# 2021-2022 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2021-18426

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Rule
- **Published:** August 31, 2021
- **Citation:** 86 FR 48822

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Parts 32 and 71
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2021-0027; FXRS12610900000-212-FF09R20000]
RIN 1018-BF09
2021-2022 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), open, for the first time, seven National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) that are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing. In addition, we open or expand hunting and sport fishing at 81 other NWRs, and add pertinent station-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2021-2022 season. We also open hunting or sport fishing on one unit of the National Fish Hatchery System (NFH). We add pertinent station-specific regulations that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing at this NFH for the 2021-2022 season. Finally, we make regulatory changes to existing station-specific regulations in order to reduce the regulatory burden on the public, increase access for hunters and anglers on Service lands and waters, and comply with a Presidential mandate for plain language standards.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 31, 2021.

ADDRESSES:

This final rule, its supporting documents, and the comments we received on the May 4, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 23794) are available at
http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2021-0027.

Information collection requirements:
Written comments and suggestions on the information collection requirements may be submitted at any time to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or
Info_Coll@fws.gov
(email). Please reference “OMB Control Number 1018-0140” in the subject line of your comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christian Myers, (571) 422-3595.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended (Administration Act), closes NWRs in all States except Alaska to all uses until opened. The Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) may open refuge areas to any use, including hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that the use is compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge System mission. The action also must be in accordance with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, and otherwise in the public interest. These requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.

We annually review hunting and sport fishing programs to determine whether to include additional stations or whether individual station regulations governing existing programs need modifications. Changing environmental conditions, State and Federal regulations, and other factors affecting fish and wildlife populations and habitat may warrant modifications to station-specific regulations to ensure the continued compatibility of hunting and sport fishing programs and to ensure that these programs will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of station purposes or the Service's mission.

Provisions governing hunting and sport fishing on refuges are in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at part 32 (50 CFR part 32), and on hatcheries at part 71 (50 CFR part 71). We regulate hunting and sport fishing to:

• Ensure compatibility with refuge and hatchery purpose(s);

• Properly manage fish and wildlife resource(s);

• Protect other values;

• Ensure visitor safety; and

• Provide opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent recreation.

On many stations where we decide to allow hunting and sport fishing, our general policy of adopting regulations identical to State hunting and sport fishing regulations is adequate in meeting these objectives. On other stations, we must supplement State regulations with more-restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our management responsibilities, as outlined under Statutory Authority, below. We issue station-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations when we open wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing. These regulations may list the wildlife species that you may hunt or fish; seasons; bag or creel (container for carrying fish) limits; methods of hunting or sport fishing; descriptions of areas open to hunting or sport fishing; and other provisions as appropriate.

Statutory Authority

The Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act; Pub. L. 105-57), governs the administration and public use of refuges, and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) governs the administration and public use of refuges and hatcheries.

Amendments enacted by the Improvement Act were built upon the Administration Act in a manner that provides an “organic act” for the Refuge System, similar to organic acts that exist for other public Federal lands. The Improvement Act serves to ensure that we effectively manage the Refuge System as a national network of lands, waters, and interests for the protection and conservation of our Nation's wildlife resources. The Administration Act states first and foremost that we focus our Refuge System mission on conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats. The Improvement Act requires the Secretary, before allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding, renewing, or extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that the use is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was established and the mission of the Refuge System. The Improvement Act established as the policy of the United States that wildlife-dependent recreation, when compatible, is a legitimate and appropriate public use of the Refuge System, through which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and wildlife. The Improvement Act established six wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the Refuge System. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas within the Refuge System and Hatchery System for public recreation as an appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the extent that doing so is practicable and

not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which Congress and the Service established the areas. The Recreation Act requires that any recreational use of refuge or hatchery lands be compatible with the primary purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and not inconsistent with other previously authorized operations.

The Administration Act and Recreation Act also authorize the Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts and regulate uses.

We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to opening it to hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop station-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge or hatchery and the Refuge and Hatchery System mission. We ensure initial compliance with the Administration Act and the Recreation Act for hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired land through an interim determination of compatibility made at or near the time of acquisition. These regulations ensure that we make the determinations required by these acts prior to adding refuges to the lists of areas open to hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71. We ensure continued compliance by the development of comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) and step-down management plans, and by annual review of hunting and sport fishing programs and regulations.

Summary of Comments and Responses

On May 4, 2021, we published in the
Federal Register
(86 FR 23794) a proposed rule to open sport fishing at one NFH, open seven NWRs that are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing, expand hunting and sport fishing at 83 other NWRs, and add pertinent station-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2021-2022 season. We accepted public comments on the proposed rule for 60 days, ending July 6, 2021. By that date, we received more than 1,200 comments on the proposed rule. More than two-thirds of these comments were form letters or otherwise identical duplicates of other comments on the proposed rule, and the vast majority of those were submitted by one organization and were supportive of the rule. The majority of the substantive comments on the proposed rule stated that the Service should prohibit lead ammunition and tackle on some or all stations. The Service recognizes that lead is an important issue and will continue to appropriately evaluate and regulate lead ammunition and tackle on Service lands and waters. We discuss the remaining unique comments we received below by topic. Beyond our responses below, additional station-specific information on how we responded to comments on particular hunting or fishing opportunities at a given refuge or hatchery can be found in that station's final hunting and/or fishing package, each of which can be located online at:
https://www.fws.gov/refuges/hunting/rules-regulations-and-improved-access/.

Comment (1):
We received a substantial number of comments expressing general support for the proposed changes in the rule. Of the unique comments on the rule, more than half were in general support of the proposed changes. These comments of general support either expressed appreciation for the increased hunting and fishing access in the rule overall, expressed appreciation for increased access at particular refuges, or both. In addition to this general support, some commenters requested additional hunting and fishing opportunities at specific stations or generally in several States.

Our Response:
Hunting and fishing on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lands is a tradition that dates back to the early 1900s. In passing the Improvement Act, Congress reaffirmed that the Refuge System was created to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, and would facilitate opportunities for Americans to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing on Refuge System lands. We prioritize wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing, when doing so is compatible with the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the NWRS. Hunting or fishing on hatcheries, unlike Refuge System lands, is authorized when such activity is not detrimental to the propagation and distribution of fish or other aquatic wildlife (see 50 CFR 71.1).

We will continue to open and expand hunting and sport fishing opportunities across refuges and hatcheries; however, as detailed further in our response to
Comment (2),
below, opening or expanding hunting or fishing opportunities on Service lands is not a quick or simple process. The annual regulatory cycle begins in June or July of each year for the following hunting and sport fishing season (the planning cycle for this 2021-2022 final rule began in June 2020). This annual timeline allows us time to collaborate closely with our State, Tribal, and Territorial partners, as well as other partners including nongovernmental organizations, on potential opportunities. It also provides us with time to complete environmental analyses and other requirements for opening or expanding new opportunities. Therefore, it would be impracticable for the Service to complete multiple regulatory cycles in one calendar year due to the logistics of coordinating with various partners. Once we determine that a hunting or sport fishing opportunity can be carried out in a manner compatible with individual station purposes and objectives, we work expeditiously to open it.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (2):
Many commenters expressed general opposition to any hunting or fishing in the Refuge System. Of the unique comments on the rule, less than one-fourth were in general opposition to the proposed changes without raising any substantive issues. In many cases, commenters stated that hunting was antithetical to the purposes of a “refuge,” which, in their opinion, should serve as an inviolate sanctuary for all wildlife. Some of these commenters generically opposed expanded or new hunting or fishing opportunities at specific stations.

Our Response:
The Service prioritizes facilitating wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, including hunting and fishing, on Service land in compliance with applicable Service law and policy. For refuges, the Administration Act, as amended, stipulates that hunting (along with fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation), if found to be compatible, is a legitimate and priority general public use of a refuge and should be facilitated (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(3)(D)). Thus, we only allow hunting of resident wildlife on Refuge System lands if such activity has been determined compatible with the established purpose(s) of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System as required by the Administration Act. For hatcheries, we allow hunting and fishing when such activity is determined not to be detrimental to the propagation and distribution of fish or other aquatic wildlife (see 50 CFR 71.1). For all 89 stations opening and/or expanding hunting and/or fishing in this rule, we determined that the proposed actions were compatible or would not have detrimental impacts.

Each station manager makes a decision regarding hunting and fishing

opportunities only after rigorous examination of the available information, consultation and coordination with States and Tribes, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.
) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.
), as well as other applicable laws and regulations. The many steps taken before a station opens or expands a hunting or fishing opportunity on the refuge ensure that the Service does not allow any opportunity that would compromise the purpose of the station or the mission of the agency.

Hunting of resident wildlife on Service lands generally occurs consistent with State regulations, including seasons and bag limits. Station-specific hunting regulations can be more restrictive (but not more liberal) than State regulations and often are more restrictive in order to help meet specific refuge objectives. These objectives include resident wildlife population and habitat objectives, minimizing disturbance impacts to wildlife, maintaining high-quality opportunities for hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreation, eliminating or minimizing conflicts with other public uses and/or refuge management activities, and protecting public safety.

The word “refuge” includes the idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife, and as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the Refuge System. However, again, the Administration Act stipulates that hunting, if found compatible, is a legitimate and priority general public use of a refuge. Furthermore, we manage refuges to support healthy wildlife populations that in many cases produce harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. As practiced on refuges, hunting and fishing do not pose a threat to wildlife populations. It is important to note that taking certain individuals through hunting does not necessarily reduce a population overall, as hunting can simply replace other types of mortality. In some cases, however, we use hunting as a management tool with the explicit goal of reducing a population; this is often the case with exotic and/or invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability. Therefore, facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of the Service's roles and responsibilities as outlined in the legislation establishing the Refuge System, and the Service will continue to facilitate these opportunities where compatible with the purpose of the specific refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (3):
We received comments from 13 individual State agencies and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on the proposed rule. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Missouri Department of Conservation; Michigan Department of Natural Resources; and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission all expressed general support for the proposed rule without additional comments. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but also requested additional changes at Necedah NWR. The New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but also requested additional changes at Cape May and Supawna Meadows NWRs. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested minor changes to the hunt units at the National Elk Refuge; minor changes to waterfowl hunting at the National Elk Refuge; additional hunting opportunities at Bamsforth, Hutton Lake, and Mortenson Lake NWRs; and additional opportunities on National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but suggested that Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman's Island NWRs provide additional analysis and details on particular hunting and fishing opportunities there and requested that Great Dismal Swamp NWR: (1) Combine a bear hunting permit with a general hunting permit, (2) allow spring turkey hunting, (3) expand to full week hunting, and (4) provide additional information about parking areas. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested that we add regulatory language listing Atlantic brant among the migratory bird hunting target species for Mackay Island NWR and stating a requirement for hunters to have North Carolina State licenses and permits. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested we edit the regulatory language at William L. Finley NWR to align more closely with the State regulations by removing “merganser” from the species list, as it is already considered a duck species. The Arizona Game and Fish Department expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested the Service to consider allowing the use of falconry on refuges within the State of Arizona, including Bill Williams NWR and Havasu NWR; requested the Service to consider aligning to State regulations for the use of dogs while hunting; requested the Service consider aligning to State regulations for legal methods of take in hunting javelina; and expressed concerns about regulatory differences between refuges within the same State. Finally, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested the Service consider additional opportunities on refuges in Alaska.

Our Response:
The Service appreciates the support of, and is committed to working with, our State partners to identify additional opportunities for expansion of hunting and sport fishing on Service lands and waters.

In response to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, we have made no changes to the rule. We will not address their concerns in this rule because the proposed expansions at Necedah NWR are no longer part of this final rule. We will, however, consider the Department's requests in shaping any future proposed openings or expansions at Necedah NWR.

In response to the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, the Service extends hours for fishing to 1 hour before legal sunrise and 1 hour after legal sunset at both Cape May and Supawna Meadows NWRs. The Service will consider additional vehicle access at Cape May NWR and crabbing/shellfishing at Cape May and Supawna Meadows NWRs for future rulemakings, but we cannot make those additions at this time.

As suggested by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, we have renamed the hunt units at the National Elk Refuge in order to reduce confusion for the public. The Service did not make changes to the white-tailed deer hunt season dates to avoid conflict with the refuge's elk hunt, and the Service does not plan to consider opening waterfowl hunting on the refuge due to the presence of trumpeter swan populations, as trumpeter swan is a Priority 1 Species of Special Concern for the Wyoming Game & Fish Department, and due to the potential for conflict with other compatible uses on the refuge at that time. The Service

appreciates the Department's comments regarding Bamsforth, Hutton Lake, and Mortenson Lake NWRs, and we will consider opening additional opportunities on those refuges in future rulemakings. The Service cannot comment on potential opportunities on National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management lands, and requests that the State work directly with those agencies for additional opportunities.

In response to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, we have made no changes to the rule, but will add much of the requested information, where appropriate, to supporting documents. Specific information on how we responded to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources' suggestions for more detail on particular hunting and fishing opportunities at Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fisherman Island NWRs can be found in those stations' final hunt plan, compatibility determination, and finding of no significant impact documents. With respect to Great Dismal Swamp NWR, first, we cannot combine the bear hunting permit with the general hunting permit due to the strict harvest quota of 20 bears, and the associated need to be able to contact bear hunters specifically, and because refuge lands are situated in both Virginia and North Carolina, which have differing hunting regulations. Second, we are already considering spring turkey hunting for a future rulemaking. Third, we have determined that full week hunting, regardless of whether or not Sundays are included, is not compatible with other uses of the refuge and the refuge's conservation purposes and mission. Fourth, we will engage in outreach efforts to share the information about parking areas with all refuge visitors, including wildlife-dependent recreational users of the refuge.

In response to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, we have made no changes to the rule. Atlantic brant is considered a variety of dark goose under our regulations, so it does not need to be explicitly listed in station-specific regulations where dark goose hunting is authorized. Thus, the proposed authorization of light and dark goose hunting at Mackay Island NWR already allows for the hunting of Atlantic brant. The suggested language about North Carolina State licenses and permits was not adopted because: (1) It would cause confusion as the regulatory provisions at 50 CFR 32.52(e) govern refuge lands in both North Carolina and Virginia (where North Carolina licenses and permits are not necessary); and (2) this requirement is already covered by the regulation requiring each person to secure and possess the required state license at 50 CFR 32.2 As a general matter, our regulations operate against the backdrop of state regulations as a default in this way, so if our regulations do not explicitly remove any given state requirement for a given hunt then hunters must still abide by those requirements in order to hunt on Refuge System lands. Nevertheless, the refuge will ensure this requirement is also included in the refuge hunt brochure to address the concerns of the Commission.

In response to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's request to remove “merganser” from the species list in the regulatory language under William L. Finley NWR, we agree that this change will allow us to be more aligned with the State's regulations and have made that change in this final rule.

In response to the Arizona Game and Fish Department, we consider falconry a “special hunt” due to concerns regarding non-target take and so have made no changes to the rule concerning falconry. Service policy, as outlined in our Service manual at 605 FW 2.7.M. (Special Hunts), stipulates, “We will address special types of hunts, such as falconry, in the hunt section of the visitor service plan (VSP).” In other words, each refuge manager, when developing their step-down VSP (which would include a hunt plan, if appropriate) from their CCP, must first determine if hunting is compatible. Assuming it is found to be compatible, the refuge manager would next determine the conduct of the hunt, which might include the use of falconry. A refuge manager has discretion to restrict hunting and types of hunting, including falconry, if, for example, endangered or threatened species are present, the cumulative impacts of a type of hunt have not been analyzed or are not available, or if a type of special hunt is not compatible with the refuge purpose. Thus, this issue is decided individually on a refuge-by-refuge basis. The Service remains committed to opening hunting methods, including falconry and especially those methods allowed by State regulations, whenever it is possible to do so at a given refuge in a manner consistent with all purposes and objectives of the refuge, in the professional judgment of the refuge manager. Falconry has not been found compatible on Bill Williams River and Havasu NWRs.

In response to the comment from the Arizona Game and Fish Department regarding aligning dog regulations on refuges to State regulations, we have made no changes to the rule. Even though State regulations may allow dogs during hunting activities, our general refuge regulations prohibit all domesticated animals at 50 CFR 26.21(b) unless authorized by refuge-specific regulations. While refuges adopt State hunting and fishing regulations to the extent practicable, they must also comply with the general refuge regulations. Therefore, in order to allow dogs during hunting activities, each refuge must authorize the use of dogs during hunting activities in their refuge-specific entries at 50 CFR part 32. As explained above, all uses on refuges must be found compatible and must not conflict with refuge objectives. Some refuges have found that the use of dogs during hunting activities must be limited or not authorized in order to avoid conflict with refuge objectives.

In response to the comment from the Arizona Game and Fish Department regarding methods of take for javelina, we have changed the CFR to remove shotgun shooting shot as a legal method of take for javelina at Bill Williams River NWR in order to align with state regulations.

In response to the Arizona Game and Fish Department's concern regarding inconsistencies between refuges within the State, we have made no changes to the rule. Refuges within the same State often have different purposes, different endangered or threatened species, or different habitats, and therefore all hunting and fishing activities and regulations must be considered on a refuge-by-refuge basis as well. Where we do not align with State regulations, we make every attempt to align refuges within a State or geographic region to each other, but this is not always possible to ensure compatibility.

In response to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, we made no changes to the rule. A key difference from other states is that refuges in Alaska are open to all hunting and fishing uses until closed under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; 16 U.S.C. 3111-3126). Where we have closed opportunities or limited the use in comparison to State regulations, we promulgate those regulations under 50 CFR part 36. We work closely with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game when making these determinations and in assessing the continued need for regulations.

Comment (4):
We received comments from five Tribal governments on the rule. The Shawnee Tribe in Oklahoma and Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana both stated they did not have concerns about the proposed rule. The Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska expressed

concerns about hunting of species with cultural significance at Loess Bluffs NWR and hunting of “nongame” species, both at Loess Bluffs NWR specifically and in the proposed rule generally. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Historic Preservation Department requested consultation with respect to Choctaw NWR concerning cultural resource records and requested that we add an inadvertent discovery clause to our environmental assessment (EA) for the openings and expansions at the refuge. The Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office commented twice in order to: (1) Convey that the Nation had no concerns about the proposed activities at Loess Bluffs NWR, which are not included this final rule; and (2) request that the Service conduct a cultural resources survey at Sequoyah NWR before any construction begins on the two proposed new fishing ponds on the refuge.

Our Response:
The Service appreciates the support of our Tribal partners and is committed to working with our Tribal partners to address their concerns around potential cultural resource, socioeconomic, and ecological impacts from hunting and fishing activities in the Refuge System.

In response to the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, we do not include the proposed openings and expansions at Loess Bluffs NWR in this rule. We will continue discussions with the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska on how these acres and species may be considered for hunting openings and expansions in the future. As to the Iowa Tribe's general concern about hunting of “nongame” species in the rule overall, as explained in detail at
Comment (8),
below, before authorizing any given hunting and sport fishing activity on a refuge, we ensure the activity is compatible with the biological integrity and ecological health of all species on the refuge. Also, as explained at
Comment (15),
below, this applies as much to the hunting of predatory and even apex predator species, which some people consider “nongame” species, as it applies to other species that are more commonly considered target species for hunting or “game” species.

In response to the Choctaw Nation, we have provided the requested information, including reports, site forms, and Choctaw NWR's unanticipated discovery plan. We have also incorporated the suggested inadvertent discovery clause into the refuge's EA document, as requested.

In response to the Osage Nation, the Service is conducting a cultural resources survey and continuing discussions with the Osage Nation. The construction of the ponds and all proposed fishing activities dependent on the ponds are contingent on the results of the survey and of our discussions with the Osage Nation.

Comment (5):
We received two comments with concerns that the Service did not properly engage in government-to-government consultations with Tribes in developing the openings, expansions, and other changes in the proposed rule.

Our Response:
For all openings and expansions of hunting and sport fishing that the Service considers, the Service engages in government-to-government consultations with any and all potentially affected Tribal partners. As described in our response to
Comment (1),
above, the Service engages our Tribal partners early in the planning process along with our State and Territorial partners when developing proposed changes to hunting and sport fishing on Service lands and waters.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (6):
A couple commenters stated that the Service should not defer to State fish and wildlife agencies on certain hunting regulations and analysis of wildlife populations.

Our Response:
The Service works closely with State agency partners on all aspects of fish and wildlife conservation and management. With respect to rules and regulations governing hunting and sport fishing, the Service makes State regulations the default for any authorized hunting and sport fishing to maximize regulatory efficiency and clarity for the public, especially hunters and anglers who must abide by the rules and regulations. The Service also makes a concerted effort to align our rules and regulations with State rules and regulations to maximize this efficiency and minimize confusion, but it is not an abdication of our responsibility to regulate hunting on the Refuge System because we still determine in every case whether or not State hunting and fishing regulations are appropriate for the given refuge. Whenever necessary for refuge purposes, conservation goals, ecological health, or compatibility with other uses, the Service imposes alternate and/or additional rules and regulations to those of the relevant State agencies. With respect to wildlife monitoring and analysis of wildlife populations, the Service does its own monitoring and analyses and looks to these first. We do also draw on the work of State partners, both because it provides more data to inform our decisions and because it ensures we have information about fish and wildlife on a larger geographic scale, which is critical for many species with large ranges that extend far from Service lands and waters. The ultimate determinations governing all hunting and sport fishing activities on NWRS lands are made by the Service, and we fulfill our responsibilities to administer hunting and sport fishing programs in a manner compatible with both ecological health and integrity and other recreational uses of refuges.

Comment (7):
We received a number of comments arguing that we should have prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) instead of station-specific environmental analyses combined with a national cumulative impact report. Some of these comments also argued that specific stations should have prepared an EIS where we prepared an environmental assessment (EA) or an EA where we prepared a categorical exclusion. One of these commenters also stated that the use of lead ammunition or tackle presents an extraordinary circumstance that does not allow for the use of a Categorical Exclusion. Relatedly, a few commenters believed it improper for our NEPA documents to be draft rather than final documents during our comment period.

Our Response:
The Service disagrees with the comment that we should prepare an EIS before proposing expanded hunting and fishing opportunities on refuges or hatcheries. We completed individual EAs for, or applied categorical exclusions to, 89 refuges and hatcheries, in compliance with NEPA, to evaluate the impacts of opening or expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on the stations through this rulemaking. These EAs and categorical exclusions underwent regional and national review to address and consider these actions from a local, regional, multi-State, and/or flyway perspective, and to consider the cumulative impacts from this larger geographical context. The 2021-2022 cumulative impacts report concludes, after analyzing the collective impacts of all EAs and categorical exclusions prepared in connection with this rule, that the rule will not have significant impacts at the local, regional, or national level. The commenters who have raised these environmental analysis concerns have provided no additional information that would change this analysis or our conclusion. As discussed above, we annually conduct management activities on refuges and hatcheries that minimize or offset impacts of hunting and fishing on physical and cultural resources, including establishing designated areas for hunting; restricting levels of use; confining access and travel to designated locations; providing

education programs and materials for hunters, anglers, and other users; and conducting law enforcement activities.

In this rulemaking, the Service is expanding opportunities for recreational hunting and fishing. Expanding opportunities does not necessarily result in increased impacts to refuge resources. We anticipate that for some refuges, these expansions will not result in changes in usage of the refuge. In other cases, these expansions may lead to some increase in use of refuges, but these changes will likely by minor. Opening of new refuges may attract people to the refuge, but these hunters and/or anglers were likely already participating elsewhere on State or other Federal lands. Overall, considering the decreasing trends in hunting and fishing generally, and decreasing trends of these activities on refuges specifically, we do not expect this final rule to have a significant impact on the environment. As noted in our cumulative impacts report, hunter participation trends have been generally declining, some refuges attract a very small number of participants, and often participation rates decline over the course of a season.

Finally, a Federal court found that this approach, using a bottom-up analysis to assess the cumulative impact of increased hunting and fishing across the entire Refuge System, was an appropriate way for the Service to analyze the impacts of the rule in compliance with NEPA (see
Fund for Animals
v.
Hall,
777 F. Supp. 2d 92, 105 (D.D.C. 2011)). We disagree with the one commenter who sought to distinguish this rulemaking from that case on the basis that (1) there were multiple rulemakings before the court, and (2) this rule is larger than those rules were in terms of the number of openings and expansions. These differences do not matter to the court's conclusion that analysis of cumulative impacts through a cumulative impacts report is appropriate. First, the court reached a conclusion about what needs to be analyzed for each individual rulemaking, even though the same challenge was brought against multiple rulemakings. Second, the court could have, but did not, set any limit on the number of openings and expansions the cumulative impacts report could cover. The court likely did not do so because a rule with more openings and expansions will simply have more EAs and categorical exclusions in order to cover each station, and the cumulative impacts report will correspondingly consider a larger number of potential cumulative impacts as thoroughly as in any other iteration of this annual rule.

We also disagree with one commenter's contention that the use of lead ammunition or tackle presents an extraordinary circumstance that will not allow for the use of a categorical exclusion. This question is directly addressed by managers when they determine whether a categorical exclusion is appropriate for a given expansion to hunting and fishing on a refuge. Just as the level of lead introduced from hunting and sport fishing has been found unlikely to produce significant adverse impacts in all of our environmental assessments, it was not considered to have significant adverse impacts for those stations where an expansion to the hunting and/or fishing programs met the criteria for a categorical exclusion. Finally, as the use of lead ammunition and tackle has been allowed on refuges for decades in the ordinary course of operations, it cannot reasonably be considered an extraordinary circumstance for any station.

A few commenters raised a separate but related concern that they believed it improper for our NEPA documents to be draft rather than final documents after the
Federal Register
published the proposed rule. These commenters misunderstand our rulemaking process. Our longstanding approach to this annual rulemaking is that we have the required public comment period for our NEPA documents and the required public comment period for our proposed rule run concurrently and end on the same date. The NEPA documents cannot be finalized without public comment, just as we cannot issue a Final Rule before the public has commented on our proposed rule. Not only is this approach compliant with all applicable laws and regulations but it also provides important advantages for public input. First, because we do create our draft NEPA documents before drafting the proposed rule, so that our environmental impact findings can inform the proposed rule, ending both public comment periods on the same date results in longer public comment periods for our NEPA documents. As an example, in this rulemaking cycle, instead of the 30 days we would otherwise typically provide for an EA, for the EA of Great Dismal Swamp NWR the public was given 88 days to provide comments. Second, with draft NEPA documents we are able to make changes to the EA that reflect changes made to the openings and expansions in the rule in response to public comment on the rule, and vice versa. It would be cumbersome, and potentially cause confusion for the public, to go through a process of revising finalized EAs to make these same changes. All of our EAs and other underlying planning documents will be finalized and made public alongside the Final Rule, the content of which they fully informed.

In response to comments, we reviewed all EAs and categorical exclusions. Based on that review, we determined that the categorical exclusion for Necedah NWR may require further consideration, and we do not include the proposed expansions at Necedah NWR in this final rule. The Service disagrees with the assertion that, for any of the stations in this rule, we should have prepared an EIS instead of an EA or an EA instead of a categorical exclusion. We also disagree with an assertion that, for any of the stations in this rule, the analysis in the respective EA or categorical exclusion is inadequate under NEPA.

We removed the proposed expansions at Necedah NWR from the rule, but because they would have been administrative expansions, this did not require revising any of the proposed regulatory changes for Necedah NWR. Thus, we did not make any changes to the regulatory provisions in this rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (8):
We received several comments that alleged the proposed rule is, or certain parts of the proposed rule are, a violation of the Service's mandate to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (16 U.S.C 668dd(a)(4)(B)). These commenters also expressed concern about the health and genetic diversity of populations of the species being hunted.

Our Response:
We do not allow hunting on a refuge if it is found incompatible with that individual refuge's purposes or with the mission of the Refuge System. Part of the mission of the Refuge System is to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System are maintained for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)(B)). Therefore, each Service station manager uses his or her “sound professional judgment” (see the definition of this term in the Service Manual at 603 FW 2.6.U., available online at
https://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html
) in making these inherently complex management decisions to ensure that each proposed action complies with this mandate. Each manager incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, considerations of the refuge's role within an ecosystem, applicable

laws, and best available science in making these decisions. Service biologists and wildlife professionals, in consultation with the State, determine the optimal number of each game animal that should reside in an ecosystem and then establish hunt parameters (
e.g.,
bag limits, sex ratios) based on those analyses. We carefully consider how a proposed hunt fits with individual refuge goals, objectives, and strategies before allowing the hunt. The new or expanded hunting and/or fishing opportunities in this rule are not expected to individually or collectively result in significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to hunted populations of migratory birds and resident wildlife, nonhunted populations of migratory birds and resident wildlife, endangered and threatened species, habitat and plant resources, or other natural resources. We analyzed these impacts not only in each refuge's NEPA document and ESA Section 7 document, but also in the 2021-2022 cumulative impacts report.

The Service does not collect population data at the national level, but is able to use State population data when analyzing the impacts at individual stations or within a State. When determining the compatibility of an activity, Service policy (603 FW 2) directs station managers to utilize all available data in exercising their sound professional judgement in the decision-making process.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of these comments.

Comment (9):
We received several comments that claimed the actions in the proposed rule would imperil threatened and endangered species. Some of these comments pointed to concerns regarding the Florida Panther NWR in particular.

Our Response:
In compliance with section 7 of the ESA, every station determined that their proposed actions either would have “no effect” or were “not likely to adversely affect” endangered and threatened species or designated critical habitat present at that station. The Service determined that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize any listed species, nor adversely modify its critical habitat; and that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize any proposed or candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered. Furthermore, as described in our cumulative impacts report, because endangered and threatened species are usually highly localized, minor or negligible impacts on an endangered or threatened species at a local or even regional scale would likely have no cumulative impact on national populations of those species. Thus, considering all impacts cumulatively for each individual threatened or endangered species, it is unlikely there will be any adverse impacts on such species, their habitats, or their recovery from these openings and expansions of hunting and sport fishing.

We do not allow hunting on a refuge if it is found incompatible with that individual refuge's purposes or with the mission of the NWRS. In addition, the Service's biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health (BIDEH) policy (601 FW 3) guides decision-making with respect to management of activities on refuges, including hunting. Service biologists and wildlife professionals, in consultation with the State, determine the optimal number of each game animal that should reside in an ecosystem and then establish hunt parameters (
e.g.,
bag limits, sex ratios) based on those analyses. We carefully consider how a proposed hunt fits with individual refuge goals, objectives, and strategies before allowing the hunt. None of the known, estimated, or projected harvests of migratory game birds, upland game, or big game species in this rulemaking is expected to have significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to hunted populations, non-hunted wildlife, endangered or threatened species, plant or habitat resources, wildlife-dependent recreation, prescribed fire, air, soil, water, cultural resources, refuge facilities, solitude, or socio-economics. We analyze these impacts not only in each refuge's NEPA document, but also in the 2021-2022 cumulative impacts report.

While there may be some minor, localized, and temporary (short-term) impacts to endangered and threatened species as a result of hunting or fishing activities, every station ensured that these impacts were minimized and, in many cases, offset them through a variety of management activities.

In response to the comments expressing concern specifically about Florida Panther NWR, the Service is opening three limited quota spring turkey hunts and fishing on a 19-acre pond on that refuge. Therefore, impacts on the endangered Florida panther (
Puma
(=
Felis
)
concolor coryi
) are expected to be negligible to minor due to the limited number of turkey hunting permits we will issue; the type, amount, and location of approved public access; and the general locations of all proposed project activities (
e.g.,
highly disturbed areas impacted by human use before the refuge was established). As outlined in the environmental assessment (section B of the VSP), through the use of quota hunts, a sustainable harvest is expected. A limited wild turkey hunt may be held during three weekends of the Florida spring turkey season, and only one bearded turkey may be harvested seasonally by permitted hunters. The refuge hunt will adopt Florida State regulations at nearby State wildlife management areas, and also add refuge-specific regulations to ensure compatibility. Up to 25 permits on two quota weekend hunts (
i.e.,
50 total permits) and up to 10 family groups (
i.e.,
20 total permits) on the third weekend hunt may be issued annually. However, Florida Panther NWR will monitor the turkey population and hunter access to allow for adaptive management in the number of permits issued annually. Also, no new roads or trails will be needed to accommodate hunting on the refuge. The use of existing roads and trails will accommodate turkey hunting. It is estimated that fewer than 70 hunters will access the refuge, and they will take fewer than 8 turkeys each season on the refuge. The local turkey population is expected to rebound seasonally, with no significant effects anticipated. Rangewide, this slight increase in take is not expected to have a cumulative effect on the species.

In the ESA Section 7 analysis for Florida Panther NWR, we concluded, based on the best available science and professional judgment of refuge staff, that the hunting and fishing openings are not likely to adversely impact the Florida panther. We have described the turkey hunting activity above because it is the most likely source of any minor disturbances that occur for panthers on the refuge. In addition to the limits on turkey hunting detailed above, it is important to note that turkey is not a primary prey species for the Florida panther, so any temporary, minor change in the refuge's turkey population should not affect panthers. Relatedly, even though panthers will sometimes prey on turkeys, because lead ammunition is prohibited for turkey hunting on the refuge there is no concern about lead exposure from panthers scavenging hunted turkeys or turkey gut piles. Well-managed hunt programs and other outdoor recreational activities do not conflict with the Service's ability to recover the Florida panther or other Federal trust species on Florida Panther NWR. An example of this lack of conflict is evidenced by the fact that since conservation and especially genetic diversification efforts began in the 1990s the panther population has continued to increase

throughout southwest Florida even though hunting and other forms of outdoor recreation have continued to occur as traditional uses across millions of acres, including on both private and public lands. Panthers are one of the most adaptable mammals in the Northern Hemisphere and have home ranges in close proximity to human occupied areas in southwest Florida (
e.g.,
Golden Gate Estates). The proposed quota turkey hunts are anticipated to only have minimal to moderate short-term effects on the Florida panther and other Federal trust species. Panther activity may be temporarily altered as a result of human activity. However, any alteration of panther activity is expected to be insignificant.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (10):
Many commenters expressed concern over the use of lead ammunition and/or lead fishing tackle on refuges and hatcheries. Some commenters objected to these potential sources of lead at a particular refuge or hatchery, and many individual commenters and multiple organizations were concerned about lead nationwide and referred us to various forms of evidence on the subject of lead impacts to human and ecological health. Many of these commenters were supportive of the increased access the Service proposed, but requested the Service not allow lead ammunition or tackle. Some commenters expressed specific concerns about raptor species, including the bald eagle (
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
). One commenter stated that the use of lead ammunition would violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668c) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703
et seq.
).

Our Response:
The Service acknowledges concerns from commenters about the issue of bioavailability of lead in the environment and is aware of the potential impacts of lead on fish and wildlife. See, for example, Nancy Golden, et al., “A Review and Assessment of Spent Lead Ammunition and Its Exposure and Effects to Scavenging Birds in the United States,” which is available online at
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/refuges/Review%20and%20Assessment%20paper.pdf.
Accordingly, the Service pays special attention to species susceptible to lead uptake and to sources of lead that could impact ecological and human health.

Historically, the principal cause of lead poisoning in waterfowl was the high densities of lead shot in wetland sediments associated with migratory bird hunting activities (Kendall et al. 1996). In 1991, as a result of high bird mortality, the Service instituted a nationwide ban on the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots (see 50 CFR 32.2(k)).

Yet, there remains some concern about the bioavailability of spent lead ammunition (bullets) and fishing tackle on the environment, the health of fish and wildlife, and human health. The Service is aware of fish and wildlife species, including endangered and threatened species, that are susceptible to biomagnification of lead from their food sources or the food eaten by their food sources. There is also evidence that some species are susceptible to direct ingestion of lead ammunition or tackle due to their foraging behaviors. For example, the Service recognizes that ingested lead fishing tackle has been found to be a leading cause of mortality in adult common loons (Grade, T. et al., 2017, in Population-level effects of lead fishing tackle on common loons. The Journal of Wildlife Management 82(1): pp. 155-164). The impacts of lead on human health and safety have been a focus of several scientific studies. We are familiar with studies that have found the ingestion of animals harvested via the use of lead ammunition increased levels of lead in the human body (
e.g.,
Buenz, E. (2016). Lead exposure through eating wild game. American Journal of Medicine, 128: p. 458).

While there are concerns of lead's general potential for ecological health impacts, we disagree with commenters that the use of lead ammunition in connection with the particular openings and expansions of hunting and fishing on the refuges and hatchery in this rulemaking will significantly impact the environment or is likely to harm endangered or threatened species. Each refuge and hatchery carefully evaluated possible impacts to the environment, including to endangered and threatened species, as part of the NEPA process. As discussed above, on stations where lead ammunition or tackle is allowed, we found that the number of hunters and anglers using lead ammunition or tackle would result in no more than a negligible increase of lead in the environment. As a result, we found there would be no significant impact to the environment from the use of lead ammunition and/or tackle for the station In addition, every refuge and hatchery looked at the impacts of these new or expanded hunting and fishing opportunities, including the allowance or prohibition of lead, on endangered and threatened species in compliance with requirements under section 7 of the ESA. The ESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that the actions they carry out, fund, or authorize do not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species (listed species). For each station, the Service determined that the proposed action was not likely to adversely affect any listed species, nor jeopardize any listed species. We also determined that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize any proposed or candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered.

We also disagree with the commenter who asserted that the use of lead ammunition will violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (Eagle Act) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The potential for lead to threaten any species, including raptors in general and eagles in particular because of their protection under these statutes, is a key part of the NEPA and ESA analyses that are conducted before the authorization of any hunting or fishing on a refuge for which lead ammunition or lead fishing tackle is allowed. This ensures hunting and fishing activities are compliant with these statutes. In fact, the MBTA explicitly authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to create regulations governing take for all of the migratory bird species covered by the treaty, including eagles (16 U.S.C. 704(a)). The promulgation of the hunting regulations in this rule under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior means that the Secretary has determined these hunting activities are compatible with the terms of the MBTA and with the international conventions that are the basis for the MBTA. Thus, the hunting regulations in this rule do not violate the MBTA or the associated treaties.

The Service continues to educate hunters and anglers on the impacts of lead on the environment, and particularly on human health and safety concerns of ingesting animals harvested with lead ammunition. We always encourage hunters and anglers to voluntarily use non-lead ammunition and tackle for all harvest activities. For both ammunition and tackle, alternatives to lead are becoming more widely available and used by hunters and anglers; and despite the traditional view that non-lead ammunition and tackle is more expensive, the costs have become comparable.

We share a strong partnership with the States in managing wildlife and therefore, when determining whether to prohibit the use of lead ammunition or tackle, we have traditionally deferred to State regulations. For example, in California, the use of lead ammunition

is prohibited statewide, including on all Service lands, largely in response to the adverse impacts of lead on the endangered California condor (
Gymnogyps californianus
). We will continue to research this issue and plan to continue engaging with States and other partners to promote the use of non-lead ammunition and tackle.

Although there is not a Service-wide ban on lead ammunition for non-migratory bird hunting activities or on lead fishing tackle, the Service has taken specific steps to limit the use of lead in hunting and fishing activities on refuges and hatcheries. Currently, under 50 CFR 32.2(k), all refuges and hatcheries may require the use of nontoxic ammunition for all hunting other than deer and turkey hunting through brochures, signage, and other forms of public notification. For deer hunting, turkey hunting, and fishing, refuges and hatcheries must promulgate station-specific regulations. Notably, we continue, in these annual rulemakings updating the regulations for hunting and fishing on NWRs and NFHs, to phase out the use of lead on Service lands and waters. Currently, including the regulatory changes in this rule, 82 of the 434 stations open to hunting restrict lead ammunition use for deer and/or turkey hunting, and 23 of the 378 stations open to fishing restrict lead tackle for fishing. In this rule, 17 stations are putting forward restrictions on the use of lead ammunition and/or lead fishing tackle. However, we acknowledge that with the increased access provided to hunters and anglers on Service lands and waters in the past few years, despite the Service's efforts to mitigate the impact of lead on the environment, the increase in number of hunting and angling opportunities has outpaced the increase in number of opportunities subject to lead use restrictions.

Based on the recent historic expansions in our hunting and fishing programs, and per our policy, the Service will continue to evaluate lead use in hunting and fishing on Service lands and waters.

Comment (11):
A few commenters expressed opposition to a prohibition on lead ammunition for hunting. The arguments these commenters put forward were that hunters on a given refuge would not take enough shots to create dangerous levels of lead and that reducing lead is a positive move but regulations prohibiting lead might result in anger and backlash.

Our Response:
We recognize that lead in the environment carries risks for fish and wildlife, which is why lead ammunition is not allowed for waterfowl hunting on any refuge and lead ammunition is prohibited on refuges in California in order to protect the California condor. However, most hunting and sport fishing activities do not introduce enough lead into the environment to pose a significant danger to any species or to make it likely listed species will experience adverse effects. Accordingly, lead ammunition and tackle are currently allowed where our NEPA and ESA analyses determine the activity is not likely to result in dangerous levels of lead exposure. Even for the hunting and sport fishing opportunities where we have determined lead will be allowed, we educate hunters about lead and encourage the use of nontoxic alternatives. This education and encouragement, coupled with the declining price of nontoxic alternatives and others trends, have allowed us to introduce lead prohibitions for all or some hunting and sport fishing activities, in addition to waterfowl hunting, on many of our refuges without significant opposition from our State partners, local hunters and anglers, or other stakeholders. This includes provisions prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or lead fishing tackle for 17 different stations in this rule.

Comment (12):
We received several comments concerned with impacts of this rule on migratory birds. A few of these commenters were particularly concerned about those refuges whose purposes include “inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds” or that have been designated as “important bird areas” (IBAs) by the Audubon Society.

Our Response:
All of the migratory bird hunting opportunities on Service lands are done within the frameworks set by the Service in compliance with the MBTA. These frameworks set season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting and ensure that hunting will not have adverse impacts on the populations of the various species of migratory birds through rigorous biological monitoring, information collection, and data review. To determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, the Service considers factors such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and wintering habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. After frameworks are established for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting, States may select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the hunting seasons. States may always be more restrictive in their selections than the Federal frameworks, but never more permissive. For more information on this process, see the 2021-2022 cumulative impacts report at
http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2021-0027.

Our analysis in the cumulative impacts report of the expansion of hunting of migratory game birds on Service lands through this rule indicates that the proposed harvests, or intentional take, of each species will constitute a negligible component of both national and flyway harvest. Station-specific migratory game bird hunting regulations are established within the above discussed frameworks and in compliance with NEPA to ensure that adverse impacts will not accumulate over time; thus, the harvest is expected to have a negligible impact on migratory bird resources within NWRs.

In addition to all hunting for migratory game birds being set within this national framework, and as with all species hunted in the Refuge System, each station must also ensure that the hunting or fishing opportunity is compatible, or in the case of NFHs not detrimental, with the purpose of that station and complies with applicable provisions of NEPA, ESA, and other applicable laws and policy before opening or expanding migratory bird hunting. This thorough process ensures that the Service has analyzed the potential impacts of the proposed hunting or fishing opportunity and determined that the opportunity would not have a significant impact on any migratory bird species, not just the targeted species.

Where inviolate sanctuaries occur on NWRs, all uses must be evaluated for appropriateness and, if necessary, compatibility. The language within the Administration Act only applies to those lands with the designation of inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds. With this in mind, other uses (
e.g.,
big game hunting, hiking, auto tours, etc.) can be allowed as long as they are compatible. When determining compatibility, the Service must consider the high bar that the inviolate sanctuary designation established.

In addition, refuges with this designation will have to evaluate the influence of uses occurring or potentially occurring on other portions of the refuge and how they may affect the inviolate sanctuaries. Although this designation sets a higher level of consideration, it is clear that Congress intended for these areas to be considered for use when compatible. In the case of IBA designations from the Audubon Society, while several refuges

in the rule do have these IBA designations, these designations do not place any additional legal restrictions related to migratory birds on management of these refuges. As discussed previously, each station goes through several different processes, including compatibility determinations, NEPA compliance, and ESA compliance, to ensure that the hunting and fishing opportunities proposed would have no significant impacts on populations of migratory birds in compliance with the Service's mandates under the MBTA, Administration Act, or other applicable laws and policies.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (13):
A number of commenters mentioned climate change, as a general environmental issue, as something we should consider in developing this rule. A few of these commenters specifically argued that we did not fully consider the impacts this rule could have in conjunction with the separate impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, and other refuge resources. One comment invoked Executive Order 14008, which calls on government agencies to “combat the climate crisis” through conservation and other measures.

Our Response:
The Service recognizes climate change as a threat to human and ecological health and operates in compliance with Executive Order (E.O.) 14008. The conservation goals and operations of the Refuge System are well-aligned with E.O. 14008, and this rule in particular is consistent with the Executive order.

We consider climate change factors in this rule, as with all actions on Service lands. Where appropriate, the effects of climate change on individual species and refuge natural resources are considered throughout the individual NEPA documents, individual ESA section 7 documents, and cumulative impacts report. If such analysis determined that a given hunting or sport fishing activity, in conjunction with the effects of climate change, would result in adverse impacts to protected species or biological integrity, then the refuge manager would not authorize the activity.

In addition to considering the impacts of climate change on the management of wildlife, we respond to a changing climate through the annual process of setting hunting and fishing seasons. Hunting seasons are based on biological monitoring and coordination with our State partners. In some circumstances, seasons may be adjusted based on predicted harvest rates, population levels, seasonal factors, and other assessments. While this process is not necessarily climate-based, over time, as the variables mentioned above change, we respond by altering regulations accordingly. These regulatory changes are only incremental changes that build on previous changes. Any major changes in station or environmental conditions, such as an unsustainable decrease in a species' population or sizeable increases in refuge or hatchery acreage or public uses, would trigger additional planning, NEPA review, compatibility determinations, and ESA section 7 evaluation processes. The Service may reevaluate compatibility at any time if conditions warrant. These required planning and management processes ensure that adverse impacts will not accumulate over time.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (14):
We also received various comments expressing the sentiment that “trophy hunting,” baiting, and hounding of predators are “unsportsmanlike” activities and inappropriate uses on Service lands. Some comments also expressed a desire for the Service to enact a ban on “hunting contests.”

Our Response:
The Service does not attempt to define or authorize “trophy hunting” in any of our laws, regulations, or policies concerning hunting. We follow State hunting and fishing regulations (except for where we determine it is necessary to be more restrictive on individual stations), including State regulations concerning responsible hunting, or prohibitions on wanton waste (defined as “to intentionally waste something negligently or inappropriately”).

We apply this same stance on alleged “hunting contests.” The Service follows State bag limits for species open to hunting, except where we may restrict bag limits in order to meet compatibility requirements for the activity. In States where excessive take of particular species is encouraged for sport only, the Service would restrict bag limits. We only allow hunting on refuges and hatcheries when we have determined that the opportunity is sustainable and compatible. For example, “contests” targeting non-game species where there are no bag limits under State regulations, including species classified as “predators” under State laws, are permitted in Oregon and Idaho. However, the Service would not issue permits for coyote hunting “contests” at refuges in these States for several reasons, including unacceptable disturbance impacts to other game and nongame species, conflicts with other user groups, and conflicts with the Service's BIDEH policy.

Under 50 CFR 26.21(b), the use of dogs for hounding is prohibited on refuges unless authorized by station-specific regulations, and many refuges only authorize the use of dogs for retrieval of migratory birds, upland game birds, and small game. Most refuges that allow dogs require that the dogs are under the immediate control of the hunter at all times or leashed, unless actively retrieving an animal. Most of the commenters who expressed opposition to the use of dogs referenced Silvio O. Conte NWR specifically. The use of dogs will still be allowed at Silvio O. Conte NWR for hunting of waterfowl and game species in accordance with state regulations. However, because of the concerns of commenters we will require hunters who wish to use more than two dogs at a time for hunting of any species anywhere on the refuge to obtain a special use permit and on the Putney Mountain Unit specifically we are only allowing the use of dogs for migratory bird and grouse hunting.

In States where baiting is allowed, most refuges have elected to be more restrictive and not support this method of hunting. Furthermore, most of the commenters who expressed opposition to baiting referenced Silvio O. Conte NWR specifically, but that refuge does not allow baiting.

We made changes to the rule for the use of dogs at Silvio O. Conte NWR as described above, but made no other changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (15):
We received a few comments expressing concern about opening and expanding opportunities for hunting of predator species. Some commenters alleged that we did not give enough consideration to the impacts of those proposed hunts, and that the hunts conflicted with the Service's mandates under the Administration Act to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge. One of these commenters also brought our attention to the omission of coyote from species lists for three refuges in our cumulative impacts report.

Our Response:
Refuge managers consider predator management decisions on a case-by-case basis. As with all species, a refuge manager makes a decision about managing predator populations, which are included in the category of resident wildlife, including allowing predatory species to be hunted, only after careful examination to ensure the action would comply with relevant laws, policies, and directives. The Administration Act, as amended, directs

the Service to manage refuges for “biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health.” Predators play a critical role in the integrity, diversity, and overall health of ecosystems, so before allowing predators to be hunted, a refuge manager must ensure that these actions do not threaten the integrity, diversity, or health of the refuge ecosystem. The manager must also determine that the action is compatible with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, and in keeping with the refuge's CCP and other step-down plans. In addition, the refuge manager analyzes the impacts of the actions on the environment through the NEPA process and section 7 of the ESA. Therefore, a refuge manager must take many steps to ensure that any opportunity for hunting predators on a refuge meets the Service's applicable laws and policies.

For example, we received one comment advocating for the hunting of predator species during established State seasons at Sherburne NWR in Minnesota. The refuge manager at Sherburne NWR had already considered adding such hunts, but determined that the seasons and hours of predator hunting in Minnesota would conflict with the months of the year and hours of the day in which the refuge is open to the public. Sherburne NWR observes a sanctuary period from March 1 through August 31, and is only open during daylight hours. Predator hunting in Minnesota is primarily at night and primarily during the summer months. We will not be able to grant the request of this commenter because it is not compatible with the conservation purposes and practices of Sherburne NWR.

The Administration Act, as amended, also mandates that regulations allowing hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the Refuge System shall be, to the extent practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans (16 U.S.C. 668dd(m)). Therefore, all the opportunities for hunting predators in this rule that are intended to bring greater consistency with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans are part of realizing the Service's mission. Moreover, these, as with all predator hunting determinations and all hunting and fishing determinations, were only made after careful consideration by the refuge manager to ensure that such actions would not threaten the integrity, diversity, and overall health of the ecosystem and were compatible with both the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge System. For NFHs, the hatchery manager made the decision that such opportunities were not detrimental to the propagation of fish, wildlife, or aquatic species (50 CFR 70.1). Finally, both the NEPA process and the rulemaking process provide opportunities for the public to provide comments and any additional information on impacts of our actions. We considered the additional information provided from the public on this issue during these public comment periods and determined that they did not affect our initial determinations that these small and minor opportunities for hunting predators on specific refuges or hatcheries will have no more than minor impacts on the population health of these species or other wildlife at the local, regional, or national level.

Lastly, one commenter noted that for a particular predator (coyote) the cumulative impacts report omitted proposed hunts from the narrative descriptions of the openings and expansions for three stations: Bogue Chitto NWR, Loess Bluffs NWR, and Malheur NWR. Those typographical errors have been corrected for Bogue Chitto NWR and Malheur NWR. In the case of Loess Bluffs NWR, all hunting openings and expansions described in the May 4, 2021, proposed rule are not included in this final rule, in recognition of concerns expressed by the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska.

We have changed the cumulative impacts report as described, but did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (16):
One commenter stated that the Service did not properly consider the impacts of allowing beaver hunting because beaver dams can alter water flow in ways that provide habitats for other species.

Our Response:
This rule includes the opening or expansion of beaver hunting on multiple refuges, both as a target species and as incidental take during hunts for other species. For each of these refuges individually, the NEPA analysis and ESA section 7 analysis consider the potential impacts of allowing hunters to take beaver. As with all target species, the refuge manager must ensure that authorizing hunting does not threaten the integrity, diversity, or health of the refuge ecosystem. This includes effects on other species from the loss of individuals from the given target species, which encompasses effects from the absence of beaver dams that change water flows just as it encompasses effects from reduced predation, reduced foraging pressure, and other mechanisms that can impact non-target species. The manager must also determine that the action is compatible with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, and in keeping with the refuge's CCP and other step-down plans. As a result, the beaver hunts in this rule do not present a threat to ecosystem health or other species either directly from the take of individual beavers or indirectly through the effect of beaver hunting on the number and strength of beaver dams. In fact, on many refuges beavers are already managed by refuge staff to prevent habitat damage caused by beaver dams, which can have negative impacts on vegetation, moist soil units, and other refuge resources. Finally, the Service does not anticipate substantial take of beavers on any particular refuge or cumulatively.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (17):
We received several comments that expressed concern over some aspect of public safety. Commenters raised concerns about openings or expansions of hunting at certain stations based on the conflicts with other visitors to the refuge or the need for adequate funding and/or staffing. In particular, the most common specific concern was that the increase in openings and expansions of hunting and sport fishing would overwhelm existing law enforcement capacity. These concerns were expressed for multiple specific stations and as a nationwide issue.

Our Response:
The Service considers public safety to be a top priority. In order to open or expand hunting or sport fishing on a refuge, we must find the activity compatible. In order to find an activity compatible, the activity must not “materially interfere with or detract from” public safety, wildlife resources, or the purpose of the refuge (see the Service Manual at 603 FW 2.6.B., available online at
https://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html
). For this rulemaking, we specifically analyzed the possible impacts of the changes to hunting programs at each refuge and hatchery on visitor use and experience, including public safety concerns and possible conflicts between user groups.

Hunting of resident wildlife on refuges generally occurs consistent with State regulations, which are designed to protect public safety. Refuges may also develop refuge-specific hunting regulations that are more restrictive than State regulations in order to help meet specific refuge objectives, including protecting public safety. Refuges use many techniques to ensure the safety of hunters and visitors, such as requiring hunters to wear blaze orange,

controlling the density of hunters, limiting where firearms can be discharged (
e.g.,
not across roads, away from buildings), and using time and space zoning to limit conflicts between hunters and other visitors. It is worth noting that injuries and deaths related to hunting are extremely rare, both for hunters themselves and for the nonhunting public.

Public comment is important in ensuring we have considered all available information and concerns before making a final decision on a proposed opening or expansion. For all of the proposed openings or expansions of hunting in our May 4, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 23794), we have determined that there are sufficient protections in place as part of the hunt program at that station to ensure public safety. For more information on the Service's efforts to ensure public safety at a particular station, please see that station's hunt plan, compatibility determination, and associated NEPA analysis.

Regarding concerns about lack of funding or staffing, Service policy (603 FW 2.12.A.(7)) requires station managers to determine that adequate resources (including personnel, which in turn includes law enforcement) exist or can be provided by the Service or a partner to properly develop, operate, and maintain the use in a way that will not materially interfere with or detract from fulfillment of the refuge purpose(s) and the Service's mission. If resources are lacking for establishment or continuation of wildlife-dependent recreational uses, the refuge manager will make reasonable efforts to obtain additional resources or outside assistance from States, other public agencies, local communities, and/or private and nonprofit groups before determining that the use is not compatible. When Service law enforcement resources are lacking, we are often able to rely upon State fish and game law-enforcement capacity to assist in enforcement of hunting and fishing regulations. One commenter noted that our hunt plan document for the Potomac River NWR Complex specifically states that State law enforcement will take on the role of enforcing hunting and fishing regulations and asked that the hunt plan provide further detail. Specific information on how we responded to this comment letter's request for more detail on particular hunting and fishing opportunities at Potomac River NWR Complex can be found in that station's final hunt plan, compatibility determination, and finding of no significant impact documents.

For all 89 stations opening or expanding hunting and/or sport fishing in this rule, we have determined that we have adequate resources, including law enforcement personnel, to develop, operate, and maintain the hunt programs.

We did not make any additional changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (18):
We received additional comments supporting the requests made by the Arizona Game and Fish Department to allow falconry on refuges within the State and to align dog regulations on refuges to State regulations. They also echoed the concern from the State about inconsistencies on refuges within the State.

Our Response:
As described in our response to
Comment (3),
above, we determine both whether falconry and the use of dogs for hunting is compatible on a refuge-by-refuge basis. We also determine refuge regulations on a refuge-by-refuge basis, and while we strive to achieve consistency on refuges within a State, different regulations are sometimes required. This allows us to ensure that these uses are compatible with the purposes of the refuge.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of these comments.

Comment (19):
We received two comments about reduced hunt quality from hunter overcrowding at particular refuges. One comment expressed concerns that the changes, especially removing the lottery limitation on waterfowl hunting, at Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR would lead to hunter overcrowding. The other comment expressed concerns that additional gun hunting for deer at Sherburne NWR would reduce the quality of the current deer bow hunting season on that refuge.

Our Response:
For Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR, the Service does not conclude removing the lottery draw will impact the quality of the waterfowl hunt or lead to overcrowding, as more areas will be open to hunting resulting in reduced overcrowding. As outlined in the NEPA and planning documents for the change, the Service will eliminate the lottery waterfowl hunting on the refuge to reduce the application process for the users and the associated administrative burden for the refuge. The hunt program was designed to be supportive of hunters of diverse backgrounds. Further, the Service designed the hunt program on the refuge to better align, where appropriate and possible, with State regulations.

For Sherburne NWR, the Service recognizes that the new muzzleloader deer hunting as proposed may create problems for the existing bow hunting season. Accordingly, we are modifying the new muzzleloader hunting: instead of opening muzzleloader hunting in Areas A, B, and C we will only open it in Area A. The muzzleloader hunting will otherwise operate as proposed. This change ensures that Area B will only be open to bow hunters after the existing 9-day gun season ends. Area C will remain closed to all hunting following the 9-day gun season.

We changed the hunting at Sherburne NWR from the proposed rule as described, but did not make any changes to the regulatory text of the rule or any other changes as a direct result of these comments.

Comment (20):
A couple of commenters stated that hunting and sport fishing activities could introduce invasive species to refuge lands or waters.

Our Response:
We are aware of the ecological threats posed by invasive species and make it a part of all Service actions to limit the spread of invasive species. Many of the refuges opening or expanding hunting and sport fishing under this rule have both mitigation measures for invasive species in connection with the hunting and sport fishing activities and separate measures taken on refuge lands and waters to limit invasive species.

We also explicitly consider invasive species in our analyses of proposed hunting and sport fishing openings and expansions. As one of the two commenters noted, the cumulative impacts report directly addresses concerns about invasive species. We conclude there that invasive species do not present a significant risk, at individual refuges or cumulatively, because the participants in activities that present the risk of introducing invasive species generally come to the refuge from within the local area and are few in number.

Moreover, in some cases and as seen in this rule, we may use hunting as a management tool with the explicit goal of reducing populations of invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability. Therefore, facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of the Service's roles and responsibilities for management of invasive species.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Comment (21):
One commenter quoted the proposed rule's description of the Service's statutory authority to promulgate this rule and interpreted the quotation as indicating a “compatibility assessment” was not prepared for each station in the rule.

Our Response:
This commenter has misinterpreted the quoted language from the rule. The proposed rule's preamble states, “[w]e develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to opening it to hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop station-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge or hatchery and the Refuge and Hatchery System mission” (86 FR 23794, May 4, 2021, p. 86 FR 23795). This explains that management plans for many refuges call for promulgating station-specific regulations that ensure the compatibility of hunting and fishing programs with the purpose of the given refuge. As described in response to
Comment (6),
above, the appropriate State regulations set the default rules for hunting and sport fishing activities that are authorized on a refuge, but the Service often has to supplement these regulations with our own regulations to ensure compatibility. These are the regulations described as being needed “in many cases” and many such regulations are contained in this rule. The proposed rule's preamble goes on to state, “[w]e ensure initial compliance with the Administration Act and the Recreation Act for hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired land through an interim determination of compatibility made at or near the time of acquisition” (86 FR 23794, May 4, 2021, p. 86 FR 23795). This describes another step, separate from developing regulations, in the process of planning hunting and sport fishing activities on a refuge: making a compatibility determination based on the nature of the hunting or sport fishing activity under consideration and the purposes of the particular refuge. These compatibility determinations must be and are made for every activity at every station that offers hunting or sport fishing activities. The phrase “in many cases” as used in the proposed rule is not grammatically tied to compatibility determinations and would never be used by the Service to describe compatibility determinations, as they are a necessary management step for all stations that offer wildlife-dependent recreation.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of this comment.

Comment (22):
One commenter argued that the proposed rule violates the Recreation Act in not curtailing public recreation, violates the Administration Act in not preserving biological integrity, and violates the Improvement Act in disrupting ecological processes.

Our Response:
We disagree with the commenter's statement that this rule violates the Recreation Act. The Recreation Act provides that the Secretary shall curtail public recreation use generally in order to ensure accomplishment of the primary purposes for which said conservation areas were acquired or established. Thus, Congress delegated the responsibility of determining when to curtail all types of public recreation in the interest of the conservation purposes of each refuge to the Secretary of the Interior, and by extension to the Service. We disagree with the commenter's claim that the Recreation Act calls on the Secretary to curtail public recreation uses generally, especially when the later-enacted Administration Act and Improvement Act explicitly allow, and even prioritize, hunting and sport fishing on refuges. The commenter's interpretation also goes against the spirit of the Recreation Act because this statute was meant to facilitate public use and enjoyment of conservation areas, like refuge system lands. Moreover, there is nothing in this Act to indicate that, as the commenter implied, a recreational use must “provide income” to the Service or be necessary for wildlife management in order for the Secretary to authorize it.

We disagree with the commenter's statement that this rule violates the Administration Act. The commenter is correct that the Secretary, and by extension the Service, must create regulations for hunting within the Refuge System that “ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained.” The commenter is incorrect in concluding that this rule violates this part of the Refuge system mission because the commenter fails to recognize that our compatibility determination, NEPA, ESA section 7, and cumulative impacts report processes and analyses take into full account both lead exposure risks and food chain impacts. From these analyses, we determine that our fishing and hunting activities comply with our BIDEH policies based upon the best available science and the professional judgment of Service employees.

The commenter first states that allowing lead shot for certain turkey hunts does not ensure biological integrity and environmental health. Where our analysis and expertise indicate that lead presents a significant danger to biological integrity and environmental health, the use of lead is not allowed; the primary examples are that lead ammunition is prohibited for all waterfowl hunting on all refuges, and all lead is prohibited from NWRs in the State of California in order to protect the California condor. The potential for lead to threaten biological integrity and environmental health is a key part of the NEPA and ESA analyses that are conducted before the authorization of any hunting or sport fishing activity on a refuge for which lead ammunition or tackle is allowed. For more on the topic of the use of lead for hunting and fishing in the Refuge System, see our response to
Comment (10),
above.

The commenter next states that allowing the hunting of species at or near the top of the food chain in their given habitat does not ensure biological integrity because it would cause overpopulation of prey species lower on the food chain. While this rule does open or expand hunting of the specific species mentioned by the commenter (pronghorn, sandhill crane, and black bear) and other species atop or near the top of food chains, these hunts will not cause disruptive changes to population sizes of any species. Predators play a critical role in the integrity, diversity, and overall health of ecosystems, so before allowing predators to be hunted, a refuge manager must ensure that these actions do not threaten the integrity, diversity, or health of the refuge ecosystem. The manager must also determine that the action is compatible with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, and in keeping with the refuge's CCP and other step-down plans. Hunting that would cause too large a reduction in the population of any species or overpopulation of any species would not be authorized, including under this rule. For more on the topic of authorized hunting of predator species in the Refuge System, see our response to
Comment (15),
above.

We disagree with the commenter's statement that this rule violates the Improvement Act. The commenter claims that the Improvement Act “demands the conservation of ecological processes,” but no such language appears in the Improvement Act. The Improvement Act states instead that the Secretary shall provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System. Even though the notion of “ecological processes” is absent from the statute, the Service does always consider the health and genetic diversity of wildlife populations in administering hunting and sport fishing within the Refuge System. As already noted above, for any proposed hunting activity the refuge manager must ensure that it does not threaten the integrity, diversity, or health of the refuge ecosystem. The manager must also determine that the action is compatible

with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, and in keeping with the refuge's CCP and other step-down plans. If hunting would not be a viable tool for a given population, because of genetic diversity concerns or otherwise, other methods of preventing overpopulation are employed. The example of hunting providing a benefit for managing deer populations that the Service provided online, and which the commenter cited, is only meant to illustrate a potential benefit from certain hunts, not that such a benefit is the only consideration when authorizing hunting. While hunting may be a part of a refuge's population control strategies for certain species, the Service considers all effects of hunting (
e.g.,
impacts to genetic diversity) and compatibility with conservation purposes before authorizing such an activity.

The commenter concludes that any hunting at all on refuges will disrupt ecological processes and should therefore not be allowed. While the Improvement Act does not include any discussion of “ecological processes,” it does, however, direct that the Secretary shall both recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the Refuge System and ensure that opportunities are provided within the Refuge System for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses. The Improvement Act's definition of “wildlife-dependent recreational use” includes a use of a refuge involving hunting (among four other uses). Thus, the Service is actually directed by the statute to not only allow but to prioritize hunting on refuges whenever compatible with the conservation mission of the Refuge System.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of this comment.

Comment (23):
We received two comments that touched on the proposed rule's discussion of the economic impacts of the rule. One commenter argued that we must use a survey to determine how much non-consumptive, wildlife-dependent recreational use days might decrease because of this rule and include local economic impacts from a decrease in visitation from such users. The second commenter claimed that we must conduct a benefit-cost analysis for this rule and that it must include the cost to the Service to implement the rule and any loss of revenue from non-consumptive users.

Our Response:
For the first comment, it is important to note that calculations of the local economic impacts are done for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
) to support our determination that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule is not promulgated solely because of the estimated benefits to local economies; the hunting and sport fishing openings and expansions in the rule are promulgated because of the public recreational benefits they provide, which the Service does not quantify. The commenter is correct that non-consumptive users are an important user group at our refuges and hatcheries, and they do bring benefits to local economies. However, the commenter's argument that we need to consider economic impacts of the rule on non-consumptive users, and presumably that it would change our finding on the significance of the rule's impact if we did, does not persuade us for two key reasons. First, if the impacts the commenter describes, lost revenue for local economies from fewer non-consumptive use days at refuges and hatcheries, were to occur as a result of this rule, they would be offset by the increased revenues that we have calculated for the added hunting and fishing use days. This means that calculating both impacts, again assuming there in fact were lost non-consumptive use days, could never result in a larger monetary impact estimate than could be calculated by only considering one or the other alone. Thus, calculating net economic impacts from both user groups would not change the significance determination.

Second, calculating only the economic impact of the rule's effects on non-consumptive users of the refuges would not likely result in a higher estimate of maximum nationwide economic impact because there are no expected significant effects on this user group, which means the estimated economic impacts would be virtually zero. As discussed above in our response to
Comment (17),
this rule is not expected to significantly impact non-consumptive users. None of the provisions in this rule regulate non-consumptive uses of the refuge, and all openings and expansions of hunting and fishing are assessed for compatibility with non-consumptive uses. The Service has put in place many restrictions on hunting and fishing programs, including some added in response to comments on this rule, in order to ensure that we balance the various priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses on all refuges and hatcheries. We do not expect the rule to significantly affect non-consumptive use of the refuges and hatcheries.

Regarding the second comment, if a rulemaking is designated as a “significant” regulatory action under E.O. 12866 by the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), then that rulemaking must, to the extent possible, include a detailed analysis of the benefits and costs of the action. OIRA determined that this rulemaking is “not significant” under E.O. 12866, so a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of this action is not required. However, we provide our factual basis for certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities below under
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
As earlier in this response, counting the revenue impacts to local economies from potential lost non-consumptive use days would not lead to finding a significant economic impact resulting from this rule. The same holds true for the costs of implementation, although in that case the reason it is expected to be a small monetary cost is that refuge managers evaluated their proposals prior to the publication of the May 4, 2021, proposed rule and ensured that the hunting and fishing openings and expansions in this rule can be administered with current budgets and staff, which are already used to operate various other programs on refuges. Estimates of implementation costs can be found in stations' EAs for those stations that have prepared an EA, and for those that have prepared a Categorical Exclusion document under NEPA the hunting and fishing activities covered are necessarily minor changes that will result in negligible implementation costs. In general, the costs attributable to the hunting and fishing openings and expansions specifically, in terms of both wages and infrastructure, will be negligible compared to the local economic benefits, as only a few staff are needed to administer a program for many hunters.

Finally, it is worth noting that, taking all of this together, it is almost certain that a benefit-cost analysis, pursuant to OMB Circular A-4, would find the benefits of this rule exceed the costs. As explained, no cost is expected in the form of decreased non-consumptive use days and the signage, staffing, and other costs to the Service in administering the hunting and fishing opportunities is unlikely to be greater than the benefits to local economies adjacent to stations, even though those are expected to be no more than $1.4 million. This would be enough to expect benefits to exceed costs already, but this would not yet account for the recreational benefits of the hunting and sport fishing

opportunities. A full and thorough benefit-cost analysis would quantify this benefit using the hunt and fish use day estimates and the best available information about the price of similar hunting activity on private lands. For example, the company onX estimates the average cost to be at least $10 per acre for a hunting lease (see
https://www.onxmaps.com/hunt/blog/how-do-hunting-leases-work#:~:text=Today's%20hunters%20can%20expect%20to,the%20distance%20from%20town%20
(ie.). This realized economic surplus for hunters and anglers would be an important part of any benefit-cost analysis and would ensure benefits exceed costs. That is reflected in the Improvement Act, where Congress emphasized the importance of providing this public benefit, finding that the Refuge System's conservation mission has been facilitated by providing Americans opportunities to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including fishing and hunting, on Refuge System lands. A thorough benefit-cost analysis would also consider the fish and wildlife population management benefits of hunting and sport fishing to the extent that they provide population controls and target invasive species. That has a direct and quantifiable benefit in terms of reduced work hours from eliminating or reducing the need for refuge staff themselves to harvest fish and wildlife for population control and invasive species. Thus, we have determined that this rule is justified in terms of the ratio of benefits to costs, even if it will not have a significant impact on the economy.

We did not make any changes to the rule, including to our
Regulatory Flexibility Act
discussion and our certification that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as a result of these comments.

Comment (24):
One commenter expressed concern that proposed hunting activities on refuges within the Potomac River NWR Complex, especially hunting of American black duck, would be inconsistent with or detrimental to the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, a regional bird conservation effort in which the Service is a partner organization.

Our Response:
We remain committed to and supportive of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) and its habitat and species conservation objectives. In permitting hunting within the Potomac River NWR Complex and allowing the hunting of American black duck as a target species, we are following all restrictions advocated by the ACJV and only providing limited hunting. For example, at Featherstone NWR, we will allow black duck hunting on 36 acres and the hunting season is November 17-28 and December 18-January 30, with a daily bag limit of two black ducks. Similarly, the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, another partner to the ACJV, allows some hunting of American black duck on lands under its jurisdiction. Finally, as with any hunting in the Refuge System, hunting openings and expansions in the Potomac River NWR Complex have been evaluated by refuge managers for limited environmental effects, absence of adverse impacts to endangered species, compatibility with refuge purposes, and consistency with the refuge's CCP. In authorizing these hunts, we have determined that they will not impede conservation efforts for the American black duck or other species of interest to the ACJV.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (25):
We received two comments with concerns that the information in the proposed rule was not easily understood, specifically in Table 1 concerning the meaning of “O” and “E” in the table.

Our Response:
As designated by the table key for the proposed rule's Table 1, “O” designates that the station is opening a new species in the respective category of species to hunting or opening fishing on the station, and “E” designates that the station is expanding hunting for species in the respective category or expanding sport fishing on the station.

We revised Table 1 to account for changes to hunting and fishing openings and expansions in response to other public comments, but did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.

Comment (26):
Two commenters expressed concern about the use and disposal of fishing line on the Potomac River NWR Complex.

Our Response:
The Service recognizes that discarded fishing line can present a danger to fish and to wildlife. In general, we educate anglers about this problem and the importance of proper disposal of fishing line. In this particular case, in addition to enforcing all State regulations on sport fishing, the refuges in the Potomac River NWR Complex will include information in their brochures and on their websites directing anglers to dispose of trash and fishing line, of all varieties, properly.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

As discussed above, under Summary of Comments and Responses, based on comments we received on the proposed rule and NEPA documents for individual refuges and hatcheries, we made changes in this final rule to Bill Williams River, Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache River, Holla Bend, Wapanocca, Cape May, Supawna Meadows, and William L. Finley NWRs. For Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache River, Holla Bend, and Wapanocca NWRs, we removed the proposed language adding armadillo to the list of species available to hunt in response to comments and made administrative language changes to align the regulatory language across these refuges. For William L. Finley NWR, we removed the proposed language adding merganser to the list of species available to hunt in response to the State of Oregon's request for alignment. For Cape May and Supawna Meadows NWRs, we extended the hours we are open to fishing in response to the State of New Jersey. Under Bill Williams River NWR, we modified the methods of take allowed for javelina hunting in response to the State of Arizona. For Missisquoi and Silvio O. Conte NWRs, we revised our language authorizing the use of dogs while hunting in response to comments.

We removed all proposed hunting and fishing openings and expansions at Necedah NWR and Loess Bluffs NWR. The expansions at Necedah NWR are not included in this final rule because the underlying analyses for these actions may require further consideration. There are still regulatory changes for Necedah NWR in this final rule, but these are administrative revisions for consistency and clarity unrelated to the proposed expansions. The openings and expansions at Loess Bluffs NWR are not included in this final rule because of concerns expressed by the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska. We will continue discussions with the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska on how these acres and species may be considered for opening to hunting in the future.

We have removed the language authorizing fishing at the former National Bison Range refuge in Montana. This refuge has been transferred to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260), and we no longer have jurisdiction over public use on the land.

We made minor, clarifying edits to the regulatory language for other refuges, including Dale Bumpers White River,

Bayou Sauvage, Bayou Teche, Big Branch Marsh, Bogue Chitto, Cat Island, Mandalay, Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee, Sequoyah, and Wichita Mountains NWRs.

Effective Date

We are making this rule effective upon publication (see
DATES
, above). We provided a 60-day public comment period for the May 4, 2021, proposed rule (86 FR 23794). We have determined that any further delay in implementing these station-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations would not be in the public interest, in that a delay would hinder the effective planning and administration of refuges' and hatcheries' hunting and sport fishing programs. This rule does not impact the public generally in terms of requiring lead time for compliance. Rather, it relieves restrictions in that it allows activities on refuges and hatcheries that we would otherwise prohibit. Therefore, we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon publication.

Amendments to Existing Regulations

Updates to Hunting and Fishing Opportunities on NWRs and NFHs

This document codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations all of the Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that we are updating since the last time we published a rule amending these regulations (85 FR 54076; August 31, 2020) and that are applicable at Refuge System and Hatchery System units previously opened to hunting and/or sport fishing. This rule better informs the general public of the regulations at each station, to increase understanding and compliance with these regulations, and to make enforcement of these regulations more efficient. In addition to now finding these regulations in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71, visitors to our refuges and hatcheries may find them reiterated in literature distributed by each station or posted on signs.

Table 1—Changes for 2021-2022 Hunting/Sport Fishing Season

Station
State

Migratory bird
hunting

Upland game
hunting

Big game
hunting

Sport fishing

Audubon NWR
North Dakota
Closed
Already Open
E
Already Open.

Bald Knob NWR
Arkansas
O/E
O/E
Already Open
Already Open.

Bayou Sauvage NWR
Louisiana
O/E
O
O
E.

Bayou Teche NWR
Louisiana
O/E
O/E
E
Already Open.

Big Branch Marsh NWR
Louisiana
O/E
O/E
O/E
E.

Big Lake NWR
Arkansas
Closed
O
O/E
Already Open.

Bill Williams River NWR
Arizona
E
O/E
O/E
Already Open.

Bogue Chitto NWR
Louisiana & Mississippi
O/E
O/E
E
Already Open.

Bond Swamp NWR
Georgia
E
E
E
Already Open.

Brazoria NWR
Texas
O
Closed
Closed
E.

Cache River NWR
Arkansas
O/E
O
E
Already Open.

Caddo Lake NWR
Texas
Closed
O
Already Open
Closed.

Camas NWR
Idaho
O
Already Open
O
Closed.

Cape May NWR
New Jersey
O/E
O/E
E
E.

Cat Island NWR
Louisiana
O/E
O/E
E
Already Open.

Charles M. Russell NWR
Montana
Already Open
Already Open
O
Already Open.

Cherry Valley NWR
Pennsylvania
E
O/E
E
Already Open.

Choctaw NWR
Alabama
O
O/E
E
Already Open.

Crab Orchard NWR
Illinois
Already Open
Already Open
Already Open
E.

Cypress Creek NWR
Illinois
E
E
E
E.

Dale Bumpers White River NWR
Arkansas
O
Already Open
Already Open
Already Open.

Delta NWR
Louisiana
O/E
O/E
O/E
Already Open.

Desert NWR
Nevada
O
O
Already Open
Closed.

Don Edwards NWR
California
E
Closed
Closed
Already Open.

Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR
Virginia
O
O
O/E
O.

Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck NWR
Virginia
Closed
Closed
E
O.

Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin NWR
South Carolina
Already Open
Closed
O
Already Open.

Everglades Headwaters NWR
Florida
E
E
E
Already Open.

Featherstone NWR
Virginia
N
Closed
Closed
N.

Felsenthal NWR
Arkansas
O/E
E
E
Already Open.

Fisherman Island NWR
Virginia
N
Closed
Closed
Closed.

Florida Panther NWR
Florida
Closed
Closed
N
N.

Franklin Island NWR
Maine
N
Closed
Closed
Closed.

Grand Bay NWR
Alabama & Mississippi
O
O
O
O.

Great Dismal Swamp NWR
Virginia
Closed
O
O/E
Already Open.

Great River NWR
Missouri
C
C
C
Already Open.

Great Swamp NWR
New Jersey
O
O
O/E
Closed.

Green Lake NFH
Maine
Closed
Closed
Closed
N.

Hackmatack NWR
Illinois
E
E
E
E.

Harbor Island NWR
Michigan
O
O
E
O.

Harris Neck NWR
Georgia
Closed
Closed
O/E
Already Open.

Havasu NWR
Arizona
O/E
O
Already Open
Already Open.

Holla Bend NWR
Arkansas
Closed
O/E
O/E
E.

J. Clark Salyer NWR
North Dakota
Already Open
E
E
Already Open.

James River NWR
Virginia
Closed
O
O/E
O.

Julia Butler Hansen Refuge
Oregon & Washington
E
Closed
Already Open
Already Open.

Kern NWR
California
O
Already Open
Closed
Closed.

Kootenai NWR
Idaho
Already Open
Already Open
Already Open
E.

Lacreek NWR
South Dakota
Already Open
Already Open
Already Open
E.

Lake Alice NWR
North Dakota
Already Open
E
E
Already Open.

Las Vegas NWR
New Mexico
O
O
O
Closed.

Mackay Island NWR
North Carolina & Virginia
O
Closed
O/E
Already Open.

Malheur NWR
Oregon
E
E
E
Already Open.

Mandalay NWR
Louisiana
O/E
O
E
Already Open.

Middle Mississippi River NWR
Missouri
Already Open
E
E
Already Open.

Minnesota Valley NWR
Minnesota
Already Open
Already Open
E
Already Open.

Missisquoi NWR
Vermont
Already Open
O
Already Open
Already Open.

Moosehorn NWR
Maine
E
E
E
Already Open.

Muleshoe NWR
Texas
N
N
N
Closed.

National Elk Refuge
Wyoming
Closed
Closed
O
Already Open.

Neal Smith NWR
Iowa
E
E
E
Closed.

Neches River NWR
Texas
N
N
N
Closed.

Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR
Minnesota & Iowa
E
E
E
E.

Occoquan Bay NWR
Virginia
Closed
O
O/E
O.

Ohio River Islands NWR
Pennsylvania, Kentucky, & West Virginia
O
O
O
Already Open.

Ottawa NWR
Ohio
E
E
E
E.

Ouray NWR
Utah
O
Already Open
O
Already Open.

Patoka River NWR
Indiana
E
E
E
E.

Petit Manan NWR
Maine
E
E
E
Closed.

Plum Tree Island NWR
Virginia
E
Closed
Closed
O.

Pond Island NWR
Maine
N
Closed
Closed
Closed.

Presquile NWR
Virginia
Closed
O
O/E
O.

Rappahannock River Valley NWR
Virginia
Closed
O
O/E
Already Open.

Red River NWR
Louisiana
O
O
Already Open
Already Open.

Rice Lake NWR
Minnesota
Already Open
Already Open
E
Already Open.

Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR
Mississippi
O/E
O/E
E
Already Open.

Sequoyah NWR
Oklahoma
Already Open
Already Open
Already Open
E.

Sherburne NWR
Minnesota
O
E
E
Already Open.

Silvio O. Conte NWR
New Hampshire
E
O/E
E
E.

Sunkhaze Meadows NWR
Maine
Already Open
E
Already Open
Already Open.

Supawna Meadows NWR
New Jersey
O
O
O/E
E.

Tensas River NWR
Louisiana
O
O
O
Already Open.

UL Bend NWR
Montana
Already Open
Already Open
O
Already Open.

Upper Ouachita NWR
Louisiana
O/E
O
Already Open
Already Open.

Wallkill River NWR
New York & New Jersey
E
E
E
Already Open.

Wapanocca NWR
Arkansas
C
O
E
Already Open.

Waubay NWR
South Dakota
Closed
Closed
Already Open
E.

Wichita Mountains NWR
Oklahoma
Already Open
Closed
Already Open
E.

William L. Finley NWR
Oregon
O
Closed
E
Already Open.

Key:

N = New station opened (New Station).
O = New species and/or new activity on a station previously open to other activities (Opening).
E = Station already open to activity adds new lands/waters, modifies areas open to hunting or fishing, extends season dates, adds a targeted hunt, modifies season dates, modifies hunting hours, etc. (Expansion).
C = Station closing the activity on some or all acres (Closing).

The changes for the 2021-2022 hunting/fishing season noted in the table above are each based on a complete administrative record which, among other detailed documentation, also includes a hunt plan, a compatibility determination (for refuges), and the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.
) analysis, all of which were the subject of a public review and comment process. These documents are available upon request.

Through these openings and expansions, we open or expand hunting or sport fishing on 2,066,116 acres within the National Wildlife Refuge System and the National Fish Hatchery System.

Fish Advisory

For health reasons, anglers should review and follow State-issued consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing opportunities on Service-managed waters. You can find information about current fish-consumption advisories on the internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/fish-tech.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

Executive Order 12866 provides that th

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2021-18426. Public record. Not legal advice.