Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

48824

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
opportunities only after rigorous examination of the available information, consultation and coordination with States and Tribes, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act NEPA; 42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq. and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., as well as other applicable laws and regulations. The many steps taken before a station opens or expands a hunting or fishing opportunity on the refuge ensure that the Service does not allow any opportunity that would compromise the purpose of the station or the mission of the agency.
Hunting of resident wildlife on Service lands generally occurs consistent with State regulations, including seasons and bag limits.
Station-specific hunting regulations can be more restrictive but not more liberal than State regulations and often are more restrictive in order to help meet specific refuge objectives. These objectives include resident wildlife population and habitat objectives, minimizing disturbance impacts to wildlife, maintaining high-quality opportunities for hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreation, eliminating or minimizing conflicts with other public uses and/or refuge management activities, and protecting public safety.
The word refuge includes the idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife, and as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the Refuge System. However, again, the Administration Act stipulates that hunting, if found compatible, is a legitimate and priority general public use of a refuge. Furthermore, we manage refuges to support healthy wildlife populations that in many cases produce harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. As practiced on refuges, hunting and fishing do not pose a threat to wildlife populations. It is important to note that taking certain individuals through hunting does not necessarily reduce a population overall, as hunting can simply replace other types of mortality. In some cases, however, we use hunting as a management tool with the explicit goal of reducing a population; this is often the case with exotic and/or invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability. Therefore, facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of the Services roles and responsibilities as outlined in the legislation establishing the Refuge System, and the Service will continue to facilitate these opportunities where compatible with
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:40 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

the purpose of the specific refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment 3: We received comments from 13 individual State agencies and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies on the proposed rule. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation; South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks;
Idaho Department of Fish and Game;
Missouri Department of Conservation;
Michigan Department of Natural Resources; and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission all expressed general support for the proposed rule without additional comments. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but also requested additional changes at Necedah NWR. The New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but also requested additional changes at Cape May and Supawna Meadows NWRs. The Wyoming Game and Fish Department expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested minor changes to the hunt units at the National Elk Refuge;
minor changes to waterfowl hunting at the National Elk Refuge; additional hunting opportunities at Bamsforth, Hutton Lake, and Mortenson Lake NWRs; and additional opportunities on National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management lands. The Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but suggested that Eastern Shore of Virginia and Fishermans Island NWRs provide additional analysis and details on particular hunting and fishing opportunities there and requested that Great Dismal Swamp NWR: 1 Combine a bear hunting permit with a general hunting permit, 2 allow spring turkey hunting, 3 expand to full week hunting, and 4 provide additional information about parking areas. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested that we add regulatory language listing Atlantic brant among the migratory bird hunting target species for Mackay Island NWR and stating a requirement for hunters to have North Carolina State licenses and permits. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested we edit the regulatory language at William L. Finley NWR to align more closely with the State
PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

regulations by removing merganser from the species list, as it is already considered a duck species. The Arizona Game and Fish Department expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested the Service to consider allowing the use of falconry on refuges within the State of Arizona, including Bill Williams NWR and Havasu NWR; requested the Service to consider aligning to State regulations for the use of dogs while hunting; requested the Service consider aligning to State regulations for legal methods of take in hunting javelina; and expressed concerns about regulatory differences between refuges within the same State.
Finally, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies expressed general support of the changes in the proposed rule, but requested the Service consider additional opportunities on refuges in Alaska.
Our Response: The Service appreciates the support of, and is committed to working with, our State partners to identify additional opportunities for expansion of hunting and sport fishing on Service lands and waters.
In response to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, we have made no changes to the rule. We will not address their concerns in this rule because the proposed expansions at Necedah NWR are no longer part of this final rule. We will, however, consider the Departments requests in shaping any future proposed openings or expansions at Necedah NWR.
In response to the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, the Service extends hours for fishing to 1
hour before legal sunrise and 1 hour after legal sunset at both Cape May and Supawna Meadows NWRs. The Service will consider additional vehicle access at Cape May NWR and crabbing/
shellfishing at Cape May and Supawna Meadows NWRs for future rulemakings, but we cannot make those additions at this time.
As suggested by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, we have renamed the hunt units at the National Elk Refuge in order to reduce confusion for the public. The Service did not make changes to the white-tailed deer hunt season dates to avoid conflict with the refuges elk hunt, and the Service does not plan to consider opening waterfowl hunting on the refuge due to the presence of trumpeter swan populations, as trumpeter swan is a Priority 1 Species of Special Concern for the Wyoming Game & Fish Department, and due to the potential for conflict with other compatible uses on the refuge at that time. The Service
E:FRFM31AUR2.SGM

31AUR2