Rule2022-20078
2022-2023 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
September 16, 2022
Effective
September 15, 2022
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
Consistent with the steadfast commitment to allowing access to our National Wildlife Refuges and continued efforts to provide hunting and fishing opportunities, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), open, for the first time, two National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs, refuges) that are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing. In addition, we open or expand hunting or sport fishing at 16 other NWRs and add pertinent station-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing for the 2022-2023 season. We also make 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. Finally, while the Service continues to evaluate the future of lead use in hunting and fishing on Service lands and waters, we do not plan to offer any hunting and fishing opportunities that would allow for the indefinite use of lead ammunition and tackle on the refuges included in this year's rulemaking. In this final rule, Patoka River NWR will require non-lead ammunition and tackle by fall 2026, and this refuge-specific regulation will take effect on September 1, 2026. As part of the 2023-2024 proposed rule, Blackwater, Chincoteague, Eastern Neck, Erie, Great Thicket, Patuxent Research Refuge, Rachel Carson, and Wallops Island NWRs will propose a non-lead requirement, which would take effect on September 1, 2026.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 179 (Friday, September 16, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57108-57135]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20078]
[[Page 57107]]
Vol. 87
Friday,
No. 179
September 16, 2022
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 32
2022-2023 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 179 / Friday, September 16, 2022 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 57108]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 32
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2022-0055; FXRS12610900000-223-FF09R20000]
RIN 1018-BF66
2022-2023 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Consistent with the steadfast commitment to allowing access to
our National Wildlife Refuges and continued efforts to provide hunting
and fishing opportunities, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), open, for the first time, two National Wildlife Refuges
(NWRs, refuges) that are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing.
In addition, we open or expand hunting or sport fishing at 16 other
NWRs and add pertinent station-specific regulations for other NWRs that
pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game
hunting, or sport fishing for the 2022-2023 season. We also make
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. Finally, while the Service
continues to evaluate the future of lead use in hunting and fishing on
Service lands and waters, we do not plan to offer any hunting and
fishing opportunities that would allow for the indefinite use of lead
ammunition and tackle on the refuges included in this year's
rulemaking. In this final rule, Patoka River NWR will require non-lead
ammunition and tackle by fall 2026, and this refuge-specific regulation
will take effect on September 1, 2026. As part of the 2023-2024
proposed rule, Blackwater, Chincoteague, Eastern Neck, Erie, Great
Thicket, Patuxent Research Refuge, Rachel Carson, and Wallops Island
NWRs will propose a non-lead requirement, which would take effect on
September 1, 2026.
DATES: This rule is effective September 15, 2022, except for the
amendment to 50 CFR 32.33(c)(1)(iii), which is effective September 1,
2026.
ADDRESSES: This rule and its supporting documents are available on
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2022-0055.
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#551c3b333a0a163a3939153322267b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6920070f06362a060505290f1e1a470e061f">[email protected]</span></a> (email).
Please reference ``OMB Control Number 1018-0140''.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Harrigan, (703) 358-2440.
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 (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 Refuge System'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
[[Page 57109]]
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 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 and step-down management plans, and by annual review of hunting
and sport fishing programs and regulations.
Summary of Comments and Responses
On June 9, 2022, we published in the Federal Register (87 FR 35136)
a proposed rule to open and expand hunting and fishing opportunities at
19 refuges for the 2022-2023 season. We accepted public comments on the
proposed rule for 60 days, ending August 8, 2022. By that date, we
received more than 48,000 comments on the proposed rule. More than 75
percent of these comments were form letters or otherwise identical
duplicates of other comments on the proposed rule. 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 in the docket for
this rule.
Comment (1): We received several comments expressing general
support for the proposed changes in the June 9, 2022, rule. 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.
Our Response: Hunting and fishing on 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 Refuge System.
We will continue to open and expand hunting and sport fishing
opportunities across the Refuge System; 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 2022-2023 final rule began in June 2021). 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): Several commenters expressed general opposition to any
hunting or fishing in the Refuge System. Some of these 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. The remaining 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 all 18 stations opening and/or expanding hunting and/or fishing in
this rule, we determined that the proposed actions were compatible.
Each station manager makes a decision regarding hunting and fishing
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 Refuge System.
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
[[Page 57110]]
population and habitat objectives, minimizing disturbance impacts to
wildlife, maintaining high-quality opportunities for hunting and other
wildlife-dependent recreation, 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 as one of its definitions, 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 wildlife 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 five individual State
agencies, across four States, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies on the proposed rule. The Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife expressed support for the proposed rule, with a focus on
Baskett Slough NWR, without additional comments. The Pennsylvania Fish
and Boat Commission expressed support for the proposed rule, with a
focus on Erie NWR and including support for the Service's plan to
require non-lead tackle use by fall 2026, and the Pennsylvania Game
Commission expressed support for the proposed rule, with a focus on
Erie NWR, and also urged the Service to inform hunters about the need
for feral hog eradication and reporting requirements for feral hog. The
Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources expressed general support for
the proposed rule and increased access, but also requested the opening
of Sunday hunting to align with a recent change in State laws,
clarification on regulations concerning the use of hunting dogs and
broader allowance of hunting dog use, more specific terminology to
describe State law enforcement, and clarification about the information
we will provide to hunters and anglers about non-lead ammunition and
tackle, and expressed concerns about the Service's approach to refuge-
specific plans to require non-lead use and improved coordination
between the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources and the Service.
The West Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources expressed support
for the increased access through the rule, with a focus on Canaan
Valley NWR, but expressed concern about the requirements to use non-
lead ammunition under consideration for Canaan Valley NWR and requested
that we remove the proposed requirement to harvest a doe prior to
harvesting a buck in the Canaan Valley NWR deer hunt. The Association
of Fish and Wildlife Agencies expressed general support for increased
access for hunters and anglers, but expressed concern about the nine
individual refuges considering requirements for non-lead ammunition and
non-lead tackle by fall 2026; expressed a desire for collaboration
between the Service and State agencies in shaping ``challenging''
policies such as the use of lead ammunition and tackle; and requested
consideration of additional hunting and fishing access on Refuge System
lands and waters 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. We welcome and value State partner input on all
aspects of our hunting and fishing programs.
In response to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, we agree that it
is important to inform hunters about the need for feral hog eradication
and reporting requirements for feral hog. We will do so through our
existing informational and educational materials for hunters, as
appropriate.
In response to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, the
Service will make some, but not all, requested changes, and we are
committed to continued collaboration and coordination. As to Sunday
hunting, the change to Virginia law happened too recently for Sunday
hunting changes to have been incorporated into the proposed rule. Now
that the Service has been able to consider Sunday hunting for refuges
in this rulemaking, the Service will allow Sunday hunting on Wallops
Island NWR but will not allow Sunday hunting at Chincoteague NWR as it
would not be compatible with other uses of the refuge.
As to the use of hunting dogs, the Service will revise our
regulations for the Virginia refuges in this final rule to clarify that
hunting dogs can be used for migratory bird hunting for all appropriate
tasks (e.g., flushing, pointing), not only retrieval. The Service will
not, however, expand the use of hunting dogs beyond migratory bird
hunting to include other upland game or big game because this
limitation on dog use is necessary to protect species of concern,
including Delmarva fox squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus). Additionally,
the Service is not making any changes to current regulations concerning
where hunting dogs are allowed (i.e., no pets, including hunting dogs,
are allowed on the Assateague Island portion of Chincoteague NWR).
As to terminology for State law enforcement, the Service has
updated our hunt planning documents to refer specifically to
Conservation Police Officers for the refuges in Virginia in this
rulemaking. We will also use this terminology going forward for
planning at Virginia refuges.
As to the topic of lead use generally, the Service values the
Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources' input and continued
coordination. First, the Service's plan to require non-lead ammunition
by fall 2026 at two individual refuges in Virginia, which the Service
will propose in next year's rulemaking, fits the criteria that the
Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources suggests because the planned
requirements are both refuge-specific and supported by science. This is
true for all nine refuges where the Service has finalized or will
propose non-lead ammunition and non-lead tackle requirements. Second,
the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources is correct that our
hunter and angler education will include both information about the
benefits of using non-lead ammunition and tackle and information about
best practices for hunters and anglers to follow that can reduce the
risk of lead impacts to wildlife (e.g., removing or burying gut piles).
Finally, we agree that further conversations between the Virginia
Department of Wildlife Resources and the Service are beneficial,
needed, and welcomed. The Service developed the opportunities in this
rulemaking in discussion with the Virginia Department of Wildlife
Resources and in the interest of the people of Virginia. Going forward,
the
[[Page 57111]]
Service will continue to work with the Virginia Department of Wildlife
Resources in shaping all of our proposed opportunities for the next
annual rulemaking, including planned regulations that will require the
use of non-lead ammunition and tackle at Chincoteague and Wallops
Island NWRs by fall 2026, and will continue to coordinate and partner
with the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources on all of our future
regulations affecting Service lands and waters within Virginia.
In response to the West Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources'
request, we have withdrawn all of the proposed changes for hunting and
fishing at Canaan Valley NWR, including the prioritization of does over
bucks in deer hunting. The Service may revisit all or some of the
proposed changes in a future rulemaking, but at this time further
discussion and coordination with the State is necessary.
In response to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, we
have not made any modifications to the rule. On the topic of lead
ammunition and tackle use, see our response to Comment (6), below, for
our responses to the reasoning of the Association and other commenters
for their opposition to our plan to require non-lead ammunition and
tackle by fall 2026 at nine individual refuges. On the topic of
collaboration with State agencies in determining the regulations and
policies governing lead ammunition and tackle use on the Refuge System,
we welcome such coordination and collaboration. The non-lead
requirement at Patoka River NWR that we are implementing through this
rulemaking and the planned non-lead use requirement that we will
propose in next year's rulemaking for the eight individual refuges, all
effective in the fall of 2026, were shaped with consideration of
involved discussions with State agencies throughout the process. Going
forward, we will continue to invite input and involvement from our
State partners as we continue to evaluate the future of lead use on
Service lands and waters as the first step in an open and transparent
process of finding the best methods of addressing lead's impact to
human and ecological health. On the topic of Alaska, we note that 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 a comment from the Mi'kmaq Nation that
focused on Rachel Carson NWR and Great Thicket NWR. The comment
expressed no concerns about the proposed rule content and inquired
about cultural use and hunting access for Tribal members.
Our Response: The Service appreciates the support of our Tribal
partners and is committed to working with our Tribal partners. As noted
in the November 2021 Joint Secretarial Order (S.O. 3403), the
Department of the Interior is committed, alongside the Department of
Agriculture, to fulfilling our trust responsibility to Tribes in our
management of Federal lands and waters. The Service seeks input from
Tribes throughout our hunting and fishing rulemaking processes and
welcomes every opportunity to coordinate with Tribal leaders.
In response to the Mi'kmaq Nation comment, we look forward to
further discussion and coordination on cultural use and access.
Comment (5): The majority of commenters expressed concern over the
use of lead ammunition and/or lead fishing tackle on Service lands and
waters. This included multiple campaigns of duplicate comments and
totaled over 30,500 comments. Nearly all of these commenters expressed
support for the nine refuges in this rulemaking, which are requiring or
planning to require non-lead ammunition and non-lead tackle by fall
2026. Some of these commenters urged the Service to reduce the length
of the contemplated 4-year lead use period before the 2026 effective
date of the refuge-specific non-lead requirements. Most of these
commenters urged the Service to eliminate, whether immediately or after
a set transition period, the use of lead ammunition and tackle
throughout the Refuge System. Many commenters expressed concerns about
raptor species, including the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
and other species that scientific studies have shown to be especially
susceptible to adverse health impacts from lead ammunition and tackle.
One commenter urged the Service to mitigate potential impacts to
anglers from non-lead tackle requirements through means such as
partnering with fishing tackle retailers.
Our Response: The Service appreciates the 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, the recent study from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) with
Service collaboration, Vincent Slabe, et al. ``Demographic implications
of lead poisoning for eagles across North America,'' which is available
online at <a href="https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/groundbreaking-study-finds-widespread-lead-poisoning-bald-and-golden">https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/groundbreaking-study-finds-widespread-lead-poisoning-bald-and-golden</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)). However, lead ammunition is still used for other types of
hunting, and lead tackle is used for fishing on private and public
lands and waters, including within the Refuge System.
Due to the continued lead use outside of waterfowl hunting, there
remains 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
secondhand through the food ingested 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).
It is because of lead's potential for ecological health impacts
that in this rulemaking the Service has, as stated in the proposed
rule, taken a ``measured
[[Page 57112]]
approach in not adding to the use of lead on refuge lands'' (see 87 FR
35136, June 9, 2022, at p. 35136). The opportunities in this final rule
either do not involve the use of ammunition or tackle (i.e., archery
hunting), require the use of non-lead ammunition or tackle, or are
being authorized at refuges that will require the use of non-lead
ammunition or tackle by fall 2026. This measured approach is also part
of the Service's larger commitment to evaluating the use of lead in
order to determine what is the best course for the future of lead use
throughout the Refuge System, whether lead use is addressed going
forward through non-lead requirements or a different method (or
methods), including, but not limited to, national action, individual
refuge actions, or some combination.
In response to commenters' position that 4 years is too long for
non-lead use requirements at individual stations to take effect, the
Service did not make any changes to the rule. Each individual station
that will require or is planning to require non-lead ammunition and
tackle starting in fall 2026 determined that this timing would best
serve the refuge's objectives, capacities, purposes, and mission. These
determinations were made to the exclusion of both shorter and longer
time frames for hunters, and anglers as appropriate, to transition to
the use of non-lead equipment. These determinations were made with
consideration of all impacted parties (e.g., refuge wildlife, hunters
and anglers, other visitors, refuge law enforcement) and balancing the
Service's interest in reducing the potential for adverse lead impacts
against the Service's interest in not placing an undue compliance
burden on hunters and anglers. If, in the future, the Service sets any
non-lead requirement timetables for one or more refuges, we will
similarly consider the input of all relevant stakeholders and the
impacts of our decision on all relevant stakeholders as we weigh the
competing interests and reach the determination that best serves the
public interest.
In response to the commenters' suggestion that the Service partner
with fishing tackle retailers, the Service recognizes that private
companies have a role to play in hunters and anglers transitioning from
the use of lead to the use of non-lead alternatives and we appreciate
anything that manufacturers, retailers, and other industry participants
can do to make using non-lead alternatives for both tackle and
ammunition easier for hunters and anglers. The Service is open to input
from and appropriate coordination with private industry as part of a
transparent process in determining the future of lead use on Service
lands and waters and meeting the needs of hunters and anglers.
In response to the commenters urging the Service to eliminate the
use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle throughout the Refuge System,
the Service is committed to doing what best serves the public interest
and our conservation mission, including facilitating compatible
wildlife-dependent recreational hunting and fishing. As we committed to
do in our 2021-2022 rulemaking (see 86 FR 48822, August 31, 2021, at p.
48830), the Service has been evaluating and is continuing to evaluate
lead use in hunting and fishing on Service lands and waters. As
indicated in our proposed rule (see 87 FR 35136, June 9, 2022, at p.
35136), the reason this rule is crafted such that it is not expected to
add to the use of lead on refuges beyond 2026 is so that the Service
can continue to evaluate the future of lead use and to seek input from
partners as we conduct a transparent process to determine what actions
and methods are appropriate for addressing lead's potential for adverse
environmental and ecological health impacts.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (6): A substantial number of commenters expressed
opposition to the Service requiring the use of non-lead ammunition and/
or fishing tackle on Service lands and waters. This included multiple
campaigns of duplicate comments and totaled over 16,700 comments. Many
of these commenters simply expressed a general opposition to the
concept of such requirements at the nine refuges implementing or
planning to propose non-lead use requirements and/or at any refuge, but
the rest put forward one or more points in arguing against non-lead
ammunition and/or tackle requirements. The dozen concerns collectively
expressed by these more substantive comments are addressed in Comment
(7) through Comment (19), below.
Our Response: The Service has allowed, and with the promulgation of
this rule continues to allow, the use of lead ammunition and/or tackle
in hunting and sport fishing in the Refuge System. The vast majority of
stations and the vast majority of individual hunting and fishing
opportunities currently permit lead use, which is in keeping with our
general alignment to State regulations, as the vast majority of States
permit the use of lead ammunition and tackle. Lead ammunition and
tackle are currently allowed where we have previously determined the
activity is not likely to result in dangerous levels of lead exposure.
However, the Service has made clear that we take the issue of lead use
seriously, and as the stewards of the Refuge System, we are evaluating
what is best for the resources belonging to the American public
regarding the future use of lead ammunition and tackle on Service lands
and waters. The best available science, analyzed as part of this
rulemaking, demonstrates that lead ammunition and tackle have negative
impacts on both human health and wildlife, and those impacts are more
acute for some species.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (7): Many of the comments opposed to regulations concerning
the use of lead ammunition and tackle questioned the sufficiency of
scientific support for non-lead requirements. Some of the commenters
also claimed there is a lack of scientific evidence of ``population-
level'' lead impacts and this means non-lead requirements are
unwarranted, including one comment suggesting that ``population-level''
impact requires ``a species-specific population decline.''
Our Response: We refer commenters concerned about scientific
evidence in support of the rulemaking to the analyses of environmental
impacts in the NEPA and ESA section 7 documentation for each refuge in
the rulemaking. In particular, see the documents for Patoka River NWR
where a non-lead requirement, with an effective date in fall 2026, is
being added to our regulations. For our NEPA and ESA Section 7
analyses, we considered peer-reviewed scientific studies evaluating the
impacts of lead to humans, to wildlife generally, and to specific
species--including endangered and threatened species and species
especially susceptible to lead ammunition or tackle exposure. While
this evidence is not determinative as to whether non-lead ammunition
and tackle should be required in all cases, given the full range of
factors to consider on the topic of lead use, it is inaccurate to claim
that there is no scientific evidence of adverse impacts to human or
ecological health from lead ammunition and tackle or that the Service
has not presented such evidence as part of this rulemaking in support
of the intentions of the nine individual refuges that plan to require
use of non-lead by fall 2026. Each refuge in this rule used the best
available science and the expertise and sound professional judgment of
refuge staff to determine that our management strategies, including
promulgated and intended
[[Page 57113]]
non-lead requirements, are based in sound science and the specific
circumstances of that individual refuge.
Moreover, we also reject the related claim that scientific evidence
of so-called ``population-level'' impacts to wildlife is both a
prerequisite to Service action and lacking in the available science.
Depending on the situation, we may manage wildlife at the ``population
level'' or at the ``individual level,'' such as acting to protect
endangered and threatened species, since their listed status may make
the health of each individual important to preventing extinction.
Similarly, depending on the situation, we may adopt regulations,
policies, or practices that respond to or prevent adverse impacts at
the population level or to individual animals and plants. In fact,
there are clear cases where we need to act preventatively or early to
control invasive species, pests, or animal diseases, since they are
much more difficult to eradicate when there is ``population-level''
damage. ``Population-level'' impacts are not necessary for regulation
to the exclusion of any other factors, although in the past the Service
and others have regulated lead use based, at least in part, on
addressing impacts to whole populations, as demonstrated impacts to
waterfowl populations and the population of California condors prompted
the 1991 nationwide prohibition on waterfowl hunting with lead
ammunition and the 2019 prohibition on hunting with lead ammunition in
California, respectively. In any case, the scientific literature
demonstrates that lead use has ``population-level'' impacts.
There is evidence of population-level impacts and potential
population-level impacts to waterfowl and upland game bird species from
lead fishing tackle and lead ammunition through direct ingestion. Lead
fishing tackle presents a risk of lead poisoning to many waterfowl
species, including loons and swans (Pokras and Chafel 1992; Rattner et
al. 2008; Strom et al. 2009). The primary concerns are discarded whole
or fragmented lead sinkers, as well as other lead tackle and even lead
ammunition released into the water, that rest on river and lake bottoms
where diving birds ingest them alongside pebbles, as pebbles are
necessary to break down food through grinding in their digestive
systems. This results in lead poisoning because the grinding action
breaks down the pieces of ingested lead into fine lead particles inside
of the birds that can then enter their blood streams. Studies have
consistently found impacts of ingested lead fishing tackle are a
leading cause of mortality in adult common loons (Pokras and Chafel
1992; Scheuhammer and Norris 1995; Franson et al. 2003; Pokras et al.
2009; Grade et al. 2017; Grade et al. 2019). Strom, et al., assessed
lead exposure in Wisconsin birds and found that approximately 25
percent of the trumpeter swan fatalities from 1991 through 2007 were
attributed to ingested lead (Strom et al. 2009). Also, lead ammunition
discarded on land presents a similar risk of lead poisoning from upland
game birds swallowing discarded ammunition alongside the pebbles they
use for digestion.
Another source of population-level impacts and potential
population-level impacts from lead is indirect ingestion by birds of
prey and other scavengers from consuming animals shot with lead
ammunition. The primary concerns for birds of prey are lead fragments
from lead ammunition that remains in the carcasses and gut piles of
hunted animals that are scavenged by these birds. The fine fragments of
lead, observable in x-rays of harvested game animals, are ingested
because they are embedded in the meat and other animal tissues being
scavenged and then enter the digestive systems and blood streams of the
birds of prey. Many studies have looked at the impacts of this lead
exposure to eagle health (see, e.g., Kramer and Redig 1997; O'Halloran
et al. 1998; Kelly and Kelly 2005; Golden et al. 2016; Hoffman 1985a,
1985b; Pattee 1984; Stauber 2010). This includes the recent study,
published in 2022, from the USGS with Service collaboration, Vincent
Slabe, et al. ``Demographic implications of lead poisoning for eagles
across North America,'' which is available online at <a href="https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/groundbreaking-study-finds-widespread-lead-poisoning-bald-and-golden">https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/groundbreaking-study-finds-widespread-lead-poisoning-bald-and-golden</a>. This study explicitly finds
that lead poisoning is ``causing population growth rates to slow for
bald eagles by 3.8 percent and golden eagles by 0.8 percent annually.''
These growth slowing impacts to populations are statistically
significant and, in the case of bald eagles, are occurring for a
species that was previously endangered and is still in the process of
recovering to historical levels. Thus, it is inaccurate to claim there
are not known ``population-level'' impacts from lead use.
One commenter proposes a definition that would leave out these
effects to eagles in claiming that ``population-level'' impact requires
``a species-specific population decline.'' This definition, however, is
flawed in specifying that a species must be in overall decline because
overall decline tells us nothing about the amount of impact, and even
the amount of impact must be considered in a larger context. First, the
exact same size of adverse impact from lead use to a population can be
present whether the species is in decline, stable, or growing overall
because many other factors impact populations. To illustrate, a - 3
percent impact to a species from lead could reduce growth if other
factors produce 5 percent growth (5 - 3 = 2); could prevent growth if
other factors produce 3 percent growth (3 - 3 = 0); and could increase
decline if other factors produce a 1 percent decline (-1-3 = -4).
Second, for similar reasons, in the case of impacts of different sizes
there could be a larger impact to a species experiencing overall growth
than to a species experiencing an overall decline. To illustrate, a
large -5 percent impact might not be part of an overall decline, such
as when the species would otherwise be growing at 7 percent (7 - 5 =
2), while a smaller -0.01 percent impact might be part of an overall
decline, such as when the species would otherwise be declining at -3
percent (-3-0.01 = -3.01). Thus, overall decline alone tells us nothing
about the impact of lead use, or any other individual factor, on a
species population. Furthermore, the Service would not rely even on the
size of the impact to a population alone, as the same impact can be of
greater or lesser concern depending on the status of the species (e.g.,
abundant species, recovering species, endangered or threatened
species), the source of the impact (i.e., inherent sources such as gun
noise and hunter foot traffic or dispensable sources such as lead use,
off-road vehicles, and litter), the trade-offs involved in addressing
the impact (i.e., impediments to conservation are prioritized over
costs to hunters and anglers, which are prioritized over costs to
commercial users, in terms of avoiding trade-offs), and other factors.
These are the reasons why the Service does not let our decision making,
when addressing impacts to wildlife health, rely solely on this vague
concept of ``population-level'' impacts.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (8): Many commenters opposed the regulation of lead use,
and also many commenters who took a neutral position on the regulation
of lead use stated that the Service must allow for and consider the
input of hunters and anglers on non-lead requirements. This included
many in both groups who are themselves hunters and anglers. Some
expressed a concern
[[Page 57114]]
that hunter and angler input was not considered in this rulemaking.
Our Response: Individual refuges always take the input of hunters
and anglers into account in shaping their hunting and fishing programs,
including through formal opportunities for public review and comment.
We are in constant communication with hunters and anglers who visit the
refuge through hunter education programs and listening sessions on many
important topics. All of the provisions of this final rulemaking,
including nine refuges enacting or planning requirements for non-lead
ammunition and non-lead tackle by fall 2026, were shaped with the input
of hunters, anglers, and nongovernmental organizations representing
them. They were also shaped with consideration of the impacts to and
interests of hunters and anglers. Among the comments on this rule, we
received many supportive as well as critical comments from hunters,
anglers, and nongovernmental organizations representing them, including
comments from hunters and anglers in support of regulating the use of
lead on the entire Refuge System. We remain committed to increasing
access for hunters and anglers throughout the Refuge System, which is
what this rulemaking does in opening and expanding opportunities at 18
refuges. We are also committed to ensuring that hunters and anglers
have input on and a ``seat at the table'' in shaping any future non-
lead requirements within the Refuge System.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (9): Many commenters opposed to requirements to use non-
lead ammunition and tackle claimed non-lead ammunition and non-lead
tackle are more expensive in comparison to lead ammunition and tackle.
Some of these commenters further expressed the concern that non-lead
ammunition and tackle requirements ``price people out'' of
participating in hunting and fishing.
Our Response: In response to commenters who claimed the costs of
non-lead ammunition and non-lead tackle would ``price people out'' of
participating in hunting and fishing, we do not agree that non-lead
ammunition and tackle are prohibitively expensive, especially in
comparison to lead ammunition and tackle. Yet, we recognize that there
could be some cost burden of compliance for hunting and fishing
opportunities where non-lead ammunition or tackle is required. For
example, non-lead ammunition is very close in price to premium lead
ammunition but can be more expensive than some lead ammunition. Where
we have restricted lead use in the past or through this rulemaking, we
first ensure that the ecological health and conservation benefits
outweigh any potential for cost burden on hunters and anglers. We are
confident that non-lead ammunition and tackle are not cost-prohibitive
as hunting and angling continues on all Refuge System stations where we
have restricted lead use. Moreover, we have not seen declines in
hunting use attributable to non-lead ammunition requirements. In other
words, hunting-use day declines at stations that require non-lead
ammunition do not appear to deviate from general trends of declining
hunting participation that affect all stations in the Refuge System. We
similarly have not seen growth slowed at stations requiring non-lead
tackle such that it is out of step with general growth trends in angler
participation. In fact, there has been a continuous trend for years of
decreasing prices for non-lead ammunition and tackle alternatives, and
the 1991 nationwide ban on lead ammunition for waterfowl hunting shows
that regulations can spur innovation and production that bring the
prices down for non-lead options.
Finally, even though the cost burden of compliance with non-lead
ammunition and tackle requirements on individual refuges is not
onerous, the Service is considering potential giveaway and exchange
programs to help hunters and anglers transition from lead to non-lead
ammunition and tackle. For example, such programs are discussed in the
planning documents for Patoka River NWR as non-lead ammunition and
tackle will be required for all hunting and fishing on that refuge
beginning in fall 2026. The Service would target such programs toward
low-income and subsistence hunters and anglers who stand to be most
impacted by any additional costs in obtaining non-lead rather than lead
ammunition and tackle. We look forward to working closely with our
State and hunting and fishing organizations partners to potentially
implement future programs of this nature as part of a transparent
process.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (10): Many commenters opposed to non-lead ammunition and
tackle requirements observed that there is limited availability of non-
lead ammunition and non-lead tackle and that less availability,
relative to lead ammunition and tackle, would prevent people from
participating in hunting and fishing. Some of these commenters further
noted that the availability of non-lead ammunition is more limited for
older models of firearms than it is for firearms generally. A few
commenters also, tangentially to the topic of availability, claimed
that the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA; 18 U.S.C. 921 et seq.) and
associated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
regulations concerning armor piercing ammunition hinder the production
and thus availability of non-lead ammunition
Our Response: We do not agree that non-lead ammunition and tackle
are insufficiently available to hunters and anglers in localities where
we have in the past or through this rulemaking restricted the use of
lead ammunition or tackle. Yet, we recognize that there could be some
compliance burden in identifying and locating non-lead ammunition and
tackle for hunting and fishing opportunities where required. Where we
have restricted lead use in the past or through this rulemaking, we
first ensure that the ecological health and conservation benefits
outweigh any potential for compliance burden on hunters and anglers,
including the ease of locating available non-lead ammunition and
tackle. As with the costs of non-lead options, for opportunities where
non-lead ammunition and tackle are required, the Service has not seen
declines in hunting or fishing participation that can be attributed to
non-lead ammunition and tackle being less widely available than lead
ammunition and tackle. Also, as with costs, there are existing trends
of increasing availability of non-lead alternatives and the 1991
national ban on lead ammunition for waterfowl hunting demonstrates that
regulations requiring the use of non-lead ammunition can promote
increased availability. Finally, the Service is considering giveaways
and exchanges that would assist hunters and anglers in adjusting from
lead ammunition and tackle to non-lead alternatives and this would, as
with concerns about costs, address concerns about availability. For
example, such programs are discussed in the planning documents for
Patoka River NWR as non-lead ammunition and tackle will be required for
all hunting and fishing on that refuge beginning in fall 2026. The
Service would target such programs toward low-income and subsistence
hunters and anglers, as well as hunters and anglers in locations where
the available non-lead ammunition and tackle is especially limited,
since these groups stand to be most impacted by any availability
challenges to obtaining non-lead rather than lead ammunition and
tackle. We
[[Page 57115]]
look forward to working closely with our State and hunting and fishing
organization partners to potentially implement future programs of this
nature as part of a transparent process.
Additionally, with respect to certain older models of firearm, as
well as certain calibers, the availability of non-lead ammunition is
more limited than the availability of non-lead ammunition in general.
Where lead use is restricted, this could theoretically be an obstacle
to participation in certain hunting opportunities based on method of
take restrictions. However, non-lead options are already increasing and
can be expected to continue to increase, including options for older
firearm models and less commonly used calibers. In the case of the nine
individual refuges in this rule that require or will propose to require
non-lead ammunition use by fall 2026, appropriate non-lead ammunition
is available for each type of hunting (i.e., migratory bird, upland
game, and big game) and each individual hunting opportunity such that
hunters will still be able to participate in all of the opportunities
at these refuges. In the future, the Service will remain cognizant of
the need to be sure that there are appropriate non-lead options in the
market for any given opportunity for which we decide to require non-
lead ammunition. We will also ensure the same for fishing opportunities
and non-lead fishing tackle.
Finally, the claim that the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) and
associated ATF regulations concerning armor piercing ammunition hinder
the production and thus availability of non-lead ammunition is beyond
the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, the Service lacks any authority
to change provisions of the GCA or associated ATF regulations. The
Service does, however, believe that the ATF's existing framework for
exemptions to the definition of armor piercing ammunition for
ammunition that is ``primarily intended to be used for sporting
purposes,'' as explicitly authorized by the GCA, should be sufficient
to allow for the availability of non-lead ammunition for hunters (see
the ATF Special Advisory available online at: <a href="https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/armor-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework">https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/armor-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework</a>).
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (11): Some commenters objecting to non-lead ammunition and
tackle requirements claimed non-lead ammunition and non-lead tackle do
not perform as effectively as lead ammunition and lead tackle.
Our Response: We do not agree and find that non-lead ammunition and
tackle performs at least as effectively as lead ammunition and tackle.
Some hunters and anglers on the Refuge System currently use non-lead
ammunition and tackle, both voluntarily and as required by regulation,
without any documented difference in success rates. In fact, the
Service has, by policy since 2016, used non-lead ammunition for
wildlife management when lethal control is necessary and has not found
the performance of non-lead ammunition to impede these management
activities in any way. As part of our hunter education efforts, many
refuges offer field demonstrations of the effectiveness of non-lead
ammunition. The Service has one such demonstration scheduled on
September 16, 2022, at Blackwater NWR, one of the refuges in this rule
that intends to require non-lead use by fall 2026. Scientific studies
of effectiveness have backed up this informal empirical evidence and
found that non-lead ammunition performs as effectively as lead
ammunition (see ``Are lead-free hunting rifle bullets as effective at
killing wildlife as conventional lead bullets? A comparison based on
wound size and morphology,'' Trinogga, et al., Science of The Total
Environment. Volume 443, 15 January 2013, pp. 226-232. Available online
25 November 2012. and ``Performance of Lead-Free versus Lead-Based
Hunting Ammunition in Ballistic Soap,'' Gremse, et al., PLoS One. 2014;
9(7): e102015. Published online 2014 Jul 16.). There is no scientific
evidence for the claimed differences in performance between non-lead
and lead ammunition and tackle available on the market today. In fact,
non-lead ammunition has a demonstrable advantage in that hunters kill
only what they shoot because unlike lead ammunition, non-lead
ammunition will not poison non-target species. Where the Service
restricts the use of lead on the Refuge System, there is no compliance
burden on hunters and anglers in the form of reduced performance of
ammunition or tackle.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (12): Some commenters opposed to non-lead ammunition and
tackle requirements argued that any switching from lead ammunition and
tackle to non-lead ammunition and tackle should be voluntary. Among
these commenters advocating that the use of non-lead ammunition should
remain voluntary were both those who felt there is a need for large-
scale uptake of non-lead ammunition and tackle and those who felt it
should be simply a preference decision for each hunter and angler. A
few commenters further expressed that voluntary uptake of non-lead
ammunition and tackle should be encouraged through hunter education
and/or economic incentives for hunters to transition to non-lead
options.
Our Response: In response to these commenters who argued the
Service should encourage hunters and anglers to voluntarily transition
to non-lead ammunition and tackle rather than implement any regulatory
requirements to use non-lead ammunition and tackle, the Service has
encouraged and will continue to encourage voluntary use of non-lead
ammunition and tackle but will also impose regulatory requirements when
and where necessary. Looking backward, the Service has for years
encouraged voluntary use of non-lead ammunition and tackle through our
hunter and angler education programs, which has included providing
scientific information about the harm lead can do and demonstrating the
performance of non-lead ammunition. Voluntary adoption of non-lead
ammunition and tackle is an excellent way for hunters and anglers to
demonstrate commitment to the ideals of not harming non-target species,
fair chase, and serving as the original conservation stewards of our
country's natural resources. The Service appreciates each and every one
of the hunters and anglers who have voluntarily made the switch to non-
lead ammunition and tackle, whether for their own health, their
family's health, or the health of wildlife. Going forward, the Service
is implementing a non-lead requirement at Patoka River NWR through this
rulemaking and planning similar regulations in the next annual
rulemaking for eight other refuges, all of which would require non-lead
ammunition and tackle beginning in the fall of 2026, but for the vast
majority of hunting and fishing opportunities in the Refuge System
there are no current or planned non-lead use requirements and the
Service will continue to urge voluntary use of non-lead ammunition and
tackle. While the Service is in the process of evaluating the future of
lead use, even if our determination were ultimately that lead use on
the Refuge System needs to end, the Service would still consider all
viable methods for achieving that outcome, including encouraging
voluntary transition to non-lead ammunition and tackle. At the same
time, we note that years of efforts toward educating hunters and
encouraging non-lead use by the Service and other organizations have
not yielded significant uptake of non-lead
[[Page 57116]]
ammunition and tackle, despite some localized success stories.
Moreover, the commenters' suggestion of providing incentives is not
an appropriate solution for increasing voluntary uptake because it
would be difficult and costly to construct a fair, targeted incentive
structure for individual hunters and anglers and because there would be
moral hazard problems in incentivizing members of the public to
represent themselves as a hunter or angler who uses lead ammunition or
tackle. The potential giveaway and exchange programs mentioned in
response to Comment (9) and Comment (10) are a similar but better
approach in that they remove costs and other frictions in transitioning
to non-lead ammunition and tackle, without the overhead or moral hazard
problems of a system of incentives. These programs under our
consideration need not be limited to use with non-lead regulatory
requirements but could potentially be used to further voluntary uptake
or other method(s) of addressing lead issues.
The Refuge System, and all Service lands and waters, are different
from private and State lands. We have a legal requirement to consider
the compatibility of new and ongoing hunting and fishing activities and
assess the potential impact of these activities on the natural
resources under our jurisdiction. Although, voluntary uptake may be
part of a future with multiple methods of addressing lead use issues,
the history of low compliance with voluntary adoption of non-lead
ammunition and tackle prompts the Service to consider regulatory
requirements to ensure compatibility. At this time, the Service is
continuing to evaluate the future of lead use and will soon seek input
through an open and transparent process from a broad array of partners
and stakeholders about how best to secure the appropriate future for
the use of lead. We invite ideas and coordination from all the
organizations that commented recommending voluntary uptake and/or are
engaged in efforts to encourage volunteer uptake of non-lead ammunition
and tackle.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (13): One commenter opposed to non-lead ammunition and
tackle requirements noted that huntable State and Federal lands can be
adjacent to each other and even ``intermingled,'' which could
potentially create enforcement and compliance issues where State and
Federal lands that border each other have differing ammunition
requirements. Specifically, the commenter seemed concerned about
situations where hunting lands on which lead ammunition is allowed
under State regulations borders hunting lands on which non-lead
ammunition is required under Service regulations.
Our Response: In response to the commenter's concern about
differing regulations on adjacent lands, the Service is prepared to
meet the added enforcement challenge and the compliance burden is
reasonable. Through our compatibility determinations for hunting at
each refuge requiring or planning to require the use of non-lead
ammunition by fall 2026, we have determined that we have the law
enforcement capacity to administer the hunting in this rulemaking under
non-lead requirements, including where our hunting units border hunting
areas administered under State regulations that allow lead use. As
noted in response to Comment (2), Service lands are often subject to
more restrictive regulations than lands governed by State regulations
and thus our law enforcement personnel are familiar with and trained to
handle effective and fair enforcement along land borders where State
and Service regulations differ. Service law enforcement personnel are
also specifically familiar with enforcement of non-lead ammunition
requirements because some refuges have already independently adopted
these requirements for one or more types of hunting and all refuges are
subject to the national ban on the use of lead ammunition to hunt
waterfowl. Moreover, in the case of the non-lead requirements effective
fall 2026 implemented or planned in conjunction with this rulemaking,
all refuge staff will have approximately 4 years to prepare and train
to assist, including through hunter education, all hunters visiting
those nine refuges in complying with the promulgated and planned non-
lead ammunition requirements.
On the compliance side, similarly, hunters planning to hunt on
refuges planning to require non-lead ammunition and tackle by fall
2026, who are not already voluntarily using non-lead ammunition, will
have 4 years in which to transition their equipment and become familiar
with the requirements. In some cases, these hunters may also be able to
benefit from giveaways or exchanges as they transition their supplies,
and all of these hunters will have the benefit of hunter education
available to them from the refuges. Other hunters who are planning to
hunt on State lands near borders between State and Refuge System lands
where regulations concerning lead ammunition differ will have to be
wary of land borders if they choose to use lead ammunition, although
this is something hunters must already do where refuge regulations
differ in other respects or where huntable lands are adjacent to lands
where hunting is prohibited. Moreover, these hunters can be absolutely
assured of compliance even if they cross the border onto refuge lands
by simply choosing to use non-lead ammunition. In the future, the
Service will similarly provide transition periods, as appropriate, to
both allow time to prepare for enforcement and ease the compliance
burden on hunters if we introduce non-lead requirements, including
where adjacent State-regulated lands allow lead use.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this
comment.
Comment (14): Some commenters opposed to non-lead ammunition and
tackle requirements called attention to other sources of lead in the
environment, besides hunting and fishing with lead ammunition and
tackle, and stated that because these sources could cause negative
health impacts for fish and wildlife the Service should not have any
non-lead ammunition and tackle requirements within the Refuge System.
Our Response: While there are of course other sources of lead in
the environment, including other sources that may be bioavailable to
wildlife, the Service does not see this as diminishing the importance
or conservation benefits of requiring the use of non-lead ammunition
and tackle, when and where necessary. These comments collectively
provide the following list of possible sources, besides lead ammunition
and tackle used for hunting and fishing, of environmentally available
lead: naturally occurring lead in the ground; lead paint, particularly
on water towers and fire lookout towers; micro-trash, particularly
discarded hardware and ammunition; lead ammunition used for other
purposes; mining; pesticides; vehicle exhaust; vehicle batteries; and
household products. While these sources vary in the degree of risk they
could present to wildlife, the Service is duly concerned by the health
risks from any potential source of lead exposure for humans and
wildlife. There are likely benefits to be had from efforts to address
each of these sources in turn, but that is generally beyond the scope
of this rulemaking.
Moreover, these potential sources do not change the fact that the
best available science has drawn a clear link between the use of lead
ammunition and tackle and its ecological health impacts. In fact, the
study from Slabe, et al., cited earlier in response to
[[Page 57117]]
Comment (7), provides strong evidence that not only that there is an
impact to eagles from lead ammunition specifically, but also evidence
that it likely represents the most important source of lead exposure
for the species studied (Slabe 2022). Essentially, the study
demonstrated that the highest rates of acute lead poisoning in eagles,
measured by liver lead concentrations, corresponded in terms of timing
with the use of lead ammunition in the form of a nationwide spike in
lead poisoning in winter months in the midst of hunting seasons. To the
extent other sources of lead do bear on our decisions about lead
ammunition and tackle use, these additional lead sources in fact weigh
in favor of lead use restrictions, as lead can accumulate in wildlife
from repeated exposure from one or multiple sources (see, e.g., Behmke
2015). This applies both to the sources mentioned by commenters and
additional sources that were not mentioned, such as coal-fired power
plants and certain heavy industry, including smelting (see Behmke
2015). Similarly, the Service is also not discouraged from requiring
the use of non-lead ammunition and tackle, where appropriate, by the
continued use of lead ammunition and tackle for hunting and fishing on
nearby State and privately held lands and waters. The Service will act,
including to restrict visitor uses, as necessary within our authority,
in the interest of our conservation mission regardless of human
activities outside of refuge borders.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (15): A few comments that were opposed to non-lead
ammunition and tackle requirements maintained that lead ammunition and
tackle are made of an inorganic form of lead that poses little risk of
harm to humans or animals.
Our Response: While inorganic lead presents a low risk of adverse
health impacts while it retains its solid, molded form (i.e., anglers
face little risk from handling lead tackle), the basis for concern
about lead ammunition and tackle is that there are multiple ways for
such lead to become harmful to human and ecological health. Organic
lead (i.e., the banned gasoline additive tetramethyl lead) is more
dangerous than inorganic lead because it can be absorbed through the
skin. Yet, inorganic lead can also have serious impacts in certain
forms (e.g., fragments and particles) and once inside an animal. First,
as briefly described in response to Comment (7), lead ammunition,
including bonded lead ammunition, fragments when it hits an animal, and
this distributes tiny pieces of lead within a wide radius in the soft
tissues of the harvested animal (see ``Fragmentation of lead-free and
lead-based hunting rifle bullets under real life hunting conditions in
Germany,'' Trinogga et al., Ambio. 2019 Sep; 48(9): 1056-1064.
Published online 2019 Mar 23.). These tiny fragments of lead are then
consumed by humans eating the game meat and scavenger species eating
carcasses or gut piles left behind. In this tiny, fragmented form and
acted on by digestive enzymes and acids, the lead derived from
ammunition can then shed particles that enter the blood stream and
affect systems throughout the body, presenting both chronic and acute
health risks. Second, as briefly described in response to Comment (7),
lead ammunition and tackle that is deposited along shores or at the
bottom of bodies of water can be ingested by several species of birds
that forage in these locations for pebbles, as pebbles are necessary to
break down food through grinding in a special organ of their digestive
systems called a gizzard. This grinding process, along with digestive
acids and enzymes that accompany food into the gizzard, can easily
break down lead ammunition and tackle into fragments and cause it to
shed particles, just as the process breaks down the stones and shells
the birds intended to ingest. These lead particles are then able to
enter the bloodstream and affect systems throughout the body,
presenting both chronic and acute health risks. Third, lead ammunition
and tackle that ends up discarded in bodies of water may begin to
dissolve and thus introduce lead particles into the water that present
both chronic and acute health risks to both aquatic animals living in
the water and terrestrial animals drinking from the water. This process
requires high acidity in the water that dissolves lead ammunition or
tackle, and it is essentially the same concern as the problem of
corrosion from acidic water in lead water pipes. These particles of
lead dissolved into the water are easily taken up into the bloodstream
as they pass through digestive systems. It is through these known
processes that lead ammunition and tackle present a risk, and the best
available scientific evidence indicates that these processes are
occurring at rates that are causing negative impacts on the health of
both humans and certain wildlife species, and those impacts are more
acute for some species. Thus, we seriously consider the impact of
inorganic forms of lead, such as lead ammunition and tackle, on
wildlife and human health.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (16): Many duplicate comments and a few unique comments
included claims that restrictions on the use of lead ammunition and
tackle will have significant negative economic impacts, including
business costs of compliance for retailers and manufacturers, job
losses, and a decrease in gross domestic product (GDP). Some of these
comments implied that this rulemaking would cause the described
economic impacts, but others specified that significant economic
impacts would occur were the Service to go further and require non-lead
ammunition and tackle throughout the Refuge System.
Our Response: The Service has found no reason to expect the
outcomes described or any significant economic impact, positive or
negative, from this rulemaking. We qualitatively considered both the
positive and negative economic impacts of this rulemaking and conducted
a quantitative analysis of the economic impact of the rulemaking as
part of the proposed rule, updated for this final rule. None of our
analyses indicate significant economic impacts, and the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs (OIRA) has determined that this rulemaking is not significant
under Executive Order 12866. We recognize that retailers of ammunition
and tackle could experience costs in responding to a shift in market
demand driven by regulations requiring non-lead ammunition and tackle.
However, these potential costs are small and temporary. They are small
in any case because non-lead ammunition can be made available and is
available at prices comparable to lead ammunition, and exceedingly
small in the current case where nine individual refuges are requiring
or will propose to require the use of non-lead ammunition and tackle by
2026. For example, hunter visitation data for Chincoteague NWR in
Virginia, a refuge in this rule planning to require non-lead ammunition
use, indicates that only 1.2 percent of hunters in Virginia use the
refuge on an annual basis. As to the commenters who claimed significant
economic impacts in the hypothetical context of requiring non-lead for
all hunting and fishing on the Refuge System, even in that case the use
of lead ammunition and tackle is only a small fraction of all hunting
and fishing use and an incredibly small fraction of all use in the case
of lead ammunition, as some commenters acknowledged. Moreover, whatever
the economic costs are, it is also important to note that they are
temporary, rather
[[Page 57118]]
than an ongoing compliance burden, as the costs are incurred during the
process of transitioning resources and operations away from producing
and selling lead tackle and ammunition to producing and selling non-
lead tackle and ammunition. Once the resources and operations have been
shifted, again an exceedingly small shift in the case of contemplated
requirements for nine refuges, the transition costs are at an end. For
these reasons, the economic costs of compliance are insignificant and
unlikely to have visible impacts on employment, even within the
affected industries, or GDP. Furthermore, if the Service were to
perform a more comprehensive analysis of the costs and benefits of the
non-lead ammunition requirements in this rulemaking, we would include
some manner of quantification of the adverse human and ecological
health impacts discussed throughout this rulemaking.
Finally, the Service, by statutory obligation, prioritizes our
conservation mission and refuge purposes over recreational uses of
refuges, including hunting and fishing. For example, this is perhaps
most evident in the fact that hunting and fishing opportunities must be
found compatible with the Refuge System mission and refuge purposes. We
nevertheless strive to minimize the compliance burden on individuals
and businesses and any other negative economic impacts, while
maximizing conservation outcomes. We invite discussion and cooperation
with manufacturers and retailers on measures to reduce the costs of
non-lead ammunition and tackle requirements promulgated by or
considered alongside this rulemaking, and any such requirements in the
future.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (17): Many commenters expressed concerns about the
constitutionality of the Service creating non-lead ammunition and
tackle requirements through our regulations, specifically under the
Second Amendment and under the Major Questions Doctrine. Those
questioning non-lead requirements under the Second Amendment primarily
appealed to the amendment itself, but a few commenters also pointed to
the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association Inc. v. Bruen (597 U.S. __ (2022), unpublished), decided on
June 23, 2022. As for those questioning non-lead requirements under the
Major Questions Doctrine, few commenters explicitly referred to the
Major Questions Doctrine, but all of the comments appealed to the
recent U.S. Supreme Court case of West Virginia v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (597 U.S. __ (2022), unpublished), decided on June
30, 2022.
Our Response: The Service maintains, although it is ultimately up
to Federal courts, that all regulations promulgated by or considered in
association with this rulemaking do not raise constitutional issues,
including Service regulation of lead use on the National Wildlife
Refuge System. First, as to the Second Amendment, the Service's
requirement of non-lead ammunition on a given refuge does not actually
limit the ownership, possession, or use of any firearm but only the
possession and use of ammunition, and then only of a certain type of
ammunition while there are other permitted types readily available.
Moreover, where the Service has possession and use restrictions on lead
ammunition they apply only while engaging in hunting activities. These
restrictions do not apply to the possession of firearms for self-
defense purposes, or even lead ammunition for self-defense that is not
brought into the field. For example, a visitor can possess lead
ammunition that remains in their vehicle and on the refuge while they
are away from the vehicle to hunt or on her person for self-defense
purposes while engaging in other forms of recreation besides hunting.
As to the Bruen case, the Service's regulations are fundamentally
different than the challenged state law in that case. The Supreme Court
found that a state cannot require individuals to provide a reason
beyond their right to self-defense in order to be permitted to carry a
concealed firearm as part of the state government's licensing of
ownership and carrying of firearms. The Service is not placing any
restrictions on ownership or possession of any firearm. Instead, as
noted above, the Service's non-lead requirements contemplated in this
rulemaking restrict a particular category of ammunition (i.e.,
ammunition that contains lead, as defined in waterfowl hunting
requirements) only in a certain place (i.e., specific NWRs) and only
while engaging in specific activities (i.e., designated hunting
opportunities).
Additionally, the non-lead requirements contemplated in this rule
actually expand, rather than restrict, the use of firearms for members
of the public because the appropriate alternative to non-lead
ammunition when and where we determine the need to phase-out lead is
not the use of lead ammunition but the potential closure of hunting
opportunities that are not compatible. If the Service could not put
non-lead ammunition requirements in place where we find the continued
use of lead is incompatible with refuge purposes and the Refuge System
mission on a given refuge, then we would close all opportunities for
which lead ammunition is used.
Second, as to the Major Questions Doctrine, the Service regulating
lead use on the Refuge System would not meet the threshold question of
being a major question and, even if it did, Congress provided clear
authority and a clear guiding principle for such regulation. The West
Virginia case held that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
lacked the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions of existing
plants at the level of the power sector to encourage shifting power
generation toward renewable energy technologies rather than regulating
existing plants through plant-by-plant emissions standards. The Court
relied on the Major Questions Doctrine, which is essentially a
collection of case law that supports the idea that Federal courts
should not give deference to Federal agencies in interpreting the
statutes related to their expertise, which the courts otherwise
typically would, if the Federal agency undertakes an extraordinary
action with major political and economic significance. The Court also
invoked the Non-Delegation Doctrine, which is essentially a collection
of case law that supports the idea that a Federal agency must have
received a clear delegation of authority with a guiding principle from
Congress in order to create regulations in a given area. Together,
these doctrines informed the Court's decision that EPA lacked authority
on the grounds that the Court considered the regulations proposed by
EPA in 2015, but never implemented, to be an extraordinary action with
major political and economic significance. The Court also considered
the language in the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) that EPA
relied on in proposing the regulations to not be clear enough evidence
that Congress intended for EPA to have the authority to regulate
greenhouse gases in the manner proposed. While an important case with
implications for Federal agency rulemakings, the case has little
bearing on this rulemaking, even when it comes to the use of lead
ammunition and tackle. This is because the Service is only requiring or
planning to require the use of lead at nine individual refuges by fall
2026; the Service has required non-lead ammunition and tackle at
individual refuges numerous times in the past and even implemented a
total national ban on lead ammunition for waterfowl hunting; and the
Service has
[[Page 57119]]
a very clear delegation of Congressional authority to administer the
Refuge System with the guiding statutory principal that our
conservation mission should inform when, where, and under what
restrictions hunting and fishing are compatible uses at a given refuge.
Thus, the Service's position is that any non-lead ammunition and tackle
requirements for the Refuge System cannot reasonably raise the Major
Questions Doctrine, and even if such a regulation could be considered a
major question a Federal court would then not find the Service to be
acting beyond its authority as intentionally granted by Congress.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (18): Two commenters expressed concerns about human and
ecological health impacts from copper, copper being a popular material
for non-lead ammunition. The first commenter pointed to the possibility
of copper toxicity and questioned why the Service would regulate lead
use but not copper use. The second commenter colorfully expressed
concerns that amounted to copper ammunition hindering reproduction in
squirrels.
Our Response: The Service is not aware of any science showing human
or ecological health threats from copper ammunition, especially none
that rival the health threats of lead ammunition. First, on the point
of copper toxicity, copper and lead are both metals that have been used
for thousands of years, and lead has been known to present a much more
serious threat of toxicity for nearly as long. Our modern understanding
of this is essentially captured by the fact that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) sets the maximum lead level in bottled drinking
water at 0.005 milligrams per liter, whereas it sets the maximum for
copper in bottled drinking water at 1.0 milligram per liter (see 21 CFR
165.110). By this measure, it takes 200 times as much copper as lead to
threaten human health, and a similarly wide gap likely applies for
wildlife. While copper toxicity is possible in certain circumstances
for humans and wildlife, it is incredibly unlikely to occur from the
use of copper ammunition in hunting. In fact, the commenter
acknowledges when discussing copper toxicity that ``it is not likely
for this to happen.'' All the same, if the Service comes to learn in
the future that copper ammunition does present a threat to human and/or
ecological health that raises compatibility issues with our
conservation mission, especially if comparable to the threat posed by
lead ammunition, the use of copper would be appropriately evaluated.
Second, on the point of copper ammunition potentially hindering
reproduction in squirrels, there is even less cause for concern. While
direct exposure to copper is known to affect sperm cells in humans and
there is some evidence that indirect exposure to copper can affect
sperm cells in humans, rodents, and potentially other animals, the use
of copper ammunition is highly unlikely to result in this effect. There
would not be direct exposure of sperm cells to copper in the case of
ammunition, making copper ammunition in no way similar to the
intrauterine devices (IUDs) that the commenter references. There could
potentially be indirect exposure of sperm cells in humans or wildlife
to copper derived from ammunition through one of the pathways mentioned
for lead ammunition (e.g., eating the meat of or scavenging game), but
as noted in discussing toxicity above the amount of copper necessary to
generate health impacts is typically much higher than in the case of
lead. For example, in a 2014 study that found evidence of copper
exposure impacting the sperm of bank voles (a small rodent species) the
amounts of copper the voles ingested were 150 and 600 times the FDA's
maximum concentration in safe bottled drinking water discussed above,
and this for an animal that is a few inches long and weighs about an
ounce (see ``Effect of copper exposure on reproductive ability in the
bank vole (Myodes glareolus),'' Miska-Schramm, et al., Ecotoxicology.
2014 Oct. 23(8):1546-54. Epub 2014 Aug 7.). Thus, the Service is not
concerned about copper ammunition impacting human or wildlife
reproduction, including squirrel reproduction.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (19): Many commenters took the use of the word ``may'' to
mean that the Service considered the scientific evidence of health
impacts from lead ammunition and tackle to be uncertain when used in
the Service's statement in the proposed rule preamble that ``Finally,
the best available science, analyzed as part of this proposed
rulemaking, indicates that lead ammunition and tackle may have negative
impacts on both wildlife and human health, and that those impacts are
more acute for some species'' (see 87 FR 35136, June 9, 2022, at p.
35136). Some of these commenters interpreted this statement to mean
that the Service is acting improperly anywhere we are requiring the use
of non-lead ammunition and tackle because the causal connection between
lead use and adverse health impacts is uncertain. The remaining
commenters interpreted this statement to mean the Service inaccurately
portrayed the scientific evidence on lead ammunition and tackle use as
there are many studies demonstrating the link between the use of lead
and health impacts and a scientific consensus on the matter.
Our Response: The Service did not intend this word choice to have
the connotation these commenters have understood in reading it. The
Service wrote ``may'' not in the sense that the Service or the
scientific literature we analyzed is uncertain, but rather in the sense
that using lead ammunition or tackle can and does have these negative
impacts on certain wildlife species and humans, even if an individual
bullet or sinker may or may not contribute to lead poisoning in a
particular wild animal or human. This is why the Service is duly
engaged in evaluating the demonstrated impacts of lead use on fish and
wildlife in order to determine whether the impacts warrant Service
action at a broader scale, as well as what methods of addressing lead
use are appropriate, should the Service take action. Accordingly, the
Service has adopted this alternative phrasing for this final rule: The
best available science, analyzed as part of this rulemaking,
demonstrates that lead ammunition and tackle have negative impacts on
both human health and wildlife, and those impacts are more acute for
some species.
Besides the revision to the phrasing of the Service's statement on
the best available science noted above, we made no other changes to the
rule as a result of these comments.
Comment (20): We received a few 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, residential areas near
refuges, or the need for adequate funding and/or staffing, especially
of law enforcement personnel.
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
[[Page 57120]]
the possible impacts of the changes to hunting programs at each refuge
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 and/or visitors to wear blaze orange, 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 proposed rule we have determined that
there are sufficient protections in place as part of the hunt program
at that refuge to ensure public safety. For more information on the
Service's efforts to ensure public safety at a particular refuge,
please see that refuge'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.
For all 18 refuges 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 changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (21): We also received a few comments expressing the
sentiment that baiting and the use of hunting dogs are inappropriate
uses on Service lands.
Our Response: All uses proposed as part of this rulemaking or
otherwise authorized as part of hunting and fishing programs in the
Refuge System are thoroughly assessed for compatibility with other
visitor uses and with the Service's mission. Where permitted, the use
of baiting and the use of hunting dogs are carried out safely and
without significant impacts to the environment or healthy wildlife
populations. While this rule does include opportunities that allow the
use of hunting dogs, this rulemaking does not include opportunities
that allow the use of baiting while hunting.
Many States and the majority of refuges do not allow baiting. In
States where baiting is allowed, most refuges have elected to be more
restrictive and not support this method of hunting. By default, the use
of bait while hunting is prohibited unless specifically authorized
under 50 CFR 32.2(h).
The majority of refuges do not allow the use of dogs and those that
do typically 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.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (22): One commenter suggested ``rotation of these federal
lands,'' alongside reference to resting and feeding during winter
migration, as part of their comment. We understand this to mean opening
and closing hunting and fishing units within a refuge in alternating
years, particularly in the interest of migratory bird species.
Our Response: Closing an area to hunting and/or fishing for a year,
or another specific period of time, is something the Service can and
will do when necessary to serve refuge purposes and our conservation
mission, including providing opportunities for migratory species to
rest and feed as the commenter advocated. However, such temporary
closures of particular hunting and fishing opportunities or units do
not require any modification to our regulations through rulemaking.
Refuge managers are authorized to temporarily close recreational
opportunities and areas, as necessary and at any time, for ecological
health or public safety (50 CFR 25.21). If there truly is too much
hunting pressure in any given area, the manager can address it through
temporary closures or other mitigation measures just like any other
threat to ecological health or public safety. Also, the Service has
intentionally adopted a system where these closures are implemented on
a case-by-case basis rather than through some system of formal rotation
because the Service ensures at the time of authorizing hunting and
fishing opportunities, such as those opened or expanded in this
rulemaking, that the opportunities can run continually without having a
significant adverse impact on migratory birds, as well as all other
fish and wildlife species. We ensure this through analysis of localized
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts through NEPA analysis at the
refuge level and analysis of impacts to entire flyways through our
Cumulative Impacts Report that considers national and regional
cumulative impacts from hunting and fishing on the Refuge System. This
analysis and putting in place mitigation measures from the beginning,
such as shorter seasons or buffer zones to protect endangered and
threatened species, are the reason that temporary closures to protect
migratory birds, or even other species, are rarely needed.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these
comments.
Comment (23): One commenter expressed concern that only well-
connected individuals and commercial outfitters will receive all the
special permits for opportunities where hunter numbers are limited.
Our Response: The Service always assigns permits for quota or
limited entry hunts through fair and transparent processes. In most
cases, permits are awarded through a random lottery.
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 June 9, 2022, proposed rule and NEPA
documents for individual refuges, we made changes in this final rule to
Canaan Valley, Blackwater, Eastern Neck, Erie, Chincoteague, Eastern
Shore of Virginia, James River, Rappahannock River Valley, and Wallops
Island NWRs.
[[Page 57121]]
At the request of the State of West Virginia, we have removed the
proposal for Canaan Valley NWR and may revisit the proposal in the
future after further coordination with the State.
At the request of the State of Virginia, for Eastern Shore of
Virginia, James River, and Rappahannock River Valley NWRs, we made
minor edits to the language authorizing dogs while hunting.
For Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR, we have corrected an
administrative error in the proposed rule regulatory language that
inadvertently applied a non-lead ammunition requirement to deer hunting
at the refuge. In this final rule, the corrected regulatory language
makes clear that the existing non-lead ammunition requirement for
turkey hunting will remain in place but deer hunting at the refuge is
not subject to a non-lead ammunition requirement.
For Blackwater, Chincoteague, Eastern Neck, Erie, and Wallops
Island NWRs, we removed all proposed regulatory language specific to
requiring the use of non-lead ammunition and fishing tackle, and we
will propose language in the 2023-2024 rulemaking to require a non-lead
requirement for all hunting and fishing activities which will take
effect on September 1, 2026. In the meantime, these refuges will
encourage hunters and anglers to switch to non-lead alternatives
through outreach and education. We also note that any existing
requirements at these refuges to use non-lead ammunition or tackle,
including the national ban on lead ammunition for waterfowl hunting,
will remain in effect. The removal of regulatory language is limited to
removing proposed new non-lead requirements from the set of regulatory
provisions that will take effect through this final rule.
Effective Date
We are making this rule effective upon the date of its filing at
the Office of the Federal Register (see DATES, above), with the
exception of the requirement to use non-lead ammunition and fishing
tackle on Patoka River NWR at 50 CFR 32.33(c)(1)(iii), which will take
effect on September 1, 2026. We provided a 60-day public comment period
for the June 9, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 35136). 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' 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 the date of its filing at the Office of the Federal Register.
Amendments to Existing Regulations
Updates to Hunting and Fishing Opportunities on NWRs
This document codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations all of
the Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that we would
update since the last time we published a rule amending these
regulations (86 FR 48822; August 31, 2021) and that are applicable at
Refuge System units previously opened to hunting and/or sport fishing.
This rule better informs the general public of the regulations at each
station, increases understanding and compliance with these regulations,
and makes enforcement of these regulations more efficient. In addition
to now finding these regulations in 50 CFR parts 32, visitors to our
stations may find them reiterated in literature distributed by each
station or posted on signs.
Table 1--Changes for 2022-2023 Hunting/Sport Fishing Season
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Station State Migratory bird hunting Upland game hunting Big game hunting Sport fishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baskett Slough NWR.............. Oregon............. E...................... Closed................. Closed................. Closed.
Blackwater NWR.................. Maryland........... E...................... O...................... E...................... Already Open.
Chincoteague NWR................ Virginia........... O...................... O...................... O/E.................... Already Open.
Crab Orchard NWR................ Illinois........... E...................... Already Open........... Already Open........... Already Open.
Eastern Neck NWR................ Maryland........... Closed................. O...................... E...................... Already Open.
Erie NWR........................ Pennsylvania....... O...................... O...................... O...................... E.
Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin NWR South Carolina..... Already Open........... Closed................. E...................... Already Open.
Great Thicket NWR............... New York/Maine..... O...................... O...................... O...................... Closed.
James River NWR................. Virginia........... O...................... Already Open........... Already Open........... Already Open.
Patoka River NWR and Management Indiana............ E...................... E...................... E...................... E.
Area.
Patuxent Research Refuge........ Maryland........... E...................... E...................... E...................... Already Open.
Rachel Carson NWR............... Maine.............. Already Open........... C...................... E...................... Already Open.
Rappahannock River Valley NWR... Virginia........... O...................... Already Open........... Already Open........... Already Open.
San Diego NWR................... California......... Closed................. O...................... O...................... Closed.
Shawangunk Grasslands NWR....... New York........... Closed................. Closed................. O/E.................... Closed.
Trustom Pond NWR................ Rhode Island....... Already Open........... O...................... O...................... Already Open.
Turnbull NWR.................... Washington......... Already Open........... Closed................. O...................... Closed.
Wallops Island NWR.............. Virginia........... O...................... O...................... O...................... Closed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 certain species or the activity on some or all acres (Closing).
The changes for the 2022-2023 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
[[Page 57122]]
review and comment process. These documents are available upon request.
The Service continues to evaluate the future of lead use in hunting
and fishing on Service lands and waters; therefore, we do not plan to
offer any hunting and fishing opportunities that would allow for the
indefinite use of lead ammunition and tackle on the refuges included in
this year's rulemaking. In this final rule, Patoka River NWR will
require non-lead ammunition and tackle by fall 2026, and this refuge-
specific regulation will take effect on September 1, 2026. As part of
the 2023-2024 proposed rule, Blackwater, Chincoteague, Eastern Neck,
Erie, Great Thicket, Patuxent Research Refuge, Rachel Carson, and
Wallops Island NWRs will propose a non-lead requirement, which will
take effect on September 1, 2026. In the June 9, 2022, proposed rule
(87 FR 35136), the Service intended to phase out the use of lead on
these eight refuges by allowing the use of lead ammunition and tackle
for all new hunting and fishing opportunities--until fall 2026, which
is when the Service plans to require non-lead ammunition and tackle for
all activities on these refuges. (To clarify, if a refuge proposed to
expand pre-existing opportunities that previously required non-lead
ammunition or tackle, then non-lead ammunition and tackle would still
be required for those activities.) Based on the breadth of comments
received on the eight refuges' plan to require non-lead ammunition and
tackle by fall 2026, the Service will propose these requirements next
year and provide another opportunity to comment during the 2023-2024
rulemaking.
The Service remains concerned that lead is an important issue and
will continue to appropriately evaluate and regulate lead ammunition
and tackle on Service lands and waters. As indicated by the number of
public comments received on the topic of lead, we recognize that this
is a significant and contentious issue for many of our stakeholders.
The best available science, analyzed as part of this rulemaking,
demonstrates that lead ammunition and tackle have negative impacts on
both human health and wildlife, and those impacts are more acute for
some species. The Service will seek to engage with our partners on
methods to address the use of lead while hunting and fishing on Service
lands and waters, and the Service commits to following a transparent
process in doing so within the near future.
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="https://www.epa.gov/fish-tech">https://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 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 18 NWRs. 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 2,777 user days (one person per day
participating in a recreational opportunity; see table 2). Because the
participation trend is flat in these activities, 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 2022-2023
[2021 Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Additional Additional
Station hunting days fishing days expenditures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baskett Slough NWR.............................................. 270 .............. $9.5
Blackwater NWR.................................................. 100 .............. 3.5
Chincoteague NWR................................................ 75 .............. 2.6
Crab Orchard NWR................................................ 60 .............. 2.1
Eastern Neck NWR................................................ 15 .............. 0.5
Erie NWR........................................................ 25 30 2.0
Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin NWR................................ .............. .............. 0.0
Great Thicket NWR............................................... 175 .............. 6.2
James River NWR................................................. 75 .............. 2.6
Patoka River NWR and Management Area............................ 17 3 0.6
[[Page 57123]]
Patuxent Research Refuge........................................ 100 .............. 3.6
Rachel Carson NWR............................................... 10 .............. 0.4
Rappahannock River Valley NWR................................... 100 .............. 3.5
San Diego NWR................................................... 1,002 .............. 35.3
Shawangunk Grasslands NWR....................................... 75 .............. 2.6
Trustom Pond NWR................................................ 60 .............. 2.1
Turnbull NWR.................................................... 560 .............. 19.7
Wallops Island NWR.............................................. 25 .............. 0.9
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 2,744 33 98.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 yields approximately
$98,000 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 $246,000 (2021 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 $246,000 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 $49,000 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 establishments in
the local communities around NWRs 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
$98,000 to be spent in total in the refuges' local economies. The
maximum increase will be less than one-tenth of 1 percent for local
retail trade spending (see table 3, below). Table 3 does not include
entries for those NWRs for which we project no changes in recreation
opportunities in 2022-2023; see table 2, above.
Table 3--Comparative Expenditures for Retail Trade Associated With Additional Station Visitation for 2022-2023
[Thousands, 2021 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishments
Retail trade in Estimated maximum Addition as % of Establishments in with fewer than
Station/county(ies) 2017 \1\ addition from new total 2017 \1\ 10 employees in
activities 2017 \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baskett Slough:
Polk, OR............................................. $454,935 $10 <0.1 120 79
Blackwater:
Wicomico, MD......................................... 1,983,533 2 <0.1 376 226
Dorchester, MD....................................... 541,191 2 <0.1 100 74
Chincoteague:
Accomack, VA......................................... 405,539 3 <0.1 159 122
Crab Orchard:
Williamson, IL....................................... 1,298,962 2 <0.1 259 168
Eastern Neck:
Kent, MD............................................. 216,681 1 <0.1 87 57
Erie:
Crawford, PA......................................... 1,095,512 2 <0.1 293 197
Great Thicket:
Dutchess, NY......................................... 4,321,906 3 <0.1 1,084 784
York, ME............................................. 2,972,219 3 <0.1 871 640
[[Page 57124]]
James River:
Prince George, VA.................................... 317,610 1 <0.1 65 42
Patoka River:
Pike, IN............................................. 70,298 <1 <0.1 32 23
Gibson, IN........................................... 554,605 <1 <0.1 116 76
Patuxent Research Refuge:
Arundel, MD.......................................... 10,437,225 2 <0.1 1,984 1,216
Prince George, MD.................................... 11,591,063 2 <0.1 2,361 1,482
Rachel Carson:
York, ME............................................. 2,972,219 <1 <0.1 871 640
Cumberland, ME....................................... 7,773,235 <1 <0.1 1,454 936
Rappahannock River Valley:
Essex, VA............................................ 244,493 1 <0.1 65 48
King George, VA...................................... 379,429 1 <0.1 64 42
Westmoreland, VA..................................... 128,188 1 <0.1 44 31
Richmond, VA......................................... 2,498,764 1 <0.1 795 578
Caroline, VA......................................... 339,291 1 <0.1 63 48
San Diego:
San Diego, CA........................................ 51,587,171 35 <0.1 9,423 6,245
Shawangunk Grasslands:
Ulster, NY........................................... 2,841,612 3 <0.1 747 546
Trustom Pond:
Washington, RI....................................... 2,314,122 2 <0.1 524 372
Turnbull:
Spokane, WA.......................................... 8,674,550 20 <0.1 1,627 1,036
Wallops Island:
Accomack, VA......................................... 405,539 <1 <0.1 159 122
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Census Bureau.
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 will 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 would 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 would 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 applies to public use of federally owned and
managed refuges, it does not impose an unfunded mandate on State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100
million per year. The rule does 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 does not have significant
takings implications. This rule only affects visitors at NWRs, 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 does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement under E.O. 13132. In
[[Page 57125]]
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 does 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, or use. E.O.
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when
undertaking certain actions. Because this rule adds 2 NWRs to the list
of refuges open to hunting and sport fishing and opens or expands
hunting or sport fishing at 16 other NWRs, 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 national
fish hatcheries (NFHs) with Tribal governments having adjoining or
overlapping jurisdiction before we propose the regulations.
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This final rule contains a collection of information that we have
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.). 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 05/31/2025),
<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 its implementing regulations at 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provided the general public and other Federal
agencies with an opportunity to comment on our proposal 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.
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
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 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.
Comments that you submit in response to this rulemaking are a
matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number,
email address, or other personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including your
personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any
time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
The Service's final rule (RIN 1018-BF66) opens, for the first time,
hunting and sport fishing on two NWRs and opens or expands hunting and
sport fishing at 16 other NWRs. 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 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 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 they are applying to hunt 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
[[Page 57126]]
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.
<bullet> Signature and date: To confirm that the applicant (and
parent/guardian, if a youth hunter) understands the terms and
conditions of the permit.
Proposed revisions to FWS Form 3-2439:
With this submission, we would add an option for refuges to allow
mobility impaired applicants to reserve specific hunting blinds upon
providing proof of disability. The refuge will not retain the proof of
disability. The documentation will be shredded upon approval of the
blind reservation.
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 it is 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
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.
Proposed revisions to FWS Form 3-2405:
With this submission, we would add a question asking hunters to
provide the total number of hunt days on the refuge (at the conclusion
of their hunting activities). Refuge management will use this
information to monitor and evaluate hunt quality and resource impacts.
We request to renew, without change, the remaining information
collections identified below 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 dates valid 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.
Harvest/Fishing Activity Reports
We have one harvest/fishing activity report, FWS Form 3-2439, to be
completed by hunters which addresses the species unique to the refuge
being hunted. We ask users to report on their success after their
experience so that we can evaluate hunt quality and resource impacts.
We collect the following information on the harvest 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 (e.g.,
[[Page 57127]]
endangered or threatened species, or invasive 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 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.
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 to 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 to 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 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. Copies of all forms are available to the public by submitting
a request to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer using
one of the methods identified above in ADDRESSES.
Title of Collection: Hunting and Fishing Application Forms and
Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish
Hatcheries, 50 CFR parts 32 and 71.
OMB Control Number: 1018-0140.
Form Number: FWS Forms 3-2358, 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: $87,365 (application fees
associated with hunting and sport fishing activities).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completion
Annual number time per Total annual
Activity of responses response burden hours *
(minutes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish/Crab/Shrimp Application/Permit (Form 3-2358)............... 2,662 5 222
Harvest Reports (Forms 3-2542).................................. 591,577 15 147,894
Hunt Application/Permit (Form 3-2439)........................... 361,359 10 60,227
Labeling/Marking Requirements................................... 2,341 10 390
Required Notifications.......................................... 498 30 249
Self-Clearing Check-In Permit (Form 3-2405)..................... 673,618 5 56,135
-----------------------------------------------
Totals:..................................................... 1,632,055 .............. 265,117
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Rounded.
The above burden estimates indicate an expected total of 1,632,055
responses and 265,117 burden hours across all of our forms. These
totals reflect expected increases of 1,652 responses, 270 burden hours,
and $87 annual cost burden relative to our previous information
collection request. We expect minimal burden increases as a direct
result of the increased number of hunting and fishing opportunities on
Service stations under this rule.
On June 9, 2022, we published a proposed rule (87 FR 35136) that
solicited comments on the information collection requirements described
in this supporting statement for a period of 60 days, ending August 8,
2022. We received no comments regarding the information collection
requirements in response to the proposed rule.
This final rule is effective immediately upon filing, 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
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#f6bf989099a9b5999a9ab6908185d8919980"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0e47606861514d6162624e68797d20696178">[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 complied with section 7
for each of the stations affected by this rulemaking.
National Environmental Policy Act
We analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
[[Page 57128]]
(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 themselves to meaningful analysis (43 CFR 46.210 and 516 DM 8).
Concerning the actions that are the subject of this rulemaking, we have
complied with NEPA at the project level when developing each proposal.
This is consistent with the Department of the Interior instructions for
compliance with NEPA where actions are covered sufficiently by an
earlier environmental document (43 CFR 46.120).
Prior to the addition of a refuge or hatchery to the list of areas
open to hunting and fishing in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71, we develop
hunting and fishing plans for the affected stations. We incorporate
these station hunting and fishing activities in the station
comprehensive conservation plan and/or other step-down management
plans, pursuant to our refuge planning guidance in 602 Fish and
Wildlife Service Manual (FW) 1, 3, and 4. We prepare these
comprehensive conservation plans and step-down plans in compliance with
section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality's
regulations for implementing NEPA in 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508,
and the Department of Interior's NEPA regulations 43 CFR part 46. We
invite the affected public to participate in the review, development,
and implementation of these plans. Copies of all plans and NEPA
compliance are available from the stations at the addresses provided
below.
Available Information for Specific Stations
Individual refuge and hatchery headquarters have information about
public use programs and conditions that apply to their specific
programs and maps of their respective areas. To find out how to contact
a specific refuge or hatchery, contact the appropriate Service office
for the States listed below:
Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Regional Chief, National
Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside
Federal Complex, Suite 1692, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-
4181; Telephone (503) 231-6203.
Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Chief, National
Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306,
500 Gold Avenue SW, Albuquerque, NM 87103; Telephone (505) 248-6635.
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and
Wisconsin. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington,
MN 55437-1458; Telephone (612) 713-5476.
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345; Telephone
(404) 679-7356.
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Regional Chief, National
Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate
Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589; Telephone (413) 253-8307.
Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
and Wyoming. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone
(303) 236-4377.
Alaska. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1011 E Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503; Telephone
(907) 786-3545.
California and Nevada. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2606,
Sacramento, CA 95825; Telephone (916) 767-9241.
Primary Author
Kate Harrigan, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation
Planning, National Wildlife Refuge System, is the primary author of
this rulemaking document.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR part 32
Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
Regulation Promulgation
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend title 50,
chapter I, subchapters C of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 32--HUNTING AND FISHING
0
1. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and
715i; Pub. L. 115-20, 131 Stat. 86.
0
2. Amend Sec. 32.7 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (e)(17) through (23) as paragraphs (e)(18)
through (24) and adding a new paragraph (e)(17);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (s)(2) through (7) as paragraphs (s)(3)
through (8) and adding a new paragraph (s)(2); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (ff)(3) through (10) as paragraphs (ff)(4)
through (11) and adding a new paragraph (ff)(3).
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 32.7 What refuge units are open to hunting and/or sport fishing?
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(17) San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
* * * * *
(s) * * *
(2) Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge.
* * * * *
(ff) * * *
(3) Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 32.24 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (m)(1)(ix) and (m)(4)(i);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (q) through (w) as (r) through (x);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (q); and
0
d. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (t)(2)(ii) and (w)(2)(ii).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 32.24 California.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) * * *
(ix)We only allow access to the hunt area by foot and nonmotorized
cart.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i)We prohibit fishing from October 1 to January 31.
* * * * *
(q) San Diego National Wildlife Refuge--(1) [Reserved]
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of quail, mourning and
white-winged dove, spotted and ringed turtle dove, Eurasian collared-
dove, brush rabbit, cottontail rabbit, and jackrabbit on designated
areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
[[Page 57129]]
(i) Archery hunting of quail is limited to September 1 to the
closing date established by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW).
(ii) Hunting of brush rabbit and cottontail rabbit is limited to
September 1 to the closing date established by CDFW.
(iii) Hunting of Eurasian collared-dove and jackrabbit is limited
to September 1 to the last day of February.
(iv) We allow shotguns and archery only. Falconry is prohibited.
(v) You may not possess more than 25 shot shells while in the
field.
(vi) We allow the use of dogs when hunting upland game.
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of mule deer on designated
areas of the refuge.
(4) [Reserved]
* * * * *
(t) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (t)(1)(ii) and (iii) of
this section apply.
* * * * *
(w) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (w)(1)(i) through
(viii) of this section apply.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 32.29 by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 32.29 Georgia.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Big game hunting. We allow alligator hunting on designated
areas of the refuge subject to the following condition: We only allow
alligator hunting on dates outlined by the State of Georgia during the
first two weekends (from legal sunset Friday through legal sunrise
Monday) of the State alligator season.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 32.33 by:
0
a. Republishing paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(1) introductory
text, and (c)(1)(i);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(1)(ii); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(2) through (4).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 32.33 Indiana.
* * * * *
(c) Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area--(1)
Migratory game bird hunting. We allow hunting of duck, goose,
merganser, coot, woodcock, dove, snipe, rail, and crow on designated
areas of the refuge and the White River Wildlife Management Area
subject to the following conditions:
(i) You must remove all boats, decoys, blinds, and blind materials
after each day's hunt (see Sec. Sec. 27.93 and 27.94 of this chapter).
(ii) We prohibit hunting and the discharge of a weapon within 150
yards (137 meters) of any dwelling or any building that may be occupied
by people, pets, or livestock and within 50 yards (45 meters) of all
designated public use facilities, including, but not limited to,
parking areas and established hiking trails listed in the refuge
hunting and fishing brochure.
* * * * *
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of bobwhite quail,
pheasant, cottontail rabbit, squirrel (gray and fox), red and gray fox,
coyote, opossum, striped skunk, and raccoon subject to the following
conditions:
(i) We allow the use of dogs for hunting, provided the dog is under
the immediate control of the hunter at all times.
(ii) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii)
of this section apply.
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer and
wild turkey on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii)
of this section apply.
(ii) On the Columbia Mine Unit, you may only hunt white-tailed deer
during the first week (7 days) of the following seasons, as governed by
the State: archery, firearms, and muzzleloader.
(iii) On the Columbia Mine Unit, you may leave portable tree stands
overnight only when the unit is open to hunting and for a 2-day grace
period before and after the special season.
(iv) On the Columbia Mine Unit, if you use a rifle to hunt, you may
use only rifles allowed by State regulations for hunting on public
land.
(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) We allow fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
(ii) We allow fishing only with rod and reel, pole and line, bow
and arrow, or crossbow.
(iii) The minimum size limit for largemouth bass on Snakey Point
Marsh and on the Columbia Mine Unit is 14 inches (35.6 centimeters).
(iv) We prohibit the taking of any turtle, frog, leech, minnow,
crayfish, and mussel (clam) species by any method on the refuge (see
Sec. 27.21 of this chapter).
(v) You must remove boats at the end of each day's fishing activity
(see Sec. 27.93 of this chapter).
(vi) The condition set forth at paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this
section applies.
* * * * *
0
6. Effective September 1, 2026, Sec. 32.33 is further amended by
revising paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to read as follows:
Sec. 32.33 Indiana.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells,
ammunition, and tackle while in the field.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 32.38 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (b) through (g) as (c) through (h);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (b);
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (c)(2)(i), (c)(3)(i), (f)(2),
(f)(3)(i), (f)(3)(iii), and (f)(3)(vi);
0
d. Adding new paragraph (f)(3)(vii); and
0
e. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(3)(i).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 32.38 Maine.
* * * * *
(b) Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge--(1) Migratory game bird
hunting. We allow hunting of duck, sea duck, dark goose, light goose,
woodcock, and coot on designated areas of the refuge subject to the
following conditions:
(i) You must obtain and sign a refuge hunt information sheet and
carry the information sheet at all times.
(ii) We allow the use of dogs consistent with State regulations.
(iii) We allow access for hunting from one hour before legal
hunting hours until one hour after legal hunting hours.
(iv) We allow take of migratory birds by falconry on the refuge
during State seasons.
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of grouse and the
incidental take of fox and coyote while deer hunting on designated
areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii)
of this section apply.
(ii) We prohibit night hunting of coyote.
(iii) We allow take of grouse by falconry on the refuge during the
State season.
[[Page 57130]]
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of wild turkey and white-
tailed deer, and the incidental take of fox and coyote while deer
hunting, on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii)
of this section apply.
(ii) All species harvested on the refuge must be retrieved.
(4) [Reserved]
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii) (except
for hunters pursuing raccoon and coyote at night), (iii), and (iv) of
this section apply.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), and
(iv) of this section apply.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of grouse, fox, and
coyote on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (iii) of
this section apply.
(ii) We allow take of grouse by falconry on the refuge during State
seasons.
(3) * * *
(i) The conditions as set forth at paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (iv) of
this section apply.
* * * * *
(iii) We allow turkey hunting during the fall season as designated
by the State. Turkey hunting in the spring is a mentor-led hunt only.
* * * * *
(vi) We allow access for hunting from 1 hour before legal hunting
hours until 1 hour after legal hunting hours.
(vii) All species harvested on the refuge must be retrieved.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iv)
(except for hunters pursing raccoon or coyote at night) of this section
apply.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (ii), and
(iv) of this section apply.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 32.39 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(i);
0
b. Adding paragraph (a)(2);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(D), (a)(3)(iii), and (a)(3)(v)(A);
0
d. Adding paragraph (b)(2);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (b)(3)(i)(C) and (b)(3)(iii)(A);
0
f. Adding paragraph (c)(3)(iii); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (c)(4).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 32.39 Maryland.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) You must obtain, and possess while hunting, a refuge waterfowl
hunting permit (printed and signed copy of permit from <a href="http://Recreation.gov">Recreation.gov</a>).
* * * * *
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow incidental take of coyote during
the prescribed State season while deer hunting on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (a)(3)(i) through (v) of
this section apply.
(ii) Coyote may only be taken with firearms and archery equipment
allowed during the respective deer seasons.
(iii) We prohibit the use of electronic predator calls.
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) We prohibit the use of rimfire or centerfire rifles and all
handguns, except those that fire straight wall cartridges as defined by
State law that are legal for deer hunting.
* * * * *
(iii) We allow turkey hunt permit holders (printed and signed copy
of permit from <a href="http://Recreation.gov">Recreation.gov</a>) to have an assistant, who must remain
within sight and normal voice contact and abide by the rules set forth
in the refuge's turkey hunting brochure.
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(A) We require disabled hunters to have an America the Beautiful
Access pass (OMB Control 1024-0252) in their possession while hunting
in disabled areas.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow incidental take of coyote during
the prescribed State season while deer hunting on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through (iii)
of this section apply.
(ii) Coyote may only be taken with firearms and archery equipment
allowed during the respective deer seasons.
(iii) We prohibit the use of electronic predator calls.
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) We prohibit organized deer drives. We define a ``deer drive''
as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise
frighten or cause deer to move in the direction of any person(s) who is
part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the
deer.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) We require disabled hunters to have an America the Beautiful
Access pass (OMB Control 1024-0252) in their possession while hunting
in disabled areas.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) We prohibit shooting a projectile from a firearm,
muzzleloader, bow, or crossbow from, down, or across any road that is
traveled by vehicular traffic.
(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following condition: We prohibit the use or
possession of lead fishing tackle.
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 32.45 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2) and (v)(1); and
0
b. Adding new paragraph (v)(3)(v).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 32.45 Montana.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow the hunting of pheasant, sharp-
tailed grouse, gray partridge, coyote, skunk, red fox, raccoon, hare,
rabbit, and tree squirrel on designated areas of the district.
* * * * *
(v) * * *
(1) Migratory game bird hunting. We allow hunting of goose, duck,
and coot on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
condition: We allow the use of dogs while hunting migratory birds.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(v) We prohibit hunting bear with dogs.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 32.51 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (j) as (d) through (k);
0
b. Adding new paragraph (c); and
0
c. Revising newly redesignated paragraphs (d)(2)(i), (d)(3)(ii),
[[Page 57131]]
(e)(1)(ii)(B) through (D), (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(iv), (e)(3)(i),
(e)(3)(iii), (h)(3) introductory text, (h)(3)(ii), (j)(2)(i), and
(j)(3)(i).
The addition and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 32.51 New York.
* * * * *
(c) Great Thicket National Wildlife Refuge--(1)-(2) [Reserved]
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of wild turkey, white-tailed
deer, and black bear on designated areas of the refuge subject to the
following conditions:
(i) Hunters must obtain a refuge hunting permit (FWS Form 3-2439,
Hunt Application--National Wildlife Refuge System). We require hunters
to possess a signed refuge hunting permit at all times while scouting
and hunting on the refuge.
(ii) We prohibit the use of dogs.
(iii) Hunters may access the refuge 2 hours before legal sunrise
and must leave no later than 2 hours after legal sunset.
(iv) We prohibit organized deer drives. We define a ``deer drive''
as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise
frighten deer into moving in the direction of any person(s) who is part
of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the deer.
(v) We only allow archery hunting.
(4) [Reserved]
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The condition set forth at paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section
applies.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) The condition set forth at paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section
applies.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(B) We allow hunting only on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays
during the established refuge season set within the State western zone
season, and during New York State's established special hunts, which
can occur any day of the week as set by the State. Veteran and active
military hunters may be accompanied by a qualified non-hunting
companion (qualified companions must be of legal hunting age and
possess a valid hunting license, Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and
Conservation Stamp (as known as ``Federal Duck Stamp''), and Harvest
Information Program (HIP) number).
(C) All hunters with reservations and their hunting companions must
check-in at the Route 89 Hunter Check Station area at least 1 hour
before legal shooting time or forfeit their reservation. Hunters may
not enter the refuge/Hunter Check Station area earlier than 2 hours
before legal sunrise.
(D) We allow motorless boats to hunt waterfowl. We limit hunters to
one boat per reservation and one motor vehicle in the hunt area per
reservation.
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The condition set forth at paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section
applies.
* * * * *
(iv) We require the use of approved non-lead shot for upland game
hunting (see Sec. 32.2(k)).
(3) * * *
(i) The condition set forth at paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section
applies.
* * * * *
(iii) We allow white-tailed deer and turkey hunters to access the
refuge from 2 hours before legal sunrise until 2 hours after legal
sunset.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of black bear, wild turkey,
and white-tailed deer on designated areas of the refuge subject to the
following conditions:
* * * * *
(ii) You may hunt black bear, wild turkey, and deer using archery
equipment only.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (iii)
of this section apply.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (ii), and
(j)(2)(ii) of this section apply.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 32.56 by revising paragraph (b)(1)(v) to read as
follows:
Sec. 32.56 Oregon.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(v) We require youth waterfowl hunters to check in and out at the
Hunter Check Station (refuge office), which is open from 1\1/2\ hours
before legal hunting hours to 8 a.m. and from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. We
prohibit hunting after 12 p.m. (noon) for this hunt.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 32.57 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 32.57 Pennsylvania.
* * * * *
(b) Erie National Wildlife Refuge--(1) Migratory game bird hunting.
We allow hunting of mourning dove, woodcock, rail, Wilson's snipe,
Canada goose, duck, coot, mute swan, and crow on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) We allow hunting and scouting activities on the refuge from
September 1 through the end of February. We also allow scouting the 7
days prior to the start of each season.
(ii) We allow use of nonmotorized boats only for waterfowl hunting
in permitted areas.
(iii) We prohibit field possession of migratory game birds in areas
of the refuge closed to migratory game bird hunting.
(iv) We allow the use of dogs consistent with State regulations.
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of ruffed grouse,
squirrel, rabbit, woodchuck, pheasant, quail, raccoon, fox, coyote,
skunk, weasel, porcupine, and opossum on designated areas of the refuge
subject to the following conditions:
(i) We allow woodchuck hunting on the refuge from September 1
through the end of February.
(ii) We prohibit the use of raptors to take small game.
(iii) The condition set forth at paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this
section applies.
(iv) We prohibit night hunting. Hunters may access the refuge 2
hours before sunrise and must leave no later than 2 hours after sunset.
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of deer, bear, turkey, and
feral hog on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
(i) We allow hunting of feral hogs on the refuge from September 1
through the end of February.
(ii) The condition set forth at paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this
section applies.
(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) We allow nonmotorized watercraft use in Area 5. Watercraft must
remain in the area from the dike to 3,000 feet (900 meters) upstream.
(ii) We prohibit the taking of turtle or frog (see Sec. 27.21 of
this chapter).
(iii) We prohibit the collection or release of baitfish. Possession
of live baitfish is prohibited on the Seneca Division.
(iv) We prohibit the taking or possession of shellfish on the
refuge.
[[Page 57132]]
(v) We allow fishing from \1/2\ hour before sunrise until \1/2\
hour after legal sunset.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 32.58 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(iii); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (e)(2) and (3).
The revision and additions read as follows:
Sec. 32.58 Rhode Island.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) We only allow portable or temporary stands and blinds that
must be removed from the refuge on the last day of the refuge-
authorized deer hunt (see Sec. 27.93 of this chapter). We prohibit
permanent tree stands. Stands and blinds must be marked with the
hunter's State hunting license number.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of coyote and fox on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) The condition set forth at paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section
applies.
(ii) We only allow the incidental take of coyote and fox during the
refuge deer hunting season with weapons authorized for that hunt.
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) We require every hunter to possess and carry a personally
signed refuge hunt permit (FWS Form 3-2439, Hunt Application--National
Wildlife Refuge System).
(ii) We only allow portable or temporary stands and blinds that
must be removed from the refuge on the last day of the permitted
hunting session (see Sec. 27.93 of this chapter). We prohibit
permanent tree stands. Stands and blinds must be marked with the
hunter's State hunting license number.
(iii) We only allow the use of archery equipment.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec. 32.59 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(iii);
0
b. Removing paragraph (c)(3)(x); and
0
c. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(3)(xi) through (xiv) as (c)(3)(x)
through (xiii).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 32.59 South Carolina.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(3) * * *
(iii) Except for the special quota permit hunts, we allow only
archery or muzzleloader hunting for deer. We only allow muzzleloading
rifles using a single projectile on the muzzleloader hunts. We prohibit
buckshot. During special quota permit hunts, we allow use of centerfire
rifles or shotguns. We only allow shotguns for turkey hunts.
* * * * *
0
15. Amend Sec. 32.63 by revising paragraphs (b)(2) introductory text
and (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 32.63 Utah.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Upland game hunting.We allow hunting of chukar,
desertcottontail rabbit, and mountaincottontail rabbit on designated
areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) We close to hunting on the last day of the State waterfowl
season.
* * * * *
0
16. Amend Sec. 32.64 by adding paragraph (a)(1)(viii)(C) to read as
follows:
Sec. 32.64 Vermont.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(viii) * * *
(C) We limit hunting to Saturdays, Sundays, and Wednesdays
throughout the waterfowl hunting season for duck.
* * * * *
0
17. Amend Sec. 32.65 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(ii), (a)(4)(iii), (b), (c), and
(f)(1)(ii);
0
b. Adding new paragraphs (f)(1)(vi) and (h)(1);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (h)(3)(ii), (h)(3)(iv), (j)(2), and (j)(3)(v);
0
d. Adding paragraph (m)(1);
0
e. Revising paragraph (m)(3);
0
f. Adding paragraphs (n)(1) and (2); and
0
g. Revising paragraph (n)(3).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 32.65 Virginia.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) You may surf fish, crab, and clam south of the refuge's beach
access ramp. We allow night surf fishing by permit (FWS Form 3-2358) in
this area on dates and at times designated on the permit.
(iii) For sport fishing in D Pool:
(A) We only allow fishing from the docks or banks in D Pool. We
prohibit boats, canoes, and kayaks on D Pool.
(B) You must catch and release all freshwater game fish. The daily
creel limit for D Pool for other species is a maximum combination of
any 10 nongame fish.
(C) Parking for non-ambulatory anglers is available adjacent to the
dock at D Pool. All other anglers must enter the area by foot or
bicycle.
(b) Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge--(1) Migratory game bird
hunting. We allow hunting of waterfowl, coot, snipe, gallinule, dove,
woodcock, crow, and rail on designated areas of the refuge subject to
the following conditions:
(i) Hunters must obtain and possess a signed refuge hunt brochure
while hunting on the refuge.
(ii) Hunters may only access hunting areas by boat. We allow
hunters to access the refuge from 2 hours before legal sunrise until 2
hours after legal sunset.
(iii) We allow hunting during State seasons from September 16 to
March 14.
(iv) We allow the use of dogs while hunting consistent with State
regulations.
(v) We prohibit the use of permanent blinds and pit blinds. You
must remove portable blinds and decoys at the end of each day's hunt.
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of raccoon, opossum, fox,
and coyote on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The condition set forth at paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section
applies. All occupants of a vehicle or hunt party must possess a signed
refuge hunt brochure and be actively engaged in hunting unless aiding a
disabled person who possesses a valid State disabled hunting license.
(ii) Hunters must sign in at the hunter check station prior to
hunting and sign out prior to exiting the refuge.
(iii) We prohibit the hunting of upland game at night. Hunters may
access the refuge from 2 hours before legal sunrise until 2 hours after
legal sunset.
(iv) We prohibit the use of dogs while hunting upland game.
(v) We prohibit firearms in designated archery-only areas.
(vi) You may not hunt, discharge a firearm, or nock an arrow or
crossbow bolt within 100 feet (30.5 meters) of any building, road, or
trail.
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer, sika,
and wild turkey on designated areas of the refuge subject to the
following conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (ii), (v),
and (vi) of this section apply.
(ii) Hunters may access the refuge from 2 hours before legal
sunrise until 2 hours after legal sunset.
[[Page 57133]]
(iii) We prohibit organized deer drives. We define a ``deer drive''
as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise
frighten or cause deer to move in the direction of any person(s) who is
part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the
deer.
(iv) We prohibit the use of pursuit dogs while hunting white-tailed
deer and sika.
(v) We allow the use of portable tree stands, but you must remove
them at the end of each day's hunt.
(vi) We allow limited hunting of wild turkey during designated
State spring and fall seasons only when in the possession of a valid
refuge turkey quota hunt permit.
(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing, crabbing, and clamming
from the shoreline of the refuge in designated areas subject to the
following conditions:
(i) You must attend minnow traps, crab traps, crab pots, and
handlines at all times.
(ii) We prohibit the use of seine nets and pneumatic (compressed
air or otherwise) bait launchers.
(iii) The State regulates certain species of finfish, shellfish,
and crustacean (crab) using size or possession limits. You may not
alter these species, to include cleaning or filleting, in such a way
that we cannot determine its species or total length.
(iv) In order to fish after the refuge closes for the day, anglers
must obtain an overnight fishing pass (name/address/phone) issued by
the National Park Service. Anglers can obtain a pass in person at the
National Park Service Tom's Cove Visitor Center.
(v) We allow the possession or use of only three surf fishing poles
per licensed angler, and those poles must be attended at all times.
This includes persons age 65 or older who are license-exempt in
Virginia.
(c) Eastern Shore of Virginia National Wildlife Refuge--(1)
Migratory game bird hunting. We allow hunting of waterfowl, rail,
snipe, gallinule, coot, woodcock, dove, and crow on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) We allow holders of a signed refuge hunt brochure (signed
brochure) to access areas of the refuge typically closed to the non-
hunting public. All occupants of a vehicle or hunt party must possess a
signed brochure and be actively engaged in hunting. We allow an
exception for those persons aiding a disabled person who possesses a
valid State-issued Commonwealth of Virginia Disabled Resident Lifetime
License or Commonwealth of Virginia Resident Disabled Veteran's
Lifetime License.
(ii) Hunters may enter the refuge no earlier than 2 hours prior to
legal sunrise and must exit the refuge no later than 2 hours after
legal sunset.
(iii) We allow the use of dogs while hunting consistent with State
and Northampton County regulations on designated areas of the refuge.
(iv) We allow hunting on the refuge only from September 1 until
February 28. Hunting will follow State seasons during that period.
(v) You may not hunt, discharge a firearm, or nock an arrow or
crossbow bolt outside of designated hunt areas or within 100 feet (30.5
meters) of a building, road or improved trail.
(vi) We prohibit the use of permanent blinds and pit blinds. You
must remove portable blinds and decoys at the end of each day's hunt.
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of rabbit, squirrel,
quail, raccoon, opossum, fox, and coyote on designated areas of the
refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of
this section apply.
(ii) We prohibit the hunting of upland game at night.
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer and
wild turkey on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), and
(iv) through (v) of this section apply.
(ii) We allow turkey hunting during the spring season only for a
mentor-led hunt.
(iii) We prohibit the possession or use of lead ammunition when
hunting turkey.
(iv) We prohibit organized deer drives. We define a ``deer drive''
as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise
frighten or cause deer to move in the direction of any person(s) who is
part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the
deer.
(v) We allow the use of portable tree stands. We require removal of
the stands after each day's hunt (see Sec. 27.93 of this chapter).
(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) Anglers may access the refuge to fish from designated shore
areas \1/2\ hour before legal sunrise to \1/2\ hour after legal sunset.
(ii) Anglers may access State waters via the Wise Point Boat Ramp
on the refuge from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) We allow holders of a signed refuge hunt brochure (signed
brochure) to access areas of the refuge typically closed to the non-
hunting public. All occupants of a vehicle, boat, or hunt party must
possess a signed brochure and be actively engaged in hunting. We allow
an exception for those persons aiding a disabled person who possesses a
valid State-issued Commonwealth of Virginia Disabled Resident Lifetime
License or Commonwealth of Virginia Resident Disabled Veteran's
Lifetime License.
* * * * *
(vi) We prohibit the possession or use of lead ammunition while
hunting.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) Migratory game bird hunting. We allow hunting of waterfowl on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) We allow waterfowl hunting only during the mentor-led hunts.
(ii) We allow the use of dogs while hunting consistent with State
regulations.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) We require spring turkey hunters to obtain a refuge hunting
permit (FWS Form 3-2439) through a lottery administered by a designated
third-party vendor.
* * * * *
(iv) We prohibit the possession or use of lead ammunition when
hunting spring wild turkey.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of coyote and fox on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) We only allow the incidental take of coyote and fox during the
refuge deer hunting season.
(ii) We require the use of non-lead ammunition when hunting coyote
and fox.
(3) * * *
(v) We require the use of non-lead ammunition when hunting wild
turkey.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) Migratory game bird hunting. We allow hunting of waterfowl on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) Hunters may only hunt waterfowl during designated days and
times. The refuge provides dates for the waterfowl hunting season in
the annual refuge hunt brochure.
[[Page 57134]]
(ii) In designated areas, we require hunters to possess and carry a
refuge hunting permit (FWS Form 3-2439) obtained from a designated
third-party vendor.
(iii) We allow the use of dogs while hunting consistent with State
regulations.
* * * * *
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer and
wild turkey on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (m)(1)(ii) and (m)(2)(i)
of this section apply.
(ii) We prohibit the possession or use of lead ammunition when
hunting spring wild turkey.
(iii) Hunters may enter the refuge no earlier than 1 hour prior to
the start of legal shooting time and must exit the refuge no later than
1 hour after the end of legal shooting time.
(iv) We prohibit organized deer drives. We define a ``deer drive''
as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise
frighten or cause deer to move in the direction of any person(s) who is
part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the
deer.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(1) Migratory game bird hunting. We allow hunting of waterfowl,
rail, coot, snipe, gallinule, dove, woodcock, and crow on designated
areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) You must obtain and possess a signed refuge hunt brochure while
hunting on the refuge.
(ii) You may access the refuge from 2 hours before legal sunrise
until 2 hours after legal sunset.
(iii) We allow hunting during State seasons from September 16 to
March 14.
(iv) We allow the use of dogs while hunting consistent with State
regulations.
(v) We prohibit the use of permanent blinds and pit blinds. You
must remove portable blinds and decoys at the end of each day's hunt
(see Sec. 27.93 of this chapter).
(2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of raccoon, opossum, fox,
coyote, rabbit, and squirrel on designated areas of the refuge subject
to the following conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth in paragraphs (n)(1)(i) and (iii) of
this section apply.
(ii) We prohibit the hunting of upland game at night. You may
access the refuge from 2 hours before legal sunrise until 2 hours after
legal sunset.
(iii) We prohibit the use of pursuit dogs while hunting upland
game.
(iv) You may not hunt, discharge a firearm, or nock an arrow or
crossbow bolt within 100 feet (30.5 meters) of any building, road, or
trail.
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer and
wild turkey on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following
conditions:
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (n)(1)(i) and (n)(2)(iv)
of this section apply.
(ii) We prohibit organized deer drives. We define a ``deer drive''
as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise
frighten or cause deer to move in the direction of any person(s) who is
part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the
deer.
(iii) We prohibit the use of pursuit dogs while hunting white-
tailed deer and wild turkey.
(iv) We allow the use of portable tree stands, but you must remove
them at the end of each day's hunt (see Sec. 27.93 of this chapter).
(v) We allow limited hunting of turkey during designated State
spring and fall seasons only when in the possession of a valid refuge
turkey quota hunt permit.
* * * * *
0
18. Amend Sec. 32.66 by revising paragraph (l)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 32.66 Washington.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of elk and turkey on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) Elk hunters must obtain a letter from the refuge manager
assigning them a hunt unit.
(ii) Elk hunters may access the refuge no earlier than 2 hours
before State legal shooting time and must leave no later than 5 hours
after the end of State legal hunting hours.
(iii) Elk hunters not using approved nontoxic ammunition (see Sec.
32.2(k)) must remove or bury the visceral remains of harvested animals.
(iv) We allow turkey hunting during the fall season only.
(v) We prohibit the possession or use of toxic shot by hunters
using shotguns (see Sec. 32.2(k)) when hunting turkey.
(vi) For turkey hunting, the condition set forth at paragraph
(l)(1)(iv) of this section applies.
* * * * *
0
19. Amend Sec. 32.68 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(3), (b)(3)(i) through (iii), (b)(4),
(d)(2)(ii), (d)(2)(viii), (d)(3)(i), and (d)(3)(iv);
0
b. Adding paragraph (d)(4)(iii);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(3), and (e)(4);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (g)(1)(iii) through (v);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(i), (g)(3), (g)(4), (j)(1), and (j)(3);
and
0
f. Adding paragraph (j)(4)(iii).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 32.68 Wisconsin.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer on
designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) You must remove all boats, decoys, game cameras, blinds, blind
materials, stands, platforms, and other personal equipment brought onto
the refuge at the end of each day's hunt (see Sec. 27.93 of this
chapter). We prohibit hunting from any stand left up overnight.
(ii) Hunters may enter the refuge no earlier than 2 hours before
legal shooting hours and must exit the refuge no later than 2 hours
after legal shooting hours end.
(iii) Any ground blind used during any gun deer season must display
at least 144 square inches (929 square centimeters) of solid, blaze-
orange or fluorescent pink material visible from all directions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) You must remove all boats, decoys, game cameras, blinds, blind
materials, stands, platforms, and other personal equipment brought onto
the refuge at the end of each day's hunt (see Sec. 27.93 of this
chapter). We prohibit hunting from any stand left up overnight.
(ii) Hunters may enter the refuge no earlier than 2 hours before
legal shooting hours and must exit the refuge no later than 2 hours
after legal shooting hours end.
(iii) Any ground blind used during any gun deer season must display
at least 144 square inches (929 square centimeters) of solid, blaze-
orange or fluorescent pink material visible from all directions.
* * * * *
(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on designated areas of
the refuge subject to the following conditions:
(i) We only allow fishing from the shoreline; we prohibit fishing
from docks, piers, and other structures.
(ii) We prohibit the taking of any mussel (clam), crayfish, frog,
leech, or turtle species by any method on the refuge (see Sec. 27.21
of this chapter).
* * * * *
[[Page 57135]]
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) We prohibit night hunting of upland game from 30 minutes after
legal sunset until 30 minutes before legal sunrise the following day.
* * * * *
(viii) Hunters may enter the refuge no earlier than 2 hours before
legal shooting hours and must exit the refuge no later than 2 hours
after legal shooting hours.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) You must remove all boats, decoys, game cameras, blinds, blind
materials, stands, platforms, and other personal equipment brought onto
the refuge at the end of each day's hunt (see Sec. 27.93 of this
chapter). We prohibit hunting from any stand left up overnight.
* * * * *
(iv) The condition set forth at paragraph (d)(2)(viii) applies.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) We prohibit the taking of any mussel (clam), crayfish, frog,
leech, or turtle species by any method on the refuge (see Sec. 27.21
of this chapter).
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Migratory game bird hunting. We allow hunting of migratory game
birds throughout the district, except that we prohibit hunting on the
Blue Wing Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) in Ozaukee County and on the
Wilcox WPA in Waushara County, subject to the following conditions:
(i) We allow the use of hunting dogs, provided the dog is under the
immediate control of the hunter at all times.
(ii) You must remove all boats, decoys, game cameras, blinds, blind
materials, stands, platforms, and other personal equipment brought onto
the refuge at the end of each day's hunt (see Sec. 27.93 of this
chapter). We prohibit hunting from any stand left up overnight.
* * * * *
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of big game throughout the
district, except that we prohibit hunting on the Blue Wing WPA in
Ozaukee County and on the Wilcox WPA in Waushara County, subject to the
following conditions:
(i) Any ground blind used during any gun deer season must display
at least 144 square inches (929 square centimeters) of solid, blaze-
orange or fluorescent pink material visible from all directions.
(ii) The condition set forth at paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this
section applies.
(4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on WPAs throughout the
district subject to the following conditions.
(i) We prohibit the use of motorized boats while fishing.
(ii) We prohibit the taking of any mussel (clam), crayfish, frog,
leech, or turtle species by any method on the refuge (see Sec. 27.21
of this chapter).
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) We prohibit the use of motorized boats while hunting and
fishing.
(iv) During the State-approved hunting season, we allow the use of
hunting dogs, provided the dog is under the immediate control of the
hunter at all times.
(v) You must remove all boats, decoys, game cameras, blinds, blind
materials, stands, platforms, and other personal equipment brought onto
the refuge at the end of each day's hunt (see Sec. 27.93 of this
chapter). We prohibit hunting from any stand left up overnight.
(2) * * *
(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iv)
of this section apply.
* * * * *
(3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of big game on designated
areas throughout the district subject to the following conditions:
(i) We prohibit hunting on designated portions of the St. Croix
Prairie WPA and the Prairie Flats-South WPA in St. Croix County.
(ii) Any ground blind used during any gun deer season must display
at least 144 square inches (929 square centimeters) of solid-blaze-
orange or fluorescent pink ma
[…truncated; see source link]Indexed from Federal Register on September 16, 2022.
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.