Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

United States Mint

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 20

RIN ID: RIN 1018-AV62

FWS ID: [FWS-R9-MB-2008-0032; 91200-1231-9BPP-L2]

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

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 lateseason frameworks and subsistence migratory bird seasons in Alaska by August 31, 2008.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereinafter Service or we) is proposing to establish the 200809 earlyseason 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 200809 duck hunting seasons.

SUMMARY: Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service,

SUPPLEMENTAL 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 200809 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. Whitefronted 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. Bandtailed Pigeons
16. Mourning Doves
17. Whitewinged and Whitetipped 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 lateseason migratory bird hunting regulations. The June 18 supplement also provided detailed information on the 200809 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 earlyseason regulations and the regulatory alternatives for the 200809 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 200809 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 2526, 2008, meetings reviewed information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed 200809 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 3031, 2008, meetings will review information on the current
[[Page 43291]]
status of waterfowl and develop recommendations for the 200809 regulations pertaining to regular waterfowl seasons and other species and seasons not previously discussed at the earlyseason 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 http:// 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 semipermanent 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 renesting 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 breakup 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 bluewinged 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 19552007 average.

Sandhill Cranes

Compared to increases recorded in the 1970s, annual indices to abundance of the MidContinent 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 photocorrected, 3year average for 200507 was 364,281, which is within the established population objective range of 349,000472,000 cranes.

All Central Flyway States, except Nebraska, allowed crane hunting in portions of their States during 200708. 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 200708 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 200708. 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 longterm (19822004) trends for the MCP indicate that harvest has been increasing at a higher rate than population growth.

The fall 2007 premigration survey for the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) resulted in a record high count of 22,822 cranes. The 3year average for 2004, 2005, and 2007 (no survey was conducted in 2006) was 20,732 sandhill cranes, which is within established population objectives of 17,00021,000 for the RMP. Hunting seasons during 200708 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

Singingground and Wingcollection Surveys were conducted to assess the population status of the American woodcock (Scolopax minor). The Singingground Survey is intended to measure longterm changes in woodcock population levels. Singingground 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 shortterm (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 19982008; however, there was a declining trend of 1.5 percent per year in the Central Region. This represents the fifth consecutive year that the 10year 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 longterm (19682008) declines of 1.2 percent per year in the Eastern Region and 1.1 percent per year in the Central Region.

Wingcollection 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 longterm 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 longterm average.

Bandtailed Pigeons and Doves

Annual counts of Interior bandtailed 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 bandtailed 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 bandtailed 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 Callcount 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 43year period, 19662007, all 3 units exhibited significant declines. In contrast, for doves seen over the 10year 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 decisionmaking process with respect to harvest management.

The two key States with a whitewinged dove population are Arizona and Texas. California and New Mexico have much smaller populations.

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) monitors whitewinged dove populations by means of a callcount 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 15day 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, whitewinged 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 whitewinged 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 whitewinged 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 TamaulipasTexas Whitewinged 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 wingcollection 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.

Whitetipped 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 whitetipped dove harvest during the special season is only averaging 3,0004,000 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 200809 duck hunting season. Comments concerning earlyseason 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 earlyseasons 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 longterm 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 longterm 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 publictrust resources, we believe that the Flyway Council system of migratory bird management has been a longstanding example of StateFederal 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 LowerRegion 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 knifeedge 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 duckhunting regulations for the 200809 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 breedinghabitat conditions in central North America (Federal survey strata 118, 2050, and 7577, and State surveys in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan). In the May 28 Federal Register, we also stated our intent for the 200809 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 112), and in California and Oregon (as based on Stateconducted surveys).

We agree with the Pacific Flyway Council's recommendation to implement the western mallard AHM protocol for the 200809 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 midcontinent 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 midcontinent population and assigning them to the western mallard population. Second, the optimal regulatory policies for western mallards (and midcontinent mallards) would be based on independent optimization. That is, the optimum regulations for midcontinent 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 midcontinent 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 midcontinent 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 5154 and 56, and State surveys in New England and the midAtlantic region). We will continue this protocol for the 200809 season.

Regarding incorporation of a onestep constraint into the AHM process, our incorporation of a onestep 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 200809 season after survey information becomes available later this summer. More information on AHM is located at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mgmt/AHM/AHMintro.htm. B. Regulatory Alternatives

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that the current restriction of two hens in the 4bird 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 LowerRegion 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 200809 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 lateseason regulations process. For those species with harvest strategies (canvasbacks, pintails, black ducks, and scaup), those strategies will be used for the 200809 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 bluewinged teal from the traditional survey area indicates that a 16day September teal season in the Central and Mississippi Flyway and a 9day 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 5year running average from the longterm (19982007) breeding population (BPOP) should be changed to a 15 percent change measured by a 3year running average, and (2) the original criteria of a 5year running average to measure parity should be changed to a 3 year running average.

The Upper and LowerRegion 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 (200809 to 201011), 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 longterm average breeding population by 15 percent or more. It would allow additional harvest opportunity (commensurate with the population increase) if the 3year average breeding population exceeds the longterm average by 15 percent or more, and would require reduction of harvest opportunity if the 3year average falls below the longterm 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 200809, 200910, and 201011 seasons, unless it is supplanted by a new, fully adaptive strategy prior to the 201011 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 5year running average to assess harvest parity between Canada and the United States, rather than the 3year average recommended by the Atlantic Flyway Council. We support the 5year 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 LowerRegion 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 twobird, 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 2bird 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 LowerRegion 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 Flywayspecific bag limits may not be needed to maintain the desired harvest distribution.

The Upper and LowerRegion 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 200809 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 longterm 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 20day season with a daily bag limit of 2, and a 40day season with a daily bag limit of 1;
(6) A ``moderate'' harvest package in the Atlantic Flyway consisting of a 60day season with a daily bag limit of 2;
(7) A ``liberal'' harvest package in the Atlantic Flyway consisting of a 60day 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 LowerRegion 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 nongovernmental 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 longterm 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 scientificallysound scaup harvest strategy (for a complete list of reports see http://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 Flywayspecific harvest models that will be used in part to determine Flywayspecific 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, scientificallybased 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 decisionmaking framework for scaup proposed last year provides the best available scientific basis for regulatory decisionmaking. 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 flywayspecific 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 speciesspecific management and we believe that additional effort is required to ascertain the speciesspecific 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 2bird 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 decisionmaking 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 Flywayspecific 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 reexamined 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 http://fws.gov/ migratorybirds/reports/report.html or at http://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 3year running average of both northern and regionwide 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 2bird 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 LowerRegion 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 200809 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 rangewide 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 3bird bag limit, should be adopted for an experimental 3year 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 http://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 longterm 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 10day 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 3year 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 10day 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 4bird possession limit.

Service Response: We support the Atlantic Flyway Council's request to allow a 10day 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 LowerRegion 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 3year 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 3day 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 3year 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 972324181, or it may be viewed via the Service's home page at http://fws.gov/migratorybirds/reports/ reports.html or at http://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 LowerRegion Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that States within the Eastern Management Unit should be offered a 70day season and 15bird daily bag limit for the 200809 mourning dove hunting season, and the dichotomous hunting season structure should be eliminated.

The Atlantic Flyway Council, the Upper and LowerRegion 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 70day season with a 15bird daily bag limit in the Eastern Management Unit beginning with the 200809 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 decisionmaking 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 decisionmaking 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 200910 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 200809 season. Our proposal is based on two factors: (1) There is no biological data currently available to justify a 2bird daily bag limit for canvasbacks for the 200809 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 2bird daily bags are offered during the late season regulatory process. 20. Puerto Rico

Council Recommendations: The Atlantic Flyway Council recommended that Puerto Rico be permitted to adopt a 20bird bag limit for doves in the aggregate for the next three hunting seasons, 20082010. Legally hunted dove species in Puerto Rico are the Zenaida dove, the white winged dove, and the mourning dove. They also recommended that the 20 bird aggregate bag limit should include no more than 10 Zenaida doves and no more than 3 mourning doves.

Service Response: We concur.

Public Comments

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
[[Page 43299]]
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 consider comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. Finally, we will not consider handdelivered 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 commentincluding your personal identifying informationon http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide personal identifying information in your comment, 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 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 publish

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Ron W. Kokel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, MS MBSP4107ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240; (703) 3581714.