag limit for the 
2008-09 mourning dove hunting season, and the dichotomous hunting 
season structure should be eliminated.
    The Atlantic Flyway Council, the Upper- and Lower-Region 
Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council, and the 
Central Flyway Council submitted interim mourning dove harvest 
management strategies for the Eastern Management Unit and the Central 
Management Unit for implementation in 2009.
    Service Response: We concur with the recommendation to eliminate 
dichotomous bag limit choice and standardize the dove hunting framework 
to a 70-day season with a 15-bird daily bag limit in the Eastern 
Management Unit beginning with the 2008-09 season. Our assessment 
indicates that the increase in harvest will be minimal. We agree that 
this will be a simplification in the regulations and facilitate future 
harvest evaluations.
    We also accept and endorse the interim harvest strategies for the 
Central and Eastern Management Units and await the submittal of an 
interim harvest strategy for the Western Management Unit in late July. 
The interim mourning dove harvest strategies are a step towards 
implementing the Mourning Dove National Strategic Harvest Plan (Plan) 
that was approved by all four Flyway Councils in 2003. The Plan 
represents a new, more informed means of decision-making for dove 
harvest management besides relying solely on traditional roadside 
counts of mourning doves as indicators of population trend. However, 
recognizing that a more comprehensive, national approach would take 
time to develop, we requested the development of interim harvest 
strategies, by management unit, until the elements of the Plan can be 
fully implemented. In 2004, each management unit submitted its 
respective strategy, but the strategies used different datasets and 
different approaches or methods. After initial submittal and review in 
2006, we requested that the strategies be revised, using similar, 
existing datasets among the management units along with similar 
decision-making criteria. In January 2008, we recommended that, 
following approval by the respective Flyway Councils in March, they be 
submitted in 2008 for endorsement by the Service with implementation 
for the 2009-10 hunting season.

18. Alaska

    Council Recommendations: The Pacific Flyway Council recommended 
maintaining status quo in the Alaska early season framework, except for 
increasing the daily bag limit for canvasbacks to 2 per day with 6 in 
possession, and increasing the daily bag limit for brant to 3 per day 
with 6 in possession.
    Service Response: We concur with the Pacific Flyway Council's 
recommendation for an increase in the daily bag and possession limit 
for brant. However, we do not support increasing the canvasback daily 
bag limit to 2 birds per day for the 2008-09 season. Our proposal is 
based on two factors: (1) There is no biological data currently 
available to justify a 2-bird daily bag limit for canvasbacks for the 
2008-09 season, and (2) we note that prior to this year, the canvasback 
strategy had no provisions for a daily bag limit greater than one bird. 
In recognition of our change to the canvasback harvest strategy 
(discussed above in 1.D.iv. Canvasbacks), we request that the Pacific 
Flyway, in conjunction with Alaska, develop a recommendation on how to 
effectively incorporate Alaska into any future regulations when 2-bird 
daily bags are offered during the late season regulatory process.

20. Pue