Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

48828

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
laws, and best available science in making these decisions. Service biologists and wildlife professionals, in consultation with the State, determine the optimal number of each game animal that should reside in an ecosystem and then establish hunt parameters e.g., bag limits, sex ratios based on those analyses. We carefully consider how a proposed hunt fits with individual refuge goals, objectives, and strategies before allowing the hunt. The new or expanded hunting and/or fishing opportunities in this rule are not expected to individually or collectively result in significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to hunted populations of migratory birds and resident wildlife, nonhunted populations of migratory birds and resident wildlife, endangered and threatened species, habitat and plant resources, or other natural resources.
We analyzed these impacts not only in each refuges NEPA document and ESA
Section 7 document, but also in the 20212022 cumulative impacts report.
The Service does not collect population data at the national level, but is able to use State population data when analyzing the impacts at individual stations or within a State.
When determining the compatibility of an activity, Service policy 603 FW 2
directs station managers to utilize all available data in exercising their sound professional judgement in the decisionmaking process.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of these comments.
Comment 9: We received several comments that claimed the actions in the proposed rule would imperil threatened and endangered species.
Some of these comments pointed to concerns regarding the Florida Panther NWR in particular.
Our Response: In compliance with section 7 of the ESA, every station determined that their proposed actions either would have no effect or were not likely to adversely affect endangered and threatened species or designated critical habitat present at that station. The Service determined that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize any listed species, nor adversely modify its critical habitat; and that the proposed action was not likely to jeopardize any proposed or candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered. Furthermore, as described in our cumulative impacts report, because endangered and threatened species are usually highly localized, minor or negligible impacts on an endangered or threatened species at a local or even regional scale would likely
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:40 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

have no cumulative impact on national populations of those species. Thus, considering all impacts cumulatively for each individual threatened or endangered species, it is unlikely there will be any adverse impacts on such species, their habitats, or their recovery from these openings and expansions of hunting and sport fishing.
We do not allow hunting on a refuge if it is found incompatible with that individual refuges purposes or with the mission of the NWRS. In addition, the Services biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health BIDEH
policy 601 FW 3 guides decisionmaking with respect to management of activities on refuges, including hunting.
Service biologists and wildlife professionals, in consultation with the State, determine the optimal number of each game animal that should reside in an ecosystem and then establish hunt parameters e.g., bag limits, sex ratios based on those analyses. We carefully consider how a proposed hunt fits with individual refuge goals, objectives, and strategies before allowing the hunt.
None of the known, estimated, or projected harvests of migratory game birds, upland game, or big game species in this rulemaking is expected to have significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to hunted populations, non-hunted wildlife, endangered or threatened species, plant or habitat resources, wildlife-dependent recreation, prescribed fire, air, soil, water, cultural resources, refuge facilities, solitude, or socio-economics.
We analyze these impacts not only in each refuges NEPA document, but also in the 20212022 cumulative impacts report.
While there may be some minor, localized, and temporary short-term impacts to endangered and threatened species as a result of hunting or fishing activities, every station ensured that these impacts were minimized and, in many cases, offset them through a variety of management activities.
In response to the comments expressing concern specifically about Florida Panther NWR, the Service is opening three limited quota spring turkey hunts and fishing on a 19-acre pond on that refuge. Therefore, impacts on the endangered Florida panther Puma =Felis concolor coryi are expected to be negligible to minor due to the limited number of turkey hunting permits we will issue; the type, amount, and location of approved public access;
and the general locations of all proposed project activities e.g., highly disturbed areas impacted by human use before the refuge was established. As outlined in the environmental assessment section B

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

of the VSP, through the use of quota hunts, a sustainable harvest is expected.
A limited wild turkey hunt may be held during three weekends of the Florida spring turkey season, and only one bearded turkey may be harvested seasonally by permitted hunters. The refuge hunt will adopt Florida State regulations at nearby State wildlife management areas, and also add refugespecific regulations to ensure compatibility. Up to 25 permits on two quota weekend hunts i.e., 50 total permits and up to 10 family groups i.e., 20 total permits on the third weekend hunt may be issued annually.
However, Florida Panther NWR will monitor the turkey population and hunter access to allow for adaptive management in the number of permits issued annually. Also, no new roads or trails will be needed to accommodate hunting on the refuge. The use of existing roads and trails will accommodate turkey hunting. It is estimated that fewer than 70 hunters will access the refuge, and they will take fewer than 8 turkeys each season on the refuge. The local turkey population is expected to rebound seasonally, with no significant effects anticipated.
Rangewide, this slight increase in take is not expected to have a cumulative effect on the species.
In the ESA Section 7 analysis for Florida Panther NWR, we concluded, based on the best available science and professional judgment of refuge staff, that the hunting and fishing openings are not likely to adversely impact the Florida panther. We have described the turkey hunting activity above because it is the most likely source of any minor disturbances that occur for panthers on the refuge. In addition to the limits on turkey hunting detailed above, it is important to note that turkey is not a primary prey species for the Florida panther, so any temporary, minor change in the refuges turkey population should not affect panthers. Relatedly, even though panthers will sometimes prey on turkeys, because lead ammunition is prohibited for turkey hunting on the refuge there is no concern about lead exposure from panthers scavenging hunted turkeys or turkey gut piles. Well-managed hunt programs and other outdoor recreational activities do not conflict with the Services ability to recover the Florida panther or other Federal trust species on Florida Panther NWR. An example of this lack of conflict is evidenced by the fact that since conservation and especially genetic diversification efforts began in the 1990s the panther population has continued to increase
E:FRFM31AUR2.SGM

31AUR2