National Wildlife Refuge System; 2026-2027 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 32 and 71

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223; FXRS12610900000-267-FF09R20000]

RIN 1018-BI71

National Wildlife Refuge System; 2026-2027 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 (FWS or Service), open or expand hunting opportunities on 111 field stations, including 107 units of the National Wildlife Refuges System (Refuge System or NWRS) and 4 units of the National Fish Hatchery System (Hatchery System or NFHS). This includes opening hunting or sport fishing opportunities for the first time on 14 National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) and 3 National Fish Hatcheries (NFH). These actions will open or expand more than 1,450 opportunities for hunting and fishing across the NWRS and NFHS in order to increase access for the American public. In accordance with Secretary's Order (S.O.) 3447 and Director's Order (D.O.) 233, we also make changes to existing station-specific regulations in order to improve the clarity and accuracy of regulations, reduce the regulatory burden on the public, ensure consistency across FWS lands and waters, and comply with a Presidential mandate for plain-language standards.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 31, 2026.

Information collection requirements:

If you wish to comment on the information collection requirements in this rule, please note that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the

Federal Register

. Therefore, comments should be submitted to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (see “Information collection requirements” below under

ADDRESSES

) by October 1, 2026.

ADDRESSES:

This final rule is available on the internet at

https://www.regulations.gov.

Comments and materials we received are available for public inspection on

https://www.regulations.gov

at Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223.

Information collection requirements:

Written comments and suggestions on the information collection requirements should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this document to

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function. Please provide a copy of your comments 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:

Julie Henning, Branch Chief of Conservation Planning and Policy,

julie_henning@fws.gov,

571-389-3584. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (Administration Act; 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), 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 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 refuges or hatcheries (

i.e.,

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

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

• Ensure compatibility with station 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 to meet 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 NWRs and NFHs 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 (Recreation Act; 16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) 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 the 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 public 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 hunting and fishing programs with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge or hatchery and the Refuge or Hatchery System mission, respectively. 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 or hatcheries to the lists of areas open to hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32 or 71, respectively. We ensure continued compliance by the development of comprehensive conservation plans and step-down management plans, and by annual review of hunting and sport fishing programs and regulations.

Summary of Comments and Responses

On May 27, 2026, we published in the

Federal Register

(91 FR 31580) a proposed rule to modify hunting and sport fishing programs at 111 field stations, including 107 units of the Refuge System and 4 units of the Hatchery System for the 2026-2027 season. We accepted public comments on the proposed rule for 30 days, ending June 26, 2026. By that date, we received 19,679 comments on the proposed rule. Approximately 91 percent of these comments were form letters or otherwise identical duplicates of other comments. Approximately 28 percent of the comments received were not relevant to this rule, including a mass form letter campaign with 5,484 identical comments from individuals about National Park Service hunting and sport fishing programs, and an additional 20 unique comments that were also not relevant to this rule. We discuss the remaining unique comments we received below by topic (including our request in the proposed rule requesting public comment on whether or not to promulgate a lead-free requirement for hunting on the entire Canaan Valley NWR with immediate or delayed effect at Comment 16). Beyond our responses below, additional station-specific information on how we responded to comments on particular hunting or sport fishing opportunities at a given refuge or hatchery can be found in that station's final hunting and/or sport fishing package, available at

https://www.regulations.gov

at Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223.

Comment (1):

We received numerous comments expressing general support for the proposed changes in the rule. These comments of general support either expressed appreciation for the increased hunting and sport fishing access in the rule overall, expressed appreciation for increased access at particular stations, or both. In addition to this general support, some commenters requested additional hunting and sport fishing opportunities, increased access at specific stations, as well as expanded methods of take (

e.g.,

archery, falconry).

Our Response:

Hunting and sport fishing on Service lands is a tradition that dates back to the early 1900s. In passing the Improvement Act, Congress reaffirmed that the Refuge System was created to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, and would facilitate opportunities for Americans to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and sport fishing on Refuge System lands. We prioritize wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and sport fishing, when doing so is compatible with the purpose of the station and the mission of the System.

As detailed further in our response to

Comment (2),

below, opening or expanding hunting or sport 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 2026-2027 final rule began in June 2025). This 18-month process 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. 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. In addition to open and expanded hunting and sport fishing on Service managed lands, this also applies to increased access at specific stations, as well as expanded methods of take.

We will continue to open and expand hunting and sport fishing opportunities across Refuge and Hatchery Systems lands, where such uses are determined to be compatible. However, opportunities to expand hunting and sport fishing are limited by the amount of Service managed land that is suitable for these uses. As a result, future expansions are likely to be incremental and may occur through land acquisitions, changes to State regulations, and other management actions. Within these ongoing annual regulatory cycles, the Service welcomes input from nongovernmental organizations and individual hunters and anglers and encourages them to share their perspectives on potential future opportunities through public comments and other available forums. We strive to provide hunting and sport fishing opportunities that support our wildlife and aquatic conservation and management objectives while offering hunters and anglers a high-quality recreational experience. We carefully consider all requests and

recommendations we receive, including those related specifically to waterfowl hunting.

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 sport fishing on Service lands. Some of these commenters stated that expanded hunting access would interfere with or take away from nonconsumptive experiences (

e.g.,

wildlife observation, birding, hiking) enjoyed by other members of the public. Others stated that hunting was antithetical to the purposes of a refuge, which, in their opinion, should serve as an inviolate sanctuary for all wildlife. Additionally, some commentors expressed concerns regarding the enforcement of hunting and sport fishing regulations and public safety. The remaining commenters generically opposed expanded or new hunting or sport fishing opportunities at specific stations.

Our Response:

The Service prioritizes facilitating each of the six wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities on Service land in compliance with applicable Service law and policy. For refuges, the Administration Act stipulates that hunting (along with sport 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 wildlife on NWR lands if such activity has been determined compatible with the established purpose(s) of the station and the mission of the Refuge System as required by the Administration Act. For all 111 stations for which hunting and/or sport fishing programs were modified in this rule, we determined that the proposed actions were compatible.

Each station manager makes a decision regarding hunting and sport 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 ensure that the Service does not allow hunting or sport fishing opportunities that would compromise the purpose of the station or the mission of the system.

Hunting of resident wildlife on Service lands generally occurs consistent with State regulations, including seasons and bag limits. Station-specific hunting regulations can be more restrictive (but not more permissive) than State regulations and often are more restrictive to help meet specific station 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, minimizing conflicts with other public uses and/or station management activities, and protecting public safety.

The word “refuge” includes the idea of providing a haven of safety as one of its definitions, and as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the Refuge System. However, again, the Administration Act stipulates that hunting, if found compatible, is a legitimate and priority wildlife dependent public use of a wildlife refuge. Furthermore, we manage stations to support healthy wildlife populations that in many cases produce harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. As practiced on refuges and hatcheries, hunting and sport fishing do not pose a negative threat to wildlife populations. It is important to recognize that harvesting certain individuals through hunting does not necessarily lead to a decrease in the overall population, as it can substitute for 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 station and the mission of the Refuge and Hatchery Systems.

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

Comment (3):

We received comments from 11 individual State agencies, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Northeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on the proposed rule.

We received comments expressing general support for the increased hunting and sport fishing opportunities and increased alignment with state regulations from the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resources Division; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks; Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife; West Virginia Division of Natural Resources; and Wyoming Game and Fish Department. This support was echoed by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Several States were supportive of the proposed rule and also requested changes. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission requested that the limit of one game-camera on Arkansas refuges be reconsidered to better align with State Wildlife Management Area regulations. Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommended specific elk harvest numbers to achieve carrying capacity objectives. The Indiana Division of Fish, Wildlife & Nature Preserves provided numerous recommendations for further alignment with state regulations at Patoka NWR, Big Oaks NWR, and Muscatatuck NWRs. The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources expressed support for the proposed rule; acknowledges the rescission of lead-free ammunition and/or tackle requirements that would have otherwise gone into effect September 1, 2026 at Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR Complex, Potomac River NWR Complex, Great Dismal Swamp NWR, Eastern Shore of Virginia NWR, Fisherman Island NWR, Chincoteague NWR, and Wallops Island NWRs; recommends adding `removal of carcasses' in addition to `removal of gut piles' as an encouraged practice; and offered numerous recommendations to further align with state regulations.

Regarding the removal of restrictions on lead ammunition and tackle, we received comments in support of increasing alignment with State regulations from three individual state agencies, in addition to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Regarding the recission of lead restrictions at nine stations that would have gone into effect on September 1, 2026, this proposed action was acknowledged by the Indiana Division of Fish, Wildlife & Nature Preserves and the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources expressed support for the removal of

lead restriction requirements for big game and upland game hunting on the Big Cove Unit at Canaan Valley NWR rather than promulgating a lead restriction requirement on the entire station, see our response to

Comment (16),

below, for additional discussion. The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and the Northeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies encouraged the Service to continue voluntary lead-free incentives, education and outreach to promote lead-free alternatives, and the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources also commented that they remain open to voluntary lead-free incentives, education, and outreach. See responses to

Comments (5) and-(16),

below, for additional discussion of comments specific to lead ammunition and tackle, and potential impacts of lead ammunition and tackle used for hunting and sport fishing on refuge and hatchery resources.

Our Response:

The Service appreciates the support of, and is committed to working with, our State partners to expand hunting and sport fishing access, remove unnecessary barriers, and ensure consistency across Service lands and waters in support of S.O. 3447 Expanding Hunting and Fishing Access, Removing Unnecessary Barriers, and Ensuring Consistency Across the Department of the Interior Lands and Waters (January 7, 2026) and D.O. 233 Expanding Hunting and Fishing Access, Removing Unneceaary Barriers, and Ensuring Consistency Across U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands and Waters (February 2, 2026). Coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies is essential to provide high-quality, compatible opportunities that are consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management, and to promote regulatory alignment where appropriate.

We value input from State partners on the proposed rule, and responses to station-specific requests are addressed below. For all other comments, we value the support for the increased hunting and sport fishing opportunities through this rule and appreciate the recognition of our collaboration and coordination on increasing access and feedback regarding voluntary, educational based approaches to issues associated with lead ammunition and tackle. We look forward to continuing our collaborative work in identifying additional opportunities for future consideration.

In response to the request by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) to reconsider the one game-camera limit, we have made no changes to the rule. The one game-camera limit is a consistent regulation across most NWRs in Arkansas and has decreased the issues related to abandonment, theft, privacy, and hunter conflicts. We are committed to fostering our partnership with AGFC and will continue to explore strategies for effectively balancing public access and stewardship on National Wildlife Refuges.

In response to the Indiana Division of Fish, Wildlife and Parks regarding numerous alignment opportunities at Patoka NWR, Big Oaks NWR, and Muscatatuck NWR, we have made no changes to the rule as the comments suggested new additions rather than modifications to the proposed hunts, however, comments received will be considered during development of 2027-2028 proposals.

In response to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, we appreciate the comments in overall support of the rule. Our response to

Comment (14),

below, addresses the rescinding of phase outs in greater detail. We incorporated several minor editorial changes to supporting documents in this year's rulemaking cycle. As detailed further in our responses to

Comments (1) and (2),

above, developing additional hunting or fishing opportunities on Service lands requires a rigorous process with planning and coordination, and therefore recommendations for further alignment and new or expanded hunting opportunities will be considered during development of 2027-2028 proposals.

Comment (4):

Comments were received from two Tribes. We received comments from the Yankton Sioux Tribe where, given the limited nature of the hunt, they took no position on the proposal to open archery deer hunting on Karl E. Mundt NWR. However, they recommended continued consultation among the Tribe, the Service and South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks, as we implement the hunt program. The Yankton Sioux Treaty Steering Committee, Ihanktonwan Dakota Oyate Steering Committee, and the Yankton Sioux Tribal Historic Preservation Office expressed concerns over potential impacts to cultural resources and wintering bald eagles (

Haliaeetus leucocephalus).

We also received a comment from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe that was generally supportive of the proposed rule but requested that we acknowledge the 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty between the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe and the Federal Government in Service planning documents to capture Treaty hunting rights. The Tribe also expressed that the 30-day comment period was insufficient to adequately respond to the proposed rule.

Our Response:

In response to the Yankton Sioux Tribe, the Service is committed to working with our Tribal partners, including ongoing consultation, to fulfill our trust responsibility to Tribes in our management of federal lands and waters. Secretary's Order 3447 (January 2026) and D.O. 233 (February 2026) also emphasize that collaboration with Tribes is essential to responsible planning of hunting and fishing activities. The Service welcomes every opportunity to coordinate with Tribal leaders prior to the implementation of hunting activities and to continue consultation as we implement these hunting programs to ensure protection of cultural resources and conservation of bald eagles, and other wildlife that occupy Karl E. Mundt NWR.

In response to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the Service acknowledges the Tribe's off-reservation hunting rights established by the 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty. A formal Government-to-Government consultation meeting with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes was held on May 18, 2026. The Service will continue to participate in Government-to-Government consultation pursuant to the Tribe's requests. The Environmental Assessment for the Grays Lake NWR Hunting and Fishing Plan and Compatibility Determination for elk hunting at Camas NWR reference the 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty and clarify that neither the existence of hunting and sport fishing plans, nor any portion of their contents is intended to enlarge or diminish treaty rights, or to have any effect on treaty rights. Consultation continues, therefore, more specific language in Service planning documents are not included at this time.

With regards to the comment period, the standard public comment period for the annual rule proposing amendments to the regulations governing hunting and sport fishing on Service lands is 30 days. We provided 30 days for public comments with consideration of the balance between providing as much opportunity for public comment as possible while keeping delays to fall hunting opportunities to a minimum.

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

Comment (5):

Several commenters noted that in recent rulemakings, the Service's openings and expansions of hunting and sport fishing did not include lead. Commenters requested that the Service explain the current approach to developing hunting and sport fishing programs, explain the reasoning for the decision to include the

use of lead ammunition and tackle as part of opening and expanding hunting and sport fishing, and to provide any new evidence that supports this decision.

Our Response:

In support of President Trump's Administration priorities, Executive Order 14192), S.O.s 3447 and 3421, and D.O. 233, the Service is committed to expand hunting and sport fishing access, remove unnecessary barriers, and ensure consistency across the NWRs and NFHs. The rule reflects a broader effort to simplify and modernize Federal regulations. By better aligning Federal regulations with State fish and wildlife laws, the rule reduces confusion for the public, improves consistency across field stations and reinforces the role of States as primary managers of fish and wildlife resources. Hunting and sport fishing are priority public uses on Service-managed lands. Many lead-free ammunition and/or sport fishing tackle restrictions are reversed or removed in accordance with S.O. 3447 and D.O. 233. This includes nine NWRs proposing to rescind all lead ammunition and/or sport fishing tackle requirements, promulgated in 2022 and 2023 with delayed effect, that would have taken effect on September 1, 2026. The regulatory streamlining within the CFR includes more than 1,000 modifications to the 50 CFR parts 32 and 71, including simplifying and deleting provisions to reduce regulatory burden on the public as directed by S.O. 3447, D.O. 233. and Executive Order (E.O.) 14192 and S.O. 3421.

While there are concerns about lead and the general potential for ecological health impacts, the use of lead ammunition and tackle on refuges and hatcheries in this rulemaking is not expected to significantly impact the environment, impair endangered or threatened species, or negatively impact wildlife populations. The use of lead ammunition and tackle, like any other visitor activity, can only be allowed on a station if, and only for as long as the station applies the best available science and sound professional judgment to find it compatible. On stations where lead ammunition or tackle is allowed, the Service has determined the use will not materially interfere with or detract from the station purpose or fulfillment of the mission to protect the ecological integrity of the system. The number of new hunters or anglers expected to use lead ammunition and/or tackle as a result of the new or expanded opportunities is anticipated to be very low, therefore the resulting addition of lead into the environment should be negligible or minor. Furthermore, 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. See our responses below to

Comments (6)

for further discussion of the limited scope of hunting and sport fishing opportunities opened or expanded,

(8)

for discussion of the Service's compatibility determinations,

(9)

for more about compliance with NEPA, and

(10)

for more information about compliance with section 7 of the ESA.

The Service has taken specific steps to limit the use of lead in hunting and sport fishing activities on refuges and hatcheries. Some individual stations have developed station-specific regulations requiring the use of lead-free ammunition or tackle, where it aligns with State regulations, nearby State-managed lands, and particularly in wetland areas important to waterfowl and based on site-specific concerns. However, the Service has no broad requirements for lead-free ammunition outside of the longstanding nontoxic requirements for waterfowl hunting. Instead, the Service continues to educate hunters and anglers on the impacts of lead on the environment. The Service also initiated a voluntary incentive program in 2024 to promote the use of lead-free ammunition while preserving hunter choice; 13 stations participated in the program during the 2025-2026 hunting seasons. The Service encourages hunters and anglers to voluntarily use lead-free ammunition and tackle for all harvest activities. However, cost and availability of lead-free ammunition and tackle continue to be a challenge (see our response to

Comment (6),

below).

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. Stations where the Service allows lead ammunition and tackle, including at stations where lead restrictions are being removed or rescinded, improves consistency with the States and AFWA's collaborative approach in prioritizing education, information, and voluntary, informed choice to effectively reduce unintended ingestion of lead residues in wildlife (

https://www.fishwildlife.org/application/files/5317/7343/7715/Approved__AFWA_LEAD_BMP_Resolution_August_2025.pdf

).

Ultimately, our goal is for all NWRs and NFHs whose purposes support hunting and sport fishing to be open to these activities, except in cases where legitimate exceptions are warranted (

i.e.,

threatened or endangered species, human safety, habitat sensitivity, local stakeholder concerns, legislative prohibitions). The Service is committed to doing what best serves the public interest and our conservation mission, including facilitating compatible, wildlife-dependent, recreational hunting and sport fishing. Based on the recent expansions in our hunting and sport fishing programs, the Service will continue to evaluate lead use in 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):

Numerous commenters expressed opposition to allowing the use of lead ammunition and tackle noting that lead-free alternatives are widely available, only marginally more expensive, and similarly effective. However, we also received several comments from hunters who noted that availability, cost, and effectiveness remain barriers. While several commenters stated that lead-free ammunition is readily available where they live, others reported the opposite, noting that availability remains a challenge in many parts of the country. One commenter specifically noted that for certain bullet calibers and firearm types used in hunting, no lead-free alternatives are readily available. Others reported that high prices and low supplies can be exacerbated by excessive purchasing by a small number of consumers.

Our Response:

The fact remains that there are bullet calibers and firearm types used in hunting for which lead-free alternatives are not readily available, particularly in rural areas. In November 2025, while preparing the draft rule, we compared the availability and price per round for lead-free alternatives compared to traditional lead-based ammunition for five different popular calibers. We assessed the availability in stock on-site and price per round at 1 urban and 1 rural location in each of the 8 Service regions (16 retailers total). We found that lead-free alternatives for certain calibers may still be difficult to obtain at brick-and-mortar retail locations; for example, only 3 of 16 retail locations offered lead-free 12 gage slugs, 4 of 16 had .308 Winchester, and only 4 of 16 had 270 Winchester ammunition in stock. Among the participants in the 2025-2026 Voluntary Lead Free Program, the second highest factor when selecting ammunition for hunting was availability; only accuracy ranked higher as noted in the findings of the

Service's 2025-2026 Lead Free Program Evaluation Report. Barriers identified by survey participants to obtaining lead-free ammunition continues to be “difficulty to find” (58 percent) and “not available in by caliber” (20 percent). Local availability was considered in producing a national rule.

Fifty-eight percent of participants in the 2025-2026 lead-free incentive program cite cost as a barrier to obtaining lead-free ammunition. When advancing regulations requiring the use of lead-free ammunition and tackle during the previous administration, we anticipated that the cost of lead-free alternatives would continue to decline relative to the cost of lead ammunition, but this has not occurred. Based on a survey of in-stock ammunition at brick-and-mortar retailers conducted in November 2025, the cost per round remains 37 percent to 245 percent higher for 5 popular caliber types. Hunters continue to face ongoing ammunition supply constraints that may increase cost and limit participation. The 2025-2026 Voluntary Lead Free Program Evaluation Report is available from

https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/193738.

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

Comment (7

): Some commenters expressed that the voluntary lead-free program is not a scalable solution to the problem of lead in the Refuge System and those in support of voluntary, educational approaches acknowledged the complex issue. Some commenters believed approaches to limit lead use should reside with the state.

Our Response:

American hunters and anglers continue to be educated on the benefits of lead-free ammunition and tackle through outreach efforts by Federal and State wildlife agencies, hunter conservation organizations, and university programs. These efforts, including by the Service, have scaled up in recent years and are proving to be effective in reaching hunting and sport fishing enthusiasts, as noted in the findings of the Service's 2025-2026 Voluntary Lead Free Program Evaluation Report. The Service's Lead-Free Voluntary Incentive Program (LFVIP) increased hunter participation by 58 percent between the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 hunting season and likewise increased the number of participating refuges by 57 percent. Over three quarters of survey respondents (77 percent) reported that they used only lead-free ammunition for hunting on refuges during the 2025-2026 season, up from 46 percent in the prior year.

Hunters are more receptive to conservation-framed messaging than regulatory mandates. The voluntary adoption of lead-free alternatives by the hunting community exemplifies its continued tradition of actively supporting wildlife and habitat conservation. Outreach, education, and incentives are an approach to voluntarily limit lead use on Service managed lands. The 2024-2025 Voluntary Lead Free Pilot Program Evaluation Report is available from

https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/193737.

The 2025-2026 Voluntary Lead Free Program Evaluation Report is available from

https://iris.fws.gov/APPS/ServCat/Reference/Profile/193738.

We did not make any changes to the 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)). In addition, many commenters asserted that the use of lead ammunition and/or tackle on refuges goes against the Improvement Act. Commenters asserted that the compatibility standard in law is based on whether a use will materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the purposes of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge System. They further-critiqued the Service's reliance on a lack of observed population-level impacts to wildlife in determinations of compatibility for hunting and sport fishing opportunities, including the use of lead ammunition and tackle, noting that compatibility determinations are intended to prevent unacceptable impacts before they rise to the level of measurable population declines and should take into account the potential for these impacts before they occur.

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. We manage refuges to support healthy wildlife populations that in many cases produce harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource, and/or to control populations of non-native invasive species. 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)). The Improvement Act identifies six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the Refuge System, but it does not define any hierarchy among them. When determining whether or not other public uses of a refuge are compatible, the Service protects these priority public uses as well as the safety of visitors and refuge employees. For instance, the use of lead ammunition and tackle, like any other visitor activity, can only be allowed on a refuge if, and only for as long as, the refuge applies the best available science and sound professional judgment to find it compatible. In case conflicts arise between priority public uses, access for multiple uses can often be accommodated through restrictions or regulations, as appropriate. Therefore, each station manager uses “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 these mandates while following the rule-making process that is required before hunting and sport fishing opportunities can be opened or expanded on refuges. Each manager incorporates field experience, knowledge of refuge resources, considerations of the refuge's role within an ecosystem, applicable laws, compatibility with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, 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.

Whenever necessary for station 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. In regard to lead ammunition and tackle use, the Service may take specific steps to limit the use of lead in hunting and sport fishing activities on refuges and hatcheries to ensure the use is compatible. Some individual stations have developed station-specific regulations requiring the use of lead-free ammunition or tackle, where it aligns with State regulations, nearby State-managed lands, and particularly in wetland areas important to waterfowl and based on site-specific concerns.

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.

We carefully consider how a proposed hunt fits with individual station goals, objectives, and strategies before allowing the hunt. On stations where lead ammunition or tackle is allowed, the Service has determined the use will not materially interfere with or detract from the station purpose or fulfillment of the mission to protect the ecological integrity of the system. As practiced on refuges, hunting and sport fishing do not pose a negative threat to wildlife populations. It is important to recognize that harvesting certain individuals through hunting does not necessarily lead to a decrease in the overall population, as it can substitute for other types of mortality. While there are concerns about the broader general potential ecological health impacts for lead, the use of lead ammunition and tackle on refuges and hatcheries in this rulemaking is not expected to significantly impact the environment, impair endangered or threatened species, or negatively impact wildlife population health. Furthermore, the new or expanded hunting and/or sport 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 migratory and resident wildlife, endangered and threatened species, habitat and plant resources, or other natural resources. We considered these impacts in each station's compatibility determination, NEPA evaluations, ESA section 7(a) evaluations, and in the 2026-2027 cumulative impacts report. For more discussion on the NEPA process, see the response to

Comment (9),

below. For more discussion on ESA section 7(a) evaluations see our response to

Comment (10),

below.

We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of these comments, but changes that we made for other reasons may reduce the potential for minimal biological and environmental impacts.

Comment (9):

We received several 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 environmental assessment (EA) where we prepared a categorical exclusion. A few commenters also stated that the use of lead ammunition or tackle specifically presents an extraordinary circumstance that does not allow for the use of a categorical exclusion and that we could not adopt a categorical exclusion for the rule itself. Some commenters requested a nationally standardized station-specific analysis of possible impacts for openings and expansions of hunting and sport fishing or more in-depth analysis of possible impacts for specific stations in the rule. Relatedly, many commenters expressed concerns about the type of analysis done under NEPA due to concerns that the Service should be evaluating hunting pressure on wildlife amid environmental challenges like development, habitat loss, drought, wildfire, invasive species, and water quality issues. Some specifically highlighted climate-driven habitat loss, noting that drought, wetland decline, and wildfire have reduced habitat for waterfowl in the Pacific Flyway, making refuges more critical and potentially intensifying hunting impacts during low water years.

Our Response:

The Service disagrees with the assertion that we should prepare an EIS before proposing expanded hunting and sport fishing opportunities on refuges or hatcheries. The Service complied with NEPA and other laws and regulations in preparation of the rule. For perspective, of the approximately 96 million acres in the Refuge System, 92 million acres (95 percent) are already open to hunting or sport fishing. The majority of actions (~99 percent) in the 2026-2027 proposed rule occur on acres already open to hunting and/or sport fishing, while only about 1 percent of the acres opening in this year's rule have never previously been open to hunting and/or sport fishing.

Hunting and sport fishing are priority public uses on Service lands and waters and the rulemaking process is procedural in nature to authorize these activities, thus a categorical exclusion is applied to the rulemaking action itself. Analysis of the effects of the specific regulatory actions individually are provided by an environmental assessment (EA) or categorical exclusion, as appropriate, for each individual field station that is part of this rulemaking. The Service ensures that the hunting and sport fishing programs at these stations, when considered individually and collectively, will not have a significant effect on the human environment and, if such analysis determined that a given hunting or sport fishing activity, in conjunction with the effects of all impacts raised by the commenters (

e.g.,

development), would result in adverse impacts to protected species or biological integrity, then the refuge manager would not authorize the activity.

We completed individual EAs for, or applied categorical exclusions to, actions at 111 stations in compliance with NEPA to evaluate the impacts of opening or expanding hunting and sport fishing opportunities on the refuges and hatcheries, including the use of lead ammunition and/or tackle, and pressures such as urbanization and drought, in this rulemaking. These documents are publicly available and can be found in the Service Catalog (ServCat) online application. 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 Service relies on our own authoritative data where possible, for example to consider the population health of migratory birds and to assess the potential presence and possible impacts to threatened and endangered species. State partners typically have the best available information about the population health of game species that are not migratory bird species and also the population health of other non-target wildlife. We rely heavily on the local knowledge and experience of station managers to develop hunting and sport fishing opportunities that meet the needs of the American people and avoid negative impacts to station resources. 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, environmental factors (

e.g.,

drought, wildfire), and other assessments. As the variables mentioned above change, the Service responds by altering its regulations accordingly. These regulatory changes are 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, would trigger additional planning, NEPA and ESA section 7(a) evaluation processes,

in addition to Compatibility Determinations. Station managers also may manage adaptively for changes in local conditions, such as through limited-duration area closures that may be enacted for a limited period of time, or even an emergency closure for an entire hunt season. These required planning and management processes ensure that adverse impacts will not significantly impair the station resources.

The Service examines cumulative impacts through our cumulative impacts report that considers national and regional cumulative impacts from hunting and sport fishing on the Refuge System and the Hatchery System. These analyses are available as part of the supporting documents for the final rule. The 2026-2027 cumulative impacts report concludes, after analyzing the impacts, collectively, of all EAs and categorical exclusions prepared in connection with this rule, that the rule would 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 sport 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. A Federal court found that this approach, using a bottom-up analysis to assess the cumulative impact of increased hunting and sport 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)).

In this rulemaking, the Service is increasing opportunities for recreational hunting and sport fishing. As a result of the changes to hunting and sport fishing programs, visitor use for wildlife-dependent recreation on these stations may change. Field stations estimate the maximum increase in visitation for the purpose of hunting or fishing based on the best available information, which may include baseline data on station specific visitation, the number of additional permits or tags that would be issued, visitation data from nearby public lands managed by other state or federal agencies, or county or state-level recreation data sourced from state wildlife agencies. Field stations also estimate the number of additional use days these visitors will participate in, considering factors such as the demand for the target species, the nature of the hunting or fishing opportunity including the season length, and the availability of similar opportunities in the vicinity. These additional opportunities do not necessarily result in increased impacts to station resources. We anticipate that for some stations, the opening of new species or expansions of existing hunting or sport fishing programs will not result in changes in usage of the station. In other cases, they may lead to some increase in use of stations, but these changes would likely be minor. Of the stations increasing hunting opportunities, the median of the maximum expected additional hunter use days is 45 per year per station; however, we expect 0 additional hunter use days per year associated with many of these opportunities. For example, in some cases there are more acres available to hunt but no additional permits, and in others the new huntable species are not highly sought after by hunters. Opening of new stations may attract people to the station, but these hunters and/or anglers were likely already participating elsewhere on State or other Federal lands thus not likely adding additional hunter use days. Due to the overall number of additional use days dispersed across refuges, 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 stations attract a very small number of participants, and often participation rates decline over the course of a season. We also disagree with the 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 sport fishing on a station. 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 sport fishing programs met the criteria for a categorical exclusion. In many cases, additional residual lead from proposed hunting is expected to be negligible, given the low density of hunters on refuges, small increase in participation expected, small number of additional acres hunted, and/or addition of huntable species to acres that are already open to hunting of other species.

In response to comments, we reviewed all EAs and categorical exclusions. 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, or that environmental challenges were not addressed in the NEPA process.

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

Comment (10):

We received numerous comments that claimed the Service had not adequately addressed possible impacts of hunting and sport fishing on endangered and threatened species, including both short-term and long-term, direct and indirect effects, and the use of lead ammunition and tackle. Some of these comments pointed to one or more particular species.

Our Response:

In compliance with section 7 of the ESA, every station determined that their proposed actions would have either “no effect” or were “not likely to adversely affect” endangered and threatened species or designated critical habitat. We also determined that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize any proposed or candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered. 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).

We disagree with the assertion of some commenters that any use of lead ammunition or tackle in connection with opening and expanding hunting and sport fishing on the refuges and hatcheries in this rulemaking will impair endangered or threatened species. Each station carefully evaluated possible impacts on endangered and threatened species as part of the environmental compliance process. As discussed above, on stations, where lead ammunition or tackle is allowed, we found that the low number of hunters and anglers using lead ammunition or tackle would result in no more than a negligible increase of lead in the environment when compared to the lead ammunition and tackle being used in the surrounding areas.

While there may be some minor, localized, and temporary (short-term) impacts to endangered and threatened species as a result of hunting or sport fishing activities, every station ensured

that these impacts were avoided, minimized and, in many cases, offset through a variety of management activities. For example, in the past ten years at Patoka NWR, as many as twelve endangered whooping cranes (

Grus americana

) have begun using the refuge as a wintering site. The whooping cranes primarily use Cane Ridge Wildlife Management Area, which is closed to all public access. It is possible that whooping cranes may use the main refuge, which is open to hunting, but disturbance would be temporary. Hunting activity, including the use of lead ammunition, is not expected to cause impacts at current or anticipated levels of use and there is sufficient refugia for whooping cranes adjacent to hunting areas. Given the size of the refuge with relatively low numbers of hunters dispersed across a large area, impacts from residual lead from spent ammunition is expected to be minimal and not highly concentrated in any one area. The refuge also encourages use of lead-free alternatives through educational materials and removal of gut piles or whole harvested animals and spent shells. Furthermore, whooping cranes are infrequent visitors to the huntable portions of the refuge, thus, overlap of whooping cranes and residual lead is unlikely. Refuge staff also educate hunters about the presence of these protected birds and provide interpretive signs in the field of other similar appearing species including snow geese, swans, white pelicans, and sandhill cranes. No adverse effects to whooping cranes from the conduct of hunts on Patoka NWR have been documented to date.

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

Comment (11):

We received several comments expressing concerns about the impacts of lead ammunition on bald (

Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

and golden eagles (

Aquila chrysaetos

) that are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (BGEPA; 16 U.S.C. 668-668c). The commenters noted that the BGEPA prohibits the “take” of either of these species which includes the act of poisoning and asserted that the use of lead ammunition or tackle would violate the law.

Our Response:

We are not aware of any significant negative effects on bald and golden eagles due to current hunting activities and we do not expect this to change with the proposed increase in hunting opportunities. 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.

Every station reviews the impacts of these new or expanded hunting and sport fishing opportunities, including the allowance or prohibition of lead, under section 7 of the ESA and the BGEPA. The Service avoids or minimizes possible impacts on eagles through mitigation measures such as developing compatible hunting programs with carefully delineated hunt units, limiting activities surrounding nesting sites that may cause excessive loud noise, restricting access to identified ground nesting sites, developing station-specific regulations, and setting permit conditions that account for the local issues on site.

Many States have additional regulations and management considerations in place to protect these species in addition to Federal law. The Service works closely with the State wildlife agencies when considering available opportunities in each area, to include re-evaluating areas as needed based on ground conditions for healthy population densities. Additionally, stations provide hunters with brochures capturing requirements, clear signage, and hunter education programming. Also see our response to

Comment (12),

below, for more information about how the Service considers possible impacts to migratory birds for openings and expansions of hunting and sport fishing.

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

Comment (12):

We received several comments concerned with impacts of this rule on migratory birds that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C. 703

et seq.

). A few of these commenters were particularly concerned about those refuges whose purposes include “inviolate sanctuaries for migratory birds”. In addition to these concerns, several comments specifically expressed concern about potential impacts of the unintended ingestion of lead ammunition and tackle residues on foraging migratory birds, including long-necked waterbirds, but also other migratory birds that may forage in upland areas where residual lead fragments could occur. Some of these comments pointed to one or more particular species. Commenters asserted that allowing the use of lead ammunition and/or tackle would violate the MBTA.

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 2026-2027 cumulative impacts report at

http://www.regulations.gov

under Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223.

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 or NFHs.

In addition to all hunting for migratory game birds being set within this national framework, and as with all species hunted on Service managed lands, each station must also ensure that the hunting or sport 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 sport fishing opportunity and determined that the opportunity would not have a significant impact on any migratory bird species, not just the targeted species.

A NWR may have multiple establishing purposes, including

inviolate sanctuary for migratory birds, depending on the acquisition authorities used to purchase or acquire the land. 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. Therefore, 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 requirements that the inviolate sanctuary designation established.

In addition, NWRs 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. As discussed previously, each station goes through several different processes, including compatibility determinations, NEPA compliance, and ESA compliance, to ensure that the hunting and sport 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. Compatibility determinations, NEPA and section 7 analyses completed for the openings and expansions are available as part of the supporting documents for the final rule and can be found in the Service Catalog (ServCat) online application.

We disagree that the use of lead ammunition will violate the MBTA. The potential for lead to threaten any species, including migratory birds 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 sport fishing on a station for which lead ammunition or lead sport fishing tackle is allowed (see our responses to

Comments (9)

and

(10),

above). This ensures hunting and sport 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.

We have clarified and/or discussed additional lead ammunition and tackle impacts for certain migratory bird species brought to our attention through public comments in station-specific NEPA documents and the 2026-2027 cumulative impacts report, where appropriate.

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

Comment (13):

We received numerous comments expressing concern about the Service having adequate funding and staffing, including law enforcement officers, to administer our hunting and sport fishing opportunities, as well as staff to monitor and adjust if negative impacts from recreation activities are observed. Several commenters specifically expressed concerns about the scale of the increased recreational access from years of sustained staffing shortages, a high percentage of resignations and early retirements since 2025, and projected further decreases in funding for both the Refuge System and the Hatchery System. Several commenters raised concerns about reduced staff capacity and law enforcement preventing the Service from detecting negative impacts on wildlife due to the use of lead ammunition and/or tackle, and responding appropriately.

Our Response:

We appreciate the concern of these commenters for sufficient funding and staffing to safely and effectively develop and administer hunting and sport fishing activities throughout the Refuge System and Hatchery System, and to ensure that recreational uses remain compatible with refuge purposes, or not detrimental to hatchery operations. While we acknowledge that the loss of some staffing and resources is a challenge for both the Refuge System and the Hatchery System, we remain committed to opening and expanding as much hunting and sport fishing access for the American people as we can.

Importantly, to comply with the Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) and Service policy (603 FW 2.12.A.(7); see

https://www.fws.gov/policy-library/

603fw2

) station managers must determine that adequate resources, including personnel, 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. For example, 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 sport fishing regulations. Alignment with State laws, especially regarding lead ammunition and/or tackle regulations, as discussed in

Comment (5)

above, reduces confusion for the public and clarifies enforceability. For all stations opening or expanding hunting or sport fishing in this rule, we have determined that we have retained adequate resources, including available funds and personnel, to develop, operate, and maintain the proposed hunting and sport fishing programs. Additionally, unstaffed stations are managed and incorporated into a broader complex with other refuges and/or partnered with State agencies for staffing and funding support, enabling compatibility for hunting and sport fishing to continue. See our responses to

Comments (8)

and

(9),

above, for additional discussion of the compatibility determination process and NEPA compliance as it pertains to all impacts associated with hunting and sport fishing, including the use of lead ammunition and tackle.

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

Comment (14):

We received a large number of comments from both environmental nongovernmental organizations and individual commenters opposed to the decision not to implement phase outs on nine refuges that would have gone into effect on September 1, 2026, if no action were taken. Commenters critiqued the Service for not providing new evidence to support a different conclusion from the previous decision to codify phase outs in the 2022-2023 rule, that was based on the best available science at that time. Commenters asserted that the rescission of these phase outs would therefore be arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act because an agency reversing a prior determination must provide a reasoned explanation. Several commenters further asserted that it would be arbitrary and capricious to reverse lead ammunition and/or tackle restrictions in this proposed rule at these nine stations

while retaining restrictions in place at other stations.

Our Response:

The phase outs codified in the 2022-2023 rule were reconsidered in an effort to align with State regulations. We also considered cost and availability of lead-free ammunition but relied on compatibility in our determinations for site-specific and species-specific lead-free requirements. The use of lead ammunition and tackle, like any other visitor activity, can only be allowed on a station if, and only for as long as, the station applies the best available science and sound professional judgment to find it compatible.

In response, the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies commended the Service's proposed rule reversing the phase outs in order to align with State regulations. Additionally, the Indiana Division of Fish, Wildlife & Nature Preserves provided numerous recommendations for further alignment with State regulations at Patoka NWR. The phase out reversal also supports D.O. 233 and S.O. 3447.

Lead-free alternatives for certain calibers are still difficult to obtain. At the time these phase outs were evaluated, we anticipated further developments and efficiencies in manufacturing and increased market demand would increase the availability and reduce the cost of lead-free ammunition. However, these changes have not happened yet at a scale that impacts the availability and cost in each of the states. In fact, the overall availability and cost of lead-free alternatives fluctuate dynamically, and in some cases the cost of lead-free alternatives has increased since these phase outs were implemented in 2022. See also our response to

Comment (6)

for additional discussion regarding the cost and availability of lead-free ammunition. Where necessary for public safety and compatibility, we supplement State regulations with more-restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our management responsibilities. In reconsidering the phase outs, we determined there was not a need for more-restrictive Federal regulations at these refuges in regard to lead at this time. The Service has determined the use will not materially interfere with or detract from the refuge purpose or fulfillment of the mission to protect the ecological integrity of the system at the nine phase out refuges, but we will continue to consider restrictions based on site-specific and species-specific scientific evidence at these stations in future rules.

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

Comment (15):

In addition to comments received about the reversal of lead phase outs at nine refuges that were codified in the 2022-2023 rulemaking, we also received several comments regarding the removal of lead ammunition and tackle restrictions at other refuges. Some commenters expressed support for removing these restrictions. Other commenters expressed opposition to these changes and asserted that the decision to reverse lead restrictions at these particular stations, while simultaneously retaining lead restrictions at other stations, was arbitrary and capricious and not supported by any new scientific evidence or analysis.

Our Response:

We disagree with the comments that it is arbitrary and capricious to reverse lead restrictions at some stations while retaining lead restrictions at other stations. Some stations have retained station-specific regulations requiring the use of lead-free ammunition or tackle, where it has been found compatible and aligns with State regulations, nearby State-managed lands, wetland areas important to waterfowl, or based on other site-specific concerns. Each station carefully evaluated possible impacts to the environment, including to endangered and threatened species, as part of the NEPA process. 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 residue 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. Stations in the rule that retained lead restrictions demonstrate the thoroughness of analysis that was taken to appropriately apply lead restrictions where there are legitimate reasons to maintain the restriction. Reversal on lead restrictions is in alignment with S.O. 3447.

We are committed to aligning with State regulations when possible, increasing consistency for stations within the same State, or complex, and removing unnecessary regulatory burdens on the hunting and sport fishing public. These updates to hunting and sport fishing programs are determined to be compatible based on site-specific evaluations, which are included in the supporting documents that are publicly available in in the Service Catalog (ServCat) online application. See also our responses to

Comments (5), (8), (9),

and

(10),

above.

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

Comment (16):

In the proposed rule, we solicited comments on whether to promulgate a lead-free requirement at Canaan Valley NWR, which already had a requirement for lead-free hunting at the Big Cove Unit. Many commenters expressed support for a refuge-wide lead-free requirement. The supportive commenters noted that the Service used the best available science to support the decision to phase out lead at the Big Cove Unit and asserted that it would be arbitrary and capricious to reverse this decision. However, the State of West Virginia expressed opposition to lead-free requirements at the refuge that are not in alignment with State regulations and instead was supportive of removing these requirements. A smaller number of individual commenters, primarily hunters, also requested that the Service remove the lead-free requirement noting the burdens that these additional regulations impose on hunters.

Our Response:

After considering the comments received, we have removed the lead-free requirement that was previously implemented at the Big Cove Unit of Canaan Valley NWR. The regulations for Canaan Valley NWR with respect to the use of lead ammunition now reflect alignment with regulations for the State of West Virginia. This is the preferred alternative that was identified in the environmental assessment due to the findings of few additional hunters in a large hunt area, the amount of lead used every year continuing to decline as many hunters are voluntarily switching to lead-free ammunition, and low levels of additional hunt use days. This decision supports our commitment to provide as many hunting and sport fishing opportunities for the American people as we can and to remove overly burdensome regulations. See also our responses to

Comments (5), (8), (9), (10), (14) and (15),

above.

Comment (17):

We received a small number of comments expressing concern about opening and expanding opportunities for hunting of predator species within the Refuge System. Some commenters alleged that we did not give enough consideration to the impacts that may be incurred as a result of this practice, which conflicted with the Service's mandates under the Administration Act to maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the refuge.

Our Response:

Station managers consider predator management decisions on a case-by-case basis. As with all species, a station 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 station 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 station purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, and in keeping with the refuge's comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and other step-down plans. In addition, the station manager analyzes the impacts of the actions on the environment through the NEPA process and section 7 of the ESA. Therefore, a station manager must take many steps to ensure that any opportunity for hunting predators on a refuge meets the Service's applicable laws and policies.

The Administration Act, as amended, also mandates that regulations permitting hunting or sport 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. All hunting and sport fishing determinations, to include those involving predators, are only made after careful consideration by the station manager to ensure that such actions would not threaten the integrity, diversity, and overall health of the ecosystem and are compatible with both the purpose of the station and the mission of the Refuge System. For NFHs, the hatchery manager makes the decision that such opportunities are 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 the opportunity 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 from the public comment period 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.

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

Comment (18):

We also received numerous comments expressing the concern that “trophy hunting”, trapping, baiting, and hounding to pursue predators are viewed as unethical practices that provide hunters with an unfair advantage. Additional commenters expressed concern that these activities may unintentionally harm non-target wildlife species and are inappropriate uses on Service managed lands.

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 sport 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 only allow hunting on refuges and hatcheries when we have determined that the opportunity is sustainable and compatible.

The use of dogs for hounding is prohibited on refuges by 50 CFR 26.21(b) unless authorized by station-specific regulations, and many stations only authorize the use of dogs for retrieval of migratory birds, upland game birds, and small game. Most stations that allow dogs require the dogs to be under the immediate control of the hunter at all times or leashed unless actively retrieving an animal. There are also some hatcheries that allow hounding. All of them do so in order to provide complete consistency with State regulations in the interest of effective law enforcement, as the hatcheries that allow this activity are small and are only providing access on their land for hounding because they are surrounded by State lands that allows this practice. In cases where there may be concerns with use of dogs impacting the management and purpose of the hatchery, those hatcheries have also been closed to hounding. In States where baiting is allowed, some stations have elected to be more restrictive and not support this method of hunting.

Trapping is not a valid method of take as part of hunting programs in the Refuge System. Under the Improvement Act, trapping is not considered a priority wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System. Trapping on refuges is generally only implemented to accomplish specific wildlife management objectives. These objectives vary between stations and are often an essential tool in meeting refuge management objectives (

e.g.,

trapping of predators may be necessary to accomplish waterfowl production objectives or to protect an endangered species).

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

Comment (19):

We received several comments advocating for increased falconry opportunities on Federal lands. One commenter was opposed to allowing falconry on NWRs, specifically at Laguna Atascosa NWR.

Our Response:

We allow hunting of resident wildlife on NWRs only 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. 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 station 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 station manager would next determine the conduct of the hunt, which might include the use of falconry. A station 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 station's purpose. The MBTA sets the regulatory baseline for falconry in the United States (50 CFR 21.82), outlining standards for states to allow falconry. Station-specific hunting regulations, including falconry, can be more restrictive (but not more permissive) than State regulations and often are more restrictive to help meet specific station 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, minimizing conflicts with other public uses and/or station management activities, and protecting public safety. Thus, this issue is decided individually on a station-by-

station 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 station in a manner consistent with all purposes and objectives of the station, in the professional judgment of the station manager.

In response to the comment opposing falconry on Laguna Atascosa NWR, falconry is not a proposed method of take at this time.

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

Comment (20):

One commenter raised concerns that the proposed increase in hunting recreation at Cedar Point NWR would violate a deed restriction with the explicit provision that it “Not be used as a public park, campground, or picnic area” and that it would violate inviolate sanctuary requirements.

Our Response:

The proposed hunting opportunities at Cedar Point NWR comply with the provisions outlined in the 1964 deed and subsequent deeds and related documents. The 1964 deed to the United States, signed December 18, 1964, and recorded December 21, 1964, at Volume 1867 Page 568 in Lucas County, contained a reversionary clause with the condition that the property would revert to the prior owner if it “ceased to be used for wildlife conservation purposes.” This clause was initially deemed problematic for the acquisition, as were some of the poorly written legal descriptions. There was subsequent correspondence with the Department of Justice about the reversionary clause and the need for a correction deed. The United States was ultimately allowed to acquire the property subject to the reversionary language after a correction deed was issued in 1967, signed November 13, 1967, and recorded March 14, 1968, at Volume 1936 Page 187 in Lucas County, on the condition that the NWR not build any permanent structures or improvements (other than water management and water control infrastructure). Allowing hunting is consistent with “wildlife conservation purposes” as hunting is one of the six primary wildlife-dependent recreational uses of National Wildlife Refuge System lands. In reviewing the acquisition file, the intent of the reversionary clause was to ensure that the property being donated by the hunting club, through the North American Wildlife Foundation, would become a National Wildlife Refuge. There are no terms in any recorded instruments that the Service has been able to locate that would prohibit hunting on the property. There are no plans or intentions in the 2026-2027 hunt proposal to utilize areas open to hunting as a public park, campground, or picnic area.

The proposed modifications comply with requirements for hunting within a refuge designated as an inviolate sanctuary pursuant to 16 U.S.C 715d. Cedar Point NWR encompasses 2,445.42 acres, of which 2,245.42 acres are classified as inviolate sanctuary. The Service authorizes up to 40 percent of this designated sanctuary area to be available for migratory bird hunting. As part of the final rule, we open 852 acres of this area to migratory bird hunting, while 1,541 acres remain closed to migratory bird hunting. This allocation does not exceed the permitted 40 percent threshold, thereby ensuring compliance with inviolate sanctuary provisions.

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

Comment (21):

We received several comments about the proposed opening of jackrabbit hunting at Malheur NWR, related to the health of black-tailed jackrabbit (

Lepus californicus

) populations, as well as golden eagle populations. Commenters noted that golden eagles in the Great Basin are in decline, and highlighted the importance of jackrabbits as a food source for the eagles, and the importance of Malheur NWR to populations of both species. One commentor has participated in a 10-year study of golden eagle nesting across the state of Oregon, and currently monitors about 100 sites annually, including 30 golden eagle nests on or immediately adjacent to Malheur NWR that have territories overlapping the NWR. He provided data showing that only four of these sites produced young this year, and that none on the NWR had successful nests, representing the lowest nesting success since 1990 and likely the lowest since monitoring began in the 1940s. Finally, they raised concerns about the use of lead ammunition and impacts to the golden eagle population from consuming residual lead fragments, given the importance of jackrabbits as a primary food source. Based on these observations they assert that low jackrabbit numbers are the primary reason for low nest success.

Our Response:

We acknowledge that black-tailed jackrabbits serve as an important food source for golden eagles, whose nesting success is closely tied to the abundance of these rabbits. Jackrabbit populations are known to fluctuate significantly over time. There are no statewide surveys or mandatory hunt reporting for jackrabbit, and at Malheur NWR, no recent surveys of jackrabbit have been conducted. Both cottontail and jackrabbit numbers have declined across the western United States in recent decades likely due to factors like habitat changes, drought, predation, and disease. Although Oregon allows year-round hunting and considers populations stable, refuge staff at Malheur NWR have observed consistently low jackrabbit numbers, which appear to follow broader regional trends. See

Comment (11)

for additional discussion on how the Service considered possible impacts to eagles.

As a result of these comments and additional site-specific data, Malheur NWR will not open to hunting jackrabbit in the final rule. No other changes were made in response to these comments. The existing hunt for cottontail rabbit remains an available hunting opportunity at the station.

Comment (22):

Numerous commenters raised concerns about increasing hunting access at Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex. Several commenters expressed concern regarding recent overcrowding, public safety issues, and reduced hunt quality, noting a lack of staff and law enforcement to administer the current hunt program. One commenter raised additional concerns including (1) lack of baseline data on wildlife, habitat, and public use; (2) lack of clear triggers for reducing hunting if negative impacts are detected; (3) insufficient law enforcement to protect sensitive habitat and prevent poaching or overharvesting.

Our Response:

Staff continue seeking opportunities to collect data, implement justified management changes, and secure additional law enforcement support. The NWR Complex also partners with State agencies to solicit their input and work closely with State conservation officers to help address the limited Federal law enforcement presence. Toll-free numbers are available for reporting violations, and NWR signage is updated as needed to inform hunters and anglers. Staff remain available to speak with individuals who have observed potential violations and will route information to the appropriate law enforcement officer for follow-up. Efforts to expand enforcement capacity are ongoing. If negative impacts are documented, refuges may temporarily close areas on a case-by-case basis and at the local level, when warranted. See

Comment (13),

above, for discussion of how station managers adaptively manage hunting and sport fishing to avoid unacceptable impacts.

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

Comment (23):

Several commenters expressed concern about equipment

authorized for use during hunting activities at Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex. Firstly, several commenters raised concerns regarding the use of e-bikes, including observed disturbance to wildlife, impacts to infrastructure, damage to habitat, impacts on public safety, and reduced quality of hunting. The commenters suggested that e-bikes should be restricted to designated all-terrain vehicle (ATV) routes. Secondly, one commenter expressed concern regarding motorboat use, and specifically loud noise disturbing waterfowl. The commenter noted that although waterfowl hunting is restricted after 1 p.m. to limit disturbance, motorboats used by other hunters after 1 p.m. still impacts waterfowl.

Our Response:

We acknowledge concerns about e-bikes, including misuse, habitat impacts, and risks to public safety, all of which have informed the need for strengthened regulations. Prior to this final rule, they are allowed to go anywhere across the NWR. The changes to these regulations reflect the NWR's commitment to addressing these issues through a clearer, more enforceable framework governing e-bike access across the NWR Complex. All traditional bikes and e-bikes (in pedal-assist mode) must stay on maintained roads, trails, turnrows, fire lanes, power lines, pipelines, levees/earthen dams/dikes, or designated ATV/utility-type vehicle (UTV) trails. This changed management action will significantly reduce wildlife disturbance, damage to habitat, reduce user conflicts, and potentially improve hunting quality by governing where bicycles and e-bikes can go.

The NWR Complex manages potential noise impacts from motorboats and other hunting activities by designating waterfowl sanctuary areas which are seasonally closed to all public access. Closure dates are published in the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks Outdoor Digest. Sanctuary areas remove all disturbance and provide the greatest benefit to waterfowl. While some disturbance may result from big game and upland game hunts, these activities generally occur in upland habitats or away from waterfowl areas.

In any case of disturbance, including e-bikes and motorboats, areas may be temporarily closed if negative impacts to wildlife and infrastructure are documented.

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

Comment (24):

Multiple commenters raised concerns about the proposed increased hunting access at Panther Swamp NWR specifically, within the Theodore Roosevelt NWR Complex. The concerns raised included: overcrowding, safety concerns, insufficient law enforcement, habitat degradation, reduced deer numbers, increases in feral hog populations and risks of chronic wasting disease transmission to deer associated with hogs.

Our Response:

Overcrowding and safety are often managed through limited draw hunts, which may limit the number of participants, method of take (

e.g.,

archery, firearms) or age (

e.g.,

youth or senior). The changes to regulations at Panther Swamp NWR in this rule will reduce the number of hunters afield during a single hunt. Specifically, the limited muzzleloader draw hunt will be extended to another weekend for senior hunters. This change will maintain the same number of opportunities but will reduce the number of hunters afield per day, thus minimizing overcrowding and burden on law enforcement resources. See our response to

Comment (13),

above, for more discussion on staffing and capacity.

Habitat degradation, population, and disease issues related to white-tailed deer are cooperatively managed with the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks and monitored to ensure no long-term negative impacts occur. Hunting remains a critical tool used to protect habitat for over-population of both native and non-native wildlife. Feral swine damage management is cooperatively addressed through public hunting, contractor involvement, and coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

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

Comment (25):

We received one comment expressing concern about expanded waterfowl hunting access at Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian white-tailed deer questioning whether these opportunities are compatible with refuge purposes that include recovery of Columbian white-tailed deer (

Odocoileus virginianus leucurus

).

Our Response:

Waterfowl hunting at Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian white-tailed deer was analyzed in the 2010 CCP and EIS. A Compatibility Determination for hunting on four islands, including Crims and Price Islands, found it compatible with NWR purposes, since waterfowl hunting occurs along shorelines and sloughs—not in the interior habitat of the Columbian white-tailed deer. The proposed waterfowl hunting expansion implements the Crims and Price Islands access specified in the 2010 CCP and EIS. See our response to

Comment (8),

above, for more discussion about our compatibility process.

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

Comment (26):

Several commenters raised concerns about proposed additional recreation access at Cahaba NWR, given that the refuge is currently unstaffed and the CCP completed several years ago noted lack of staff and law enforcement as an obstacle to effective management.

Our Response:

As discussed in Cahaba NWR's Hunting Compatibility Determination, Cahaba River NWR is part of the Wheeler NWR Complex, and its management is carried out using existing staff, funding, equipment, and facilities through Mountain Longleaf NWR, an established refuge within the Wheeler NWR Complex. Hunting opportunities at Cahaba River NWR are supported by extensive contributions from staff, volunteers, and partners—most notably through a longstanding partnership with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' William R. Ireland, Sr.—Cahaba River Wildlife Management Area. See our response to

Comment (8),

above, for more discussion about our compatibility process and

Comment (13),

above, for more discussion on staffing and capacity.

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

Comment (27):

One commenter expressed concern about the impacts of discarded waste associated with hunting activities, including litter, on Camas NWR and the potential impacts to the refuge environment and other visitors to the refuge.

Our Response:

It is illegal to abandon property or dispose of waste on a refuge (see 50 CFR 27.93 and 27.94), whether hunting-related or not. Camas NWR has been open to waterfowl and upland game bird hunting for decades and has been open to elk hunting since 2021. Staff have observed no issues with littering or trash dumping associated with hunting.

We did not make any changes to the rule in response to these comments.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

Based on consultation with States and other partners, comments we received on the proposed rule, and comments we received on NEPA documents for individual refuges and hatcheries, we made a number of changes between the proposed rule and this final rule, some of which have been discussed above under the Summary of Comments and Responses. The summary below describes changes made to the CFR

language at the following National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries.

We corrected the CFR to include Bandon Marsh NWR, Green Lake NFH, and Holt Collier NWR, which were omitted by error from the proposed rule. Bandon Marsh NWR expanded snipe hunting to additional acres and the CFR for the station was simplified to allow the same species to be hunted on two units of the refuge. Green Lake NFH in Maine is opening hunting for the very first time and Holt Collier NWR regulations are rewritten to more closely match other refuges within the State of Mississippi. These stations were listed in the proposed rule in Attachment A detailing all openings and expansions. The hunt plans and compliance documents for each station were also included in the supporting documents available at

https://www.regulations.gov

at Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223 and underwent public review during the proposed rule comment period.

Modifications to the list of huntable species were made for selected field stations in the final rule. At Minnesota Valley NWR, we added badgers and unprotected wild animals (designated by the State) as huntable species to align with the State of Minnesota regulations. We added hunting for Eurasian collared dove at Umatilla NWR in Oregon. We made an administrative change at Bowdoin NWR adding big game to the CFR as it had already been open in the past but not codified. At Malheur NWR, rabbit hunting was clarified by adding the word “cottontail” and removing “hare”—this clarifies that jackrabbit hunting is not authorized on this station. At Shiawassee NWR, we removed bear from the list of huntable species, in coordination with the State of Michigan. The inclusion of bear at Shiawassee NWR in the proposed rule was an error, and this opportunity was not included in the hunt plan or other supporting compliance documents that went out for public review.

We made other adjustments to hunting and sport fishing opportunities at some stations, such as the locations, season dates, hours, and authorized equipment. We removed only allowing archery and muzzleloader hunting for white-tailed deer at the Driftless Area Wetland Management District (WMD) to align method of take with State regulations. At Kootenai NWR and J. Clark Salyer NWR, we removed the nontoxic shot requirement. Also, at J. Clark Salyer NWR, we updated hunt area locations. At Upper Souris NWR, we updated hunt units and dates for sharp-tailed grouse, Hungarian partridge, and ring-necked pheasant to avoid conflicts with other hunting opportunities. At Wallkill NWR, we removed the specific night hunting hours as well as the nontoxic ammunition requirement for big game.

We also made some other changes to the administration of hunting. For the refuges in the State of Illinois, we edited the tree stand provision to be consistent across the State at each station. Additionally, at Neal Smith NWR, we clarified that the bison/elk enclosure is closed to sport fishing. For Crab Orchard NWR, the Managers Pond unit was removed from the authorized sport fishing area. At Hackmatack NWR in Wisconsin, provisions were added to clarify sport fishing hours and sport fishing devices. At Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR and Neal Smith NWR a provision prohibiting deer drives was removed. At Union Slough NWR, Northern Tallgrass NWR, and Iowa WMD, the prohibition on gas motors was removed. At Cypress Creek NWR, we removed the prohibition on the use of two poles per angler and two hooks per pole for sport fishing.

The Service also made several other changes for consistency, clarity, or to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on hunters and anglers. Finally, we also made various nonsubstantive, editorial corrections and clarifying revisions throughout the rule. These changes ensure clarity and accuracy for the benefit of the public in relying on the regulatory text and the benefit of the stations in administering the regulations.

Effective Date

We are making this rule effective upon the date of its filing at the Office of the Federal Register (see

DATES

, above). We provided a 30-day public comment period for the May 27, 2026, proposed rule (91 FR 31580). We have determined that any further delay in implementing these station-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations would not be in the public interest, in that a delay would hinder the effective planning and administration of refuges' hunting and sport fishing programs. This rule does not impact the public generally in terms of requiring lead time for compliance. Rather, it relieves restrictions in that it allows activities on refuges and hatcheries that we would otherwise prohibit. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), this rule is immediately effective upon the date of its filing at the Office of the Federal Register.

Amendments to Existing Regulations

This document codifies changes to hunting and sport fishing regulations for the Refuge and Hatchery Systems that will be effective beginning with the 2026-2027 hunting/fishing season. This rule better informs the general public of the regulations at each station, will increase understanding and compliance with these regulations, and will make enforcement of these regulations more efficient. In addition to publishing the revised regulations in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71, visitors to our stations may find them reiterated in literature distributed by each station or posted on signs. Attachment A: Openings and Expansions for the 2026-2027 Hunting/Sport Fishing Season, provided in the supporting documents in Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223 on

https://www.regulations.gov,

summarizes the increased access to hunting and sport fishing opportunities at each of the 111 field stations, and specifically denotes the openings and expansions of migratory bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and/or sport fishing, respectively, on each station. Refuges that have never previously been open to either hunting or sport fishing are also added to revised text for each state at § 32.7 of Title 50 of the CFR.

The changes for the 2026-2027 season are based on a complete administrative record, which includes a hunt plan, a compatibility determination (for refuges), and the appropriate NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321

et seq.

) analysis, all of which were the subject of a public review and comment process. The record also includes the appropriate ESA (16 U.S.C 1531

et seq.

) analysis. These documents are available upon request, see

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

, above.

Special Topics in This Rulemaking Related to Lead Use

In 2022 and 2023, the Service finalized regulations requiring the use of non-lead shot shells, single-fire ammunition, and/or fishing tackle at nine NWRs (87 FR 57108, September 16, 2022, and 88 FR 74050, October 30, 2023). These regulations, summarized in table 1, below, were scheduled to go into effect on September 1, 2026. With this final rule, we rescind these regulations, see Corrections to 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 Final Rules, below.

Table 1—Non-Lead Ammunition and Tackle Regulations for Nine NWRs

State

National wildlife

refuge

Previously finalized regulation, now rescinded

Indiana

Patoka River NWR

You may only use or possess

approved non-lead shot shells,

ammunition, and tackle while in the

field (87 FR 57108 at 57129, September 16, 2022).

Maine

Great Thicket NWR

You may only use or possess

approved non-lead shot shells,

ammunition, and tackle while in the

field (88 FR 74050 at 74064, October 30, 2023).

Maine

Rachel Carson NWR

You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells, ammunition, and tackle while in the field (88 FR 74050 at 74064, October 30, 2023).

Maryland

Blackwater NWR

You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells, ammunition, and tackle while in the field (88 FR 74050 at 74064, October 30, 2023).

Maryland

Eastern Neck NWR

You may only use or possess

approved non-lead shot shells,

ammunition, and tackle while in the

field (88 FR 74050 at 74064, October 30, 2023).

Maryland

Patuxent Research Refuge

You may only use or possess

approved non-lead shot shells,

ammunition, and tackle while in the

field (88 FR 74050 at 74064, October 30, 2023).

Pennsylvania

Erie NWR

You may only use or possess

approved non-lead shot shells,

ammunition, and tackle while in the

field (88 FR 74050 at 74065, October 30, 2023).

Virginia

Chincoteague NWR

You may only use or possess

approved non-lead shot shells and

ammunition while in the field (88 FR 74050 at 74066, October 30, 2023).

Virginia

Wallops Island NWR

You may only use or possess

approved non-lead shot shells,

ammunition, and tackle while in the

field (88 FR 74050 at 74066, October 30, 2023).

Additionally, the Service is rescinding a lead-free ammunition requirement for the Big Cove unit at Canaan Valley NWR in West Virginia. In the proposed rule, the Service requested comments on the use of lead ammunition at the refuge, and whether or not the Service should promulgate a lead-free requirement for hunting on the entire Canaan Valley NWR, with immediate or delayed effect (

i.e.,

a phase out). See

Comment (16)

and our response above.

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

https://www.epa.gov/choose-fish-and-shellfish-wisely.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O.s 12866, 13563, and 14192)

E.O. 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is significant.

E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. E.O. 13563 directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this final rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

This final rule is an E.O. 14192 deregulatory action. This rule includes more than 1,000 modifications to the 50 CFR parts 32 and 71, including simplifying and deleting provisions to reduce regulatory burden on the public as directed by S.O. 3447 and D.O. 233. This rule also opens and/or expands hunting or fishing on field stations which will increase visitor use for wildlife-dependent recreation.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.

), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801

et seq.

), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (

i.e.,

small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold for “significant impact” and a threshold for a “substantial number of small entities” (see 5 U.S.C. 605(b)).

SBREFA amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule opens or expands hunting or fishing on 111 FWS stations. For the full statement of the anticipated economic impact of this increased recreational access for hunters and anglers through changes in participation and associated changes to local economic activity around the individual stations, please see the supporting document “Attachment B: Regulatory Flexibility Act Economic Analysis” in Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223 on

https://www.regulations.gov.

The Attachment B analysis details that the maximum estimate for the potential impact of added hunter and angler spending on local economies is approximately $2.2 million annually, with less than one-tenth of 1 percent for local retail trade spending. With the small change in overall spending anticipated from this action, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will have more than a small impact from the spending change near the affected stations. Therefore, we certify that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the RFA (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.

). A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Accordingly, a small entity compliance guide is not required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

Since this rule will apply to public use of federally owned and managed refuges, it would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The final rule will not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

) is not required.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

In accordance with E.O. 12630, this final rule would not have significant takings implications. This final rule would affect only NWRS and NFHS visitors and would describe what they can do while they are on a Service station.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

As discussed under

Regulatory Planning and Review

and

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act,

above, this final rule would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement under E.O. 13132. In preparing this final rule, we worked with State governments.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Department of the Interior has determined that this final rule would not unduly burden the judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the E.O.

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (E.O. 13211)

On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this final rule would open or expand hunting at 111 stations, it is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and we do not expect it to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no statement of energy effects is required.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175)

In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on NWRs and NFHs with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction before we propose regulations.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This rule contains existing collections of information. All information collections require approval by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB has reviewed and approved the information collection requirements associated with hunting and sport fishing activities across the National Wildlife Refuge System and National Fish Hatchery System and assigned the following OMB control numbers:

• 1018-0140, “Hunting and Sport Fishing Application Forms and Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries, 50 CFR 25.41, 25.43, 25.51, 26.32, 26.33, 27.42, 30.11, 31.15, 32.1 to 32.72, 71” (Expires 12/31/2028),

• 1018-0102, “National Wildlife Refuge Special Use Permit Applications and Reports, 50 CFR 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, & 36” (Expires 05/31/2029),

• 1018-0135, “Electronic Federal Duck Stamp Program” (Expires 06/30/2028),

• 1018-0093, “Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit Applications and Reports-Management Authority; 50 CFR 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23” (Expires 08/31/2029), and

• 1024-0252, “The Interagency Access Pass and Senior Pass Application Processes” (Expires 10/31/2027).

In accordance with the PRA and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provided the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on our intent to ask OMB to approval an extension without change to OMB Control Number 1018-0140.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this proposed information collection, including:

(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,

e.g.,

permitting electronic submission of response.

The existing reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements identified below require approval by OMB if DOI continues the collection beyond 12/31/2028 or if DOI exceeds the currently approved burden estimate:

Form 3-2358, “Sport Fishing-Shrimping-Crabbing Permit Application”

—Form 3-2358 collects the following information:

•

Date of application:

We often have application deadlines, and this information helps staff determine the order in which we received the

applications. It also ensures that the information is current.

•

State fishing license number:

We ask for this information to verify the applicant is legally licensed by the State (where required).

•

Permit type:

On sport fishing permits, we ask what type of activity (crabbing, shrimping, crabbing, frogging, etc.) is being applied for.

•

Applicant information:

We collect name, address, phone number(s), and email so we can contact the applicant/permittee either during the application process or after receiving a permit.

•

Signature and date:

To confirm that the applicant (and parent/guardian, if a youth hunter) understands the terms and conditions of the permit.

Form 3-2405 “Self-Clearing Check-In/Out Permit”

—Form 3-2405 has three parts:

1.

Self-Clearing Daily Check-in Permit.

Each user completes this portion of the form (date of visit, name, and telephone numbers) and deposits it in the permit box prior to engaging in any activity on the refuge.

2.

Self-Clearing Daily Visitor Registration Permit.

Each user must complete the front side of the form (date, name, city, State, zip code, and purpose of visit) and carry this portion while on the refuge. At the completion of the visit, each user must complete the reverse side of the form (number of hours on refuge, harvest information (species and number), harvest method, angler information (species and number), and wildlife sighted (

e.g.,

black bear and hog)) and deposit it in the permit box.

3.

Self-Clearing Daily Vehicle Permit.

The driver and each user traveling in the vehicle must complete this part and display in clear view in the vehicle while on the refuge.

Form 3-2405 collects:

• Information on the visitor (name, address, and contact information). We use this information to identify the visitor or driver/passenger of a vehicle while on the refuge. This is extremely valuable information should visitors become lost or injured. Law enforcement officers can easily check vehicles for these cards in order to determine a starting point for the search or to contact family members in the event of an abandoned vehicle. Having this information readily available is critical in a search and rescue situation.

• Purpose of visit (hunting, sport fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, auto touring, birding, hiking, boating/canoeing, visitor center, special event, environmental education class, volunteering, other recreation). This information is critical in determining public use participation in wildlife management programs. This not only allows the refuge to manage its hunt and other visitor use programs, but also to increase and/or improve facilities for non-consumptive uses that are becoming more popular on refuges. Data collected will also help managers better allocate staff and resources to serve the public as well as develop annual performance measures.

• Total number of hunt days on the refuge (at the conclusion of their hunting activities). Refuge management will use this information to monitor and evaluate hunt quality and resource impacts.

• Success of harvest by hunters/anglers (number and type of harvest/caught). This information is critical to wildlife management programs on refuges. Each refuge will customize the form by listing game species and incidental species available on the refuge, hunting methods allowed, and data needed for certain species (

e.g.,

for deer, whether it's a buck or doe and the number of points; or for turkeys, the weight and beard and spur lengths).

• Whether or not visitors observed black bear or hogs, for example. This information will help managers develop annual performance measures for hog removal, and it provides information to help develop resource management planning.

• Photograph of animal harvested (specific refuges only). This requirement documents the sex of animal prior to the hunter being eligible to harvest the opposite sex (where allowed).

• Date of visit and/or area visited.

• Comments. We encourage visitors to comment on their experience.

Refuges may customize Form 3-2405 to remove questions identified above which are not applicable to their site. However, they may not add new questions not approved by OMB.

Form 3-2439, “Hunting Application/Permit”

—Form 3-2439 collects the following information:

•

Lottery application:

Refuges who administer hunting via a lottery system use Form 3-2439 as the lottery application. If the applicant is successful, the completed Form 3-2439 also serves as their permit application, avoiding a duplication of burden on the public filling out two separate forms.

•

Date of application:

We often have application deadlines, and this information helps staff determine the order in which we received the applications. It also ensures that the information is current.

•

Methods:

Some refuges hold multiple types of hunts (

i.e.

archery, shotgun, primitive weapons, etc). We ask for this information to identify which opportunity(ies) a hunter is applying for.

•

Species permit type:

Some refuges allow only certain species, such as moose, elk, or bighorn sheep, to be hunted. We ask hunters to identify which species hunt they are applying for.

•

Applicant information:

We collect name, address, phone number(s), and email so we can contact the applicant/permittee either during the application process, when the applicant is successful in a lottery drawing, or after receiving a permit.

•

Party members:

Some refuges allow the permit applicant to include additional hunters in their group. We collect the names of all additional hunters, when allowed by the refuge.

•

Parent/Guardian contact information:

We collect name, relationship, address, phone number(s), and email for a parent/guardian of youth hunters. We ask for this information in the event of an emergency.

•

Date:

We ask hunters for their preferences for hunt dates.

•

Hunt/Blind location:

We ask hunters for their preferences for hunt units, areas, or blinds.

•

Special hunts:

Some refuges hold special hunts for youth, hunters who are disabled, or other underserved populations. We ask hunters to identify if they are applying for these special hunts. For youth hunts, we ask for the age of the hunter at the time of the hunt.

•

Signature and date:

To confirm that the applicant (and parent/guardian, if a youth hunter) understands the terms and conditions of the permit.

•

Disabled hunts:

Some refuges provide an option to allow mobility-impaired applicants to reserve specific hunting blinds upon providing proof of disability. The refuge will not retain the proof of disability. The documentation will be shredded upon approval of the blind reservation.

•

Mentored Hunts:

For refuges conducting mentored hunts, the Service and partners collect the following information to determine eligibility for the program the hunter applies to participate in. The Service requires all mentored hunt participants to sign the Service's “USFWS Release and Waiver of Liability,” as well as a Form 3-2260, “Agreement for Use of Likeness in Audio/Visual Products,” when they are on the Refuge.

—Emergency contact (name and phone number);

—Applicant hunting history, such as:

—Whether applicant has completed a basic hunter education course;

—Whether applicant has purchased a hunting license, and if yes, when;

—Previous hunting experience;

—Previous participation in a mentored hunt program;

—Interest in hunting;

—Family history of hunting;

—Whether applicant owns equipment and if yes, type of equipment; and

—Medical conditions/allergies for program staff to be aware of in the event of an emergency.

Refuges offering hunting opportunities may customize Form 3-2439 to remove questions identified above which are not applicable to their hunting seasons. However, they may not add new questions not approved by OMB.

Form 3-2542, “Hunter Harvest Report”

—Form 3-2542 collects the following information:

• State-issued hunter identification (ID)/license number. (Note: Refuges/hatcheries who rely on the State agency to issue hunting permits are not required to collect the permittee's personal identifying information (PII) on the harvest form. Those refuges/hatcheries may opt to collect only the State ID number assigned to the hunter in order to match harvest data with their issued permit. Refuges/hatcheries will collect either hunter PII or State-issued ID number, but not both.)

• Species observed—Data will be used by refuge/hatchery staff to document the presence of rare or unusual species.

• Permit number/type—Data will be used to link the harvest report to the issued permit.

• Hunt tag number—Data will be used to link the harvest report to the species-specific hunt tag.

• Number of youth (younger than age 18) in party—Data will be used to better understand volume of youth hunting on a refuge/hatchery. Specific hunter names are not collected, just total number of youths in hunting party.

• Harvested by—Data will be used to determine ratio of adults to youth hunters. Specific hunter names are not collected.

• Species observed—Data will be used by a refuge/hatchery to determine the presence of any unusual species (

e.g.,

endangered or threatened species, or invasive species).

Refuges offering hunting opportunities may customize Form 3-2542 to remove questions identified above which are not applicable to their hunting seasons. However, they may not add new questions not approved by OMB.

Labeling/Marking Requirements

—As a condition of the permit, some refuges require permittees to label hunting and/or sport fishing gear used on the refuge. This equipment may include items such as the following: tree stands, blinds, or game cameras; hunting dogs (collars); flagging/trail markers; boats; and/or sport fishing equipment such as jugs, trotlines, and crawfish or crab traps. Refuges require the owner label their equipment with their last name, the State-issued hunting/fishing license number, and/or hunting/fishing permit number. Refuges may also require equipment for youth hunters include “YOUTH” on the label. This minimal information is necessary in the event the refuge needs to contact the owner.

Required Notifications

—On occasion, hunters may find their game has landed outside of established hunting boundaries. In this situation, hunters must notify an authorized refuge employee to obtain consent to retrieve the game from an area closed to hunting or entry only upon specific consent. Certain refuges also require hunters to notify the refuge manager when hunting specific species (

e.g.,

black bear, bobcat, or eastern coyote) with trailing dogs. Refuges encompassing privately owned lands, referred to as “easement overlay refuges,” may also require the hunter obtain written or oral permission from the landowner prior to accessing the land.

Title of Collection:

Hunting and Fishing Application Forms and Activity Reports for National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries (50 CFR parts 32 and 71).

OMB Control Number:

1018-0140.

Form Numbers:

3-2358, 3-2405, 3-2439, 3-2542.

Type of Review:

Extension of a currently approved collection.

Respondents/Affected Public:

Individuals/households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Respondents:

1,632,759.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses:

1,632,759.

Estimated Completion Time per Response:

Varies from 5 minutes to 30 minutes, depending on activity.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours:

265,232.

Respondent's Obligation:

Required to obtain or retain a benefit.

Frequency of Collection:

On occasion for applications; annually or on occasion for reports.

Total Estimated Annual Non-Hour Burden Cost:

$87,403 (primarily associated with application fees at some refuges hunting and/or sport fishing).

On May 27, 2026, we published proposed regulations (RIN 1018-BI71;

Regulations.gov

Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223) to solicit the required public comments on our intention to seek OMB approval of the information collection requirements associated with hunting and sport fishing on the NWRs and NFHs. The proposed rule solicited public comments for a period of 60 days on the information collection requirements described in this supporting statement, ending on July 27, 2026. We did not receive any comments addressing the information collection requirements. The package did not propose changes to the information being collected; however, DOI did make changes to the estimated burden.

As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this proposed information collection, including:

(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,

e.g.,

permitting electronic submission of response.

Comments that you submit in response to the proposed revisions and additions to the information collection are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Written comments and suggestions on the information collection requirements should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this document to

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function. Please

provide a copy of your comments 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.

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

)

We comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531

et seq.

), when developing comprehensive conservation plans and step-down management plans—which includes hunting and/or fishing plans—for public use of refuges and hatcheries, and prior to implementing any new or revised public recreation program on a station as identified in 50 CFR 26.32. We complied with section 7 for each of the stations affected by these openings and expansions of hunting and fishing opportunities.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321

et seq.

)

We analyzed these openings and expansions in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)) and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 8.

A categorical exclusion from NEPA documentation applies to publication of amendments to station-specific hunting and fishing regulations because they are technical and procedural in nature, and the environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis (516 DM 8). Concerning the actions that are the subject of this rulemaking, we have complied with NEPA at the project level when developing each hunting or fishing opportunity. This is consistent with the Department of the Interior instructions for compliance with NEPA where actions are covered sufficiently by an earlier environmental document.

Prior to the addition of a refuge or hatchery to the list of areas open to hunting and fishing in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71, we develop hunting and fishing plans for the affected stations. We incorporate the hunting and fishing activities in the appropriate station comprehensive conservation plan and/or other step-down management plans, pursuant to our refuge planning guidance in 602 Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FW) 1, 3, and 4. We prepare these comprehensive conservation plans and step-down plans in compliance with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA and the Department of Interior's NEPA regulations at 43 CFR part 46. We invite the affected public to participate in the review, development, and implementation of these plans. Copies of all plans and NEPA compliance are available upon request.

Available Information for Specific Stations

Individual refuges and hatcheries have information about public use programs and conditions that apply to their specific programs and maps of their respective areas. You can locate individual refuge information, including contact information, on

FWS.gov

. We also provide general information on our hunting program, including an interactive map of current hunting opportunities at

https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/hunting.

Sport fishing information is available at

https://www.fws.gov/activity/fishing.

Regulation Summary Table

The regulatory amendments set forth below are presented alongside existing station-specific regulations that have not been amended. For a table that provides additional clarity on which specific regulatory provisions have been amended, please see Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2026-1223 on

https://www.regulations.gov

for a separate document containing a table that provides additional clarity on which specific regulatory provisions have been amended and how they have been amended.

Primary Author

Julie Henning, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation Planning, National Wildlife Refuge System, is the primary author of this rulemaking document.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 32

Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.

50 CFR Part 71

Fish, Fishing, Hunting, Wildlife.

Corrections to 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 Final Rules

We are correcting two final rules published in the

Federal Register

on September 16, 2022 (87 FR 57108), and October 30, 2023 (88 FR 74050), by removing amendatory instructions with a delayed effective date of September 1, 2026.

§ 32.33

[Corrected]

In the final rule published on September 16, 2022 (87 FR 57108), on page 57129, in the third column, amendment 6 for § 32.33 is removed.

In the final rule published on October 30, 2023 (88 FR 74050), the following corrections are made:

§ 32.38

[Corrected]

1. On page 74064, in the first column, amendment 5 for § 32.38 is removed.

§ 32.39

[Corrected]

2. On page 74064, in the second column, amendment 6 for § 32.39 is removed.

§ 32.57

[Corrected]

3. On page 74065, in the second column, amendment 11 for § 32.57 is removed.

§ 32.65

[Corrected]

4. On page 74066, in the first column, amendment 15 for § 32.65 is removed.

Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons described in the preamble, we amend title 50, chapter I, subchapters C and E of the CFR as set forth below:

Subchapter C—The National Wildlife Refuge System

PART 32—HUNTING AND FISHING

1. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 715i; Pub. L. 115-20, 131 Stat. 86.

2. Amend § 32.7 by revising and republishing paragraphs (e), (f), (m), (x), (z), (hh), and (oo) to read as follows:

§ 32.7

What refuge units are open to hunting and/or sport fishing?

(e)

California.

(1) Cibola National Wildlife Refuge.

(2) Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(3) Colusa National Wildlife Refuge.

(4) Delevan National Wildlife Refuge.

(5) Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

(6) Grasslands Wildlife Management Area.

(7) Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes National Wildlife Refuge.

(8) Havasu National Wildlife Refuge.

(9) Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

(10) Imperial National Wildlife Refuge.

(11) Kern National Wildlife Refuge.

(12) Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge.

(13) Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge.

(14) Merced National Wildlife Refuge.

(15) Modoc National Wildlife Refuge.

(16) Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge.

(17) Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge.

(18) Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge.

(19) San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.

(20) San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

(21) San Luis National Wildlife Refuge.

(22) San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

(23) Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge.

(24) Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

(25) Sutter National Wildlife Refuge.

(26) Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(f)

Colorado.

(1) Alamosa National Wildlife Refuge.

(2) Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge.

(3) Baca National Wildlife Refuge.

(4) Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge.

(5) Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge.

(6) Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.

(7) Rocky Mountain Arsenal.

(m)

Illinois.

(1) Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge.

(2) Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge.

(3) Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge.

(4) Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge.

(5) Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge.

(6) Great River National Wildlife Refuge.

(7) Hackmatack National Wildlife Refuge.

(8) Kankakee National Wildlife Refuge.

(9) Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge.

(10) Middle Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge.

(11) Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge.

(12) Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge.

(13) Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.

(x)

Mississippi.

(1) Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge.

(2) Coldwater River National Wildlife Refuge.

(3) Dahomey National Wildlife Refuge.

(4) Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

(5) Hillside National Wildlife Refuge.

(6) Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuge.

(7) Mathews Brake National Wildlife Refuge.

(8) Morgan Brake National Wildlife Refuge.

(9) Panther Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.

(10) Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge.

(11) St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife Refuge.

(12) Tallahatchie National Wildlife Refuge.

(13) Theodore Roosevelt National Wildlife Refuge.

(14) Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge.

(z)

Montana.

(1) Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(2) Benton Lake Wetland Management District.

(3) Black Coulee National Wildlife Refuge.

(4) Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge.

(5) Bowdoin Wetland Management District.

(6) Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.

(7) Charles M. Russell Wetland Management District.

(8) Creedman Coulee National Wildlife Refuge.

(9) Grass Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(10) Hailstone National Wildlife Refuge.

(11) Hewitt Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(12) Lake Mason National Wildlife Refuge.

(13) Lake Thibadeau National Wildlife Refuge.

(14) Lamesteer National Wildlife Refuge.

(15) Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge.

(16) Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge.

(17) Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(18) Ninepipe National Wildlife Refuge.

(19) Northeast Montana Wetland Management District.

(20) Northwest Montana Wetland Management District.

(21) Pablo National Wildlife Refuge.

(22) Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge.

(23) Swan River National Wildlife Refuge.

(24) UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge.

(25) War Horse National Wildlife Refuge.

(hh)

North Dakota.

(1) Appert Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(2) Ardoch National Wildlife Refuge.

(3) Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge.

(4) Arrowwood Wetland Management District.

(5) Audubon National Wildlife Refuge.

(6) Audubon Wetland Management District.

(7) Bone Hill National Wildlife Refuge.

(8) Brumba National Wildlife Refuge.

(9) Buffalo Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(10) Camp Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(11) Canefield Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(12) Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(13) Chase Lake Wetland Management District.

(14) Cottonwood Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(15) Crosby Wetland Management District.

(16) Dakota Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(17) Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge.

(18) Devils Lake Wetland Management District.

(19) Florence Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(20) Half Way Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(21) Hiddenwood Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(22) Hobart Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(23) Hutchinson Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(24) J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge.

(25) J. Clark Salyer Wetland Management District.

(26) Johnson Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(27) Kulm Wetland Management District.

(28) Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge.

(29) Lake George National Wildlife Refuge.

(30) Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge.

(31) Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(32) Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge.

(33) Lake Otis National Wildlife Refuge.

(34) Lake Patricia National Wildlife Refuge.

(35) Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge.

(36) Lambs Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(37) Little Goose Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(38) Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(39) Long Lake Wetland Management District.

(40) Lords Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(41) Lost Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(42) Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge.

(43) Lostwood Wetland Management District.

(44) Maple River National Wildlife Refuge.

(45) McLean National Wildlife Refuge.

(46) Pleasant Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(47) Pretty Rock National Wildlife Refuge.

(48) Rabb Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(49) Rock Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(50) Rose Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(51) School Section National Wildlife Refuge.

(52) Sheyenne Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(53) Sibley Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(54) Silver Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(55) Slade National Wildlife Refuge.

(56) Snyder Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(57) Springwater National Wildlife Refuge.

(58) Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(59) Stoney Slough National Wildlife Refuge.

(60) Storm Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(61) Sunburst Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(62) Tewaukon National Wildlife Refuge.

(63) Tewaukon Wetland Management District.

(64) Tomahawk National Wildlife Refuge.

(65) Upper Souris National Wildlife Refuge.

(66) White Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(67) Wild Rice National Wildlife Refuge.

(68) Willow Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(69) Wintering River National Wildlife Refuge.

(70) Wood Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(oo)

South Dakota.

(1) Huron Wetland Management District.

(2) Karl E. Mundt National Wildlife Refuge.

(3) Lacreek National Wildlife Refuge.

(4) Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge.

(5) Lake Andes Wetland Management District.

(6) Madison Wetland Management District.

(7) Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge.

(8) Sand Lake Wetland Management District.

(9) Waubay National Wildlife Refuge.

(10) Waubay Wetland Management District.

3. Amend § 32.20 by revising and republishing paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as follows:

§ 32.20

Alabama.

(b)

Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge.

(1) [Reserved]

(2)

Upland game hunting.

We allow hunting of quail, squirrel, rabbit, opossum, raccoon, coyote, and bobcat on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:

(i) We require hunters to hunt as governed by Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' William R. Ireland, Sr.—Cahaba River Wildlife Management Area hunting permit conditions.

(ii) Hunters may hunt with shotguns using only #4 shot or smaller, rifles and handguns using rim-fire ammunition only, or archery equipment that complies with State and Federal regulations.

(iii) We allow the use of dogs when hunting upland game.

(iv) Hunters must remove tree stands, blinds, or other personal property from the refuge at the end of each day's hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).

(3)

Big game hunting.

We allow the hunting of white-tailed deer, feral hog, and wild turkey on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:

(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (iv) of this section apply.

(ii) We prohibit the use of firearms for hunting deer on the refuge. However, you may archery hunt in the portions of the refuge that are open for deer hunting during the archery, shotgun, and muzzleloader seasons established by the State.

(iii) We prohibit deer drives. We define a deer drive as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise frighten or cause deer to move in the direction of any person who is part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the deer. We also prohibit drives for feral hogs.

(4)

Sport fishing.

We allow sport fishing on designated areas of the refuge.

(d)

Eufaula National Wildlife Refug

e—(1)

Migratory game bird hunting.

We allow hunting of mourning dove and Eurasian-collared dove, duck, and goose on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:

(i) You must possess and carry a signed refuge hunt permit (signed brochure) when hunting.

(ii) All youth hunters (ages 10 through 15) must remain within sight and normal voice contact of a properly licensed hunting adult age 21 or older. Youth hunters must possess and carry verification of passing a State-approved hunter education course. One adult may supervise no more than two youth hunters.

(iii) All waterfowl hunting opportunities are spaced-blind and assigned by lottery. Hunters wishing to participate in our waterfowl hunt must submit a Waterfowl Lottery Application (FWS Form 3-2439, Hunt Application—National Wildlife Refuge System).

(iv) Hunters must remove all stands/blinds and other personal property at the end of each day's hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).

(v) We allow access to the refuge for hunting from 1

1/2

hours before legal sunrise to 1

1/2

hours after legal sunset.

(vi) We prohibit drives. We define a drive as an organized or planned effort to pursue, drive, chase, or otherwise frighten or cause game to move in the direction of any person who is part of the organized or planned hunt and known to be waiting for the game.

(vii) We prohibit hunting or observing from an elevated stand without use of a full body harness.

(2)

Upland game hunting.

We allow hunting of gray squirrel and rabbit on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:

(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (ii) and (v) through (vii) of this section apply.

(ii) We allow only shotguns and state-designated archery equipment as means of take for upland game hunting.

(3)

Big game hunting.

We allow hunting of white-tailed deer and feral hog on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:

(i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (v) through (vii) of this section apply.

(ii) We allow youth gun hunting opportunities that are spaced-blind and assigned by lottery. Hunters wishing to participate in our youth gun hunt must

submit a Big/Upland Game Hunt Application (FWS Form 3-2439, Hunt Application—National Wildlife Refuge System).

(iii) All youth hunters must remain within sight and normal voice contact of a properly hunting-licensed adult age 21 or older. Youth hunters must possess and carry verification of passing a State-approved hunter education course. One adult may supervise no more than one youth hunter.

(iv) All big game hunting opportunities, except for youth gun, are archery-only.

(v) We close those portions of the refuge between Bustahatchee and Rood Creeks to archery hunting until November 1.

(4)

Sport fishing.

We allow sport fishing, including bowfishing, in designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:

(i) We allow shoreline access for fishing from 1 hour before legal sunrise to 1 hour after legal sunset.

(ii) We prohibit taking frog or turtle on all refuge lands and waters (see § 27.21 of this chapter).

(iii) We adopt reciprocal license agreements between Alabama and Georgia for fishing in Lake Eufaula. Anglers fishing in waters not directly connected to Lake Eufaula must be properly licensed for the State in which they are fishing.

4. Amend § 32.23 by revising and republishing paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (f), and (i) to read as follows:

§ 32.23

Arkansas.

(a)

Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge

—(1)

Migratory game bird hunting.

We allow hunting of duck, goose, coot, merganser, snipe, woodcock, rail, gallinule, crow, and dove on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following conditions:

(i) Anyone on the refuge in possession of hunting equipment must possess a signed refuge hunting permit.

(ii) During the quota gun deer hunt, we close the refuge to all other hunts and public entry, unless the refuge is closed to deer hunting at that time due to implementation of State flood closure zone regulations.

(iii) Hunters may enter the refuge beginning at 5 a.m. and must exit the refuge no later than 1 hour after legal sunset.

(iv) We allow waterfowl hunting until 12 p.m. (noon), with the exception that applicable goose species may be hunted until legal sunset during the State Conservation Order.

(v) When waterfowl hunting, you may not possess more than 25 shotgun shells while in the field, except that during the State Conservation Order, there is no limit on the number of shells you may possess while hunting applicable goose species.

(vi) We prohibit hunting closer than 100 yards (91 meters) to another hunter or hunting party.

(vii) You must remove decoys, blinds, boats, and all other equipment at the end of each day's hunt (see § 27.93 of this chapter).

(viii) All hunters age 11 and younger who possess valid hunter education certification must remain within normal sight and voice contact with an adult age 18 or older who possesses a valid State hunting license. Hunters age 15 and younger who have not completed hunter education must be under the direct supervision (within arm's reach) of an adult age 21 or older who possesses a valid State hunting license. One adult may supervise up to two youth hunters for migratory bird and upland game hunting, but may supervise only one youth during big game hunting.

(ix) We allow incidental take of beaver, muskrat, nutria, river otter, mink, bobcat, fox, striped skunk, and coyote during any refuge hunt with the weapons legal for that hunt, subject to applicable State seasons and regulations.

(x) We allow the use of dogs when migratory game bird hunting.

(xi) We close the Waterfowl Sanctuary Hunt Unit to all entry and hunting from November 15 to February 28, except that quota gun deer hunters may hunt in that Unit when the season overlaps with these dates.

(xii) We allow waterfowl hunting from mowed and/or graveled road rights-of-way, but we prohibit all other hunting from these rights-of-way.

(xiii) We allow only hunters to use all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and only from September 1 through March 31, except that during the State Conservation Order, hunters may use ATVs for hunting applicable goose species.

(xiv) Hunters may use conventional motor vehicles, ATVs, bicycles, and e-bikes only on public use roads, levee tops, designated ATV trails (open to ATVs only), and established parking lots n

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.