Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2

48834

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 166 / Tuesday, August 31, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Our Response: This commenter has misinterpreted the quoted language from the rule. The proposed rules preamble states, we develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to opening it to hunting or sport fishing.
In many cases, we develop stationspecific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs with the purposes for which we established the refuge or hatchery and the Refuge and Hatchery System mission 86 FR
23794, May 4, 2021, p. 86 FR 23795.
This explains that management plans for many refuges call for promulgating station-specific regulations that ensure the compatibility of hunting and fishing programs with the purpose of the given refuge. As described in response to Comment 6, above, the appropriate State regulations set the default rules for hunting and sport fishing activities that are authorized on a refuge, but the Service often has to supplement these regulations with our own regulations to ensure compatibility. These are the regulations described as being needed in many cases and many such regulations are contained in this rule.
The proposed rules preamble goes on to state, 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 86 FR 23794, May 4, 2021, p. 86 FR 23795. This describes another step, separate from developing regulations, in the process of planning hunting and sport fishing activities on a refuge: making a compatibility determination based on the nature of the hunting or sport fishing activity under consideration and the purposes of the particular refuge. These compatibility determinations must be and are made for every activity at every station that offers hunting or sport fishing activities.
The phrase in many cases as used in the proposed rule is not grammatically tied to compatibility determinations and would never be used by the Service to describe compatibility determinations, as they are a necessary management step for all stations that offer wildlifedependent recreation.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a direct result of this comment.
Comment 22: One commenter argued that the proposed rule violates the Recreation Act in not curtailing public recreation, violates the Administration Act in not preserving biological integrity, and violates the Improvement Act in disrupting ecological processes.
Our Response: We disagree with the commenters statement that this rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014

20:40 Aug 30, 2021

Jkt 253001

violates the Recreation Act. The Recreation Act provides that the Secretary shall curtail public recreation use generally in order to ensure accomplishment of the primary purposes for which said conservation areas were acquired or established.
Thus, Congress delegated the responsibility of determining when to curtail all types of public recreation in the interest of the conservation purposes of each refuge to the Secretary of the Interior, and by extension to the Service.
We disagree with the commenters claim that the Recreation Act calls on the Secretary to curtail public recreation uses generally, especially when the later-enacted Administration Act and Improvement Act explicitly allow, and even prioritize, hunting and sport fishing on refuges. The commenters interpretation also goes against the spirit of the Recreation Act because this statute was meant to facilitate public use and enjoyment of conservation areas, like refuge system lands.
Moreover, there is nothing in this Act to indicate that, as the commenter implied, a recreational use must provide income to the Service or be necessary for wildlife management in order for the Secretary to authorize it.
We disagree with the commenters statement that this rule violates the Administration Act. The commenter is correct that the Secretary, and by extension the Service, must create regulations for hunting within the Refuge System that ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained. The commenter is incorrect in concluding that this rule violates this part of the Refuge system mission because the commenter fails to recognize that our compatibility determination, NEPA, ESA section 7, and cumulative impacts report processes and analyses take into full account both lead exposure risks and food chain impacts. From these analyses, we determine that our fishing and hunting activities comply with our BIDEH policies based upon the best available science and the professional judgment of Service employees.
The commenter first states that allowing lead shot for certain turkey hunts does not ensure biological integrity and environmental health.
Where our analysis and expertise indicate that lead presents a significant danger to biological integrity and environmental health, the use of lead is not allowed; the primary examples are that lead ammunition is prohibited for all waterfowl hunting on all refuges, and all lead is prohibited from NWRs in the State of California in order to protect the
PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

California condor. The potential for lead to threaten biological integrity and environmental health is a key part of the NEPA and ESA analyses that are conducted before the authorization of any hunting or sport fishing activity on a refuge for which lead ammunition or tackle is allowed. For more on the topic of the use of lead for hunting and fishing in the Refuge System, see our response to Comment 10, above.
The commenter next states that allowing the hunting of species at or near the top of the food chain in their given habitat does not ensure biological integrity because it would cause overpopulation of prey species lower on the food chain. While this rule does open or expand hunting of the specific species mentioned by the commenter pronghorn, sandhill crane, and black bear and other species atop or near the top of food chains, these hunts will not cause disruptive changes to population sizes of any species. Predators play a critical role in the integrity, diversity, and overall health of ecosystems, so before allowing predators to be hunted, a refuge 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 refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System, and in keeping with the refuges CCP and other step-down plans. Hunting that would cause too large a reduction in the population of any species or overpopulation of any species would not be authorized, including under this rule. For more on the topic of authorized hunting of predator species in the Refuge System, see our response to Comment 15, above.
We disagree with the commenters statement that this rule violates the Improvement Act. The commenter claims that the Improvement Act demands the conservation of ecological processes, but no such language appears in the Improvement Act. The Improvement Act states instead that the Secretary shall provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats within the Refuge System. Even though the notion of ecological processes is absent from the statute, the Service does always consider the health and genetic diversity of wildlife populations in administering hunting and sport fishing within the Refuge System. As already noted above, for any proposed hunting activity the refuge manager must ensure that it does not threaten the integrity, diversity, or health of the refuge ecosystem. The manager must also determine that the action is compatible
E:FRFM31AUR2.SGM

31AUR2