Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations with refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, and in keeping with the refuges CCP and other step-down plans. If hunting would not be a viable tool for a given population, because of genetic diversity concerns or otherwise, other methods of preventing overpopulation are employed. The example of hunting providing a benefit for managing deer populations that the Service provided online, and which the commenter cited, is only meant to illustrate a potential benefit from certain hunts, not that such a benefit is the only consideration when authorizing hunting. While hunting may be a part of a refuges population control strategies for certain species, the Service considers all effects of hunting e.g., impacts to genetic diversity and compatibility with conservation purposes before authorizing such an activity.
The commenter concludes that any hunting at all on refuges will disrupt ecological processes and should therefore not be allowed. While the Improvement Act does not include any discussion of ecological processes, it does, however, direct that the Secretary shall both recognize compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public uses of the Refuge System and ensure that opportunities are provided within the Refuge System for compatible wildlifedependent recreational uses. The Improvement Acts definition of wildlife-dependent recreational use includes a use of a refuge involving hunting among four other uses. Thus, the Service is actually directed by the statute to not only allow but to prioritize hunting on refuges whenever compatible with the conservation mission of the Refuge System.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of this comment.
Comment 23: We received two comments that touched on the proposed rules discussion of the economic impacts of the rule. One commenter argued that we must use a survey to determine how much non-consumptive, wildlife-dependent recreational use days might decrease because of this rule and include local economic impacts from a decrease in visitation from such users. The second commenter claimed that we must conduct a benefit-cost analysis for this rule and that it must include the cost to the Service to implement the rule and any loss of revenue from non-consumptive users.
Our Response: For the first comment, it is important to note that calculations of the local economic impacts are done for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. to support our determination that the rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:40 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule is not promulgated solely because of the estimated benefits to local economies; the hunting and sport fishing openings and expansions in the rule are promulgated because of the public recreational benefits they provide, which the Service does not quantify. The commenter is correct that non-consumptive users are an important user group at our refuges and hatcheries, and they do bring benefits to local economies. However, the commenters argument that we need to consider economic impacts of the rule on nonconsumptive users, and presumably that it would change our finding on the significance of the rules impact if we did, does not persuade us for two key reasons. First, if the impacts the commenter describes, lost revenue for local economies from fewer nonconsumptive use days at refuges and hatcheries, were to occur as a result of this rule, they would be offset by the increased revenues that we have calculated for the added hunting and fishing use days. This means that calculating both impacts, again assuming there in fact were lost nonconsumptive use days, could never result in a larger monetary impact estimate than could be calculated by only considering one or the other alone.
Thus, calculating net economic impacts from both user groups would not change the significance determination.
Second, calculating only the economic impact of the rules effects on non-consumptive users of the refuges would not likely result in a higher estimate of maximum nationwide economic impact because there are no expected significant effects on this user group, which means the estimated economic impacts would be virtually zero. As discussed above in our response to Comment 17, this rule is not expected to significantly impact non-consumptive users. None of the provisions in this rule regulate nonconsumptive uses of the refuge, and all openings and expansions of hunting and fishing are assessed for compatibility with non-consumptive uses. The Service has put in place many restrictions on hunting and fishing programs, including some added in response to comments on this rule, in order to ensure that we balance the various priority wildlife-dependent recreation uses on all refuges and hatcheries. We do not expect the rule to significantly affect non-consumptive use of the refuges and hatcheries.
Regarding the second comment, if a rulemaking is designated as a significant regulatory action under
PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

48835

E.O. 12866 by the Office of Management and Budgets OMBs Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs OIRA, then that rulemaking must, to the extent possible, include a detailed analysis of the benefits and costs of the action. OIRA determined that this rulemaking is not significant under E.O. 12866, so a detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of this action is not required. However, we provide our factual basis for certifying that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities below under Regulatory Flexibility Act. As earlier in this response, counting the revenue impacts to local economies from potential lost non-consumptive use days would not lead to finding a significant economic impact resulting from this rule. The same holds true for the costs of implementation, although in that case the reason it is expected to be a small monetary cost is that refuge managers evaluated their proposals prior to the publication of the May 4, 2021, proposed rule and ensured that the hunting and fishing openings and expansions in this rule can be administered with current budgets and staff, which are already used to operate various other programs on refuges.
Estimates of implementation costs can be found in stations EAs for those stations that have prepared an EA, and for those that have prepared a Categorical Exclusion document under NEPA the hunting and fishing activities covered are necessarily minor changes that will result in negligible implementation costs. In general, the costs attributable to the hunting and fishing openings and expansions specifically, in terms of both wages and infrastructure, will be negligible compared to the local economic benefits, as only a few staff are needed to administer a program for many hunters.
Finally, it is worth noting that, taking all of this together, it is almost certain that a benefit-cost analysis, pursuant to OMB Circular A4, would find the benefits of this rule exceed the costs. As explained, no cost is expected in the form of decreased non-consumptive use days and the signage, staffing, and other costs to the Service in administering the hunting and fishing opportunities is unlikely to be greater than the benefits to local economies adjacent to stations, even though those are expected to be no more than $1.4 million. This would be enough to expect benefits to exceed costs already, but this would not yet account for the recreational benefits of the hunting and sport fishing
E:FRFM31AUR2.SGM

31AUR2