Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

48826

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
concerns about hunting of species with cultural significance at Loess Bluffs NWR and hunting of nongame species, both at Loess Bluffs NWR
specifically and in the proposed rule generally. The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Historic Preservation Department requested consultation with respect to Choctaw NWR concerning cultural resource records and requested that we add an inadvertent discovery clause to our environmental assessment EA for the openings and expansions at the refuge. The Osage Nation Historic Preservation Office commented twice in order to: 1 Convey that the Nation had no concerns about the proposed activities at Loess Bluffs NWR, which are not included this final rule; and 2
request that the Service conduct a cultural resources survey at Sequoyah NWR before any construction begins on the two proposed new fishing ponds on the refuge.
Our Response: The Service appreciates the support of our Tribal partners and is committed to working with our Tribal partners to address their concerns around potential cultural resource, socioeconomic, and ecological impacts from hunting and fishing activities in the Refuge System.
In response to the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska, we do not include the proposed openings and expansions at Loess Bluffs NWR in this rule. We will continue discussions with the Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska on how these acres and species may be considered for hunting openings and expansions in the future. As to the Iowa Tribes general concern about hunting of nongame species in the rule overall, as explained in detail at Comment 8, below, before authorizing any given hunting and sport fishing activity on a refuge, we ensure the activity is compatible with the biological integrity and ecological health of all species on the refuge. Also, as explained at Comment 15, below, this applies as much to the hunting of predatory and even apex predator species, which some people consider nongame species, as it applies to other species that are more commonly considered target species for hunting or game species.
In response to the Choctaw Nation, we have provided the requested information, including reports, site forms, and Choctaw NWRs unanticipated discovery plan. We have also incorporated the suggested inadvertent discovery clause into the refuges EA document, as requested.
In response to the Osage Nation, the Service is conducting a cultural resources survey and continuing discussions with the Osage Nation. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:40 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

construction of the ponds and all proposed fishing activities dependent on the ponds are contingent on the results of the survey and of our discussions with the Osage Nation.
Comment 5: We received two comments with concerns that the Service did not properly engage in government-to-government consultations with Tribes in developing the openings, expansions, and other changes in the proposed rule.
Our Response: For all openings and expansions of hunting and sport fishing that the Service considers, the Service engages in government-to-government consultations with any and all potentially affected Tribal partners. As described in our response to Comment 1, above, the Service engages our Tribal partners early in the planning process along with our State and Territorial partners when developing proposed changes to hunting and sport fishing on Service lands and waters.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment 6: A couple commenters stated that the Service should not defer to State fish and wildlife agencies on certain hunting regulations and analysis of wildlife populations.
Our Response: The Service works closely with State agency partners on all aspects of fish and wildlife conservation and management. With respect to rules and regulations governing hunting and sport fishing, the Service makes State regulations the default for any authorized hunting and sport fishing to maximize regulatory efficiency and clarity for the public, especially hunters and anglers who must abide by the rules and regulations. The Service also makes a concerted effort to align our rules and regulations with State rules and regulations to maximize this efficiency and minimize confusion, but it is not an abdication of our responsibility to regulate hunting on the Refuge System because we still determine in every case whether or not State hunting and fishing regulations are appropriate for the given refuge. Whenever necessary for refuge purposes, conservation goals, ecological health, or compatibility with other uses, the Service imposes alternate and/or additional rules and regulations to those of the relevant State agencies. With respect to wildlife monitoring and analysis of wildlife populations, the Service does its own monitoring and analyses and looks to these first. We do also draw on the work of State partners, both because it provides more data to inform our decisions and because it ensures we have information about fish and wildlife on a larger geographic scale, which is critical for many species
PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

with large ranges that extend far from Service lands and waters. The ultimate determinations governing all hunting and sport fishing activities on NWRS
lands are made by the Service, and we fulfill our responsibilities to administer hunting and sport fishing programs in a manner compatible with both ecological health and integrity and other recreational uses of refuges.
Comment 7: We received a number of comments arguing that we should have prepared an environmental impact statement EIS instead of stationspecific environmental analyses combined with a national cumulative impact report. Some of these comments also argued that specific stations should have prepared an EIS where we prepared an environmental assessment EA or an EA where we prepared a categorical exclusion. One of these commenters also stated that the use of lead ammunition or tackle presents an extraordinary circumstance that does not allow for the use of a Categorical Exclusion. Relatedly, a few commenters believed it improper for our NEPA
documents to be draft rather than final documents during our comment period.
Our Response: The Service disagrees with the comment that we should prepare an EIS before proposing expanded hunting and fishing opportunities on refuges or hatcheries.
We completed individual EAs for, or applied categorical exclusions to, 89
refuges and hatcheries, in compliance with NEPA, to evaluate the impacts of opening or expanding hunting and fishing opportunities on the stations through this rulemaking. These EAs and categorical exclusions underwent regional and national review to address and consider these actions from a local, regional, multi-State, and/or flyway perspective, and to consider the cumulative impacts from this larger geographical context. The 20212022
cumulative impacts report concludes, after analyzing the collective impacts of all EAs and categorical exclusions prepared in connection with this rule, that the rule will not have significant impacts at the local, regional, or national level. The commenters who have raised these environmental analysis concerns have provided no additional information that would change this analysis or our conclusion.
As discussed above, we annually conduct management activities on refuges and hatcheries that minimize or offset impacts of hunting and fishing on physical and cultural resources, including establishing designated areas for hunting; restricting levels of use;
confining access and travel to designated locations; providing
E:FRFM31AUR2.SGM

31AUR2