[Federal Register: May 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 103)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30711-30722]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28my08-28]
[[Page 30711]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 20
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 2008-09 Migratory Game Bird Hunting
Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals and
Requests for 2009 Spring/Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest
Proposals in Alaska; Proposed Rule
[[Page 30712]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2008-09 Migratory Game Bird
Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal
Proposals and Requests for 2009 Spring/Summer Migratory Bird
Subsistence Harvest Proposals in Alaska
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter the Service or
we) proposes to establish annual hunting regulations for certain
migratory game birds for the 2008-09 hunting season. We annually
prescribe outside limits (frameworks) within which States may select
hunting seasons. This proposed rule provides the regulatory schedule,
describes the proposed regulatory alternatives for the 2008-09 duck
hunting seasons, requests proposals from Indian tribes that wish to
establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations on Federal
Indian reservations and ceded lands, and requests proposals for the
2009 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence season in Alaska.
Migratory game bird hunting seasons provide hunting opportunities for
recreation and sustenance; aid Federal, State, and tribal governments
in the management of migratory game birds; and permit harvests at
levels compatible with migratory game bird population status and
habitat conditions.
DATES: You must submit comments on the proposed regulatory alternatives
for the 2008-09 duck hunting seasons by June 27, 2008. Following later
Federal Register documents, you will be given an opportunity to submit
comments for proposed early-season frameworks by July 31, 2008, and for
proposed late-season frameworks and subsistence migratory bird seasons
in Alaska by August 31, 2008. Tribes must submit proposals and related
comments by June 1, 2008. Proposals from the Co-management Council for
the 2009 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence harvest season must
be submitted to the Flyway Councils and the Service by June 15, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the proposals by one of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
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
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section
below for more information).
Proposals for the 2009 spring/summer migratory bird subsistence
season in Alaska should be sent to the Executive Director of the Co-
management Council, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road,
Anchorage, AK 99503, or fax to (907) 786-3306 or e-mail to
ambcc@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron W. Kokel, at: Division of
Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department
of the Interior, MS MBSP-4107-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC
20240, (703) 358-1714. For information on the migratory bird
subsistence season in Alaska, contact Fred Armstrong, (907) 786-3887,
or Donna Dewhurst, (907) 786-3499, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011
E. Tudor Road, Mail Stop 201, Anchorage, AK 99503.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Overview
Migratory game birds are those bird species so designated in
conventions between the United States and several foreign nations for
the protection and management of these birds. Under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to determine when ``hunting, taking, capture, killing,
possession, sale, purchase, shipment, transportation, carriage, or
export of any * * * bird, or any part, nest, or egg'' of migratory game
birds can take place, and to adopt regulations for this purpose. These
regulations are written after giving due regard to ``the zones of
temperature and to the distribution, abundance, economic value,
breeding habits, and times and lines of migratory flight of such
birds'' and are updated annually (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). This
responsibility has been delegated to the Service as the lead Federal
agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United
States.
The Service develops migratory game bird hunting regulations by
establishing the frameworks, or outside limits, for season lengths, bag
limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. Acknowledging
regional differences in hunting conditions, the Service has
administratively divided the nation into four Flyways for the primary
purpose of managing migratory game birds. Each Flyway (Atlantic,
Mississippi, Central, and Pacific) has a Flyway Council, a formal
organization generally composed of one member from each State and
Province in that Flyway. The Flyway Councils, established through the
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), also
assist in researching and providing migratory game bird management
information for Federal, State, and Provincial Governments, as well as
private conservation agencies and the general public.
The process for adopting migratory game bird hunting regulations,
located at 50 CFR part 20, is constrained by three primary factors.
Legal and administrative considerations dictate how long the rulemaking
process will last. Most importantly, however, the biological cycle of
migratory game birds controls the timing of data-gathering activities
and thus the dates on which these results are available for
consideration and deliberation.
The process includes two separate regulations-development
schedules, based on early and late hunting season regulations. Early
hunting seasons pertain to all migratory game bird species in Alaska,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands; migratory game birds other
than waterfowl (i.e., dove, woodcock, etc.); and special early
waterfowl seasons, such as teal or resident Canada geese. Early hunting
seasons generally begin prior to October 1. Late hunting seasons
generally start on or after October 1 and include most waterfowl
seasons not already established.
There are basically no differences in the processes for
establishing either early or late hunting seasons. For each cycle,
Service biologists gather, analyze, and interpret biological survey
data and provide this information to all those involved in the process
through a series of published status reports and presentations to
Flyway Councils and other interested parties. Because the Service is
required to take abundance of migratory game birds and other factors
into consideration, the Service undertakes a number of surveys
throughout the year in conjunction with Service Regional Offices, the
Canadian Wildlife Service, and State and
[[Page 30713]]
Provincial wildlife-management agencies. To determine the appropriate
frameworks for each species, we consider factors such as population
size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the
condition of breeding and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and
the anticipated harvest.
After frameworks, or outside limits, are established for season
lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting,
migratory game bird management becomes a cooperative effort of State
and Federal governments. After Service establishment of final
frameworks for hunting seasons, the States may select season dates, bag
limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States
may always be more conservative in their selections than the Federal
frameworks but never more liberal.
Notice of Intent To Establish Open Seasons
This notice announces our intent to establish open hunting seasons
and daily bag and possession limits for certain designated groups or
species of migratory game birds for 2008-09 in the contiguous United
States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, under
Sec. Sec. 20.101 through 20.107, 20.109, and 20.110 of subpart K of 50
CFR part 20.
For the 2008-09 migratory game bird hunting season, we will propose
regulations for certain designated members of the avian families
Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans); Columbidae (doves and pigeons);
Gruidae (cranes); Rallidae (rails, coots, moorhens, and gallinules);
and Scolopacidae (woodcock and snipe). We describe these proposals
under Proposed 2008-09 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations
(Preliminary) in this document. We published definitions of waterfowl
flyways and mourning dove management units, as well as a description of
the data used in and the factors affecting the regulatory process, in
the March 14, 1990 Federal Register (55 FR 9618).
Regulatory Schedule for 2008-09
This document is the first in a series of proposed, supplemental,
and final rulemaking documents for migratory game bird hunting
regulations. We will publish additional supplemental proposals for
public comment in the Federal Register as population, habitat, harvest,
and other information become available. Because of the late dates when
certain portions of these data become available, we anticipate
abbreviated comment periods on some proposals. Special circumstances
limit the amount of time we can allow for public comment on these
regulations.
Specifically, two considerations compress the time for the
rulemaking process: The need, on one hand, to establish final rules
early enough in the summer to allow resource agencies to select and
publish season dates and bag limits prior to the beginning of hunting
seasons and, on the other hand, the lack of current status data on most
migratory game birds until later in the summer. Because the regulatory
process is strongly influenced by the times when information is
available for consideration, we divide the regulatory process into two
segments: early seasons and late seasons (further described and
discussed under the Background and Overview section).
Major steps in the 2008-09 regulatory cycle relating to open public
meetings and Federal Register notifications are illustrated in the
diagram at the end of this proposed rule. All publication dates of
Federal Register documents are target dates.
All sections of this and subsequent documents outlining hunting
frameworks and guidelines are organized under numbered headings. These
headings are:
1. Ducks
A. General Harvest Strategy
B. Regulatory Alternatives
C. Zones and Split Seasons
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
i. September Teal Seasons
ii. September Teal/Wood Duck Seasons
iii. Black ducks
iv. Canvasbacks
v. Pintails
vi. Scaup
vii. Mottled ducks
viii. Wood ducks
ix. Youth Hunt
2. Sea Ducks
3. Mergansers
4. Canada Geese
A. Special Seasons
B. Regular Seasons
C. Special Late Seasons
5. White-fronted Geese
6. Brant
7. Snow and Ross's (Light) Geese
8. Swans
9. Sandhill Cranes
10. Coots
11. Moorhens and Gallinules
12. Rails
13. Snipe
14. Woodcock
15. Band-tailed Pigeons
16. Mourning Doves
17. White-winged and White-tipped Doves
18. Alaska
19. Hawaii
20. Puerto Rico
21. Virgin Islands
22. Falconry
23. Other
Later sections of this and subsequent documents will refer only to
numbered items requiring your attention. Therefore, it is important to
note that we will omit those items requiring no attention, and
remaining numbered items will be discontinuous and appear incomplete.
We will publish final regulatory alternatives for the 2008-09 duck
hunting seasons in mid-July. We will publish proposed early season
frameworks in mid-July and late season frameworks in mid-August. We
will publish final regulatory frameworks for early seasons on or about
August 17, 2008, and those for late seasons on or about September 14,
2008.
Request for 2009 Spring/Summer Migratory Bird Subsistence Harvest
Proposals in Alaska
Background
The 1916 Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds between
the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) established a closed
season for the taking of migratory birds between March 10 and September
1. Residents of northern Alaska and Canada traditionally harvested
migratory birds for nutritional purposes during the spring and summer
months. The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States
recently amended the 1916 Convention and the subsequent 1936 Mexico
Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals. The
amended treaties provide for the legal subsistence harvest of migratory
birds and their eggs in Alaska and Canada during the closed season.
On August 16, 2002, we published in the Federal Register (67 FR
53511) a final rule that established procedures for incorporating
subsistence management into the continental migratory bird management
program. These regulations, developed under a new co-management process
involving the Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and
Alaska Native representatives, established an annual procedure to
develop harvest guidelines for implementation of a spring/summer
migratory bird subsistence harvest. Eligibility and inclusion
requirements necessary to participate in the spring/summer migratory
bird subsistence season in Alaska are outlined in 50 CFR part 92.
This proposed rule calls for proposals for regulations that will
expire on August 31, 2009, for the spring/summer subsistence harvest of
migratory birds in Alaska. Each year, seasons will open on
[[Page 30714]]
or after March 11 and close prior to September 1.
Alaska Spring/Summer Subsistence Harvest Proposal Procedures
We will publish details of the Alaska spring/summer subsistence
harvest proposals in later Federal Register documents under 50 CFR part
92. The general relationship to the process for developing national
hunting regulations for migratory game birds is as follows:
(a) Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council.
Proposals may be submitted by the public to the Co-management
Council during the period of November 1-December 15, 2008, to be acted
upon for the 2009 migratory bird subsistence harvest season. Proposals
should be submitted to the Executive Director of the Co-management
Council, listed above under the caption ADDRESSES.
(b) Flyway Councils.
(1) Proposed 2009 regulations recommended by the Co-management
Council will be submitted to all Flyway Councils for review and
comment. The Council's recommendations must be submitted prior to the
Service Regulations Committee's last regular meeting of the calendar
year in order to be approved for spring/summer harvest beginning March
11 of the following calendar year.
(2) Alaska Native representatives may be appointed by the Co-
management Council to attend meetings of one or more of the four Flyway
Councils to discuss recommended regulations or other proposed
management actions.
(c) Service regulations committee. Proposed annual regulations
recommended by the Co-management Council will be submitted to the
Service Regulations Committee (SRC) for their review and recommendation
to the Service Director. Following the Service Director's review and
recommendation, the proposals will be forwarded to the Department of
the Interior for approval. Proposed annual regulations will then be
published in the Federal Register for public review and comment,
similar to the annual migratory game bird hunting regulations. Final
spring/summer regulations for Alaska will be published in the Federal
Register in the preceding fall.
Because of the time required for review by us and the public,
proposals from the Co-management Council for the 2009 spring/summer
migratory bird subsistence harvest season must be submitted to the
Flyway Councils and the Service by June 15, 2008, for Council comments
and Service action at the late-season SRC meeting.
Review of Public Comments
This proposed rulemaking contains the proposed regulatory
alternatives for the 2007-08 duck hunting seasons. This proposed
rulemaking also describes other recommended changes or specific
preliminary proposals that vary from the 2007-08 final frameworks (see
August 28, 2007 Federal Register (72 FR 49622) for early seasons and
September 20, 2007 Federal Register (72 FR 53882) for late seasons) and
issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of the
States or tribes. We will publish responses to all proposals and
written comments when we develop final frameworks for the 2008-09
season. We seek additional information and comments on the
recommendations in this proposed rule.
Consolidation of Notices
For administrative purposes, this document consolidates the notice
of intent to establish open migratory game bird hunting seasons, the
request for tribal proposals, and the request for Alaska migratory bird
subsistence seasons with the preliminary proposals for the annual
hunting regulations-development process. We will publish the remaining
proposed and final rulemaking documents separately. For inquiries on
tribal guidelines and proposals, tribes should contact the following
personnel:
Regions 1 and 8 (California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Washington,
Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands)--Brad Bortner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; (503) 231-
6164.
Region 2 (Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas)--Jeff Haskins,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico
87103; (505) 248-7885.
Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Ohio, and Wisconsin)--Jane West, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Federal Building, One Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-
4056; (612) 713-5432.
Region 4 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands, South
Carolina, and Tennessee)--David Viker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1875 Century Boulevard, Room 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; (404) 679-
4000.
Region 5 (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia)--Diane Pence, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts
01035-9589; (413) 253-8576.
Region 6 (Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming)--James Dubovsky, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Building, Denver, Colorado
80225; (303) 236-8145.
Region 7 (Alaska)--Russ Oates, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011
East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; (907) 786-3423.
Requests for Tribal Proposals
Background
Beginning with the 1985-86 hunting season, we have employed
guidelines described in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR
23467) to establish special migratory game bird hunting regulations on
Federal Indian reservations (including off-reservation trust lands) and
ceded lands. We developed these guidelines in response to tribal
requests for our recognition of their reserved hunting rights, and for
some tribes, recognition of their authority to regulate hunting by both
tribal and nontribal members throughout their reservations. The
guidelines include possibilities for:
(1) On-reservation hunting by both tribal and nontribal members,
with hunting by nontribal members on some reservations to take place
within Federal frameworks, but on dates different from those selected
by the surrounding State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by tribal members only, outside of usual
Federal frameworks for season dates and length, and for daily bag and
possession limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by tribal members on ceded lands,
outside of usual framework dates and season length, with some added
flexibility in daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, tribal regulations established under the guidelines
must be consistent with the annual March 10 to September 1 closed
season mandated by the 1916 Convention Between the United States and
Great Britain (for Canada) for the Protection of Migratory Birds
(Convention). The guidelines are applicable to those tribes that have
reserved hunting rights on Federal Indian reservations (including off-
reservation trust lands) and ceded lands. They also may be applied to
the establishment of migratory game bird hunting regulations for
nontribal members on all lands within the exterior boundaries of
reservations where tribes have full wildlife management authority over
such
[[Page 30715]]
hunting, or where the tribes and affected States otherwise have reached
agreement over hunting by nontribal members on non-Indian lands.
Tribes usually have the authority to regulate migratory game bird
hunting by nonmembers on Indian-owned reservation lands, subject to our
approval. The question of jurisdiction is more complex on reservations
that include lands owned by non-Indians, especially when the
surrounding States have established or intend to establish regulations
governing migratory bird hunting by non-Indians on these lands. In such
cases, we encourage the tribes and States to reach agreement on
regulations that would apply throughout the reservations. When
appropriate, we will consult with a tribe and State with the aim of
facilitating an accord. We also will consult jointly with tribal and
State officials in the affected States where tribes may wish to
establish special hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded
lands. It is incumbent upon the tribe and/or the State to request
consultation as a result of the proposal being published in the Federal
Register. We will not presume to make a determination, without being
advised by either a tribe or a State, that any issue is or is not
worthy of formal consultation.
One of the guidelines provides for the continuation of tribal
members' harvest of migratory game birds on reservations where such
harvest is a customary practice. We do not oppose this harvest,
provided it does not take place during the closed season required by
the Convention, and it is not so large as to adversely affect the
status of the migratory game bird resource. Since the inception of
these guidelines, we have reached annual agreement with tribes for
migratory game bird hunting by tribal members on their lands or on
lands where they have reserved hunting rights. We will continue to
consult with tribes that wish to reach a mutual agreement on hunting
regulations for on-reservation hunting by tribal members.
Tribes should not view the guidelines as inflexible. We believe
that they provide appropriate opportunity to accommodate the reserved
hunting rights and management authority of Indian tribes while also
ensuring that the migratory game bird resource receives necessary
protection. The conservation of this important international resource
is paramount. Use of the guidelines is not required if a tribe wishes
to observe the hunting regulations established by the State(s) in which
the reservation is located.
Details Needed in Tribal Proposals
Tribes that wish to use the guidelines to establish special hunting
regulations for the 2008-09 migratory game bird hunting season should
submit a proposal that includes: (1) The requested migratory game bird
hunting season dates and other details regarding the proposed
regulations;
(2) Harvest anticipated under the proposed regulations;
(3) Methods that will be employed to measure or monitor harvest
(mail-questionnaire survey, bag checks, etc.);
(4) Steps that will be taken to limit level of harvest, where it
could be shown that failure to limit such harvest would seriously
impact the migratory game bird resource; and
(5) Tribal capabilities to establish and enforce migratory game
bird hunting regulations.
A tribe that desires the earliest possible opening of the migratory
game bird season for nontribal members should specify this request in
its proposal, rather than request a date that might not be within the
final Federal frameworks. Similarly, unless a tribe wishes to set more
restrictive regulations than Federal regulations will permit for
nontribal members, the proposal should request the same daily bag and
possession limits and season length for migratory game birds that
Federal regulations are likely to permit the States in the Flyway in
which the reservation is located.
Tribal Proposal Procedures
We will publish details of tribal proposals for public review in
later Federal Register documents. Because of the time required for
review by us and the public, Indian tribes that desire special
migratory game bird hunting regulations for the 2008-09 hunting season
should submit their proposals as soon as possible, but no later than
June 1, 2008.
Tribes should direct inquiries regarding the guidelines and
proposals to the appropriate Service Regional Office listed above under
the caption Consolidation of Notices. Tribes that request special
migratory game bird hunting regulations for tribal members on ceded
lands should send a courtesy copy of the proposal to officials in the
affected State(s).
Public Comments Solicited
The Department of the Interior's policy is, whenever practicable,
to afford the public an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking
process. Accordingly, we invite interested persons to submit written
comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the proposed
regulations. Before promulgation of final migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will take into consideration all comments received.
Such comments, and any additional information received, may lead to
final regulations that differ from these proposals.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept anonymous comments; your
comment must include your first and last name, city, State, country,
and postal (zip) code. Finally, we will not consider hand-delivered
comments that we do not receive, or mailed comments that are not
postmarked, by the date specified in the DATES section.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in addition to the required items
specified in the previous paragraph, such as your street address, phone
number, or e-mail address, you may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from public review. However, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Room 4107,
4501 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
For each series of proposed rulemakings, we will establish specific
comment periods. We will consider, but possibly may not respond in
detail to, each comment. As in the past, we will summarize all comments
received during the comment period and respond to them after the
closing date in any final rules.
NEPA Consideration
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document
``Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual
Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-
14),'' filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988.
We published Notice of Availability in the Federal Register on June 16,
1988 (53 FR 22582). We published our Record of
[[Page 30716]]
Decision on August 18, 1988 (53 FR 31341). In addition, an August 1985
environmental assessment entitled ``Guidelines for Migratory Bird
Hunting Regulations on Federal Indian Reservations and Ceded Lands'' is
available from the address indicated under the caption FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
In a notice published in the September 8, 2005, Federal Register
(70 FR 53376), we announced our intent to develop a new Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the migratory bird hunting program.
Public scoping meetings were held in the spring of 2006, as detailed in
a March 9, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 12216). We have prepared a
scoping report summarizing the scoping comments and scoping meetings.
The report is available by either writing to the address indicated
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or by viewing on our Web site at
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds.
Endangered Species Act Consideration
Prior to issuance of the 2008-09 migratory game bird hunting
regulations, we will comply with provisions of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; hereinafter the Act), to
ensure that hunting is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any species designated as endangered or threatened or modify or
destroy its critical habitat and is consistent with conservation
programs for those species. Consultations under Section 7 of this Act
may cause us to change proposals in this and future supplemental
proposed rulemaking documents.
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule
is significant and has reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866.
OMB bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To
better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections
or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences
are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be
useful, etc.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our Web
site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/SpecialTopics/
EconomicAnalysis-Final-2004.pdf.
Last 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 this year 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
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from our Web site at http://
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 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The 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 our Migratory Bird Surveys and assigned
control number 1018-0023 (expires 2/28/2011). This information is used
to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to improve
our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to better
manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information
collection requirements of the Alaska Subsistence Household Survey, an
associated voluntary annual household survey used to determine levels
of subsistence take in Alaska, and assigned control number 1018-0124
(expires 1/31/2010).
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
[[Page 30717]]
regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988
The Department, in promulgating this proposed rule, has determined
that this proposed rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and
that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988.
Takings Implication Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this proposed rule,
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, does not have significant
takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected
property rights. This rule 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 proposed
rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it
is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Federalism Effects
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the
Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from
which the States make selections regarding the hunting of migratory
birds, and we employ guidelines to establish special regulations on
Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the
ability of the States and tribes to determine which seasons meet their
individual needs. Any State or Indian tribe may be more restrictive
than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed
in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This
process allows States to participate in the development of frameworks
from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on
their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct
effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of
Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or
administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132,
these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 20
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2008-09
hunting season are authorized under 16 U.S.C. 703-711, 16 U.S.C. 712,
and 16 U.S.C. 742 a-j.
Dated: April 4, 2008.
Lyle Laverty,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Proposed 2008-09 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary)
Pending current information on populations, harvest, and habitat
conditions, and receipt of recommendations from the four Flyway
Councils, we may defer specific regulatory proposals. At this time, we
are proposing no changes from the final 2007-08 frameworks established
on August 28 and September 20, 2007 (72 FR 49622 and 72 FR 53882).
Other issues requiring early discussion, action, or the attention of
the States or tribes are contained below:
1. Ducks
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest
management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory
Alternatives, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/
Species Management. Only those containing substantial recommendations
are discussed below.
A. General Harvest Strategy
We propose to continue 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
species of special concern, 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). For the 2008 hunting season,
however, we are considering 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).
Efforts to improve survey designs in Washington State and British
Columbia are ongoing, and mallards breeding in these areas would be
included in regulatory assessments when a sufficient time-series of
abundance estimates is available for analysis. Predicting changes in
the abundance of western mallards due to harvest and uncontrolled
environmental factors would be based on a model of density-dependent
growth, with appropriate allowances for model uncertainty and the
impact of hunting. Various harvest-management objective(s) for western
mallards are being considered but, in any case, would not allow for a
harvest higher than the estimated maximum sustainable yield. More
specifics concerning this proposed change in AHM protocol are available
on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mgmt/AHM/AHM-
intro.htm and will be provided in a supplemental proposed rule in May
along with Flyway Council recommendations and comments. The final AHM
protocol for the 2008-09 season will be detailed in the early-season
proposed rule, which will be published in mid-July (see Schedule of
Regulations Meetings and Federal Register Publications at the end of
this proposed rule for further information). Finally, since 2000, we
have prescribed a regulatory alternative for the Atlantic Flyway based
on the population status of mallards breeding in eastern North America
(Federal survey strata 51-54 and 56, and State surveys in New England
and the mid-Atlantic region). We are recommending a continuation of
this protocol for the 2008-09 season.
We will propose a specific regulatory alternative for each of the
Flyways during the 2008-09 season after survey information becomes
available in late summer. More information on AHM is located at http://
www.fws.gov/
[[Page 30718]]
migratorybirds/mgmt/AHM/AHM-intro.htm
B. Regulatory Alternatives
The basic structure of the current regulatory alternatives for AHM
was adopted in 1997. The alternatives remained largely unchanged until
2002, when we (based on recommendations from the Flyway Councils)
extended framework dates in the ``moderate'' and ``liberal'' regulatory
alternatives by changing the opening date from the Saturday nearest
October 1 to the Saturday nearest September 24, and changing the
closing date from the Sunday nearest January 20 to the last Sunday in
January. These extended dates were made available with no associated
penalty in season length or bag limits. At that time we stated our
desire to keep these changes in place for 3 years to allow for a
reasonable opportunity to monitor the impacts of framework-date
extensions on harvest distribution and rates of harvest prior to
considering any subsequent use (67 FR 12501).
For 2008-09, we are proposing to maintain the same regulatory
alternatives that were in effect last year (see accompanying table for
specifics of the proposed regulatory alternatives). Alternatives are
specified for each Flyway and are designated as ``RES'' for the
restrictive, ``MOD'' for the moderate, and ``LIB'' for the liberal
alternative. We will announce final regulatory alternatives in mid-
July. Public comments will be accepted until June 27, 2008, and should
be sent to an address listed under the caption ADDRESSES.
D. Special Seasons/Species Management
iii. Black Ducks
In 2007, we developed a proposal for an international harvest
strategy that consisted of a constant harvest rate and criteria for
maintaining approximate parity in harvest between the United States and
Canada. However, during consultations with the Atlantic and Mississippi
Flyway Councils, the Canadian Wildlife Service, and provincial wildlife
agencies in eastern Canada, we were unable to reach consensus on
several technical and policy aspects of that strategy. In February
2008, a meeting of representatives from the Service, the Canadian
Wildlife Service, and the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways was
convened, with the goal of reaching consensus on the essential elements
of an international harvest strategy that could be implemented in 2008.
That group recommended that a prescriptive, interim strategy be used
until development of a derived, adaptive harvest strategy is completed.
The prescriptive strategy would be based on the current breeding
population status in relation to its long-term average. The group also
agreed on the elements of maintaining harvest parity between the two
countries. Based on the outcome of this meeting, we plan to propose the
specifics of an interim joint harvest strategy with Canada in the
supplemental proposed rule, which will be published in May (see
Schedule of Regulations Meetings and Federal Register Publications at
the end of this proposed rule for further information).
iv. Canvasbacks
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.
Last 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, resulted 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 was expected to be about 120,000 birds. Available data
indicated that adding a second canvasback to the daily bag limit was
expected to increase harvest about 25 percent, or to approximately
150,000 birds in the United States. Thus, while the current harvest
strategy has no provisions for daily bag limits greater than one bird,
with the record high breeding population and the expected good
recruitment, we supported the Flyway Councils' recommendations to
increase the daily bag limit for canvasbacks to two birds for the 2007-
08 season (see September 20, 2007, Federal Register 72 FR 53882).
While doing so, we expressed our continued support for the current
canvasback harvest strategy and the model adopted in 1994. However, we
recognized that this strategy was developed primarily due to concerns
about low population levels, and as such, did not address circumstances
encountered like last year of record high abundance and the potential
for increased daily bag limits. We increased the daily bag limit
because we believed there was reasonable opportunity to allow a limited
increase without compromising the population's ability to sustain a
breeding population in excess of 500,000 canvasbacks this spring.
We noted, however, that departures from existing harvest strategies
are not actions that we generally condone, nor would we make an
exception to the canvasback strategy this year, even if similar
circumstances exist, without an explicit modification to the existing
strategy allowing for daily bag limits greater than one bird. We stated
our desire to discuss the possibility of revising the strategy with the
Flyway Councils and other interested parties over the next year.
Because the population model has performed relatively well since
inception in 1994, we further stated that 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. 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.
This winter we prepared and distributed to the Flyway Councils an
assessment of potential changes to the frequency of various canvasback
seasons due to introducing a liberal, 2-bird daily bag season in the
Canvasback Harvest Strategy (the assessment is available at http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/reports.html). The assessment
estimates the likely changes in proportion of closed and restricted
seasons that might result if a 2-bird daily bag limit were permanently
included in the Canvasback Harvest Strategy. To further the development
of this assessment and any subsequent proposed changes to the harvest
strategy, we have requested Flyway Council feedback on several
important policy issues. These issues include: the desire to modify the
current strategy, potential canvasback population thresholds that allow
a 2-bird daily bag limit, and any further strategy
[[Page 30719]]
modifications to account for density-dependence. Progress on the
canvasback harvest strategy will be detailed in supplemental Federal
Registers and a decision regarding whether to propose changes to the
current harvest strategy for the 2008-09 season will be made in early
June (see Schedule of Regulations Meetings and Federal Register
Publications at the end of this proposed rule for further information).
v. Pintails
As we have stated over the past several years, we remain committed
to the development of a framework to inform pintail harvest management
based a formal, derived strategy and clearly articulated management
objectives. In collaboration with scientists from the U.S. Geological
Survey, we developed a fully adaptive harvest management protocol for
pintails and forwarded the technical details (http://www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds/reports/reports.html) to the Flyway Councils for their
review. We also requested Flyway Council input on a possible
implementation schedule and any modifications or adjustments they feel
would improve the existing strategy. Following Flyway Council and
public review, we will announce any proposed changes regarding the
existing strategy for the 2008-09 season in May (see Schedule of
Regulations Meetings and Federal Register Publications at the end of
this proposed rule for further information).
vi. Scaup
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 was 3.45 million,
essentially unchanged from the 2006 estimate, and the third lowest
estimate on record.
Last year, 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 made available for public review in the April
11, 2007 Federal Register (72 FR 18328). 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, 2007 Federal
Register (72 FR 31789). 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 (http://www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds/reports/reports.html). However, several Flyway Councils
expressed concern regarding the implications of regulatory changes
associated with the proposed decision making framework.
In the July 23, 2007 Federal Register (72 FR 40194), 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 that 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 was needed to develop consensus on a
harvest strategy for scaup. We further stated that it was our intent to
implement a strategy in 2008 and we requested that the Flyways continue
to work with us to resolve the outstanding technical and policy issues
surrounding the proposed scaup assessment and decision making
framework.
In response to this expectation, we participated in a number of
meetings to foster continued communication and coordination and hosted
a Web broadcast to communicate assessment results to a broad State
audience. In addition, we proposed a methodology to assist the Flyways
in developing regulatory packages that would specify scaup regulatory
alternatives.
One of the outcomes of our communication efforts with the Flyways
was an agreement to consider an alternative model that represents the
belief that the scaup population will continue to decline to a new
equilibrium level and that harvest has no effect on the decline. The
results from the alternative model along with the existing model would
then be compared and weighted through an adaptive process while forming
a basis for the derivation of an optimal harvest strategy. We have
begun scoping out the technical and policy issues associated with
incorporating such an alternative; however it cannot be completed in
time for this regulatory cycle. Additional technical work is necessary
and policy guidance will be required throughout model development since
the alternative model will require specification of the lower
equilibrium state. It is not possible to estimate this lower
equilibrium population size using available data; therefore it will
have to be chosen based on professional judgment and social
considerations. It is not known if an alternative model will be ready
for incorporation by next year because the harvest management
implications of developing an adaptive decision process that
accommodates ongoing system change are largely unexplored and will
likely require a significant amount of effort to evaluate.
Therefore, for 2008, we are soliciting Flyway Council feedback
regarding the following alternative approaches to developing and
implementing a scaup harvest strategy: (1) Delay implementation of any
strategy and continue to work on the alternative model; (2) Implement
the 2007 proposed strategy and continue to work on the alternative
model until completed when it will then be incorporated into the
decision making framework; (3) Discontinue work on an alternative model
and implement the strategy proposed last year.
In addition, we are also seeking feedback from the Flyway Councils
regarding several policy issues. These include the form of the
objective function that will be used to derive a scaup harvest policy,
the appropriate Flyway-specific harvest models that will be used in
part to determine Flyway specific regulatory alternatives, and feedback
regarding the proposed methodology to specify the threshold harvest
levels associated with each package (Restrictive, Moderate, and
Liberal). Progress on the scaup harvest strategy will be detailed in
supplemental Federal Registers and a final decision regarding any
implementation of the proposed strategy will be made in the July early-
season proposed rule (see Schedule of Regulations Meetings and Federal
Register Publications at the end of this proposed rule for further
information).
[[Page 30720]]
vii. Mottled Ducks
The Service and other agencies have been concerned about the status
of mottled ducks since at least the late 1990s. This concern stems from
negative trends in population survey data, loss and degradation of
habitat, interbreeding with captive-reared and feral mallards, and
increased harvest rates as the result of longer hunting seasons since
1997. In the past, we have expressed our desire to work with the States
to develop a harvest-management strategy for mottled ducks. Since 2005,
several workshops have been convened with State agencies, the U.S.
Geological Survey, and others to discuss the status of mottled ducks,
population structure and delineation, and to evaluate current
monitoring programs and plan for the development of new population
surveys. Major conclusions from these workshops are that mottled ducks
should be managed as two separate stocks, a Florida stock and a Western
Gulf Coast stock, and that the lack of a range-wide population survey
for Western Gulf Coast mottled ducks is a significant impediment to
management.
Although progress has been made toward development of monitoring
systems to improve assessment capabilities for mottled ducks, we remain
concerned about the status of mottled ducks across their range,
especially in the Western Gulf Coast. Reasons for these concerns were
mentioned previously. We provided the Flyway Councils with analyses of
harvest data that examine potential harvest restrictions to reduce
harvest rates (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/reports.html),
should that be deemed necessary. We encourage the Flyway Councils to
examine the status of mottled ducks and assess the potential need for
any regulatory actions for the 2008-09 season.
viii. Wood Ducks
Over the past year, significant technical progress has been made in
estimating the harvest potential of wood ducks in the Atlantic and
Mississippi Flyways. This winter, we prepared and received initial
Flyway feedback on a scoping document describing how our assessment of
the harvest potential could fit within an overall harvest strategy for
wood ducks (see http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/
reports.html). To further the development of this assessment and
subsequent harvest strategy, we have requested Flyway Council feedback
on several important policy issues. These issues include: The decision
criteria for a harvest strategy (e.g., manage for the stock with the
lowest harvest potential or for a range-wide average), a harvest
objective, test criteria to compare harvest rates, and the extent to
which regulations should be allowed to differ among Flyways. While we
have not yet finalized a harvest strategy proposal, we plan to evaluate
feedback from the winter Flyway meetings and make a later determination
as to whether it would be feasible to consider implementation of a wood
duck harvest strategy for the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways during
the 2008-09 cycle. Progress on the wood duck harvest strategy will be
detailed in supplemental Federal Registers and a decision regarding
whether to propose a harvest strategy for the 2008-09 season will be
made in early June (see Schedule of Regulations Meetings and Federal
Register Publications at the end of this proposed rule for further
information).
14. Woodcock
In 2006, the Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway Councils urged the
Service to re-affirm its commitment to cooperatively develop a woodcock
harvest strategy, with an initial approach outlined no later than the
2008 winter Flyway meetings. In 2007, we embarked on a review of
available woodcock population databases that potentially could be
incorporated in an assessment framework and eventual harvest strategy.
Results of this review were included in a scoping document and provided
to Flyway Councils for comment. The scoping document also included
potential approaches as to how available databases could be utilized in
a harvest strategy. We recently requested that the Atlantic,
Mississippi, and Central Flyway Councils appoint appropriate technical
representatives to work with us on a task group to develop a woodcock
harvest strategy. It is anticipated that a draft harvest strategy would
be available for consideration for the 2009-2010 hunting season.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 30721]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MY08.000
[[Page 30722]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP28MY08.001
[FR Doc. E8-11583 Filed 5-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C