Rule2021-18426
2021-2022 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
August 31, 2021
Effective
August 31, 2021
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), open, for the first time, seven National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) that are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing. In addition, we open or expand hunting and sport fishing at 81 other NWRs, and add pertinent station-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2021-2022 season. We also open hunting or sport fishing on one unit of the National Fish Hatchery System (NFH). We add pertinent station-specific regulations that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing at this NFH for the 2021-2022 season. Finally, we make regulatory changes to existing station-specific regulations in order to reduce the regulatory burden on the public, increase access for hunters and anglers on Service lands and waters, and comply with a Presidential mandate for plain language standards.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 166 (Tuesday, August 31, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 31, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48822-48883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18426]
[[Page 48821]]
Vol. 86
Tuesday,
No. 166
August 31, 2021
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Parts 32 and 71
2021-2022 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 48822]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 32 and 71
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2021-0027; FXRS12610900000-212-FF09R20000]
RIN 1018-BF09
2021-2022 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), open, for
the first time, seven National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) that are
currently closed to hunting and sport fishing. In addition, we open or
expand hunting and sport fishing at 81 other NWRs, and add pertinent
station-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory
game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport
fishing for the 2021-2022 season. We also open hunting or sport fishing
on one unit of the National Fish Hatchery System (NFH). We add
pertinent station-specific regulations that pertain to migratory game
bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing
at this NFH for the 2021-2022 season. Finally, we make regulatory
changes to existing station-specific regulations in order to reduce the
regulatory burden on the public, increase access for hunters and
anglers on Service lands and waters, and comply with a Presidential
mandate for plain language standards.
DATES: This rule is effective August 31, 2021.
ADDRESSES: This final rule, its supporting documents, and the comments
we received on the May 4, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 23794) are
available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> at Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2021-
0027.
Information collection requirements: Written comments and
suggestions on the information collection requirements may be submitted
at any time to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W),
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#21684f474e7e624e4d4d614756520f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d49dbab2bb8b97bbb8b894b2a3a7fab3bba2">[email protected]</span></a> (email).
Please reference ``OMB Control Number 1018-0140'' in the subject line
of your comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christian Myers, (571) 422-3595.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended (Administration Act), closes NWRs in
all States except Alaska to all uses until opened. The Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) may open refuge areas to any use, including
hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that the use is
compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge
System mission. The action also must be in accordance with provisions
of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in coordination with the
appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), consistent with the
principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration,
and otherwise in the public interest. These requirements ensure that we
maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health
of the Refuge System for the benefit of present and future generations
of Americans.
We annually review hunting and sport fishing programs to determine
whether to include additional stations or whether individual station
regulations governing existing programs need modifications. Changing
environmental conditions, State and Federal regulations, and other
factors affecting fish and wildlife populations and habitat may warrant
modifications to station-specific regulations to ensure the continued
compatibility of hunting and sport fishing programs and to ensure that
these programs will not materially interfere with or detract from the
fulfillment of station purposes or the Service's mission.
Provisions governing hunting and sport fishing on refuges are in
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at part 32 (50 CFR part
32), and on hatcheries at part 71 (50 CFR part 71). We regulate hunting
and sport fishing to:
<bullet> Ensure compatibility with refuge and hatchery purpose(s);
<bullet> Properly manage fish and wildlife resource(s);
<bullet> Protect other values;
<bullet> Ensure visitor safety; and
<bullet> Provide opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent
recreation.
On many stations where we decide to allow hunting and sport
fishing, our general policy of adopting regulations identical to State
hunting and sport fishing regulations is adequate in meeting these
objectives. On other stations, we must supplement State regulations
with more-restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our
management responsibilities, as outlined under Statutory Authority,
below. We issue station-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations
when we open wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries to migratory game
bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing.
These regulations may list the wildlife species that you may hunt or
fish; seasons; bag or creel (container for carrying fish) limits;
methods of hunting or sport fishing; descriptions of areas open to
hunting or sport fishing; and other provisions as appropriate.
Statutory Authority
The Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act; Pub. L. 105-57),
governs the administration and public use of refuges, and the Refuge
Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) governs
the administration and public use of refuges and hatcheries.
Amendments enacted by the Improvement Act were built upon the
Administration Act in a manner that provides an ``organic act'' for the
Refuge System, similar to organic acts that exist for other public
Federal lands. The Improvement Act serves to ensure that we effectively
manage the Refuge System as a national network of lands, waters, and
interests for the protection and conservation of our Nation's wildlife
resources. The Administration Act states first and foremost that we
focus our Refuge System mission on conservation of fish, wildlife, and
plant resources and their habitats. The Improvement Act requires the
Secretary, before allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding,
renewing, or extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that
the use is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was
established and the mission of the Refuge System. The Improvement Act
established as the policy of the United States that wildlife-dependent
recreation, when compatible, is a legitimate and appropriate public use
of the Refuge System, through which the American public can develop an
appreciation for fish and wildlife. The Improvement Act established six
wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public
uses of the Refuge System. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation.
The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas
within the Refuge System and Hatchery System for public recreation as
an appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the extent that
doing so is practicable and
[[Page 48823]]
not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which Congress and the
Service established the areas. The Recreation Act requires that any
recreational use of refuge or hatchery lands be compatible with the
primary purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and not
inconsistent with other previously authorized operations.
The Administration Act and Recreation Act also authorize the
Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts
and regulate uses.
We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to
opening it to hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop
station-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the
programs with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge or
hatchery and the Refuge and Hatchery System mission. We ensure initial
compliance with the Administration Act and the Recreation Act for
hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired land through an interim
determination of compatibility made at or near the time of acquisition.
These regulations ensure that we make the determinations required by
these acts prior to adding refuges to the lists of areas open to
hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71. We ensure
continued compliance by the development of comprehensive conservation
plans (CCPs) and step-down management plans, and by annual review of
hunting and sport fishing programs and regulations.
Summary of Comments and Responses
On May 4, 2021, we published in the Federal Register (86 FR 23794)
a proposed rule to open sport fishing at one NFH, open seven NWRs that
are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing, expand hunting and
sport fishing at 83 other NWRs, and add pertinent station-specific
regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting,
upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2021-
2022 season. We accepted public comments on the proposed rule for 60
days, ending July 6, 2021. By that date, we received more than 1,200
comments on the proposed rule. More than two-thirds of these comments
were form letters or otherwise identical duplicates of other comments
on the proposed rule, and the vast majority of those were submitted by
one organization and were supportive of the rule. The majority of the
substantive comments on the proposed rule stated that the Service
should prohibit lead ammunition and tackle on some or all stations. The
Service recognizes that lead is an important issue and will continue to
appropriately evaluate and regulate lead ammunition and tackle on
Service lands and waters. We discuss the remaining unique comments we
received below by topic. Beyond our responses below, additional
station-specific information on how we responded to comments on
particular hunting or fishing opportunities at a given refuge or
hatchery can be found in that station's final hunting and/or fishing
package, each of which can be located online at: <a href="https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/rules-regulations-and-improved-access/">https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/rules-regulations-and-improved-access/</a>.
Comment (1): We received a substantial number of comments
expressing general support for the proposed changes in the rule. Of the
unique comments on the rule, more than half were in general support of
the proposed changes. These comments of general support either
expressed appreciation for the increased hunting and fishing access in
the rule overall, expressed appreciation for increased access at
particular refuges, or both. In addition to this general support, some
commenters requested additional hunting and fishing opportunities at
specific stations or generally in several States.
Our Response: Hunting and fishing on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
lands is a tradition that dates back to the early 1900s. In passing the
Improvement Act, Congress reaffirmed that the Refuge System was created
to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, and would
facilitate opportunities for Americans to participate in compatible
wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing on Refuge
System lands. We prioritize wildlife-dependent recreation, including
hunting and fishing, when doing so is compatible with the purpose of
the refuge and the mission of the NWRS. Hunting or fishing on
hatcheries, unlike Refuge System lands, is authorized when such
activity is not detrimental to the propagation and distribution of fish
or other aquatic wildlife (see 50 CFR 71.1).
We will continue to open and expand hunting and sport fishing
opportunities across refuges and hatcheries; however, as detailed
further in our response to Comment (2), below, opening or expanding
hunting or fishing opportunities on Service lands is not a quick or
simple process. The annual regulatory cycle begins in June or July of
each year for the following hunting and sport fishing season (the
planning cycle for this 2021-2022 final rule began in June 2020). This
annual timeline allows us time to collaborate closely with our State,
Tribal, and Territorial partners, as well as other partners including
nongovernmental organizations, on potential opportunities. It also
provides us with time to complete environmental analyses and other
requirements for opening or expanding new opportunities. Therefore, it
would be impracticable for the Service to complete multiple regulatory
cycles in one calendar year due to the logistics of coordinating with
various partners. Once we determine that a hunting or sport fishing
opportunity can be carried out in a manner compatible with individual
station purposes and objectives, we work expeditiously to open it.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (2): Many commenters expressed general opposition to any
hunting or fishing in the Refuge System. Of the unique comments on the
rule, less than one-fourth were in general opposition to the proposed
changes without raising any substantive issues. In many cases,
commenters stated that hunting was antithetical to the purposes of a
``refuge,'' which, in their opinion, should serve as an inviolate
sanctuary for all wildlife. Some of these commenters generically
opposed expanded or new hunting or fishing opportunities at specific
stations.
Our Response: The Service prioritizes facilitating wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities, including hunting and fishing, on
Service land in compliance with applicable Service law and policy. For
refuges, the Administration Act, as amended, stipulates that hunting
(along with fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation), if found to be compatible,
is a legitimate and priority general public use of a refuge and should
be facilitated (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(3)(D)). Thus, we only allow hunting
of resident wildlife on Refuge System lands if such activity has been
determined compatible with the established purpose(s) of the refuge and
the mission of the Refuge System as required by the Administration Act.
For hatcheries, we allow hunting and fishing when such activity is
determined not to be detrimental to the propagation and distribution of
fish or other aquatic wildlife (see 50 CFR 71.1). For all 89 stations
opening and/or expanding hunting and/or fishing in this rule, we
determined that the proposed actions were compatible or would not have
detrimental impacts.
Each station manager makes a decision regarding hunting and fishing
[[Page 48824]]
opportunities only after rigorous examination of the available
information, consultation and coordination with States and Tribes, and
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as well as other applicable laws
and regulations. The many steps taken before a station opens or expands
a hunting or fishing opportunity on the refuge ensure that the Service
does not allow any opportunity that would compromise the purpose of the
station or the mission of the agency.
Hunting of resident wildlife on Service lands generally occurs
consistent with State regulations, including seasons and bag limits.
Station-specific hunting regulations can be more restrictive (but not
more liberal) than State regulations and often are more restrictive in
order to help meet specific refuge objectives. These objectives include
resident wildlife population and habitat objectives, minimizing
disturbance impacts to wildlife, maintaining high-quality opportunities
for hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreation, eliminating or
minimizing conflicts with other public uses and/or refuge management
activities, and protecting public safety.
The word ``refuge'' includes the idea of providing a haven of
safety for wildlife, and as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent
use of the Refuge System. However, again, the Administration Act
stipulates that hunting, if found compatible, is a legitimate and
priority general public use of a refuge. Furthermore, we manage refuges
to support healthy wildlife populations that in many cases produce
harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. As practiced on
refuges, hunting and fishing do not pose a threat to wildlife
populations. It is important to note that taking certain individuals
through hunting does not necessarily reduce a population overall, as
hunting can simply replace other types of mortality. In some cases,
however, we use hunting as a management tool with the explicit goal of
reducing a population; this is often the case with exotic and/or
invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability. Therefore,
facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of the
Service's roles and responsibilities as outlined in the legislation
establishing the Refuge System, and the Service will continue to
facilitate these opportunities where compatible with the purpose of the
specific refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (3): We received comments from 13 individual State agencies
and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on the proposed rule.
The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation; South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish, and Parks; Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks; Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Missouri
Department of Conservation; Michigan Department of Natural Resources;
and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission all expressed general support for
the proposed rule without additional comments. The Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources expressed general support of the changes in the
proposed rule, but also requested additional changes at Necedah NWR.
The New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife expressed general support
of the changes in the proposed rule, but also requested additional
changes at Cape May and Supawna Meadows NWRs. The Wyoming Game and Fish
Department expressed general support of the changes in the proposed
rule, but requested minor changes to the hunt units at the National Elk
Refuge; minor changes to waterfowl hunting at the National Elk Refuge;
additional hunting opportunities at Bamsforth, Hutton Lake, and
Mortenson Lake NWRs; and additional opportunities on National Park
Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. The Virginia Department of
Wildlife Resources expressed general support of the changes in the
proposed rule, but suggested that Eastern Shore of Virginia and
Fisherman's Island NWRs provide additional analysis and details on
particular hunting and fishing opportunities there and requested that
Great Dismal Swamp NWR: (1) Combine a bear hunting permit with a
general hunting permit, (2) allow spring turkey hunting, (3) expand to
full week hunting, and (4) provide additional information about parking
areas. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission expressed
general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested that
we add regulatory language listing Atlantic brant among the migratory
bird hunting target species for Mackay Island NWR and stating a
requirement for hunters to have North Carolina State licenses and
permits. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife expressed general
support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested we edit the
regulatory language at William L. Finley NWR to align more closely with
the State regulations by removing ``merganser'' from the species list,
as it is already considered a duck species. The Arizona Game and Fish
Department expressed general support of the changes in the proposed
rule, but requested the Service to consider allowing the use of
falconry on refuges within the State of Arizona, including Bill
Williams NWR and Havasu NWR; requested the Service to consider aligning
to State regulations for the use of dogs while hunting; requested the
Service consider aligning to State regulations for legal methods of
take in hunting javelina; and expressed concerns about regulatory
differences between refuges within the same State. Finally, the
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies expressed general support of
the changes in the proposed rule, but requested the Service consider
additional opportunities on refuges in Alaska.
Our Response: The Service appreciates the support of, and is
committed to working with, our State partners to identify additional
opportunities for expansion of hunting and sport fishing on Service
lands and waters.
In response to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, we
have made no changes to the rule. We will not address their concerns in
this rule because the proposed expansions at Necedah NWR are no longer
part of this final rule. We will, however, consider the Department's
requests in shaping any future proposed openings or expansions at
Necedah NWR.
In response to the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, the
Service extends hours for fishing to 1 hour before legal sunrise and 1
hour after legal sunset at both Cape May and Supawna Meadows NWRs. The
Service will consider additional vehicle access at Cape May NWR and
crabbing/shellfishing at Cape May and Supawna Meadows NWRs for future
rulemakings, but we cannot make those additions at this time.
As suggested by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, we have
renamed the hunt units at the National Elk Refuge in order to reduce
confusion for the public. The Service did not make changes to the
white-tailed deer hunt season dates to avoid conflict with the refuge's
elk hunt, and the Service does not plan to consider opening waterfowl
hunting on the refuge due to the presence of trumpeter swan
populations, as trumpeter swan is a Priority 1 Species of Special
Concern for the Wyoming Game & Fish Department, and due to the
potential for conflict with other compatible uses on the refuge at that
time. The Service
[[Page 48825]]
appreciates the Department's comments regarding Bamsforth, Hutton Lake,
and Mortenson Lake NWRs, and we will consider opening additional
opportunities on those refuges in future rulemakings. The Service
cannot comment on potential opportunities on National Park Service and
Bureau of Land Management lands, and requests that the State work
directly with those agencies for additional opportunities.
In response to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, we
have made no changes to the rule, but will add much of the requested
information, where appropriate, to supporting documents. Specific
information on how we responded to the Virginia Department of Wildlife
Resources' suggestions for more detail on particular hunting and
fishing opportunities at Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island
NWRs can be found in those stations' final hunt plan, compatibility
determination, and finding of no significant impact documents. With
respect to Great Dismal Swamp NWR, first, we cannot combine the bear
hunting permit with the general hunting permit due to the strict
harvest quota of 20 bears, and the associated need to be able to
contact bear hunters specifically, and because refuge lands are
situated in both Virginia and North Carolina, which have differing
hunting regulations. Second, we are already considering spring turkey
hunting for a future rulemaking. Third, we have determined that full
week hunting, regardless of whether or not Sundays are included, is not
compatible with other uses of the refuge and the refuge's conservation
purposes and mission. Fourth, we will engage in outreach efforts to
share the information about parking areas with all refuge visitors,
including wildlife-dependent recreational users of the refuge.
In response to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, we
have made no changes to the rule. Atlantic brant is considered a
variety of dark goose under our regulations, so it does not need to be
explicitly listed in station-specific regulations where dark goose
hunting is authorized. Thus, the proposed authorization of light and
dark goose hunting at Mackay Island NWR already allows for the hunting
of Atlantic brant. The suggested language about North Carolina State
licenses and permits was not adopted because: (1) It would cause
confusion as the regulatory provisions at 50 CFR 32.52(e) govern refuge
lands in both North Carolina and Virginia (where North Carolina
licenses and permits are not necessary); and (2) this requirement is
already covered by the regulation requiring each person to secure and
possess the required state license at 50 CFR 32.2 As a general matter,
our regulations operate against the backdrop of state regulations as a
default in this way, so if our regulations do not explicitly remove any
given state requirement for a given hunt then hunters must still abide
by those requirements in order to hunt on Refuge System lands.
Nevertheless, the refuge will ensure this requirement is also included
in the refuge hunt brochure to address the concerns of the Commission.
In response to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's request
to remove ``merganser'' from the species list in the regulatory
language under William L. Finley NWR, we agree that this change will
allow us to be more aligned with the State's regulations and have made
that change in this final rule.
In response to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, we consider
falconry a ``special hunt'' due to concerns regarding non-target take
and so have made no changes to the rule concerning falconry. Service
policy, as outlined in our Service manual at 605 FW 2.7.M. (Special
Hunts), stipulates, ``We will address special types of hunts, such as
falconry, in the hunt section of the visitor service plan (VSP).'' In
other words, each refuge manager, when developing their step-down VSP
(which would include a hunt plan, if appropriate) from their CCP, must
first determine if hunting is compatible. Assuming it is found to be
compatible, the refuge manager would next determine the conduct of the
hunt, which might include the use of falconry. A refuge manager has
discretion to restrict hunting and types of hunting, including
falconry, if, for example, endangered or threatened species are
present, the cumulative impacts of a type of hunt have not been
analyzed or are not available, or if a type of special hunt is not
compatible with the refuge purpose. Thus, this issue is decided
individually on a refuge-by-refuge basis. The Service remains committed
to opening hunting methods, including falconry and especially those
methods allowed by State regulations, whenever it is possible to do so
at a given refuge in a manner consistent with all purposes and
objectives of the refuge, in the professional judgment of the refuge
manager. Falconry has not been found compatible on Bill Williams River
and Havasu NWRs.
In response to the comment from the Arizona Game and Fish
Department regarding aligning dog regulations on refuges to State
regulations, we have made no changes to the rule. Even though State
regulations may allow dogs during hunting activities, our general
refuge regulations prohibit all domesticated animals at 50 CFR 26.21(b)
unless authorized by refuge-specific regulations. While refuges adopt
State hunting and fishing regulations to the extent practicable, they
must also comply with the general refuge regulations. Therefore, in
order to allow dogs during hunting activities, each refuge must
authorize the use of dogs during hunting activities in their refuge-
specific entries at 50 CFR part 32. As explained above, all uses on
refuges must be found compatible and must not conflict with refuge
objectives. Some refuges have found that the use of dogs during hunting
activities must be limited or not authorized in order to avoid conflict
with refuge objectives.
In response to the comment from the Arizona Game and Fish
Department regarding methods of take for javelina, we have changed the
CFR to remove shotgun shooting shot as a legal method of take for
javelina at Bill Williams River NWR in order to align with state
regulations.
In response to the Arizona Game and Fish Department's concern
regarding inconsistencies between refuges within the State, we have
made no changes to the rule. Refuges within the same State often have
different purposes, different endangered or threatened species, or
different habitats, and therefore all hunting and fishing activities
and regulations must be considered on a refuge-by-refuge basis as well.
Where we do not align with State regulations, we make every attempt to
align refuges within a State or geographic region to each other, but
this is not always possible to ensure compatibility.
In response to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, we
made no changes to the rule. A key difference from other states is that
refuges in Alaska are open to all hunting and fishing uses until closed
under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; 16
U.S.C. 3111-3126). Where we have closed opportunities or limited the
use in comparison to State regulations, we promulgate those regulations
under 50 CFR part 36. We work closely with the Alaska Department of
Fish and Game when making these determinations and in assessing the
continued need for regulations.
Comment (4): We received comments from five Tribal governments on
the rule. The Shawnee Tribe in Oklahoma and Coushatta Tribe of
Louisiana both stated they did not have concerns about the proposed
rule. The Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska expressed
[[Page 48826]]
concerns about hunting of species with cultural significance at Loess
Bluffs NWR and hunting of ``nongame'' species, both at Loess Bluffs NWR
specifically and in the proposed rule generally. The Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma Historic Preservation Department requested consultation with
respect to Choctaw NWR concerning cultural resource records and
requested that we add an inadvertent discovery clause to our
environmental assessment (EA) for the openings and expansions at the
refuge. The Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office commented twice
in order to: (1) Convey that the Nation had no concerns about the
proposed activities at Loess Bluffs NWR, which are not included this
final rule; and (2) request that the Service conduct a cultural
resources survey at Sequoyah NWR before any construction begins on the
two proposed new fishing ponds on the refuge.
Our Response: The Service appreciates the support of our Tribal
partners and is committed to working with our Tribal partners to
address their concerns around potential cultural resource,
socioeconomic, and ecological impacts from hunting and fishing
activities in the Refuge System.
In response to the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, we do not
include the proposed openings and expansions at Loess Bluffs NWR in
this rule. We will continue discussions with the Iowa Tribe of Kansas
and Nebraska on how these acres and species may be considered for
hunting openings and expansions in the future. As to the Iowa Tribe's
general concern about hunting of ``nongame'' species in the rule
overall, as explained in detail at Comment (8), below, before
authorizing any given hunting and sport fishing activity on a refuge,
we ensure the activity is compatible with the biological integrity and
ecological health of all species on the refuge. Also, as explained at
Comment (15), below, this applies as much to the hunting of predatory
and even apex predator species, which some people consider ``nongame''
species, as it applies to other species that are more commonly
considered target species for hunting or ``game'' species.
In response to the Choctaw Nation, we have provided the requested
information, including reports, site forms, and Choctaw NWR's
unanticipated discovery plan. We have also incorporated the suggested
inadvertent discovery clause into the refuge's EA document, as
requested.
In response to the Osage Nation, the Service is conducting a
cultural resources survey and continuing discussions with the Osage
Nation. The construction of the ponds and all proposed fishing
activities dependent on the ponds are contingent on the results of the
survey and of our discussions with the Osage Nation.
Comment (5): We received two comments with concerns that the
Service did not properly engage in government-to-government
consultations with Tribes in developing the openings, expansions, and
other changes in the proposed rule.
Our Response: For all openings and expansions of hunting and sport
fishing that the Service considers, the Service engages in government-
to-government consultations with any and all potentially affected
Tribal partners. As described in our response to Comment (1), above,
the Service engages our Tribal partners early in the planning process
along with our State and Territorial partners when developing proposed
changes to hunting and sport fishing on Service lands and waters.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (6): A couple commenters stated that the Service should not
defer to State fish and wildlife agencies on certain hunting
regulations and analysis of wildlife populations.
Our Response: The Service works closely with State agency partners
on all aspects of fish and wildlife conservation and management. With
respect to rules and regulations governing hunting and sport fishing,
the Service makes State regulations the default for any authorized
hunting and sport fishing to maximize regulatory efficiency and clarity
for the public, especially hunters and anglers who must abide by the
rules and regulations. The Service also makes a concerted effort to
align our rules and regulations with State rules and regulations to
maximize this efficiency and minimize confusion, but it is not an
abdication of our responsibility to regulate hunting on the Refuge
System because we still determine in every case whether or not State
hunting and fishing regulations are appropriate for the given refuge.
Whenever necessary for refuge purposes, conservation goals, ecological
health, or compatibility with other uses, the Service imposes alternate
and/or additional rules and regulations to those of the relevant State
agencies. With respect to wildlife monitoring and analysis of wildlife
populations, the Service does its own monitoring and analyses and looks
to these first. We do also draw on the work of State partners, both
because it provides more data to inform our decisions and because it
ensures we have information about fish and wildlife on a larger
geographic scale, which is critical for many species with large ranges
that extend far from Service lands and waters. The ultimate
determinations governing all hunting and sport fishing activities on
NWRS lands are made by the Service, and we fulfill our responsibilities
to administer hunting and sport fishing programs in a manner compatible
with both ecological health and integrity and other recreational uses
of refuges.
Comment (7): We received a number of comments arguing that we
should have prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) instead of
station-specific environmental analyses combined with a national
cumulative impact report. Some of these comments also argued that
specific stations should have prepared an EIS where we prepared an
environmental assessment (EA) or an EA where we prepared a categorical
exclusion. One of these commenters also stated that the use of lead
ammunition or tackle presents an extraordinary circumstance that does
not allow for the use of a Categorical Exclusion. Relatedly, a few
commenters believed it improper for our NEPA documents to be draft
rather than final documents during our comment period.
Our Response: The Service disagrees with the comment that we should
prepare an EIS before proposing expanded hunting and fishing
opportunities on refuges or hatcheries. We completed individual EAs
for, or applied categorical exclusions to, 89 refuges and hatcheries,
in compliance with NEPA, to evaluate the impacts of opening or
expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on the stations through
this rulemaking. These EAs and categorical exclusions underwent
regional and national review to address and consider these actions from
a local, regional, multi-State, and/or flyway perspective, and to
consider the cumulative impacts from this larger geographical context.
The 2021-2022 cumulative impacts report concludes, after analyzing the
collective impacts of all EAs and categorical exclusions prepared in
connection with this rule, that the rule will not have significant
impacts at the local, regional, or national level. The commenters who
have raised these environmental analysis concerns have provided no
additional information that would change this analysis or our
conclusion. As discussed above, we annually conduct management
activities on refuges and hatcheries that minimize or offset impacts of
hunting and fishing on physical and cultural resources, including
establishing designated areas for hunting; restricting levels of use;
confining access and travel to designated locations; providing
[[Page 48827]]
education programs and materials for hunters, anglers, and other users;
and conducting law enforcement activities.
In this rulemaking, the Service is expanding opportunities for
recreational hunting and fishing. Expanding opportunities does not
necessarily result in increased impacts to refuge resources. We
anticipate that for some refuges, these expansions will not result in
changes in usage of the refuge. In other cases, these expansions may
lead to some increase in use of refuges, but these changes will likely
by minor. Opening of new refuges may attract people to the refuge, but
these hunters and/or anglers were likely already participating
elsewhere on State or other Federal lands. Overall, considering the
decreasing trends in hunting and fishing generally, and decreasing
trends of these activities on refuges specifically, we do not expect
this final rule to have a significant impact on the environment. As
noted in our cumulative impacts report, hunter participation trends
have been generally declining, some refuges attract a very small number
of participants, and often participation rates decline over the course
of a season.
Finally, a Federal court found that this approach, using a bottom-
up analysis to assess the cumulative impact of increased hunting and
fishing across the entire Refuge System, was an appropriate way for the
Service to analyze the impacts of the rule in compliance with NEPA (see
Fund for Animals v. Hall, 777 F. Supp. 2d 92, 105 (D.D.C. 2011)). We
disagree with the one commenter who sought to distinguish this
rulemaking from that case on the basis that (1) there were multiple
rulemakings before the court, and (2) this rule is larger than those
rules were in terms of the number of openings and expansions. These
differences do not matter to the court's conclusion that analysis of
cumulative impacts through a cumulative impacts report is appropriate.
First, the court reached a conclusion about what needs to be analyzed
for each individual rulemaking, even though the same challenge was
brought against multiple rulemakings. Second, the court could have, but
did not, set any limit on the number of openings and expansions the
cumulative impacts report could cover. The court likely did not do so
because a rule with more openings and expansions will simply have more
EAs and categorical exclusions in order to cover each station, and the
cumulative impacts report will correspondingly consider a larger number
of potential cumulative impacts as thoroughly as in any other iteration
of this annual rule.
We also disagree with one commenter's contention that the use of
lead ammunition or tackle presents an extraordinary circumstance that
will not allow for the use of a categorical exclusion. This question is
directly addressed by managers when they determine whether a
categorical exclusion is appropriate for a given expansion to hunting
and fishing on a refuge. Just as the level of lead introduced from
hunting and sport fishing has been found unlikely to produce
significant adverse impacts in all of our environmental assessments, it
was not considered to have significant adverse impacts for those
stations where an expansion to the hunting and/or fishing programs met
the criteria for a categorical exclusion. Finally, as the use of lead
ammunition and tackle has been allowed on refuges for decades in the
ordinary course of operations, it cannot reasonably be considered an
extraordinary circumstance for any station.
A few commenters raised a separate but related concern that they
believed it improper for our NEPA documents to be draft rather than
final documents after the Federal Register published the proposed rule.
These commenters misunderstand our rulemaking process. Our longstanding
approach to this annual rulemaking is that we have the required public
comment period for our NEPA documents and the required public comment
period for our proposed rule run concurrently and end on the same date.
The NEPA documents cannot be finalized without public comment, just as
we cannot issue a Final Rule before the public has commented on our
proposed rule. Not only is this approach compliant with all applicable
laws and regulations but it also provides important advantages for
public input. First, because we do create our draft NEPA documents
before drafting the proposed rule, so that our environmental impact
findings can inform the proposed rule, ending both public comment
periods on the same date results in longer public comment periods for
our NEPA documents. As an example, in this rulemaking cycle, instead of
the 30 days we would otherwise typically provide for an EA, for the EA
of Great Dismal Swamp NWR the public was given 88 days to provide
comments. Second, with draft NEPA documents we are able to make changes
to the EA that reflect changes made to the openings and expansions in
the rule in response to public comment on the rule, and vice versa. It
would be cumbersome, and potentially cause confusion for the public, to
go through a process of revising finalized EAs to make these same
changes. All of our EAs and other underlying planning documents will be
finalized and made public alongside the Final Rule, the content of
which they fully informed.
In response to comments, we reviewed all EAs and categorical
exclusions. Based on that review, we determined that the categorical
exclusion for Necedah NWR may require further consideration, and we do
not include the proposed expansions at Necedah NWR in this final rule.
The Service disagrees with the assertion that, for any of the stations
in this rule, we should have prepared an EIS instead of an EA or an EA
instead of a categorical exclusion. We also disagree with an assertion
that, for any of the stations in this rule, the analysis in the
respective EA or categorical exclusion is inadequate under NEPA.
We removed the proposed expansions at Necedah NWR from the rule,
but because they would have been administrative expansions, this did
not require revising any of the proposed regulatory changes for Necedah
NWR. Thus, we did not make any changes to the regulatory provisions in
this rule as a result of these comments.
Comment (8): We received several comments that alleged the proposed
rule is, or certain parts of the proposed rule are, a violation of the
Service's mandate to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity,
and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans (16 U.S.C
668dd(a)(4)(B)). These commenters also expressed concern about the
health and genetic diversity of populations of the species being
hunted.
Our Response: We do not allow hunting on a refuge if it is found
incompatible with that individual refuge's purposes or with the mission
of the Refuge System. Part of the mission of the Refuge System is to
ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental
health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present
and future generations of Americans (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)(B)).
Therefore, each Service station manager uses his or her ``sound
professional judgment'' (see the definition of this term in the Service
Manual at 603 FW 2.6.U., available online at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html">https://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html</a>) in making these inherently complex management
decisions to ensure that each proposed action complies with this
mandate. Each manager incorporates field experience, knowledge of
refuge resources, considerations of the refuge's role within an
ecosystem, applicable
[[Page 48828]]
laws, and best available science in making these decisions. Service
biologists and wildlife professionals, in consultation with the State,
determine the optimal number of each game animal that should reside in
an ecosystem and then establish hunt parameters (e.g., bag limits, sex
ratios) based on those analyses. We carefully consider how a proposed
hunt fits with individual refuge goals, objectives, and strategies
before allowing the hunt. The new or expanded hunting and/or fishing
opportunities in this rule are not expected to individually or
collectively result in significant adverse direct, indirect, or
cumulative impacts to hunted populations of migratory birds and
resident wildlife, nonhunted populations of migratory birds and
resident wildlife, endangered and threatened species, habitat and plant
resources, or other natural resources. We analyzed these impacts not
only in each refuge's NEPA document and ESA Section 7 document, but
also in the 2021-2022 cumulative impacts report.
The Service does not collect population data at the national level,
but is able to use State population data when analyzing the impacts at
individual stations or within a State. When determining the
compatibility of an activity, Service policy (603 FW 2) directs station
managers to utilize all available data in exercising their sound
professional judgement in the decision-making process.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of these
comments.
Comment (9): We received several comments that claimed the actions
in the proposed rule would imperil threatened and endangered species.
Some of these comments pointed to concerns regarding the Florida
Panther NWR in particular.
Our Response: In compliance with section 7 of the ESA, every
station determined that their proposed actions either would have ``no
effect'' or were ``not likely to adversely affect'' endangered and
threatened species or designated critical habitat present at that
station. The Service determined that the proposed action was not likely
to jeopardize any listed species, nor adversely modify its critical
habitat; and that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize any
proposed or candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered.
Furthermore, as described in our cumulative impacts report, because
endangered and threatened species are usually highly localized, minor
or negligible impacts on an endangered or threatened species at a local
or even regional scale would likely have no cumulative impact on
national populations of those species. Thus, considering all impacts
cumulatively for each individual threatened or endangered species, it
is unlikely there will be any adverse impacts on such species, their
habitats, or their recovery from these openings and expansions of
hunting and sport fishing.
We do not allow hunting on a refuge if it is found incompatible
with that individual refuge's purposes or with the mission of the NWRS.
In addition, the Service's biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health (BIDEH) policy (601 FW 3) guides decision-making
with respect to management of activities on refuges, including hunting.
Service biologists and wildlife professionals, in consultation with the
State, determine the optimal number of each game animal that should
reside in an ecosystem and then establish hunt parameters (e.g., bag
limits, sex ratios) based on those analyses. We carefully consider how
a proposed hunt fits with individual refuge goals, objectives, and
strategies before allowing the hunt. None of the known, estimated, or
projected harvests of migratory game birds, upland game, or big game
species in this rulemaking is expected to have significant adverse
direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to hunted populations, non-
hunted wildlife, endangered or threatened species, plant or habitat
resources, wildlife-dependent recreation, prescribed fire, air, soil,
water, cultural resources, refuge facilities, solitude, or socio-
economics. We analyze these impacts not only in each refuge's NEPA
document, but also in the 2021-2022 cumulative impacts report.
While there may be some minor, localized, and temporary (short-
term) impacts to endangered and threatened species as a result of
hunting or fishing activities, every station ensured that these impacts
were minimized and, in many cases, offset them through a variety of
management activities.
In response to the comments expressing concern specifically about
Florida Panther NWR, the Service is opening three limited quota spring
turkey hunts and fishing on a 19-acre pond on that refuge. Therefore,
impacts on the endangered Florida panther (Puma (=Felis) concolor
coryi) are expected to be negligible to minor due to the limited number
of turkey hunting permits we will issue; the type, amount, and location
of approved public access; and the general locations of all proposed
project activities (e.g., highly disturbed areas impacted by human use
before the refuge was established). As outlined in the environmental
assessment (section B of the VSP), through the use of quota hunts, a
sustainable harvest is expected. A limited wild turkey hunt may be held
during three weekends of the Florida spring turkey season, and only one
bearded turkey may be harvested seasonally by permitted hunters. The
refuge hunt will adopt Florida State regulations at nearby State
wildlife management areas, and also add refuge-specific regulations to
ensure compatibility. Up to 25 permits on two quota weekend hunts
(i.e., 50 total permits) and up to 10 family groups (i.e., 20 total
permits) on the third weekend hunt may be issued annually. However,
Florida Panther NWR will monitor the turkey population and hunter
access to allow for adaptive management in the number of permits issued
annually. Also, no new roads or trails will be needed to accommodate
hunting on the refuge. The use of existing roads and trails will
accommodate turkey hunting. It is estimated that fewer than 70 hunters
will access the refuge, and they will take fewer than 8 turkeys each
season on the refuge. The local turkey population is expected to
rebound seasonally, with no significant effects anticipated. Rangewide,
this slight increase in take is not expected to have a cumulative
effect on the species.
In the ESA Section 7 analysis for Florida Panther NWR, we
concluded, based on the best available science and professional
judgment of refuge staff, that the hunting and fishing openings are not
likely to adversely impact the Florida panther. We have described the
turkey hunting activity above because it is the most likely source of
any minor disturbances that occur for panthers on the refuge. In
addition to the limits on turkey hunting detailed above, it is
important to note that turkey is not a primary prey species for the
Florida panther, so any temporary, minor change in the refuge's turkey
population should not affect panthers. Relatedly, even though panthers
will sometimes prey on turkeys, because lead ammunition is prohibited
for turkey hunting on the refuge there is no concern about lead
exposure from panthers scavenging hunted turkeys or turkey gut piles.
Well-managed hunt programs and other outdoor recreational activities do
not conflict with the Service's ability to recover the Florida panther
or other Federal trust species on Florida Panther NWR. An example of
this lack of conflict is evidenced by the fact that since conservation
and especially genetic diversification efforts began in the 1990s the
panther population has continued to increase
[[Page 48829]]
throughout southwest Florida even though hunting and other forms of
outdoor recreation have continued to occur as traditional uses across
millions of acres, including on both private and public lands. Panthers
are one of the most adaptable mammals in the Northern Hemisphere and
have home ranges in close proximity to human occupied areas in
southwest Florida (e.g., Golden Gate Estates). The proposed quota
turkey hunts are anticipated to only have minimal to moderate short-
term effects on the Florida panther and other Federal trust species.
Panther activity may be temporarily altered as a result of human
activity. However, any alteration of panther activity is expected to be
insignificant.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (10): Many commenters expressed concern over the use of
lead ammunition and/or lead fishing tackle on refuges and hatcheries.
Some commenters objected to these potential sources of lead at a
particular refuge or hatchery, and many individual commenters and
multiple organizations were concerned about lead nationwide and
referred us to various forms of evidence on the subject of lead impacts
to human and ecological health. Many of these commenters were
supportive of the increased access the Service proposed, but requested
the Service not allow lead ammunition or tackle. Some commenters
expressed specific concerns about raptor species, including the bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). One commenter stated that the use of
lead ammunition would violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16
U.S.C. 703 et seq.).
Our Response: The Service acknowledges concerns from commenters
about the issue of bioavailability of lead in the environment and is
aware of the potential impacts of lead on fish and wildlife. See, for
example, Nancy Golden, et al., ``A Review and Assessment of Spent Lead
Ammunition and Its Exposure and Effects to Scavenging Birds in the
United States,'' which is available online at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/midwest/refuges/Review%20and%20Assessment%20paper.pdf">https://www.fws.gov/midwest/refuges/Review%20and%20Assessment%20paper.pdf</a>. Accordingly, the
Service pays special attention to species susceptible to lead uptake
and to sources of lead that could impact ecological and human health.
Historically, the principal cause of lead poisoning in waterfowl
was the high densities of lead shot in wetland sediments associated
with migratory bird hunting activities (Kendall et al. 1996). In 1991,
as a result of high bird mortality, the Service instituted a nationwide
ban on the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots (see 50 CFR
32.2(k)).
Yet, there remains some concern about the bioavailability of spent
lead ammunition (bullets) and fishing tackle on the environment, the
health of fish and wildlife, and human health. The Service is aware of
fish and wildlife species, including endangered and threatened species,
that are susceptible to biomagnification of lead from their food
sources or the food eaten by their food sources. There is also evidence
that some species are susceptible to direct ingestion of lead
ammunition or tackle due to their foraging behaviors. For example, the
Service recognizes that ingested lead fishing tackle has been found to
be a leading cause of mortality in adult common loons (Grade, T. et
al., 2017, in Population-level effects of lead fishing tackle on common
loons. The Journal of Wildlife Management 82(1): pp. 155-164). The
impacts of lead on human health and safety have been a focus of several
scientific studies. We are familiar with studies that have found the
ingestion of animals harvested via the use of lead ammunition increased
levels of lead in the human body (e.g., Buenz, E. (2016). Lead exposure
through eating wild game. American Journal of Medicine, 128: p. 458).
While there are concerns of lead's general potential for ecological
health impacts, we disagree with commenters that the use of lead
ammunition in connection with the particular openings and expansions of
hunting and fishing on the refuges and hatchery in this rulemaking will
significantly impact the environment or is likely to harm endangered or
threatened species. Each refuge and hatchery carefully evaluated
possible impacts to the environment, including to endangered and
threatened species, as part of the NEPA process. As discussed above, on
stations where lead ammunition or tackle is allowed, we found that the
number of hunters and anglers using lead ammunition or tackle would
result in no more than a negligible increase of lead in the
environment. As a result, we found there would be no significant impact
to the environment from the use of lead ammunition and/or tackle for
the station In addition, every refuge and hatchery looked at the
impacts of these new or expanded hunting and fishing opportunities,
including the allowance or prohibition of lead, on endangered and
threatened species in compliance with requirements under section 7 of
the ESA. The ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that the actions
they carry out, fund, or authorize do not jeopardize the continued
existence of endangered or threatened species (listed species). For
each station, the Service determined that the proposed action was not
likely to adversely affect any listed species, nor jeopardize any
listed species. We also determined that the proposed action was not
likely to jeopardize any proposed or candidate species for listing as
threatened or endangered.
We also disagree with the commenter who asserted that the use of
lead ammunition will violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
of 1940 (Eagle Act) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The
potential for lead to threaten any species, including raptors in
general and eagles in particular because of their protection under
these statutes, is a key part of the NEPA and ESA analyses that are
conducted before the authorization of any hunting or fishing on a
refuge for which lead ammunition or lead fishing tackle is allowed.
This ensures hunting and fishing activities are compliant with these
statutes. In fact, the MBTA explicitly authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior to create regulations governing take for all of the migratory
bird species covered by the treaty, including eagles (16 U.S.C.
704(a)). The promulgation of the hunting regulations in this rule under
the authority of the Secretary of the Interior means that the Secretary
has determined these hunting activities are compatible with the terms
of the MBTA and with the international conventions that are the basis
for the MBTA. Thus, the hunting regulations in this rule do not violate
the MBTA or the associated treaties.
The Service continues to educate hunters and anglers on the impacts
of lead on the environment, and particularly on human health and safety
concerns of ingesting animals harvested with lead ammunition. We always
encourage hunters and anglers to voluntarily use non-lead ammunition
and tackle for all harvest activities. For both ammunition and tackle,
alternatives to lead are becoming more widely available and used by
hunters and anglers; and despite the traditional view that non-lead
ammunition and tackle is more expensive, the costs have become
comparable.
We share a strong partnership with the States in managing wildlife
and therefore, when determining whether to prohibit the use of lead
ammunition or tackle, we have traditionally deferred to State
regulations. For example, in California, the use of lead ammunition
[[Page 48830]]
is prohibited statewide, including on all Service lands, largely in
response to the adverse impacts of lead on the endangered California
condor (Gymnogyps californianus). We will continue to research this
issue and plan to continue engaging with States and other partners to
promote the use of non-lead ammunition and tackle.
Although there is not a Service-wide ban on lead ammunition for
non-migratory bird hunting activities or on lead fishing tackle, the
Service has taken specific steps to limit the use of lead in hunting
and fishing activities on refuges and hatcheries. Currently, under 50
CFR 32.2(k), all refuges and hatcheries may require the use of nontoxic
ammunition for all hunting other than deer and turkey hunting through
brochures, signage, and other forms of public notification. For deer
hunting, turkey hunting, and fishing, refuges and hatcheries must
promulgate station-specific regulations. Notably, we continue, in these
annual rulemakings updating the regulations for hunting and fishing on
NWRs and NFHs, to phase out the use of lead on Service lands and
waters. Currently, including the regulatory changes in this rule, 82 of
the 434 stations open to hunting restrict lead ammunition use for deer
and/or turkey hunting, and 23 of the 378 stations open to fishing
restrict lead tackle for fishing. In this rule, 17 stations are putting
forward restrictions on the use of lead ammunition and/or lead fishing
tackle. However, we acknowledge that with the increased access provided
to hunters and anglers on Service lands and waters in the past few
years, despite the Service's efforts to mitigate the impact of lead on
the environment, the increase in number of hunting and angling
opportunities has outpaced the increase in number of opportunities
subject to lead use restrictions.
Based on the recent historic expansions in our hunting and fishing
programs, and per our policy, the Service will continue to evaluate
lead use in hunting and fishing on Service lands and waters.
Comment (11): A few commenters expressed opposition to a
prohibition on lead ammunition for hunting. The arguments these
commenters put forward were that hunters on a given refuge would not
take enough shots to create dangerous levels of lead and that reducing
lead is a positive move but regulations prohibiting lead might result
in anger and backlash.
Our Response: We recognize that lead in the environment carries
risks for fish and wildlife, which is why lead ammunition is not
allowed for waterfowl hunting on any refuge and lead ammunition is
prohibited on refuges in California in order to protect the California
condor. However, most hunting and sport fishing activities do not
introduce enough lead into the environment to pose a significant danger
to any species or to make it likely listed species will experience
adverse effects. Accordingly, lead ammunition and tackle are currently
allowed where our NEPA and ESA analyses determine the activity is not
likely to result in dangerous levels of lead exposure. Even for the
hunting and sport fishing opportunities where we have determined lead
will be allowed, we educate hunters about lead and encourage the use of
nontoxic alternatives. This education and encouragement, coupled with
the declining price of nontoxic alternatives and others trends, have
allowed us to introduce lead prohibitions for all or some hunting and
sport fishing activities, in addition to waterfowl hunting, on many of
our refuges without significant opposition from our State partners,
local hunters and anglers, or other stakeholders. This includes
provisions prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or lead fishing
tackle for 17 different stations in this rule.
Comment (12): We received several comments concerned with impacts
of this rule on migratory birds. A few of these commenters were
particularly concerned about those refuges whose purposes include
``inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds'' or that have been
designated as ``important bird areas'' (IBAs) by the Audubon Society.
Our Response: All of the migratory bird hunting opportunities on
Service lands are done within the frameworks set by the Service in
compliance with the MBTA. These frameworks set season lengths, bag
limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting and ensure that
hunting will not have adverse impacts on the populations of the various
species of migratory birds through rigorous biological monitoring,
information collection, and data review. To determine the appropriate
frameworks for each species, the Service considers 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 are established
for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird
hunting, States may select season dates, bag limits, and other
regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more
restrictive in their selections than the Federal frameworks, but never
more permissive. For more information on this process, see the 2021-
2022 cumulative impacts report at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a> under
Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2021-0027.
Our analysis in the cumulative impacts report of the expansion of
hunting of migratory game birds on Service lands through this rule
indicates that the proposed harvests, or intentional take, of each
species will constitute a negligible component of both national and
flyway harvest. Station-specific migratory game bird hunting
regulations are established within the above discussed frameworks and
in compliance with NEPA to ensure that adverse impacts will not
accumulate over time; thus, the harvest is expected to have a
negligible impact on migratory bird resources within NWRs.
In addition to all hunting for migratory game birds being set
within this national framework, and as with all species hunted in the
Refuge System, each station must also ensure that the hunting or
fishing opportunity is compatible, or in the case of NFHs not
detrimental, with the purpose of that station and complies with
applicable provisions of NEPA, ESA, and other applicable laws and
policy before opening or expanding migratory bird hunting. This
thorough process ensures that the Service has analyzed the potential
impacts of the proposed hunting or fishing opportunity and determined
that the opportunity would not have a significant impact on any
migratory bird species, not just the targeted species.
Where inviolate sanctuaries occur on NWRs, all uses must be
evaluated for appropriateness and, if necessary, compatibility. The
language within the Administration Act only applies to those lands with
the designation of inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds. With this
in mind, other uses (e.g., big game hunting, hiking, auto tours, etc.)
can be allowed as long as they are compatible. When determining
compatibility, the Service must consider the high bar that the
inviolate sanctuary designation established.
In addition, refuges with this designation will have to evaluate
the influence of uses occurring or potentially occurring on other
portions of the refuge and how they may affect the inviolate
sanctuaries. Although this designation sets a higher level of
consideration, it is clear that Congress intended for these areas to be
considered for use when compatible. In the case of IBA designations
from the Audubon Society, while several refuges
[[Page 48831]]
in the rule do have these IBA designations, these designations do not
place any additional legal restrictions related to migratory birds on
management of these refuges. As discussed previously, each station goes
through several different processes, including compatibility
determinations, NEPA compliance, and ESA compliance, to ensure that the
hunting and fishing opportunities proposed would have no significant
impacts on populations of migratory birds in compliance with the
Service's mandates under the MBTA, Administration Act, or other
applicable laws and policies.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (13): A number of commenters mentioned climate change, as a
general environmental issue, as something we should consider in
developing this rule. A few of these commenters specifically argued
that we did not fully consider the impacts this rule could have in
conjunction with the separate impacts of climate change on fish,
wildlife, and other refuge resources. One comment invoked Executive
Order 14008, which calls on government agencies to ``combat the climate
crisis'' through conservation and other measures.
Our Response: The Service recognizes climate change as a threat to
human and ecological health and operates in compliance with Executive
Order (E.O.) 14008. The conservation goals and operations of the Refuge
System are well-aligned with E.O. 14008, and this rule in particular is
consistent with the Executive order.
We consider climate change factors in this rule, as with all
actions on Service lands. Where appropriate, the effects of climate
change on individual species and refuge natural resources are
considered throughout the individual NEPA documents, individual ESA
section 7 documents, and cumulative impacts report. If such analysis
determined that a given hunting or sport fishing activity, in
conjunction with the effects of climate change, would result in adverse
impacts to protected species or biological integrity, then the refuge
manager would not authorize the activity.
In addition to considering the impacts of climate change on the
management of wildlife, we respond to a changing climate through the
annual process of setting hunting and fishing seasons. Hunting seasons
are based on biological monitoring and coordination with our State
partners. In some circumstances, seasons may be adjusted based on
predicted harvest rates, population levels, seasonal factors, and other
assessments. While this process is not necessarily climate-based, over
time, as the variables mentioned above change, we respond by altering
regulations accordingly. These regulatory changes are only incremental
changes that build on previous changes. Any major changes in station or
environmental conditions, such as an unsustainable decrease in a
species' population or sizeable increases in refuge or hatchery acreage
or public uses, would trigger additional planning, NEPA review,
compatibility determinations, and ESA section 7 evaluation processes.
The Service may reevaluate compatibility at any time if conditions
warrant. These required planning and management processes ensure that
adverse impacts will not accumulate over time.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (14): We also received various comments expressing the
sentiment that ``trophy hunting,'' baiting, and hounding of predators
are ``unsportsmanlike'' activities and inappropriate uses on Service
lands. Some comments also expressed a desire for the Service to enact a
ban on ``hunting contests.''
Our Response: The Service does not attempt to define or authorize
``trophy hunting'' in any of our laws, regulations, or policies
concerning hunting. We follow State hunting and fishing regulations
(except for where we determine it is necessary to be more restrictive
on individual stations), including State regulations concerning
responsible hunting, or prohibitions on wanton waste (defined as ``to
intentionally waste something negligently or inappropriately'').
We apply this same stance on alleged ``hunting contests.'' The
Service follows State bag limits for species open to hunting, except
where we may restrict bag limits in order to meet compatibility
requirements for the activity. In States where excessive take of
particular species is encouraged for sport only, the Service would
restrict bag limits. We only allow hunting on refuges and hatcheries
when we have determined that the opportunity is sustainable and
compatible. For example, ``contests'' targeting non-game species where
there are no bag limits under State regulations, including species
classified as ``predators'' under State laws, are permitted in Oregon
and Idaho. However, the Service would not issue permits for coyote
hunting ``contests'' at refuges in these States for several reasons,
including unacceptable disturbance impacts to other game and nongame
species, conflicts with other user groups, and conflicts with the
Service's BIDEH policy.
Under 50 CFR 26.21(b), the use of dogs for hounding is prohibited
on refuges unless authorized by station-specific regulations, and many
refuges only authorize the use of dogs for retrieval of migratory
birds, upland game birds, and small game. Most refuges that allow dogs
require that the dogs are under the immediate control of the hunter at
all times or leashed, unless actively retrieving an animal. Most of the
commenters who expressed opposition to the use of dogs referenced
Silvio O. Conte NWR specifically. The use of dogs will still be allowed
at Silvio O. Conte NWR for hunting of waterfowl and game species in
accordance with state regulations. However, because of the concerns of
commenters we will require hunters who wish to use more than two dogs
at a time for hunting of any species anywhere on the refuge to obtain a
special use permit and on the Putney Mountain Unit specifically we are
only allowing the use of dogs for migratory bird and grouse hunting.
In States where baiting is allowed, most refuges have elected to be
more restrictive and not support this method of hunting. Furthermore,
most of the commenters who expressed opposition to baiting referenced
Silvio O. Conte NWR specifically, but that refuge does not allow
baiting.
We made changes to the rule for the use of dogs at Silvio O. Conte
NWR as described above, but made no other changes to the rule as a
result of these comments.
Comment (15): We received a few comments expressing concern about
opening and expanding opportunities for hunting of predator species.
Some commenters alleged that we did not give enough consideration to
the impacts of those proposed hunts, and that the hunts conflicted with
the Service's mandates under the Administration Act to maintain the
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the
refuge. One of these commenters also brought our attention to the
omission of coyote from species lists for three refuges in our
cumulative impacts report.
Our Response: Refuge managers consider predator management
decisions on a case-by-case basis. As with all species, a refuge
manager makes a decision about managing predator populations, which are
included in the category of resident wildlife, including allowing
predatory species to be hunted, only after careful examination to
ensure the action would comply with relevant laws, policies, and
directives. The Administration Act, as amended, directs
[[Page 48832]]
the Service to manage refuges for ``biological integrity, diversity,
and environmental health.'' Predators play a critical role in the
integrity, diversity, and overall health of ecosystems, so before
allowing predators to be hunted, a refuge manager must ensure that
these actions do not threaten the integrity, diversity, or health of
the refuge ecosystem. The manager must also determine that the action
is compatible with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge
System, and in keeping with the refuge's CCP and other step-down plans.
In addition, the refuge manager analyzes the impacts of the actions on
the environment through the NEPA process and section 7 of the ESA.
Therefore, a refuge manager must take many steps to ensure that any
opportunity for hunting predators on a refuge meets the Service's
applicable laws and policies.
For example, we received one comment advocating for the hunting of
predator species during established State seasons at Sherburne NWR in
Minnesota. The refuge manager at Sherburne NWR had already considered
adding such hunts, but determined that the seasons and hours of
predator hunting in Minnesota would conflict with the months of the
year and hours of the day in which the refuge is open to the public.
Sherburne NWR observes a sanctuary period from March 1 through August
31, and is only open during daylight hours. Predator hunting in
Minnesota is primarily at night and primarily during the summer months.
We will not be able to grant the request of this commenter because it
is not compatible with the conservation purposes and practices of
Sherburne NWR.
The Administration Act, as amended, also mandates that regulations
allowing hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the
Refuge System shall be, to the extent practicable, consistent with
State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans (16
U.S.C. 668dd(m)). Therefore, all the opportunities for hunting
predators in this rule that are intended to bring greater consistency
with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans
are part of realizing the Service's mission. Moreover, these, as with
all predator hunting determinations and all hunting and fishing
determinations, were only made after careful consideration by the
refuge manager to ensure that such actions would not threaten the
integrity, diversity, and overall health of the ecosystem and were
compatible with both the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the
Refuge System. For NFHs, the hatchery manager made the decision that
such opportunities were not detrimental to the propagation of fish,
wildlife, or aquatic species (50 CFR 70.1). Finally, both the NEPA
process and the rulemaking process provide opportunities for the public
to provide comments and any additional information on impacts of our
actions. We considered the additional information provided from the
public on this issue during these public comment periods and determined
that they did not affect our initial determinations that these small
and minor opportunities for hunting predators on specific refuges or
hatcheries will have no more than minor impacts on the population
health of these species or other wildlife at the local, regional, or
national level.
Lastly, one commenter noted that for a particular predator (coyote)
the cumulative impacts report omitted proposed hunts from the narrative
descriptions of the openings and expansions for three stations: Bogue
Chitto NWR, Loess Bluffs NWR, and Malheur NWR. Those typographical
errors have been corrected for Bogue Chitto NWR and Malheur NWR. In the
case of Loess Bluffs NWR, all hunting openings and expansions described
in the May 4, 2021, proposed rule are not included in this final rule,
in recognition of concerns expressed by the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and
Nebraska.
We have changed the cumulative impacts report as described, but did
not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment (16): One commenter stated that the Service did not
properly consider the impacts of allowing beaver hunting because beaver
dams can alter water flow in ways that provide habitats for other
species.
Our Response: This rule includes the opening or expansion of beaver
hunting on multiple refuges, both as a target species and as incidental
take during hunts for other species. For each of these refuges
individually, the NEPA analysis and ESA section 7 analysis consider the
potential impacts of allowing hunters to take beaver. As with all
target species, the refuge manager must ensure that authorizing hunting
does not threaten the integrity, diversity, or health of the refuge
ecosystem. This includes effects on other species from the loss of
individuals from the given target species, which encompasses effects
from the absence of beaver dams that change water flows just as it
encompasses effects from reduced predation, reduced foraging pressure,
and other mechanisms that can impact non-target species. The manager
must also determine that the action is compatible with refuge purposes
and the mission of the Refuge System, and in keeping with the refuge's
CCP and other step-down plans. As a result, the beaver hunts in this
rule do not present a threat to ecosystem health or other species
either directly from the take of individual beavers or indirectly
through the effect of beaver hunting on the number and strength of
beaver dams. In fact, on many refuges beavers are already managed by
refuge staff to prevent habitat damage caused by beaver dams, which can
have negative impacts on vegetation, moist soil units, and other refuge
resources. Finally, the Service does not anticipate substantial take of
beavers on any particular refuge or cumulatively.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this
comment.
Comment (17): We received several comments that expressed concern
over some aspect of public safety. Commenters raised concerns about
openings or expansions of hunting at certain stations based on the
conflicts with other visitors to the refuge or the need for adequate
funding and/or staffing. In particular, the most common specific
concern was that the increase in openings and expansions of hunting and
sport fishing would overwhelm existing law enforcement capacity. These
concerns were expressed for multiple specific stations and as a
nationwide issue.
Our Response: The Service considers public safety to be a top
priority. In order to open or expand hunting or sport fishing on a
refuge, we must find the activity compatible. In order to find an
activity compatible, the activity must not ``materially interfere with
or detract from'' public safety, wildlife resources, or the purpose of
the refuge (see the Service Manual at 603 FW 2.6.B., available online
at <a href="https://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html">https://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html</a>). For this rulemaking, we
specifically analyzed the possible impacts of the changes to hunting
programs at each refuge and hatchery on visitor use and experience,
including public safety concerns and possible conflicts between user
groups.
Hunting of resident wildlife on refuges generally occurs consistent
with State regulations, which are designed to protect public safety.
Refuges may also develop refuge-specific hunting regulations that are
more restrictive than State regulations in order to help meet specific
refuge objectives, including protecting public safety. Refuges use many
techniques to ensure the safety of hunters and visitors, such as
requiring hunters to wear blaze orange,
[[Page 48833]]
controlling the density of hunters, limiting where firearms can be
discharged (e.g., not across roads, away from buildings), and using
time and space zoning to limit conflicts between hunters and other
visitors. It is worth noting that injuries and deaths related to
hunting are extremely rare, both for hunters themselves and for the
nonhunting public.
Public comment is important in ensuring we have considered all
available information and concerns before making a final decision on a
proposed opening or expansion. For all of the proposed openings or
expansions of hunting in our May 4, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 23794),
we have determined that there are sufficient protections in place as
part of the hunt program at that station to ensure public safety. For
more information on the Service's efforts to ensure public safety at a
particular station, please see that station's hunt plan, compatibility
determination, and associated NEPA analysis.
Regarding concerns about lack of funding or staffing, Service
policy (603 FW 2.12.A.(7)) requires station managers to determine that
adequate resources (including personnel, which in turn includes law
enforcement) exist or can be provided by the Service or a partner to
properly develop, operate, and maintain the use in a way that will not
materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the refuge
purpose(s) and the Service's mission. If resources are lacking for
establishment or continuation of wildlife-dependent recreational uses,
the refuge manager will make reasonable efforts to obtain additional
resources or outside assistance from States, other public agencies,
local communities, and/or private and nonprofit groups before
determining that the use is not compatible. When Service law
enforcement resources are lacking, we are often able to rely upon State
fish and game law-enforcement capacity to assist in enforcement of
hunting and fishing regulations. One commenter noted that our hunt plan
document for the Potomac River NWR Complex specifically states that
State law enforcement will take on the role of enforcing hunting and
fishing regulations and asked that the hunt plan provide further
detail. Specific information on how we responded to this comment
letter's request for more detail on particular hunting and fishing
opportunities at Potomac River NWR Complex can be found in that
station's final hunt plan, compatibility determination, and finding of
no significant impact documents.
For all 89 stations opening or expanding hunting and/or sport
fishing in this rule, we have determined that we have adequate
resources, including law enforcement personnel, to develop, operate,
and maintain the hunt programs.
We did not make any additional changes to the rule as a result of
these comments.
Comment (18): We received additional comments supporting the
requests made by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to allow falconry
on refuges within the State and to align dog regulations on refuges to
State regulations. They also echoed the concern from the State about
inconsistencies on refuges within the State.
Our Response: As described in our response to Comment (3), above,
we determine both whether falconry and the use of dogs for hunting is
compatible on a refuge-by-refuge basis. We also determine refuge
regulations on a refuge-by-refuge basis, and while we strive to achieve
consistency on refuges within a State, different regulations are
sometimes required. This allows us to ensure that these uses are
compatible with the purposes of the refuge.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of these
comments.
Comment (19): We received two comments about reduced hunt quality
from hunter overcrowding at particular refuges. One comment expressed
concerns that the changes, especially removing the lottery limitation
on waterfowl hunting, at Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR would lead to
hunter overcrowding. The other comment expressed concerns that
additional gun hunting for deer at Sherburne NWR would reduce the
quality of the current deer bow hunting season on that refuge.
Our Response: For Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR, the Service does not
conclude removing the lottery draw will impact the quality of the
waterfowl hunt or lead to overcrowding, as more areas will be open to
hunting resulting in reduced overcrowding. As outlined in the NEPA and
planning documents for the change, the Service will eliminate the
lottery waterfowl hunting on the refuge to reduce the application
process for the users and the associated administrative burden for the
refuge. The hunt program was designed to be supportive of hunters of
diverse backgrounds. Further, the Service designed the hunt program on
the refuge to better align, where appropriate and possible, with State
regulations.
For Sherburne NWR, the Service recognizes that the new muzzleloader
deer hunting as proposed may create problems for the existing bow
hunting season. Accordingly, we are modifying the new muzzleloader
hunting: instead of opening muzzleloader hunting in Areas A, B, and C
we will only open it in Area A. The muzzleloader hunting will otherwise
operate as proposed. This change ensures that Area B will only be open
to bow hunters after the existing 9-day gun season ends. Area C will
remain closed to all hunting following the 9-day gun season.
We changed the hunting at Sherburne NWR from the proposed rule as
described, but did not make any changes to the regulatory text of the
rule or any other changes as a direct result of these comments.
Comment (20): A couple of commenters stated that hunting and sport
fishing activities could introduce invasive species to refuge lands or
waters.
Our Response: We are aware of the ecological threats posed by
invasive species and make it a part of all Service actions to limit the
spread of invasive species. Many of the refuges opening or expanding
hunting and sport fishing under this rule have both mitigation measures
for invasive species in connection with the hunting and sport fishing
activities and separate measures taken on refuge lands and waters to
limit invasive species.
We also explicitly consider invasive species in our analyses of
proposed hunting and sport fishing openings and expansions. As one of
the two commenters noted, the cumulative impacts report directly
addresses concerns about invasive species. We conclude there that
invasive species do not present a significant risk, at individual
refuges or cumulatively, because the participants in activities that
present the risk of introducing invasive species generally come to the
refuge from within the local area and are few in number.
Moreover, in some cases and as seen in this rule, we may use
hunting as a management tool with the explicit goal of reducing
populations of invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability.
Therefore, facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of
the Service's roles and responsibilities for management of invasive
species.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (21): One commenter quoted the proposed rule's description
of the Service's statutory authority to promulgate this rule and
interpreted the quotation as indicating a ``compatibility assessment''
was not prepared for each station in the rule.
[[Page 48834]]
Our Response: This commenter has misinterpreted the quoted language
from the rule. The proposed rule's preamble states, ``[w]e develop
specific management plans for each refuge prior to opening it to
hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop station-specific
regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs with the
purpose(s) for which we established the refuge or hatchery and the
Refuge and Hatchery System mission'' (86 FR 23794, May 4, 2021, p. 86
FR 23795). This explains that management plans for many refuges call
for promulgating station-specific regulations that ensure the
compatibility of hunting and fishing programs with the purpose of the
given refuge. As described in response to Comment (6), above, the
appropriate State regulations set the default rules for hunting and
sport fishing activities that are authorized on a refuge, but the
Service often has to supplement these regulations with our own
regulations to ensure compatibility. These are the regulations
described as being needed ``in many cases'' and many such regulations
are contained in this rule. The proposed rule's preamble goes on to
state, ``[w]e ensure initial compliance with the Administration Act and
the Recreation Act for hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired land
through an interim determination of compatibility made at or near the
time of acquisition'' (86 FR 23794, May 4, 2021, p. 86 FR 23795). This
describes another step, separate from developing regulations, in the
process of planning hunting and sport fishing activities on a refuge:
making a compatibility determination based on the nature of the hunting
or sport fishing activity under consideration and the purposes of the
particular refuge. These compatibility determinations must be and are
made for every activity at every station that offers hunting or sport
fishing activities. The phrase ``in many cases'' as used in the
proposed rule is not grammatically tied to compatibility determinations
and would never be used by the Service to describe compatibility
determinations, as they are a necessary management step for all
stations that offer wildlife-dependent recreation.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of this
comment.
Comment (22): One commenter argued that the proposed rule violates
the Recreation Act in not curtailing public recreation, violates the
Administration Act in not preserving biological integrity, and violates
the Improvement Act in disrupting ecological processes.
Our Response: We disagree with the commenter's statement that this
rule violates the Recreation Act. The Recreation Act provides that the
Secretary shall curtail public recreation use generally in order to
ensure accomplishment of the primary purposes for which said
conservation areas were acquired or established. Thus, Congress
delegated the responsibility of determining when to curtail all types
of public recreation in the interest of the conservation purposes of
each refuge to the Secretary of the Interior, and by extension to the
Service. We disagree with the commenter's claim that the Recreation Act
calls on the Secretary to curtail public recreation uses generally,
especially when the later-enacted Administration Act and Improvement
Act explicitly allow, and even prioritize, hunting and sport fishing on
refuges. The commenter's interpretation also goes against the spirit of
the Recreation Act because this statute was meant to facilitate public
use and enjoyment of conservation areas, like refuge system lands.
Moreover, there is nothing in this Act to indicate that, as the
commenter implied, a recreational use must ``provide income'' to the
Service or be necessary for wildlife management in order for the
Secretary to authorize it.
We disagree with the commenter's statement that this rule violates
the Administration Act. The commenter is correct that the Secretary,
and by extension the Service, must create regulations for hunting
within the Refuge System that ``ensure that the biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained.'' The
commenter is incorrect in concluding that this rule violates this part
of the Refuge system mission because the commenter fails to recognize
that our compatibility determination, NEPA, ESA section 7, and
cumulative impacts report processes and analyses take into full account
both lead exposure risks and food chain impacts. From these analyses,
we determine that our fishing and hunting activities comply with our
BIDEH policies based upon the best available science and the
professional judgment of Service employees.
The commenter first states that allowing lead shot for certain
turkey hunts does not ensure biological integrity and environmental
health. Where our analysis and expertise indicate that lead presents a
significant danger to biological integrity and environmental health,
the use of lead is not allowed; the primary examples are that lead
ammunition is prohibited for all waterfowl hunting on all refuges, and
all lead is prohibited from NWRs in the State of California in order to
protect the California condor. The potential for lead to threaten
biological integrity and environmental health is a key part of the NEPA
and ESA analyses that are conducted before the authorization of any
hunting or sport fishing activity on a refuge for which lead ammunition
or tackle is allowed. For more on the topic of the use of lead for
hunting and fishing in the Refuge System, see our response to Comment
(10), above.
The commenter next states that allowing the hunting of species at
or near the top of the food chain in their given habitat does not
ensure biological integrity because it would cause overpopulation of
prey species lower on the food chain. While this rule does open or
expand hunting of the specific species mentioned by the commenter
(pronghorn, sandhill crane, and black bear) and other species atop or
near the top of food chains, these hunts will not cause disruptive
changes to population sizes of any species. Predators play a critical
role in the integrity, diversity, and overall health of ecosystems, so
before allowing predators to be hunted, a refuge manager must ensure
that these actions do not threaten the integrity, diversity, or health
of the refuge ecosystem. The manager must also determine that the
action is compatible with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge
System, and in keeping with the refuge's CCP and other step-down plans.
Hunting that would cause too large a reduction in the population of any
species or overpopulation of any species would not be authorized,
including under this rule. For more on the topic of authorized hunting
of predator species in the Refuge System, see our response to Comment
(15), above.
We disagree with the commenter's statement that this rule violates
the Improvement Act. The commenter claims that the Improvement Act
``demands the conservation of ecological processes,'' but no such
language appears in the Improvement Act. The Improvement Act states
instead that the Secretary shall provide for the conservation of fish,
wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System. Even
though the notion of ``ecological processes'' is absent from the
statute, the Service does always consider the health and genetic
diversity of wildlife populations in administering hunting and sport
fishing within the Refuge System. As already noted above, for any
proposed hunting activity the refuge manager must ensure that it does
not threaten the integrity, diversity, or health of the refuge
ecosystem. The manager must also determine that the action is
compatible
[[Page 48835]]
with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, and in
keeping with the refuge's CCP and other step-down plans. If hunting
would not be a viable tool for a given population, because of genetic
diversity concerns or otherwise, other methods of preventing
overpopulation are employed. The example of hunting providing a benefit
for managing deer populations that the Service provided online, and
which the commenter cited, is only meant to illustrate a potential
benefit from certain hunts, not that such a benefit is the only
consideration when authorizing hunting. While hunting may be a part of
a refuge's population control strategies for certain species, the
Service considers all effects of hunting (e.g., impacts to genetic
diversity) and compatibility with conservation purposes before
authorizing such an activity.
The commenter concludes that any hunting at all on refuges will
disrupt ecological processes and should therefore not be allowed. While
the Improvement Act does not include any discussion of ``ecological
processes,'' it does, however, direct that the Secretary shall both
recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the
priority general public uses of the Refuge System and ensure that
opportunities are provided within the Refuge System for compatible
wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The Improvement Act's definition
of ``wildlife-dependent recreational use'' includes a use of a refuge
involving hunting (among four other uses). Thus, the Service is
actually directed by the statute to not only allow but to prioritize
hunting on refuges whenever compatible with the conservation mission of
the Refuge System.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of this
comment.
Comment (23): We received two comments that touched on the proposed
rule's discussion of the economic impacts of the rule. One commenter
argued that we must use a survey to determine how much non-consumptive,
wildlife-dependent recreational use days might decrease because of this
rule and include local economic impacts from a decrease in visitation
from such users. The second commenter claimed that we must conduct a
benefit-cost analysis for this rule and that it must include the cost
to the Service to implement the rule and any loss of revenue from non-
consumptive users.
Our Response: For the first comment, it is important to note that
calculations of the local economic impacts are done for purposes of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) to support our
determination that the rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The rule is not promulgated
solely because of the estimated benefits to local economies; the
hunting and sport fishing openings and expansions in the rule are
promulgated because of the public recreational benefits they provide,
which the Service does not quantify. The commenter is correct that non-
consumptive users are an important user group at our refuges and
hatcheries, and they do bring benefits to local economies. However, the
commenter's argument that we need to consider economic impacts of the
rule on non-consumptive users, and presumably that it would change our
finding on the significance of the rule's impact if we did, does not
persuade us for two key reasons. First, if the impacts the commenter
describes, lost revenue for local economies from fewer non-consumptive
use days at refuges and hatcheries, were to occur as a result of this
rule, they would be offset by the increased revenues that we have
calculated for the added hunting and fishing use days. This means that
calculating both impacts, again assuming there in fact were lost non-
consumptive use days, could never result in a larger monetary impact
estimate than could be calculated by only considering one or the other
alone. Thus, calculating net economic impacts from both user groups
would not change the significance determination.
Second, calculating only the economic impact of the rule's effects
on non-consumptive users of the refuges would not likely result in a
higher estimate of maximum nationwide economic impact because there are
no expected significant effects on this user group, which means the
estimated economic impacts would be virtually zero. As discussed above
in our response to Comment (17), this rule is not expected to
significantly impact non-consumptive users. None of the provisions in
this rule regulate non-consumptive uses of the refuge, and all openings
and expansions of hunting and fishing are assessed for compatibility
with non-consumptive uses. The Service has put in place many
restrictions on hunting and fishing programs, including some added in
response to comments on this rule, in order to ensure that we balance
the various priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses on all refuges
and hatcheries. We do not expect the rule to significantly affect non-
consumptive use of the refuges and hatcheries.
Regarding the second comment, if a rulemaking is designated as a
``significant'' regulatory action under E.O. 12866 by the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA), then that rulemaking must, to the extent possible,
include a detailed analysis of the benefits and costs of the action.
OIRA determined that this rulemaking is ``not significant'' under E.O.
12866, so a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of this action
is not required. However, we provide our factual basis for certifying
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities below under Regulatory Flexibility
Act. As earlier in this response, counting the revenue impacts to local
economies from potential lost non-consumptive use days would not lead
to finding a significant economic impact resulting from this rule. The
same holds true for the costs of implementation, although in that case
the reason it is expected to be a small monetary cost is that refuge
managers evaluated their proposals prior to the publication of the May
4, 2021, proposed rule and ensured that the hunting and fishing
openings and expansions in this rule can be administered with current
budgets and staff, which are already used to operate various other
programs on refuges. Estimates of implementation costs can be found in
stations' EAs for those stations that have prepared an EA, and for
those that have prepared a Categorical Exclusion document under NEPA
the hunting and fishing activities covered are necessarily minor
changes that will result in negligible implementation costs. In
general, the costs attributable to the hunting and fishing openings and
expansions specifically, in terms of both wages and infrastructure,
will be negligible compared to the local economic benefits, as only a
few staff are needed to administer a program for many hunters.
Finally, it is worth noting that, taking all of this together, it
is almost certain that a benefit-cost analysis, pursuant to OMB
Circular A-4, would find the benefits of this rule exceed the costs. As
explained, no cost is expected in the form of decreased non-consumptive
use days and the signage, staffing, and other costs to the Service in
administering the hunting and fishing opportunities is unlikely to be
greater than the benefits to local economies adjacent to stations, even
though those are expected to be no more than $1.4 million. This would
be enough to expect benefits to exceed costs already, but this would
not yet account for the recreational benefits of the hunting and sport
fishing
[[Page 48836]]
opportunities. A full and thorough benefit-cost analysis would quantify
this benefit using the hunt and fish use day estimates and the best
available information about the price of similar hunting activity on
private lands. For example, the company onX estimates the average cost
to be at least $10 per acre for a hunting lease (see https://
www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/how-do-hunting-leases-
work#:~:text=Today's%20hunters%20can%20expect%20to,the%20distance%20from
%20town%20(ie.). This realized economic surplus for hunters and anglers
would be an important part of any benefit-cost analysis and would
ensure benefits exceed costs. That is reflected in the Improvement Act,
where Congress emphasized the importance of providing this public
benefit, finding that the Refuge System's conservation mission has been
facilitated by providing Americans opportunities to participate in
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing and
hunting, on Refuge System lands. A thorough benefit-cost analysis would
also consider the fish and wildlife population management benefits of
hunting and sport fishing to the extent that they provide population
controls and target invasive species. That has a direct and
quantifiable benefit in terms of reduced work hours from eliminating or
reducing the need for refuge staff themselves to harvest fish and
wildlife for population control and invasive species. Thus, we have
determined that this rule is justified in terms of the ratio of
benefits to costs, even if it will not have a significant impact on the
economy.
We did not make any changes to the rule, including to our
Regulatory Flexibility Act discussion and our certification that this
rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities, as a result of these comments.
Comment (24): One commenter expressed concern that proposed hunting
activities on refuges within the Potomac River NWR Complex, especially
hunting of American black duck, would be inconsistent with or
detrimental to the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, a regional bird
conservation effort in which the Service is a partner organization.
Our Response: We remain committed to and supportive of the Atlantic
Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) and its habitat and species conservation
objectives. In permitting hunting within the Potomac River NWR Complex
and allowing the hunting of American black duck as a target species, we
are following all restrictions advocated by the ACJV and only providing
limited hunting. For example, at Featherstone NWR, we will allow black
duck hunting on 36 acres and the hunting season is November 17-28 and
December 18-January 30, with a daily bag limit of two black ducks.
Similarly, the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, another
partner to the ACJV, allows some hunting of American black duck on
lands under its jurisdiction. Finally, as with any hunting in the
Refuge System, hunting openings and expansions in the Potomac River NWR
Complex have been evaluated by refuge managers for limited
environmental effects, absence of adverse impacts to endangered
species, compatibility with refuge purposes, and consistency with the
refuge's CCP. In authorizing these hunts, we have determined that they
will not impede conservation efforts for the American black duck or
other species of interest to the ACJV.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this
comment.
Comment (25): We received two comments with concerns that the
information in the proposed rule was not easily understood,
specifically in Table 1 concerning the meaning of ``O'' and ``E'' in
the table.
Our Response: As designated by the table key for the proposed
rule's Table 1, ``O'' designates that the station is opening a new
species in the respective category of species to hunting or opening
fishing on the station, and ``E'' designates that the station is
expanding hunting for species in the respective category or expanding
sport fishing on the station.
We revised Table 1 to account for changes to hunting and fishing
openings and expansions in response to other public comments, but did
not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
Comment (26): Two commenters expressed concern about the use and
disposal of fishing line on the Potomac River NWR Complex.
Our Response: The Service recognizes that discarded fishing line
can present a danger to fish and to wildlife. In general, we educate
anglers about this problem and the importance of proper disposal of
fishing line. In this particular case, in addition to enforcing all
State regulations on sport fishing, the refuges in the Potomac River
NWR Complex will include information in their brochures and on their
websites directing anglers to dispose of trash and fishing line, of all
varieties, properly.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
As discussed above, under Summary of Comments and Responses, based
on comments we received on the proposed rule and NEPA documents for
individual refuges and hatcheries, we made changes in this final rule
to Bill Williams River, Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache River, Holla Bend,
Wapanocca, Cape May, Supawna Meadows, and William L. Finley NWRs. For
Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache River, Holla Bend, and Wapanocca NWRs, we
removed the proposed language adding armadillo to the list of species
available to hunt in response to comments and made administrative
language changes to align the regulatory language across these refuges.
For William L. Finley NWR, we removed the proposed language adding
merganser to the list of species available to hunt in response to the
State of Oregon's request for alignment. For Cape May and Supawna
Meadows NWRs, we extended the hours we are open to fishing in response
to the State of New Jersey. Under Bill Williams River NWR, we modified
the methods of take allowed for javelina hunting in response to the
State of Arizona. For Missisquoi and Silvio O. Conte NWRs, we revised
our language authorizing the use of dogs while hunting in response to
comments.
We removed all proposed hunting and fishing openings and expansions
at Necedah NWR and Loess Bluffs NWR. The expansions at Necedah NWR are
not included in this final rule because the underlying analyses for
these actions may require further consideration. There are still
regulatory changes for Necedah NWR in this final rule, but these are
administrative revisions for consistency and clarity unrelated to the
proposed expansions. The openings and expansions at Loess Bluffs NWR
are not included in this final rule because of concerns expressed by
the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska. We will continue discussions
with the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska on how these acres and
species may be considered for opening to hunting in the future.
We have removed the language authorizing fishing at the former
National Bison Range refuge in Montana. This refuge has been
transferred to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes through the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260), and we no
longer have jurisdiction over public use on the land.
We made minor, clarifying edits to the regulatory language for
other refuges, including Dale Bumpers White River,
[[Page 48837]]
Bayou Sauvage, Bayou Teche, Big Branch Marsh, Bogue Chitto, Cat Island,
Mandalay, Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee, Sequoyah, and Wichita Mountains
NWRs.
Effective Date
We are making this rule effective upon publication (see DATES,
above). We provided a 60-day public comment period for the May 4, 2021,
proposed rule (86 FR 23794). We have determined that any further delay
in implementing these station-specific hunting and sport fishing
regulations would not be in the public interest, in that a delay would
hinder the effective planning and administration of refuges' and
hatcheries' hunting and sport fishing programs. This rule does not
impact the public generally in terms of requiring lead time for
compliance. Rather, it relieves restrictions in that it allows
activities on refuges and hatcheries that we would otherwise prohibit.
Therefore, we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this
rule effective upon publication.
Amendments to Existing Regulations
Updates to Hunting and Fishing Opportunities on NWRs and NFHs
This document codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations all of
the Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that we are
updating since the last time we published a rule amending these
regulations (85 FR 54076; August 31, 2020) and that are applicable at
Refuge System and Hatchery System units previously opened to hunting
and/or sport fishing. This rule better informs the general public of
the regulations at each station, to increase understanding and
compliance with these regulations, and to make enforcement of these
regulations more efficient. In addition to now finding these
regulations in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71, visitors to our refuges and
hatcheries may find them reiterated in literature distributed by each
station or posted on signs.
Table 1--Changes for 2021-2022 Hunting/Sport Fishing Season
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station State Migratory bird hunting Upland game hunting Big game hunting Sport fishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audubon NWR..................... North Dakota....... Closed................. Already Open........... E...................... Already Open.
Bald Knob NWR................... Arkansas........... O/E.................... O/E.................... Already Open........... Already Open.
Bayou Sauvage NWR............... Louisiana.......... O/E.................... O...................... O...................... E.
Bayou Teche NWR................. Louisiana.......... O/E.................... O/E.................... E...................... Already Open.
Big Branch Marsh NWR............ Louisiana.......... O/E.................... O/E.................... O/E.................... E.
Big Lake NWR.................... Arkansas........... Closed................. O...................... O/E.................... Already Open.
Bill Williams River NWR......... Arizona............ E...................... O/E.................... O/E.................... Already Open.
Bogue Chitto NWR................ Louisiana & O/E.................... O/E.................... E...................... Already Open.
Mississippi.
Bond Swamp NWR.................. Georgia............ E...................... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
Brazoria NWR.................... Texas.............. O...................... Closed................. Closed................. E.
Cache River NWR................. Arkansas........... O/E.................... O...................... E...................... Already Open.
Caddo Lake NWR.................. Texas.............. Closed................. O...................... Already Open........... Closed.
Camas NWR....................... Idaho.............. O...................... Already Open........... O...................... Closed.
Cape May NWR.................... New Jersey......... O/E.................... O/E.................... E...................... E.
Cat Island NWR.................. Louisiana.......... O/E.................... O/E.................... E...................... Already Open.
Charles M. Russell NWR.......... Montana............ Already Open........... Already Open........... O...................... Already Open.
Cherry Valley NWR............... Pennsylvania....... E...................... O/E.................... E...................... Already Open.
Choctaw NWR..................... Alabama............ O...................... O/E.................... E...................... Already Open.
Crab Orchard NWR................ Illinois........... Already Open........... Already Open........... Already Open........... E.
Cypress Creek NWR............... Illinois........... E...................... E...................... E...................... E.
Dale Bumpers White River NWR.... Arkansas........... O...................... Already Open........... Already Open........... Already Open.
Delta NWR....................... Louisiana.......... O/E.................... O/E.................... O/E.................... Already Open.
Desert NWR...................... Nevada............. O...................... O...................... Already Open........... Closed.
Don Edwards NWR................. California......... E...................... Closed................. Closed................. Already Open.
Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR... Virginia........... O...................... O...................... O/E.................... O.
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck Virginia........... Closed................. Closed................. E...................... O.
NWR.
Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin NWR South Carolina..... Already Open........... Closed................. O...................... Already Open.
Everglades Headwaters NWR....... Florida............ E...................... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
Featherstone NWR................ Virginia........... N...................... Closed................. Closed................. N.
Felsenthal NWR.................. Arkansas........... O/E.................... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
Fisherman Island NWR............ Virginia........... N...................... Closed................. Closed................. Closed.
Florida Panther NWR............. Florida............ Closed................. Closed................. N...................... N.
Franklin Island NWR............. Maine.............. N...................... Closed................. Closed................. Closed.
Grand Bay NWR................... Alabama & O...................... O...................... O...................... O.
Mississippi.
Great Dismal Swamp NWR.......... Virginia........... Closed................. O...................... O/E.................... Already Open.
Great River NWR................. Missouri........... C...................... C...................... C...................... Already Open.
Great Swamp NWR................. New Jersey......... O...................... O...................... O/E.................... Closed.
Green Lake NFH.................. Maine.............. Closed................. Closed................. Closed................. N.
Hackmatack NWR.................. Illinois........... E...................... E...................... E...................... E.
Harbor Island NWR............... Michigan........... O...................... O...................... E...................... O.
Harris Neck NWR................. Georgia............ Closed................. Closed................. O/E.................... Already Open.
Havasu NWR...................... Arizona............ O/E.................... O...................... Already Open........... Already Open.
Holla Bend NWR.................. Arkansas........... Closed................. O/E.................... O/E.................... E.
J. Clark Salyer NWR............. North Dakota....... Already Open........... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
James River NWR................. Virginia........... Closed................. O...................... O/E.................... O.
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge...... Oregon & Washington E...................... Closed................. Already Open........... Already Open.
Kern NWR........................ California......... O...................... Already Open........... Closed................. Closed.
Kootenai NWR.................... Idaho.............. Already Open........... Already Open........... Already Open........... E.
Lacreek NWR..................... South Dakota....... Already Open........... Already Open........... Already Open........... E.
[[Page 48838]]
Lake Alice NWR.................. North Dakota....... Already Open........... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
Las Vegas NWR................... New Mexico......... O...................... O...................... O...................... Closed.
Mackay Island NWR............... North Carolina & O...................... Closed................. O/E.................... Already Open.
Virginia.
Malheur NWR..................... Oregon............. E...................... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
Mandalay NWR.................... Louisiana.......... O/E.................... O...................... E...................... Already Open.
Middle Mississippi River NWR.... Missouri........... Already Open........... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
Minnesota Valley NWR............ Minnesota.......... Already Open........... Already Open........... E...................... Already Open.
Missisquoi NWR.................. Vermont............ Already Open........... O...................... Already Open........... Already Open.
Moosehorn NWR................... Maine.............. E...................... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
Muleshoe NWR.................... Texas.............. N...................... N...................... N...................... Closed.
National Elk Refuge............. Wyoming............ Closed................. Closed................. O...................... Already Open.
Neal Smith NWR.................. Iowa............... E...................... E...................... E...................... Closed.
Neches River NWR................ Texas.............. N...................... N...................... N...................... Closed.
Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR.. Minnesota & Iowa... E...................... E...................... E...................... E.
Occoquan Bay NWR................ Virginia........... Closed................. O...................... O/E.................... O.
Ohio River Islands NWR.......... Pennsylvania, O...................... O...................... O...................... Already Open.
Kentucky, & West
Virginia.
Ottawa NWR...................... Ohio............... E...................... E...................... E...................... E.
Ouray NWR....................... Utah............... O...................... Already Open........... O...................... Already Open.
Patoka River NWR................ Indiana............ E...................... E...................... E...................... E.
Petit Manan NWR................. Maine.............. E...................... E...................... E...................... Closed.
Plum Tree Island NWR............ Virginia........... E...................... Closed................. Closed................. O.
Pond Island NWR................. Maine.............. N...................... Closed................. Closed................. Closed.
Presquile NWR................... Virginia........... Closed................. O...................... O/E.................... O.
Rappahannock River Valley NWR... Virginia........... Closed................. O...................... O/E.................... Already Open.
Red River NWR................... Louisiana.......... O...................... O...................... Already Open........... Already Open.
Rice Lake NWR................... Minnesota.......... Already Open........... Already Open........... E...................... Already Open.
Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR..... Mississippi........ O/E.................... O/E.................... E...................... Already Open.
Sequoyah NWR.................... Oklahoma........... Already Open........... Already Open........... Already Open........... E.
Sherburne NWR................... Minnesota.......... O...................... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
Silvio O. Conte NWR............. New Hampshire...... E...................... O/E.................... E...................... E.
Sunkhaze Meadows NWR............ Maine.............. Already Open........... E...................... Already Open........... Already Open.
Supawna Meadows NWR............. New Jersey......... O...................... O...................... O/E.................... E.
Tensas River NWR................ Louisiana.......... O...................... O...................... O...................... Already Open.
UL Bend NWR..................... Montana............ Already Open........... Already Open........... O...................... Already Open.
Upper Ouachita NWR.............. Louisiana.......... O/E.................... O...................... Already Open........... Already Open.
Wallkill River NWR.............. New York & New E...................... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
Jersey.
Wapanocca NWR................... Arkansas........... C...................... O...................... E...................... Already Open.
Waubay NWR...................... South Dakota....... Closed................. Closed................. Already Open........... E.
Wichita Mountains NWR........... Oklahoma........... Already Open........... Closed................. Already Open........... E.
William L. Finley NWR........... Oregon............. O...................... Closed................. E...................... Already Open.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key:
N = New station opened (New Station).
O = New species and/or new activity on a station previously open to other activities (Opening).
E = Station already open to activity adds new lands/waters, modifies areas open to hunting or fishing, extends season dates, adds a targeted hunt,
modifies season dates, modifies hunting hours, etc. (Expansion).
C = Station closing the activity on some or all acres (Closing).
The changes for the 2021-2022 hunting/fishing season noted in the
table above are each based on a complete administrative record which,
among other detailed documentation, also includes a hunt plan, a
compatibility determination (for refuges), and the appropriate National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis, all
of which were the subject of a public review and comment process. These
documents are available upon request.
Through these openings and expansions, we open or expand hunting or
sport fishing on 2,066,116 acres within the National Wildlife Refuge
System and the National Fish Hatchery System.
Fish Advisory
For health reasons, anglers should review and follow State-issued
consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing
opportunities on Service-managed waters. You can find information about
current fish-consumption advisories on the internet at: <a href="http://www.epa.gov/fish-tech">http://www.epa.gov/fish-tech</a>.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has
determined that this rulemaking is not significant.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866
while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to
promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible,
and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes
further that regulations must be based on the best available science
and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and
an open
[[Page 48839]]
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a
regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a
threshold for ``significant impact'' and a threshold for a
``substantial number of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
This rule opens or expands hunting and sport fishing on 88 NWRs and
1 NFH. As a result, visitor use for wildlife-dependent recreation on
these stations will change. If the stations establishing new programs
were a pure addition to the current supply of those activities, it
would mean an estimated maximum increase of 40,839 user days (one
person per day participating in a recreational opportunity; see Table
2). Because the participation trend is flat in these activities since
1991, this increase in supply will most likely be offset by other sites
losing participants. Therefore, this is likely to be a substitute site
for the activity and not necessarily an increase in participation rates
for the activity.
Table 2--Estimated Maximum Change in Recreation Opportunities in 2021-2022
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Additional Additional
Station hunting days fishing days expenditures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audubon NWR..................................................... 10 .............. $0.3
Bald Knob NWR................................................... 30 .............. 1.0
Bayou Sauvage NWR............................................... 344 .............. 11.6
Bayou Teche NWR................................................. 472 .............. 15.9
Big Branch Marsh NWR............................................ 120 .............. 4.0
Big Lake NWR.................................................... 2 .............. 0.1
Bill Williams River NWR......................................... 66 .............. 2.2
Bogue Chitto NWR................................................ 45 .............. 1.5
Bond Swamp NWR.................................................. 220 160 13.0
Brazoria NWR.................................................... 86 365 15.7
Cache River NWR................................................. 60 .............. 2.0
Caddo Lake NWR.................................................. 87 .............. 2.9
Camas NWR....................................................... 250 .............. 8.4
Cape May NWR.................................................... 100 .............. 3.4
Cat Island NWR.................................................. 45 .............. 1.5
Charles M. Russell NWR.......................................... 10 .............. 0.3
Cherry Valley NWR...............................................
Choctaw NWR..................................................... 82 .............. 2.8
Crab Orchard NWR................................................ .............. 3,000 105.2
Cypress Creek NWR............................................... 15 .............. 0.5
Dale Bumpers White River NWR.................................... 132 .............. 4.4
Delta NWR....................................................... 85 .............. 2.9
Desert NWR...................................................... 103 .............. 3.5
Don Edwards NWR................................................. 118 .............. 4.0
Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR................................... 414 .............. 13.9
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck NWR............................... .............. 1,200 42.1
Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin NWR................................ 14 .............. 0.5
Everglades Headwaters NWR.......................................
Featherstone NWR................................................ 670 1,200 64.7
Felsenthal NWR.................................................. 1,000 .............. 33.7
Fisherman Island NWR............................................ 150 .............. 5.1
Florida Panther NWR............................................. 6 365 13.0
Franklin Island NWR............................................. 137 .............. 4.6
Grand Bay NWR................................................... 920 730 56.6
Great Dismal Swamp NWR.......................................... 465 .............. 15.7
Great River NWR.................................................
Great Swamp NWR................................................. 500 .............. 16.8
Green Lake NFH.................................................. .............. 365 12.8
Hackmatack NWR.................................................. 40 30 2.4
Harbor Island NWR............................................... 62 100 5.6
Harris Neck NWR................................................. 68 .............. 2.3
Havasu NWR...................................................... 89 .............. 3.0
Holla Bend NWR.................................................. 100 .............. 3.4
J. Clark Salyer NWR............................................. 10 .............. 0.3
James River NWR................................................. 160 1,200 47.5
Julia Butler Hansen Refuge...................................... 50 .............. 1.7
Kern NWR........................................................ 30 .............. 1.0
Kootenai NWR.................................................... .............. 50 1.8
[[Page 48840]]
Lacreek NWR..................................................... .............. 15 0.5
Lake Alice NWR.................................................. 10 .............. 0.3
Las Vegas NWR................................................... 28 .............. 0.9
Mackay Island NWR............................................... 200 .............. 6.7
Malheur NWR..................................................... 232 .............. 7.8
Mandalay NWR.................................................... 519 .............. 17.5
Middle Mississippi River NWR.................................... 10 .............. 0.3
Minnesota Valley NWR............................................
Missisquoi NWR.................................................. 400 .............. 13.5
Moosehorn NWR................................................... 50 .............. 1.7
Muleshoe NWR.................................................... 75 10 2.9
National Elk Refuge............................................. 48 .............. 1.6
Neal Smith NWR.................................................. 27 .............. 0.9
Neches River NWR................................................ 2,161 .............. 72.8
Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR.................................. 69.6 5.48 2.5
Occoquan Bay NWR................................................ 280 1,200 51.5
Ohio River Islands NWR.......................................... 530 .............. 17.9
Ottawa NWR...................................................... 18 160 6.2
Ouray NWR....................................................... 45 .............. 1.5
Patoka River NWR................................................ 15 2 0.6
Petit Manan NWR................................................. 700 .............. 23.6
Plum Tree Island NWR............................................ .............. 300 10.5
Pond Island NWR................................................. 138 .............. 4.6
Presquile NWR................................................... 10 1,200 42.4
Rappahannock NWR................................................ 497 .............. 16.7
Red River NWR...................................................
Rice Lake NWR................................................... 48 .............. 1.6
Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR..................................... 7 .............. 0.2
Sequoyah NWR.................................................... .............. 2,000 70.1
Sherburne NWR................................................... 444 .............. 15.0
Silvio O. Conte NWR............................................. 50 0 1.7
Sunkhaze Meadows NWR............................................ 10 .............. 0.3
Supawna Meadows NWR............................................. 500 .............. 16.8
Tensas River NWR................................................ 16 .............. 0.5
UL Bend NWR..................................................... 10 .............. 0.3
Upper Ouachita NWR.............................................. 45 .............. 1.5
Wallkill River NWR..............................................
Wapanocca NWR................................................... 130 90 7.5
Waubay NWR...................................................... .............. 15 0.5
Wichita Mountains NWR........................................... .............. 12,123 425.2
William L. Finley NWR........................................... 264 .............. 8.9
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 14,954 25,885 1,411.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent visitors spend time and money in the area of the
station that they would not have spent there anyway, they contribute
new income to the regional economy and benefit local businesses. Due to
the unavailability of site-specific expenditure data, we use the
national estimates from the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife Associated Recreation to identify expenditures for food
and lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Using the
average expenditures for these categories with the maximum expected
additional participation of the Refuge System and the Hatchery System
yields approximately $1.4 million in recreation-related expenditures
(see Table 2, above). By having ripple effects throughout the economy,
these direct expenditures are only part of the economic impact of these
recreational activities. Using a national impact multiplier for hunting
activities (2.51) derived from the report ``Hunting in America: An
Economic Force for Conservation'' and for fishing activities (2.51)
derived from the report ``Sportfishing in America'' yields a total
maximum economic impact of approximately $5.3 million (2020 dollars)
(Southwick Associates, Inc., 2018). Using a local impact multiplier
would yield more accurate and smaller results. However, we employed the
national impact multiplier due to the difficulty in developing local
multipliers for each specific region.
Since we know that most of the fishing and hunting occurs within
100 miles of a participant's residence, then it is unlikely that most
of this spending will be ``new'' money coming into a local economy;
therefore, this spending will be offset with a decrease in some other
sector of the local economy. The net gain to the local economies will
be no more than $5.3 million, and likely less. Since 80 percent of the
participants travel less than 100 miles to engage in hunting and
fishing activities, their spending patterns will not add new money into
the local economy and, therefore, the real impact will be on the order
of about $1.1 million annually.
Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels,
gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait-and-tackle shops, and similar
businesses) may be affected by some increased or decreased station
visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade
[[Page 48841]]
establishments in the local communities around NWRs and NFHs qualify as
small businesses (see Table 3, below). We expect that the incremental
recreational changes will be scattered, and so we do not expect that
the rule will have a significant economic effect on a substantial
number of small entities in any region or nationally. As noted
previously, we expect at most $1.4 million to be spent in total in the
refuges' local economies. The maximum increase will be less than three-
hundredths of 1 percent for local retail trade spending (see Table 3,
below). Table 3 does not include entries for those NWRs and NFHs for
which we project no changes in recreation opportunities in 2021-2022;
see Table 2, above.
Table 3--Comparative Expenditures for Retail Trade Associated With Additional Station Visitation for 2021-2022
[Thousands, 2020 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Establishments
Retail trade maximum Addition as % Establishments in with fewer than
Station/county(ies) in 2017 1 addition from of total 2017 1 10 employees in
new activities 2017 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audubon
McLean, ND.................................................... $95,006 $0.3 <0.01 39 29
Bald Knob
White, AR..................................................... 1,110,661 1.0 <0.01 311 234
Bayou Sauvage
Orleans, LA................................................... 3,694,534 11.6 <0.01 1,343 1,021
Bayou Teche
St. Mary, LA.................................................. 559,081 15.9 <0.01 186 145
Big Branch Marsh
St. Tammany, LA............................................... 4,242,548 4.0 <0.01 901 596
Big Lake
Mississippi, AR............................................... 442,920 0.1 <0.01 144 115
Bill Williams River
La Paz, AZ.................................................... 475,421 1.1 <0.01 82 59
Mohave, AZ.................................................... 3,234,501 1.1 <0.01 615 397
Bogue Chitto
Washington, LA................................................ 352,900 0.5 <0.01 146 110
St. Tammany, LA............................................... 4,242,548 0.5 <0.01 901 596
Pearl River, MS............................................... 693,664 0.5 <0.01 186 132
Bond Swamp
Bibb, GA...................................................... 2,835,352 6.5 <0.01 780 555
Twiggs, GA.................................................... 22,447 6.5 0.03 13 11
Brazoria
Brazoria, TX.................................................. 4,992,876 15.7 <0.01 831 546
Cache River
Woodruff, AR.................................................. 47,310 0.5 <0.01 31 26
Monroe, AR.................................................... 66,530 0.5 <0.01 35 27
Jackson, AR................................................... 242,527 0.5 <0.01 68 48
Prairie, AR................................................... 54,178 0.5 <0.01 32 23
Caddo Lake
Harrison, TX.................................................. 638,384 2.9 <0.01 184 145
Camas
Jefferson, ID................................................. 221,301 8.4 <0.01 56 37
Cape May
Cape May, NJ.................................................. 2,043,622 3.4 <0.01 644 502
Cat Island
East Feliciana, LA............................................ 82,906 1.5 <0.01 41 30
Charles M. Russell
Blaine, MT.................................................... 43,638 <0.1 <0.01 22 16
Phillips, MT.................................................. 46,381 <0.1 <0.01 24 17
McCone, MT.................................................... 17,671 <0.1 <0.01 9 6
Fergus, MT.................................................... 166,443 <0.1 <0.01 62 51
Petroleum, MT................................................. D <0.1 <0.01 3 3
Garfield, MT.................................................. 14,204 <0.1 <0.01 4 2
Valley, MT.................................................... 145,264 <0.1 <0.01 49 39
Choctaw
Choctaw, AL................................................... 95,301 2.8 <0.01 55 42
Crab Orchard
Williamson, IL................................................ 1,240,677 105.2 0.01 259 168
Cypress Creek
Alexander, IL................................................. 19,644 0.5 <0.01 18 14
Dale Bumpers White River
Arkansas, AR.................................................. 319,247 1.1 <0.01 94 64
Monroe, AR.................................................... 66,530 1.1 <0.01 35 27
Phillips, AR.................................................. 156,413 1.1 <0.01 79 62
Desha, AR..................................................... 130,625 1.1 <0.01 64 49
Delta
[[Page 48842]]
Plaquemines, LA............................................... 119,957 2.9 <0.01 65 52
Desert
Clark, NV..................................................... 33,837,749 3.5 <0.01 6,178 3,828
Don Edwards
Alameda, CA................................................... 28,390,575 4.0 <0.01 4,347 2,923
Eastern Shore of Virginia
Northampton, VA............................................... 117,772 13.9 0.01 59 45
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck
Fairfax, VA................................................... 1,818,140 42.1 <0.01 252 136
Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin
Charleston, SC................................................ 9,065,573 0.5 <0.01 2,003 1,334
Hampton, SC................................................... 178,354 0.5 <0.01 76 59
Lancaster, SC................................................. 825,599 0.5 <0.01 237 174
Featherstone, VA
Prince William, VA............................................ 6,705,340 64.7 <0.01 1,164 683
Felsenthal
Ashley, AR.................................................... 193,246 11.2 0.01 68 53
Union, AR..................................................... 591,376 11.2 <0.01 186 131
Bradley, AR................................................... 75,395 11.2 0.01 33 25
Fisherman Island
Northampton, VA............................................... 117,772 5.1 <0.01 59 45
Florida Panther
Collier, FL................................................... 7,710,838 13.0 <0.01 1,455 1,019
Franklin Island
Knox, ME...................................................... 760,425 4.6 <0.01 256 183
Grand Bay
Mobile, AL.................................................... 5,921,035 28.3 <0.01 1,514 1,040
Jackson, MS................................................... 1,410,824 28.3 <0.01 407 296
Great Dismal Swamp
Sufolk City, VA............................................... 1,225,412 7.8 <0.01 229 148
Chesapeake City, VA........................................... 4,415,609 7.8 <0.01 782 445
Great Swamp
Morris, NJ.................................................... 11,015,983 16.8 <0.01 1,809 1,221
Green Lake
Hancock, ME................................................... 1,001,578 12.8 <0.01 350 261
Hackamatack
McHenry, IL................................................... 4,115,924 1.2 <0.01 938 607
Walworth, WI.................................................. 1,596,199 1.2 <0.01 361 258
Harbor Island
Chippewa, MI.................................................. 521,726 5.6 <0.01 148 98
Harris Neck
McIntosh, GA.................................................. 96,007 2.3 <0.01 45 35
Havasu
Mohave, AZ.................................................... 3,234,501 3.0 <0.01 615 397
Holla Bend
Pope, AR...................................................... 945,241 1.7 <0.01 272 185
Yell, AR...................................................... 132,972 1.7 <0.01 50 38
J. Clark Salyer
Bottineau, ND................................................. 109,978 0.2 <0.01 29 21
McHenry, ND................................................... 33,913 0.2 <0.01 19 14
James River
Prince George, VA............................................. 303,359 47.5 0.02 65 42
Julia Butler Hansen
Clatsop, OR................................................... 808,973 0.6 <0.01 269 215
Columbia, OR.................................................. 417,825 0.6 <0.01 119 77
Wahkiakum, WA................................................. 8,582 0.6 0.01 6 5
Kern
Kern, CA...................................................... 9,906,906 1.0 <0.01 1,966 1,250
Kootenai
Boundary, ID.................................................. 123,467 1.8 <0.01 47 37
Lacreek
Meade, SD..................................................... 325,901 0.5 <0.01 91 67
Lake Alice
Bottineau, ND................................................. 109,978 0.2 <0.01 29 21
McHenry, ND................................................... 33,913 0.2 <0.01 19 14
Las Vegas
[[Page 48843]]
San Miguel, NM................................................ 231,666 0.9 <0.01 79 49
Mackay Island
Currituck, NC................................................. 327,336 3.4 <0.01 135 109
Virginia Beach City, VA....................................... 6,499,109 3.4 <0.01 1,468 893
Malheur
Harney, OR.................................................... 169,776 7.8 <0.01 29 17
Mandalay
Terrebonne, LA................................................ 1,964,261 17.5 <0.01 475 317
Middle Mississippi River
Perry, MO..................................................... 294,900 0.3 <0.01 82 46
Missisquoi
Franklin, VT.................................................. 876,359 13.5 <0.01 176 112
Moosehorn
Washington, ME................................................ 438,713 1.7 <0.01 141 88
Muleshoe
Bailey, TX.................................................... 49,284 2.9 0.01 21 15
National Elk Refuge
Teton, WY..................................................... 676,935 1.6 <0.01 255 211
Neal Smith
Jasper, IA.................................................... 408,507 0.9 <0.01 105 73
Neches River
Cameron, TX................................................... 4,868,360 36.4 <0.01 1,084 686
Anderson, TX.................................................. 631,510 36.4 0.01 167 124
Northern Tallgrass Prairie
Murray, MN.................................................... 60,148 0.6 <0.01 44 33
Kandiyohi, MN................................................. 914,193 0.6 <0.01 208 145
Clay, MN...................................................... 779,998 0.6 <0.01 161 95
Clay, IA...................................................... 504,926 0.6 <0.01 102 70
Occoquan Bay
Prince William, VA............................................ 6,705,340 51.5 <0.01 1,164 683
Ohio River Islands
Beaver, PA.................................................... 1,717,000 4.5 <0.01 495 325
Boyd, KY...................................................... 903,141 4.5 <0.01 236 137
Wood, OH...................................................... 1,976,330 4.5 <0.01 369 218
Wood, WV...................................................... 1,631,635 4.5 <0.01 361 210
Ottawa
Ottawa, OH.................................................... 467,388 6.2 <0.01 133 99
Ouray
Uintah, UT.................................................... 471,207 1.5 <0.01 134 88
Patoka River
Pike, IN...................................................... 67,144 0.3 <0.01 32 23
Gibson, IN.................................................... 529,720 0.3 <0.01 116 76
Petit Manan
Washington, ME................................................ 438,713 4.7 <0.01 141 88
Hancock, ME................................................... 1,001,578 4.7 <0.01 350 261
Knox, ME...................................................... 760,425 4.7 <0.01 256 183
Lincoln, ME................................................... 511,948 4.7 <0.01 204 157
Cumberland, ME................................................ 7,424,447 4.7 <0.01 1,454 936
Plum Tree Island
York, VA...................................................... 1,014,306 10.5 <0.01 201 135
Pond Island
Knox, ME...................................................... 760,425 4.6 <0.01 256 183
Presquile
Chesterfield, VA.............................................. 7,122,893 42.4 <0.01 958 589
Rappahannock
Essex, VA..................................................... 233,522 3.3 <0.01 65 48
King George, VA............................................... 362,404 3.3 <0.01 64 42
Westmoreland, VA.............................................. 122,436 3.3 <0.01 44 31
Richmond, VA.................................................. 2,386,644 3.3 <0.01 795 578
Caroline, VA.................................................. 324,067 3.3 <0.01 63 48
Rice Lake
Aitkin, MN.................................................... 148,260 1.6 <0.01 69 48
Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee
Noxubee, MS................................................... 65,033 0.1 <0.01 40 35
Winston, MS................................................... 211,903 0.1 <0.01 86 67
Oktibbeha, MS................................................. 558,982 0.1 <0.01 173 130
[[Page 48844]]
Sequoyah
Sequoyah, OK.................................................. 362,456 23.4 0.01 116 87
Muskogee, OK.................................................. 958,492 23.4 <0.01 263 175
Haskell, OK................................................... 154,591 23.4 0.02 37 23
Sherburne
Sherburne, MN................................................. 985,715 15.0 <0.01 203 126
Silvio O. Conte
Coos, NH...................................................... 575,506 0.6 <0.01 172 126
Essex, VT..................................................... 14,718 0.6 <0.01 18 15
Windham, VT................................................... 606,157 0.6 <0.01 236 171
Sunkhaze Meadows
Waldo, ME..................................................... 417,407 0.1 <0.01 171 131
Kennebec, ME.................................................. 2,624,338 0.1 <0.01 522 320
Penobscot, ME................................................. 3,443,680 0.1 <0.01 705 445
Supawna Meadows
Salem County, NJ.............................................. 607,072 16.8 <0.01 174 119
Tensas River
Madison, LA................................................... 115,029 0.3 <0.01 32 20
Tensas, LA.................................................... 25,165 0.3 <0.01 14 12
UL Bend
Phillips, MT.................................................. 46,381 0.3 <0.01 24 17
Upper Ouachita
Union, LA..................................................... 184,987 0.8 <0.01 56 45
Morehouse, LA................................................. 207,578 0.8 <0.01 74 53
Wapanocca
Crittenden, AR................................................ 702,406 7.5 <0.01 149 104
Waubay
Day, SD....................................................... 86,538 0.5 <0.01 30 18
Wichita Mountains
Comanche, OK.................................................. 1,412,420 425.2 0.03 407 274
William L. Finley
Linn, OR...................................................... 1,504,418 8.9 <0.01 357 241
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 U.S. Census Bureau. ``D'' denotes sample size too small to report data.
With the small change in overall spending anticipated from this
rule, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will
have more than a small impact from the spending change near the
affected stations. Therefore, we certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Accordingly, a small
entity compliance guide is not required.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. We anticipate no
significant employment or small business effects. This rule:
a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more. The minimal impact would be scattered across the country and will
most likely not be significant in any local area.
b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government
agencies; or geographic regions. This rule will have only a slight
effect on the costs of hunting opportunities for Americans. If the
substitute sites are farther from the participants' residences, then an
increase in travel costs will occur. The Service does not have
information to quantify this change in travel cost but assumes that,
since most people travel less than 100 miles to hunt, the increased
travel cost will be small. We do not expect this rule to affect the
supply or demand for hunting opportunities in the United States, and,
therefore, it should not affect prices for hunting equipment and
supplies, or the retailers that sell equipment.
c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This
rule represents only a small proportion of recreational spending at
NWRs. Therefore, this rule will have no measurable economic effect on
the wildlife-dependent industry, which has annual sales of equipment
and travel expenditures of $72 billion nationwide.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Since this rule will apply to public use of federally owned and
managed refuges, it will not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100
million per year. This rule will not have a significant or unique
effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.
Takings (E.O. 12630)
In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule will not have significant
takings
[[Page 48845]]
implications. This rule will affect only visitors at NWRs and NFHs, and
describes what they can do while they are on a Service station.
Federalism (E.O. 13132)
As discussed under Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, above, this rule will not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement under E.O. 13132. In preparing this rule, we
worked with State governments.
Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)
In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Department of the Interior has
determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system
and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the
Order.
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)
On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O.
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. Because this rule adds 7 NWRs to the list
of refuges open to hunting and sport fishing, opens or expands hunting
or sport fishing at 81 other NWRs, and opens 1 NFH to sport fishing, it
is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and we do not
expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O.
13175)
In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects
on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there
are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on NWRs and NFHs with
Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction before
we propose the regulations.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This final rule contains existing and new information collections
that we have submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). All information collections require approval by
the OMB under the PRA. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB has reviewed and approved
the information collection requirements associated with hunting and
sport fishing activities across the National Wildlife Refuge System and
National Fish Hatchery System and assigned the following OMB control
numbers:
<bullet> 1018-0140, ``Hunting and Sport Fishing Application Forms
and Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges, 50 CFR 25.41,
25.43, 25.51, 26.32, 26.33, 27.42, 30.11, 31.15, 32.1 to 32.72''
(Expires 12/31/2023),
<bullet> 1018-0102, ``National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit
Applications and Reports, 50 CFR 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, & 36''
(Expires 01/31/2024),
<bullet> 1018-0135, ``Electronic Federal Duck Stamp Program''
(Expires 01/31/2023),
<bullet> 1018-0093, ``Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications
and Reports--Management Authority; 50 CFR 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23''
(Expires 08/31/2023), and
<bullet> 1024-0252, ``The Interagency Access Pass and Senior Pass
Application Processes'' (Expires 09/30/2023).
In accordance with the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the
general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to
comment on our request to revise OMB control number 1018-0140. This
helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements
and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public
understand our information collection requirements and provide the
requested data in the desired format.
The Service's final rule (RIN 1018-BF09) opens, for the first time,
hunting and sport fishing on seven NWRs, opens or expands hunting and
sport fishing at 81 other NWRs, and opens hunting or sport fishing on
one unit of the NFH. The additional burden associated with these new or
expanded hunting and sport fishing opportunities, as well as the
revised information collections identified below, require OMB approval.
Many refuges offer hunting and sport fishing activities without
collecting any information. Those refuges that do collect hunter and
angler information do so seasonally, usually once a year at the
beginning of the hunting or sport fishing season. Some refuges may
elect to collect the identical information via a non-form format
(letter, email, or through discussions in person or over the phone).
Some refuges provide the form electronically over the internet. In some
cases, because of high demand and limited resources, we often provide
hunt opportunities by lottery, based on dates, locations, or type of
hunt.
The requested changes to the existing information collections
identified below require OMB approval:
Hunting Applications/Permit (FWS Form 3-2439, Hunt Application--
National Wildlife Refuge System)
Form 3-2439 collects the following information from individuals
seeking hunting experiences on the NWRs:
<bullet> Lottery Application: Refuges who administer hunting via a
lottery system will use Form 3-2439 as the lottery application. If the
applicant is successful, the completed Form 3-2439 also serves as their
permit application, avoiding a duplication of burden on the public
filling out two separate forms.
<bullet> Date of application: We often have application deadlines
and this information helps staff determine the order in which we
received the applications. It also ensures that the information is
current.
<bullet> Methods: Some refuges hold multiple types of hunts, i.e.,
archery, shotgun, primitive weapons, etc. We ask for this information
to identify which opportunity(ies) a hunter is applying for.
<bullet> Species Permit Type: Some refuges allow only certain
species, such as moose, elk, or bighorn sheep to be hunted. We ask
hunters to identify which species hunt they are applying for.
<bullet> Applicant information: We collect name, address, phone
number(s), and email so we can contact the applicant/permittee either
during the application process, when the applicant is successful in a
lottery drawing, or after receiving a permit.
<bullet> Party Members: Some refuges allow the permit applicant to
include additional hunters in their group. We collect the names of all
additional hunters, when allowed by the refuge.
<bullet> Parent/Guardian Contact Information: We collect name,
relationship, address, phone number(s), and email for a parent/guardian
of youth hunters. We ask for this information in the event of an
emergency.
<bullet> Date: We ask hunters for their preferences for hunt dates.
<bullet> Hunt/Blind Location: We ask hunters for their preferences
for hunt units, areas, or blinds.
<bullet> Special hunts: Some refuges hold special hunts for youth,
hunters who are disabled, or other underserved populations. We ask
hunters to identify if they are applying for these special hunts. For
youth hunts, we ask for the age of the hunter at the time of the hunt.
[[Page 48846]]
<bullet> Signature and date: To confirm that the applicant (and
parent/guardian, if a youth hunter) understands the terms and
conditions of the permit.
Requested revisions to FWS Form 3-2439:
With this submission, we updated the title of the form to include
NFHs. We also updated the Privacy Act Statement on the form to include
applicability to all hunting permits (rather than only migratory bird
hunting) and to also include references to authorized hunting on NFHs.
Harvest/Fishing Activity Reports
We have four harvest/fishing activity reports, depending on the
species. We ask users to report on their success after their experience
so that we can evaluate hunt quality and resource impacts. We requested
to use the following activity reports, which we distribute during
appropriate seasons, as determined by State or Federal regulations:
<bullet> FWS Form 3-2359 (Big Game Harvest Report).
<bullet> FWS Form 3-2360 (Sport Fishing Report).
<bullet> FWS Form 3-2361 (Migratory Bird Hunt Report).
<bullet> FWS Form 3-2362 (Upland/Small Game/Furbearer Report).
We collect the following information on the harvest reports:
<bullet> Name of refuge and location: We ask this to track
responses by location, which is important when we manage more than one
refuge or activity area from one office.
<bullet> Date: We ask when the hunter/angler participated in the
activity. This helps us identify use trends so we have resources
available.
<bullet> Hours/Time in/out: We ask this to determine how long the
hunter/angler participated in the activity. We also use this to track
use so we can allocate resources appropriately.
<bullet> Name, City, State: We ask for a name so we can identify
the user. We ask for residence information to help establish use
patterns (if users are local or traveling).
<bullet> Number harvested/caught based on species: We ask this to
determine the impacts on wildlife/fish populations, relative success,
and quality of experience.
<bullet> Species harvested/caught: We ask this to determine the
impacts on wildlife/fish populations, relative success, and quality of
experience.
Requested revisions to harvest activity reports:
With this submission, we requested approval of a new harvest form
(FWS Form 3-2542, ``Hunter Harvest Report'') to replace FWS Forms 3-
2359, 3-2361, and 3-2362 to simplify reporting requirements and to
reduce burden on the public. In addition to the fields previously
approved by OMB on the original three harvest report forms, we added
the following additional fields to aid the refuge in management of the
reports:
<bullet> State-issued hunter identification (ID)/license number
(NOTE: Refuges/hatcheries that rely on the State agency to issue
hunting permits are not required to collect the permittee's personal
identifying information (PII) on the harvest form. Those refuges/
hatcheries may opt to collect only the State ID number assigned to the
hunter in order to match harvest data with their issued permit.
Refuges/hatcheries will collect either hunter PII or State-issued ID
number, but not both.)
<bullet> Species observed--Data will be used by refuge/hatchery
staff to document the presence of rare or unusual species.
<bullet> Permit number/type--Data will be used to link the harvest
report to the issued permit.
<bullet> Hunt Tag Number--Data will be used to link the harvest
report to the species-specific hunt tag.
<bullet> Number of youth (younger than age 18) in party--Data will
be used to better understand volume of youth hunting on a refuge/
hatchery. Specific hunter names are not collected, just total number of
youths in hunting party.
<bullet> Harvested by--Data will be used to determine ratio of
adults to youth hunters. Specific hunter names are not collected.
<bullet> Species observed--Data will be used by a refuge/hatchery
to determine the presence of any unusual species (e.g., threatened or
endangered species, or invasive species).
Self-Clearing Check-In Permit (FWS Form 3-2405)
FWS Form 3-2405 has three parts:
<bullet> Self-Clearing Daily Check-in Permit. Each user completes
this portion of the form (date of visit, name, and telephone numbers)
and deposits it in the permit box prior to engaging in any activity on
the refuge.
<bullet> Self-Clearing Daily Visitor Registration Permit. Each user
must complete the front side of the form (date, name, city, State, zip
code, and purpose of visit) and carry this portion while on the refuge.
At the completion of the visit, each user must complete the reverse
side of the form (number of hours on refuge, harvest information
(species and number), harvest method, angler information (species and
number), and wildlife sighted (e.g., black bear and hog)) and deposit
it in the permit box.
<bullet> Self-Clearing Daily Vehicle Permit. The driver and each
user traveling in the vehicle must complete this portion (date) and
display in clear view in the vehicle while on the refuge.
We use FWS Form 3-2405 to collect:
<bullet> Information on the visitor (name, address, and contact
information). We use this information to identify the visitor or
driver/passenger of a vehicle while on the refuge. This is extremely
valuable information should visitors become lost or injured. Law
enforcement officers can easily check vehicles for these cards in order
to determine a starting point for the search or to contact family
members in the event of an abandoned vehicle. Having this information
readily available is critical in a search and rescue situation.
<bullet> Purpose of visit (hunting, sport fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, auto touring, birding, hiking,
boating/canoeing, visitor center, special event, environmental
education class, volunteering, other recreation). This information is
critical in determining public use participation in wildlife management
programs. This not only allows the refuge to manage its hunt and other
visitor use programs, but also to increase and/or improve facilities
for non-consumptive uses that are becoming more popular on refuges.
Data collected will also help managers better allocate staff and
resources to serve the public as well as develop annual performance
measures.
<bullet> Success of harvest by hunters/anglers (number and type of
harvest/caught). This information is critical to wildlife management
programs on refuges. Each refuge will customize the form by listing
game species and incidental species available on the refuge, hunting
methods allowed, and data needed for certain species (e.g., for deer,
whether itis a buck or doe and the number of points; or for turkeys,
the weight and beard and spur lengths).
<bullet> Visitor observations of incidental species. This
information will help managers develop annual performance measures and
it provides information to help develop resource management planning.
<bullet> Photograph of animal harvested (specific refuges only).
This requirement documents the sex of animal prior to the hunter being
eligible to harvest the opposite sex (where allowed).
<bullet> Date of visit and/or area visited.
<bullet> Comments. We encourage visitors to comment on their
experience.
Requested revisions to FWS Form 3-2405:
[[Page 48847]]
With this submission, we added vehicle license plate number, State
issued, and make/model of vehicle fields as optional fields for
refuges/hatcheries. This information is required by law enforcement
purposes for search and rescue/emergency response activities, as well
as to verify ownership of vehicles in the event of damage on the
refuge/hatchery, accidents, or other related law enforcement purposes.
We have not requested any changes to the remaining information
collections identified below, which are currently approved by OMB:
Sport Fishing Application/Permit (FWS Form 3-2358, ``Sport Fishing-
Shrimping-Crabbing-Frogging Permit Application'')
Form 3-2358 allows the applicant to choose multiple permit
activities, and requests the applicant provide the state fishing
license number. The form provides the refuge with more flexibility to
insert refuge-specific requirements/instructions, along with a permit
number and validity dates for season issued.
We collect the following information from individuals seeking sport
fishing experiences:
<bullet> Date of application: We often have application deadlines
and this information helps staff determine the order in which we
received the applications. It also ensures that the information is
current.
<bullet> State fishing license number: We ask for this information
to verify the applicant is legally licensed by the State (where
required).
<bullet> Permit Type: On sport fishing permits, we ask what type of
activity (crabbing, shrimping, frogging, etc.) is being applied for.
<bullet> Applicant information: We collect name, address, phone
number(s), and email so we can contact the applicant/permittee either
during the application process or after receiving a permit.
<bullet> Signature and date: To confirm that the applicant (and
parent/guardian, if a youth hunter) understands the terms and
conditions of the permit.
Labeling/Marking Requirements
As a condition of the permit, some refuges require permittees to
label hunting and/or sport fishing gear used on the refuge. This
equipment may include items such as the following: Tree stands, blinds,
or game cameras; hunting dogs (collars); flagging/trail markers; boats;
and/or sport fishing equipment such as jugs, trotlines, and crawfish or
crab traps. Refuges require the owner label their equipment with their
last name, the State-issued hunting/fishing license number, and/or
hunting/fishing permit number. Refuges may also require equipment for
youth hunters include ``YOUTH'' on the label. This minimal information
is necessary in the event the refuge needs to contact the owner.
Required Notifications
On occasion, hunters may find their game has landed outside of
established hunting boundaries. In this situation, hunters must notify
an authorized refuge employee to obtain consent to retrieve the game
from an area closed to hunting or entry only upon specific consent.
Certain refuges also require hunters to notify the refuge manager when
hunting specific species (e.g., black bear, bobcat, or eastern coyote)
with trailing dogs. Refuges encompassing privately owned lands,
referred to as ``easement overlay refuges'' or ``limited-interest
easement refuges,'' may also require the hunter obtain written or oral
permission from the landowner prior to accessing the land.
Due to the wide range of hunting and sport fishing opportunities
offered on the NWRs and NFHs, the refuges and fish hatcheries may
customize the forms to remove any fields that are not pertinent to the
recreational opportunities they offer. Refuges will not add any new
fields to the forms, but the order of the fields may be reorganized.
Refuges may also customize the forms with instructions and permit
conditions specific to a particular unit for the hunting/sport fishing
activity.
Title of Collection: Hunting and Fishing Application Forms and
Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish
Hatcheries, 50 CFR 32 and 71.
OMB Control Number: 1018-0140.
Form Number: FWS Forms 3-2358, 3-2360, 3-2405, 3-2439, and 3-2542.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and households.
Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain a Benefit.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
Estimated Annual Non-Hour Burden Cost: None.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual number of Completion time Total annual
Activity responses per response burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish/Crab/Shrimp Application/Permit (Form 3-2358)...... 2,659 5 minutes 222
Harvest Reports (Forms 3-2360 and 3-2542 NEW).......... 590,986 15 minutes 147,747
Hunt Application/Permit (Form 3-2439).................. 360,998 10 minutes 60,166
Labeling/Marking Requirements.......................... 2,326 10 minutes 388
Required Notifications................................. 489 30 minutes 245
Self-Clearing Check-In Permit (Form 3-2405)............ 672,945 5 minutes 56,079
--------------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................. 1,630,403 ................. 264,847
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above burden estimates indicate an expected total of 1,630,403
responses and 264,847 burden hours across all of our forms. These
totals reflect expected increases of 24,331 responses and 3,963 burden
hours relative to our previous information collection request. We
expect such burden increases as a direct result of the increased number
of hunting and fishing opportunities on Service stations under the
rule.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burdens, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we invite the
public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this
revision to an existing information collection, including:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection
of information, including the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those
[[Page 48848]]
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of response.
On May 4, 2021, we published a proposed rule (86 FR 23794) which
solicited comments on the information collection requirements described
in this supporting statement for a period of 60 days, ending July 6,
2021. We received no comments regarding the information collection
requirements in response to the proposed rule.
This final rule is effective immediately upon publication, for the
reasons set forth above under Effective Date. We will, however, accept
and consider all public comments concerning the information collection
requirements received in response to this final rule. Send your written
comments and suggestions on this information collection to the Service
Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), Falls Church, VA 22041-
3803 (mail); or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#377e5951586874585b5b7751404419505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="357c5b535a6a765a5959755342461b525a43">[email protected]</span></a> (email). Please reference ``OMB
Control Number 1018-0140'' in the subject line of your comments.
Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation
We comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), when developing comprehensive
conservation plans and step-down management plans--which would include
hunting and/or fishing plans--for public use of refuges and hatcheries,
and prior to implementing any new or revised public recreation program
on a station as identified in 50 CFR 26.32. We have completed section 7
consultations on each of the affected stations.
National Environmental Policy Act
We analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), 43
CFR part 46, and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 8.
A categorical exclusion from NEPA documentation applies to
publication of amendments to station-specific hunting and fishing
regulations because they are technical and procedural in nature, and
the environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to
lend th
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on August 31, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.