Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves, 64325-64344 [2015-26813]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• National Park Service

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64325-64344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26813]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 13

[NPS-AKRO-18755; PPAKAKROZ5, PPMPRLE1Y.L00000]
RIN 1024-AE21


Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Park Service is amending its regulations for 
sport hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska. This rule 
provides that the National Park Service does not adopt State of Alaska 
management actions or laws or regulations that authorize taking of 
wildlife, which are related to predator reduction efforts (as defined 
in this rule). This rule affirms current State prohibitions on harvest 
practices by adopting them as federal regulation. The rule also 
prohibits the following activities that are allowed under State law: 
Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with 
artificial light at den sites; taking brown bears and black bears over 
bait; taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season; harvest of 
swimming caribou or taking caribou from a motorboat while under power; 
and using dogs to hunt black bears. The rule also simplifies and 
updates procedures for closing an area or restricting an activity in 
National Park Service areas in Alaska; updates obsolete subsistence 
regulations; prohibits obstructing persons engaged in lawful hunting or 
trapping; and authorizes the use of native species as bait for fishing.

DATES: This rule is effective November 23, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andee Sears, Regional Law Enforcement 
Specialist, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 
99501. Phone (907) 644-3417. Email: AKR_Regulations@nps.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

Proposed Rule and Public Comment Period

    On September 4, 2014, the National Park Service (NPS) published the 
proposed rule in the Federal Register (79 FR 52595). The rule was open 
for public comment for 90 days, until December 3, 2014. The NPS 
reopened the comment period from January 15, 2015 through February 15, 
2015 (80 FR 2065). The NPS invited comments through the mail, hand 
delivery, and through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    During the first comment period in 2014, the NPS held 17 public 
hearings in various locations in Alaska. Approximately 168 individuals 
attended these hearings and approximately 120 participants provided 
testimony during the formal public comment sessions. During the second 
comment period, nine public meetings were held in the State. A total of 
29 individuals attended the public meetings, and a total of nine 
attendees spoke during the formal public comment sessions. The NPS also 
held two statewide government-to-government consultation 
teleconferences, and offered to consult in person, with tribes. Four 
comments were received during the statewide government-to-government 
consultation conference calls and the NPS met with three tribes that 
requested consultation in person (Allakaket, Tazlina, and Chesh'na 
(Chistochina)).
    The NPS received approximately 70,000 comments on the proposed rule 
during the public comment period. These included unique comment 
letters, form letters, and signed petitions. Approximately 65,000 
comments were form letters. The NPS also received three petitions with 
a combined total of approximately 75,000 signatures. Some commenters 
sent comments by multiple methods. NPS attempted to match such 
duplicates and count them as one comment. Additionally, many comments 
were signed by more than one person. NPS counted a letter or petition 
as a single comment, regardless of the number of signatories.
    A summary of comments and NPS responses is provided below in the 
section entitled ``Summary of and Responses to Public Comments.'' After 
considering the public comments and additional review, the NPS made 
some changes in the final rule from that proposed. These changes are 
summarized below in the section entitled ``Changes from the Proposed 
Rule.''

Federal and State Mandates for Managing Wildlife.

    In enacting the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
(ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 410hh-410hh-5; 3101-3233) in 1980, Congress's 
stated purpose was to establish in Alaska various conservation system 
units that contain nationally significant values, including units of 
the National Park System, in order to preserve them ``for the benefit, 
use, education, and inspiration of present and future generations[.]'' 
16 U.S.C. 3101(a). Included among the express purposes in ANILCA are 
preservation of wildlife, wilderness values, and natural undisturbed, 
unaltered ecosystems while allowing for recreational opportunities, 
including sport hunting. 16 U.S.C. 3101(a)-(b).
    The legislative history of ANILCA reinforces the purpose of the 
National Park System units to maintain natural, undisturbed ecosystems. 
``Certain units have been selected because they provide undisturbed 
natural laboratories--among them the Noatak, Charley, and Bremner River 
watersheds.'' Alaska National Interest Lands, Report of the Senate 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Report No. 96-413 at page 
137 [hereafter Senate Report]. Legislative history identifies Gates of 
the Artic, Denali, Katmai, and Glacier Bay National Parks as ``large 
sanctuaries where fish and wildlife may roam freely, developing their 
social structures and evolving over long periods of time as nearly as 
possible without the changes that extensive human activities would 
cause.'' Senate Report, at page 137.
    The congressional designation of ``national preserves'' in Alaska 
was for the specific and sole purpose of allowing sport hunting and 
commercial trapping, unlike areas designated as national parks. 126 
Cong. Rec. H10549 (Nov. 12, 1980) (Statement of Rep. Udall). 16 U.S.C. 
3201 directs that national preserves shall be managed ``in the same 
manner as a national park . . . except that the taking of fish and 
wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be 
allowed in a national preserve[.]'' Under ANILCA and as used in this 
document, the term ``subsistence'' refers to subsistence activities by 
rural Alaska residents authorized by Title VIII of ANILCA, which ANILCA 
identifies as the priority consumptive use of fish and

[[Page 64326]]

wildlife on public lands. 16 U.S.C. 3144. Subsistence taking of fish 
and wildlife in NPS areas is generally regulated by the Department of 
the Interior. Taking wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves 
is generally regulated by the State of Alaska.
    In addressing wildlife harvest, the legislative history provided 
``the Secretary shall manage National Park System units in Alaska to 
assure the optimum functioning of entire ecological systems in 
undisturbed natural habitats. The standard to be met in regulating the 
taking of fish and wildlife and trapping, is that the preeminent 
natural values of the Park System shall be protected in perpetuity, and 
shall not be jeopardized by human uses.'' 126 Cong. Rec. H10549 (Nov. 
12, 1980) (Statement of Rep. Udall). This is reflected in the statutory 
purposes of various national preserves that were established by ANILCA, 
which include the protection of populations of fish and wildlife, 
including specific references to predators such as brown/grizzly bears 
and wolves.
    Activities related to taking wildlife remain subject to other 
federal laws, including the mandate of the NPS Organic Act (54 U.S.C. 
100101) ``to conserve the scenery, natural and historic objects, and 
wild life'' in units of the National Park System and to provide for 
visitor enjoyment of the same for this and future generations. Policies 
implementing the NPS Organic Act require the NPS to protect natural 
ecosystems and processes, including the natural abundances, 
diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, 
populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife. NPS 
Management Policies 2006 Sec. Sec.  4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2. The 
legislative history of ANILCA reflects that Congress did not intend to 
modify the NPS Organic Act or its implementing policies in this 
respect: ``the Committee recognizes that the policies and legal 
authorities of the managing agencies will determine the nature and 
degree of management programs affecting ecological relationships, 
population's dynamics, and manipulations of the components of the 
ecosystem.'' Senate Report, at pages 232-331. NPS policy states that 
``activities to reduce . . . native species for the purpose of 
increasing numbers of harvested species (i.e. predator control)'' are 
not allowed on lands managed by the NPS. NPS Management Policies 2006 
Sec.  4.4.3.
    The State's legal framework for managing wildlife in Alaska is 
based on sustained yield, which is defined by State statute to mean 
``the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to 
support a high level of human harvest of game[.]'' AS Sec.  
16.05.255(k)(5). To that end, the Alaska Board of Game (BOG) is 
directed to ``adopt regulations to provide for intensive management 
programs to restore the abundance or productivity of identified big 
game prey populations as necessary to achieve human consumptive use 
goals[.]'' AS Sec.  16.05.255(e). Allowances that manipulate natural 
systems and processes to achieve these goals, including actions to 
reduce or increase wildlife populations for harvest, conflict with laws 
and policies applicable to NPS areas that require preserving natural 
wildlife populations. See, e.g., NPS Management Policies 2006 
Sec. Sec.  4.1, 4.4.3.
    This potential for conflict was recognized by the Senate Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources prior to the passage of ANILCA, when 
the Committee stated that ``[i]t is contrary to the National Park 
Service concept to manipulate habitat or populations to achieve maximum 
utilization of natural resources. Rather, the National Park System 
concept requires implementation of management policies which strive to 
maintain natural abundance, behavior, diversity and ecological 
integrity of native animals as part of their ecosystem, and that 
concept should be maintained.'' Senate Report, at page 171.
    In the last several years, the State of Alaska has allowed an 
increasing number of liberalized methods of hunting and trapping 
wildlife and extended seasons to increase opportunities to harvest 
predator species. Predator harvest practices recently authorized on 
lands in the State, including lands in several national preserves, 
include:
     Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, 
with artificial light at den sites;
     harvesting brown bears over bait (which often includes dog 
food, bacon/meat grease, donuts, and other human food sources); and
     taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the 
denning season when their pelts have little trophy, economic, or 
subsistence value.
    These practices are not consistent with the NPS's implementation of 
ANILCA's authorization of sport hunting and trapping in national 
preserves. To the extent such practices are intended or reasonably 
likely to manipulate wildlife populations for harvest purposes or alter 
natural wildlife behaviors, they are not consistent with NPS management 
policies implementing the NPS Organic Act or the sections of ANILCA 
that established the national preserves in Alaska. Additional 
liberalizations by the State that are inconsistent with NPS management 
directives, policies, and federal law are anticipated in the future.
    16 U.S.C. 3201 of ANILCA provides ``within national preserves the 
Secretary may designate zones where and periods when no hunting, 
fishing, trapping, or entry may be permitted for reasons of public 
safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and 
enjoyment.'' In order to comply with federal law and NPS policy, the 
NPS has adopted temporary restrictions under 36 CFR 13.40(e) to prevent 
the application of the above listed predator harvest practices to 
national preserves in Alaska (see, e.g., 2013 Superintendent's 
Compendium for Denali National Park and Preserve). These restrictions 
protect fauna and provide for public use and enjoyment consistent with 
ANILCA. While the NPS prefers a State solution to these conflicts, the 
State has been mostly unwilling to accommodate the different management 
directives for NPS areas. In the last ten years, the NPS has objected 
to more than fifty proposals to liberalize predator harvest in areas 
that included national preserves, and each time the BOG has been 
unwilling to exclude national preserves from State regulations designed 
to manipulate predator/prey dynamics for human consumptive use goals.
    In deciding not to treat NPS lands differently from State and other 
lands, the BOG suggested the NPS was responsible for ensuring that 
taking wildlife complies with federal laws and policies applicable to 
NPS areas, and that the NPS could use its own authority to ensure 
national preserves are managed in a manner consistent with federal law 
and NPS policy. See, e.g., Statement of BOG Chairman Judkins to 
Superintendent Dudgeon, BOG Public Meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska 
(February 27, 2010) (NPS was testifying in opposition to allowing the 
take of black bear cubs and sows with cubs with artificial light in 
national preserves). In the absence of State action excluding national 
preserves, this rulemaking is required to make the temporary 
restrictions permanent. 36 CFR 13.50(d). This rule responds to the 
BOG's suggestion by promulgating NPS regulations to ensure national 
preserves are managed consistent with federal law and policy and 
prevent historically prohibited sport hunting practices from being 
authorized in national preserves.
    The scope of this rule is limited--sport hunting and trapping are 
still allowed throughout national preserves and the vast majority of 
State hunting regulations are consistent with federal

[[Page 64327]]

law and policy and continue to apply in national preserves. This rule 
only restricts sport hunting and trapping in national preserves, which 
constitute less than six percent of the lands in Alaska open to 
hunting. This rule does not limit the taking of wildlife for Title VIII 
subsistence uses under the federal subsistence regulations.

Final Rule

Summary of Final Rule

    The rule separates regulations that govern the taking of fish and 
the taking of wildlife into two sections: 13.40 and 13.42, 
respectively. The rule makes the following substantive changes to 
existing NPS regulations:
    (1) In accordance with NPS policies, taking wildlife, hunting or 
trapping activities, or management actions involving predator reduction 
efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural 
predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes to 
increase harvest of ungulates by humans are not allowed on NPS-managed 
lands. It also explains how the NPS will notify the public of specific 
activities that are not consistent with this section.
    (2) Affirms current State prohibitions on harvest practices by 
adopting them as federal regulation, and also maintains historical 
prohibitions on certain practices that the State has recently 
authorized for sport hunting of predators: (i) Taking any black bear, 
including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; 
(ii) taking brown bears over bait; and (iii) taking wolves and coyotes 
during the denning season. The rule also eliminates exceptions to 
practices generally prohibited under State of Alaska law, thereby 
prohibiting: Taking caribou that are swimming, or from a motorboat that 
is under power, in two game management units (GMU); baiting black 
bears; and using dogs to hunt black bears.
    (3) Prohibits intentionally obstructing or hindering persons 
actively engaged in lawful hunting or trapping.
    (4) Updates and simplifies procedures for implementing closures or 
restrictions in park areas, including taking fish and wildlife for 
sport purposes.
    (5) Updates NPS regulations to reflect federal assumption of the 
management of subsistence hunting and fishing under Title VIII of 
ANILCA from the State in the 1990s.
    (6) Allows the use of native species as bait, commonly salmon eggs, 
for fishing in accordance with applicable federal and non-conflicting 
State law. This supersedes for park areas in Alaska the National Park 
System-wide prohibition on using certain types of bait in 36 CFR 
2.3(d)(2).

Prohibiting Predator Reduction

    Activities or management actions involving predator reduction 
efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural 
ecosystems or processes (including natural predator/prey dynamics, 
distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, 
genetics, or behavior of a species) are inconsistent with the laws and 
policies applicable to NPS areas. The rule clarifies in regulation that 
these activities are not allowed on NPS lands in Alaska. Under this 
rule, the Regional Director will compile a list updated at least 
annually of activities prohibited by this section of the rule. Notice 
will be provided in accordance with 36 CFR 13.50(f) of this rule.

Prohibiting Methods and Means of Taking Wildlife in National Preserves

    The rule codifies for national preserves current State prohibitions 
on harvest practices, and also maintains historical prohibitions on 
certain sport hunting practices that have been recently authorized by 
the State for taking predators. It also eliminates exceptions (as 
applied to national preserves) under State laws that authorize sport 
hunters to take swimming caribou, to take caribou from motorboats under 
power, to take black bears over bait, and to use dogs to hunt black 
bears. The elements of the rule that are described in this paragraph 
will not be implemented until January 1, 2016, to avoid any potential 
confusion that may arise from issuing this rule during the 2015 hunting 
seasons. Delaying the implementation of these provisions will give the 
general public and other stakeholders sufficient time to understand the 
new rules before the 2016 hunting seasons begin.

Prohibiting the Obstruction of Persons Engaged in Lawful Hunting or 
Trapping

    The rule prohibits the intentional obstruction or hindrance of 
another person's lawful hunting or trapping activities. This includes 
(i) placing oneself in a location in which human presence may alter the 
behavior of the game that another person is attempting to take or alter 
the imminent feasibility of taking game by another person; or (ii) 
creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus in order to 
alter the behavior of the game that another person is attempting to 
take. These actions are prohibited by State law, but this law is not 
adopted under the regulations for national preserves, because it does 
not directly regulate hunting and trapping. This rule directly codifies 
these prohibitions into the NPS regulations, to prevent the frustration 
of lawful hunting and trapping in national preserves.

Updating Closure and Restriction Procedures

    The rule updates and simplies the procedures for implementing 
closures and restrictions on certain activities in NPS areas in Alaska. 
These changes will make the procedures in Alaska more consistent with 
other NPS units outside of Alaska and with Alaska State Parks. The rule 
clarifies that Superintendents must use the procedures in Sec.  13.50 
to implement any closure or restriction in NPS areas in Alaska. This 
eliminates potential confusion about whether the procedures in Sec.  
13.50 apply only when they are referenced in a separate regulation in 
part 13 (currently found in the regulations for weapons, camping, and 
taking fish and wildlife), or whether they apply to all closures and 
restrictions in Alaska.
    The rule requires rulemaking for nonemergency closures or 
restrictions if the closures or restrictions (or the termination or 
relaxation of them) are of a nature, magnitude and duration that will 
result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of the 
area, adversely affect the area's natural, aesthetic, scenic or 
cultural values, or require a long-term or significant modification in 
the resource management objectives of the area. These rulemaking 
criteria are modeled after the the criteria that apply to closures and 
restrictions in Alaska State Parks (11 AAC 12.335), which are also 
similar to the criteria in 36 CFR 1.5(b) that apply to NPS areas 
outside of Alaska. Emergency closures and restrictions are limited to 
the duration of the emergency.
    Before a nonemergency closure or restriction can be implemented, 
the NPS must issue a written determination explaining the basis of the 
closure or restriction. The NPS will also compile in writing a list, 
updated annually, of all closures and restrictions (i.e., the 
compendium). The compendium and the written determinations of need will 
be posted on the NPS Web site and made available at park headquarters.
    With respect to nonemergency restrictions on taking of fish and 
wildlife in national preserves, the final rule requires an opportunity 
for public comment, including a public meeting near the affected NPS 
unit, before the action is taken. This rule recognizes that, although 
the internet has become

[[Page 64328]]

an effective method of communicating with the public, in-person public 
meetings may still be the most effective way to engage Alaskans, 
particularly those in rural areas. The rule also requires the NPS to 
consult with the State prior to adopting such closures and 
restrictions. Emergency closures or restrictions on the taking of fish 
or wildlife are limited to 60 days and may only be extended after 
consultation with the State and an opportunity for public comment, 
including a public meeting, near the affected NPS unit.
    The following table summarizes the changes from the proposed rule 
regarding procedures to implement closures or restrictions in Sec.  
13.50:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Proposed rule procedures              Final rule procedures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies only to closures pertaining to   Applies to all closures or
 weapons, camping, and taking of fish     restrictions except when more
 or wildlife.                             specific procedures apply in
                                          36 CFR part 13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Factors used to determine whether to close an area or restrict an
                                activity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Includes protecting the integrity of     Retains factors in existing
 naturally-functioning ecosystems as an   regulations at 13.50.
 appropriate reason for a closure or
 restriction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Written determinations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not required...........................  Requires a written
                                          determination explaining the
                                          reason for the proposed
                                          closure/restriction in
                                          nonemergency situations. This
                                          determination will be posted
                                          on www.nps.gov.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Emergency Closures or Restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May not exceed 60 days.................  Duration of the emergency,
                                          except for emergency closures
                                          or restrictions on taking fish
                                          or wildlife, which may not
                                          exceed 60 days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Restrictions on Taking Fish or Wildlife (nonemergency)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consultation with the State and          Consultation with the State and
 opportunity for public comment prior     opportunity for public
 to adopting a closure or restriction.    comment, including one or more
                                          public meetings near the
                                          affected NPS unit, prior to
                                          implementing a closure or
                                          restriction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Closures or restrictions will be         Some closures or restrictions
 effective upon publication on park       will be effective upon
 website.                                 publication on park websites,
                                          but other closures or
                                          restrictions may be posted on
                                          a park website prior to taking
                                          effect, to give the public
                                          adequate time to understand
                                          and comply with them. A list
                                          of closures and restrictions
                                          will be compiled in writing
                                          and updated annually, and will
                                          be posted on the park
                                          websites.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update Subsistence Regulations to Reflect Federal Management

    The rule updates the subsistence provisions in NPS regulations (36 
CFR 13.470, 13.480, and 13.490) to reflect the federal government's 
assumption of the management and regulation of subsistence take of fish 
and wildlife under ANILCA and the transfer of subsistence management 
under Title VIII from the State to the Federal Subsistence Board. The 
rule makes other non-substantive, editorial changes to the language in 
36 CFR 13.490 to streamline, clarify, and better organize this section.

Allowing the Use of Native Species as Bait for Fishing

    NPS regulations generally prohibit the use of many forms of bait 
for fishing to help protect against the spread of nonnative species. 
Fish eggs from native species (usually salmon), are commonly used for 
fishing in Alaska. This rule allows the use of local native species as 
bait for fishing.

Frequently Asked Questions

    This section explains some of the principal elements of the rule in 
a question and answer format.

Why is this rule necessary?

    The rule responds to State hunting regulations that authorize 
wildlife harvest practices that conflict with ANILCA's authorization 
for sport hunting, the statutory purposes for which national preserves 
were established, and the NPS Organic Act as implemented by the NPS. 
These include liberalized predator harvest seasons, bear baiting, and 
the harvest of caribou while swimming. National park areas are managed 
for natural ecosystems and processes, including wildlife populations. 
The NPS legal and policy framework prohibits reducing native predators 
for the purpose of increasing numbers of harvested species.
    As discussed above, the rule also responds to a number of other 
regulatory needs, by updating and streamlining closure procedures, 
updating subsistence provisions to reflect the program's actual 
management, prohibiting interference with lawful hunting consistent 
with State law, and allowing use of native species as bait for fishing.

Does this rule restrict subsistence harvest of wildlife under Title 
VIII of ANILCA?

    No.

Does this rule prohibit all hunting under State regulations on national 
preserves in Alaska?

    No. This rule restricts certain methods of harvest currently 
allowed on national preserves by the State of Alaska under its general 
hunting regulations. These include the taking of any black bear, 
including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites, 
taking

[[Page 64329]]

brown and black bears over bait, taking wolves and coyotes between May 
1 and August 9, harvest of swimming caribou or taking caribou from a 
motorboat while under power, and using dogs to hunt black bears. 
Additionally, State laws or regulations involving predator reduction 
efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural 
predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes to 
increase harvest of ungulates by humans will not apply in national 
preserves, pursuant to this rule. These restrictions will affect a very 
small percentage of hunting practices authorized by State regulation 
and less than six percent of the lands in Alaska that are open to 
hunting.

What regulations apply to hunting and trapping in national preserves?

    Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) applies to sport 
hunting and trapping in national preserves. State harvest laws and 
regulations (Alaska Statute Title 16 and Alaska Administrative Code 
Title 5 AAC) that are consistent with 36 CFR also apply on national 
preserves. ANILCA Title VIII subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife 
by Federally-qualified rural residents is authorized in national 
preserves in Alaska under 36 CFR part 13 and 50 CFR part 100. Please 
contact the park chief ranger for additional information or assistance.

Do I still have to use the State regulations book when hunting on 
national preserves?

    Yes. State hunting regulations apply to national preserves except 
when in conflict with federal regulation. Please contact the park chief 
ranger for additional information or assistance.

Does this rule restrict intensive management of predators on NPS lands?

    Yes. Consistent with NPS Management Policies 2006, the NPS Organic 
Act, and the statutory purposes for which national preserves were 
established, this rule prohibits predator reduction activities on 
national preserves that have the intent or potential to alter or 
manipulate natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural 
ecological processes to increase harvest of ungulates by humans.

What is the authority for the NPS to restrict hunting and trapping in 
this rule?

    The NPS Organic Act authorizes the NPS to promulgate regulations 
that are necessary and proper for the use and management of National 
Park System units, including national preserves in Alaska, for the 
purpose of conserving the wild life and providing for the enjoyment of 
the wild life in such manner and by such means as will leave them 
unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 54 U.S.C. 100101(a) 
and 100751. ANILCA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
through the NPS, to promulgate regulations prescribing restrictions 
relating to hunting, fishing, or trapping for reasons of public safety, 
administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and 
enjoyment. 16 U.S.C. 3201 and 3202.

The rule says that State laws or management actions involving predator 
reduction are not adopted in national preserves. How will I know if a 
State law involves predator reduction?

    The Regional Director will compile a list updated at least annually 
of State laws and regulations that are not adopted in national 
preserves. This list will be posted at www.nps.gov and available upon 
request at NPS park headquarters.

I live in a nonrural area and hunt under State subsistence regulations. 
Does this rule restrict my subsistence harvest practices?

    Title VIII of ANILCA limits subsistence activities to local rural 
residents. This rule does not restrict federally-qualified subsistence 
users who are hunting in accordance with federal subsistence 
regulations. But those persons living in nonrural areas (who therefore 
are not federally-qualified subsistence users) must comply with the 
restrictions in this rule. For example, only federally qualified 
subsistence users hunting under federal subsistence regulations will be 
able to take swimming caribou within national preserves, for all others 
this practice will now be prohibited in national preserves.

How is hunting on national preserves different than hunting on State 
land?

    Hunting in national preserves is different than on State (or 
private) lands because NPS regulations also apply and govern in the 
event of a conflict with State law or regulation. However, harvest 
opportunities and practices in national preserves vary little from 
practices allowed under State law, except for some very specific 
circumstances for which where the NPS has issued regulations. For 
example, same-day airborne hunting of big game animals, arctic fox, red 
fox, and lynx has not been allowed on NPS lands since 1995. This rule 
adds several additional NPS regulations prohibiting the following 
harvest practices that are allowed under State law: (1) Taking any 
black bear, including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at 
den sites, (2) taking brown bears and black bears over bait, (3) taking 
wolves and coyotes from May 1 through August 9, (4) harvest of swimming 
caribou and harvest of caribou from a moving motorboat by those other 
than local rural residents in those portions of Noatak, Gates of the 
Arctic, and Bering Land Bridge Preserves that are within GMUs 23 and 
26, and (5) using dogs to hunt black bears.

Black bear baiting has been allowed for more than three decades. Why is 
the NPS prohibiting it now?

    The NPS proposed prohibiting the harvest of brown bears over bait 
to avoid public safety issues, to avoid food-conditioning bears and 
other species, and to maintain natural bear behavior as required by NPS 
law and policy. Other land and wildlife management agencies strive to 
eliminate the feeding of bears through individual and collective 
educational efforts due to the increased likelihood that food-
conditioned bears will be killed by agency personnel or the public in 
defense of life or property. Food-conditioned bears are also believed 
more likely to cause human injury. Baiting tends to occur in accessible 
areas used by multiple user groups, which contributes to the public 
safety concerns associated with baiting. The concerns presented with 
taking brown bears over bait also apply to black bear baiting. After 
reviewing public comment, the final rule prohibits taking both black 
bears and brown bears over bait in national preserves.

Why is the NPS prohibiting the take of swimming caribou by individuals 
who are not federally qualified subsistence users?

    Taking swimming big game is already generally prohibited by State 
law, but there are exceptions in State law for the take of swimming 
caribou in GMUs 23 and 26, which include portions of Noatak, Bering 
Land Bridge, and Gates of the Arctic National Preserves. This method of 
harvest remains available to federally qualified subsistence users in 
their pursuit of food. However, as is further explained below, this 
method is one of those that NPS has found is not consistent with 
ANILCA's authorization for sport hunting in national preserves.

Does this rule impact fishing in NPS units in Alaska?

    Yes. This rule allows federally qualified subsistence users to use 
native species as bait for fishing in accordance with federal 
subsistence regulations.

[[Page 64330]]

Others will also be able to use native species for bait when such use 
is in accordance with non-conflicting State fishing regulations.

What procedures must the NPS follow to adopt closures and restrictions 
in NPS units in Alaska?

    The procedures in 36 CFR 13.50 apply to all closures and 
restrictions in NPS units in Alaska, unless there are more specific 
procedures stated elsewhere in law or regulation. For example, the 
following regulations have specific procedures:
     Unattended or abandoned property, 36 CFR 13.45
     Use of snowmobiles, motorboats, dog teams, and other means 
of surface transportation traditionally employed by local rural 
residents engaged in subsistence uses, 36 CFR 13.460
     Subsistence use of timber and plant material, 36 CFR 
13.485
     Closure to subsistence uses of fish and wildlife, 36 CFR 
13.490

What closures or restrictions will require notice and comment 
rulemaking that is published in the Federal Register?

    Any nonemergency closure or restriction, or the termination or 
relaxation of such, which is of a nature, magnitude, and duration that 
will result in a significant alteration in the public use pattern of 
the area; adversely affect the area's natural, aesthetic, scenic, or 
cultural values; or require a long-term modification in the resource 
management objectives of the area.

Doesn't ANILCA require public hearings prior to adopting closures or 
restrictions?

    Public hearings near the affected vicinity are required before 
restricting: (1) Subsistence harvest of fish or wildlife under Title 
VIII of ANILCA or (2) access authorized under 16 U.S.C. 3170 (a) of 
ANILCA. There is no statutory requirement for a public hearing for 
other types of closures or restrictions.

Did the NPS eliminate a requirement for public hearings in the affected 
areas before adopting closures or restrictions relating to the take of 
fish and wildlife?

    The proposed rule included a requirement to provide an opportunity 
for public comment on potential restrictions to taking fish or 
wildlife. Public comment may include written comments, a public 
meeting, a public hearing, or a combination thereof. Based upon public 
comment and to be more consistent with the practices of the BOG and the 
Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS modified the proposed rule to 
provide that the opportunity for comment must include at least one 
public meeting near the affected NPS unit in nonemergency situations. 
This is a change from the existing regulations, which require a public 
hearing. Requiring a ``meeting'' instead of a ``hearing'' provides more 
flexibility on how the event is structured. During the public hearings 
conducted in 2014, the NPS received feedback that some local 
communities prefer a less formal approach and more opportunities for 
dialog with NPS managers. The NPS believes the term ``meeting'' more 
appropriately describes this type of informational exchange. The NPS 
also believes the term public meeting is broad enough to include a 
public hearing if that is more appropriate for the area.

Where can I find information about closures and restrictions?

    Information about closures and restrictions is posted on each 
park's Web site at www.nps.gov. This information is also available upon 
request at NPS park headquarters.

Why did the NPS delete the references to State law in the subsistence 
regulations?

    The NPS deleted the provisions adopting non-conflicting State law 
because the State no longer manages subsistence harvest under Title 
VIII of ANILCA. Subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife on federal 
public lands is generally regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board.

Is the NPS required to consult with the State prior to adopting 
closures or restrictions to taking fish or wildlife?

    Yes, except in the case of emergencies.

Is the NPS required to consult with tribes and ANCSA Native 
Corporations?

    Yes, the NPS is required to consult with tribes if an NPS action 
would have a substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian 
tribes. Consultation with ANCSA Native Corporations is required if an 
NPS action would have a substantial direct effect on ANCSA Native 
Corporation lands, waters, or interests.

Is the NPS required to consult with affected user groups, such as 
Regional Advisory Committees, Subsistence Resource Commissions, hunting 
organizations, or other nongovernmental organizations?

    While this kind of consultation is not required by law, the NPS 
regards the input from these advisory and other groups as invaluable. 
The NPS encourages these groups to engage with park managers on topics 
of interest. The NPS also invites and encourages these committees and 
groups to provide input on decisions affecting public use of NPS 
managed lands as outlined in this final rule.

Summary of and Responses to Public Comments

    A summary of substantive comments and NPS responses is provided 
below followed by a table that sets out changes we have made to the 
proposed rule based on the analysis of the comments and other 
considerations.

Consultation

    1. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS did not adequately 
consult with the State of Alaska prior to publishing the proposed rule 
and in doing so, acted inconsistently with ANILCA, the Master 
Memorandum of Understanding between the NPS and the Alaska Department 
of Fish and Game (ADF&G), and Executive Order 12866.
    NPS Response: The NPS respects its responsibility to consult with 
the State (and others) regarding NPS actions, especially given that 
wildlife management in NPS units is a responsibility that is shared 
between the NPS and the State. Publication of the proposed rule 
provided an opportunity for consultation between the NPS and the State. 
The NPS and the ADF&G met shortly after the publication of the proposed 
rule, which is consistent with ANILCA's consultation requirement. 16 
U.S.C. 3201. The NPS has engaged in ongoing communications with the 
ADF&G, the BOG, the State of Alaska ANILCA Implementation Program, and 
the State of Alaska Citizen's Advisory Commission on Federal Areas for 
a number of years regarding the issues that this rule addresses.
    Executive Order 12866 requires federal agencies to ``seek views of 
appropriate State, local, and tribal governments before imposing 
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect 
those governmental entities.'' Sec. 1(b)(9). As discussed below, the 
Office of Management and Budget determined this rule is not a 
significant regulatory action subject to this requirement. Regardless, 
the NPS invited the views of State, local, and tribal governments 
before publishing this final rule, and also complied with its 
responsibilities under section 4 of the Executive Order by including 
the proposed rule in the Unified Regulatory Agenda that was published 
by the Office of Management and Budget on reginfo.gov.

[[Page 64331]]

    The NPS signed and implemented the Master Memorandum of 
Understanding (MMOU) with the ADF&G in 1982. The MMOU states that the 
ADF&G will manage wildlife on NPS managed lands for natural species 
diversity and natural process. The NPS agreed to recognize ADF&G as 
having the primary responsibility to manage wildlife on lands in the 
State and utilize the State's regulatory process to the maximum extent 
possible. Both agencies agreed to coordinate planning to minimize 
conflicts from differing legal mandates and consult with each other 
when developing regulations. The NPS continues to recognize the State 
as having primary responsibility to manage fish and wildlife on lands 
in the State. However, the State's responsibility is not exclusive and 
it does not preclude federal regulation of wildlife on federal public 
lands, as is well-established in the courts and specifically stated in 
ANILCA. The NPS also attempted to utilize the State regulatory process 
to notify the BOG when proposals created a conflict with NPS laws, 
regulations, and policies, years before the publication of the proposed 
rule. During this time NPS requested that the conflicts be resolved, as 
a first resort, through the State regulatory process. Only after 
conflicts could not be resolved through that process, and the BOG 
suggested the NPS could use its own authority to meet is mandates for 
managing wildlife, did the NPS consider modifications to federal 
regulations to resolve the conflicts.
    2. Comment: Some commenters stated that the NPS did not adequately 
consult with tribes, various advisory committees, and rural residents 
prior to publishing the proposed rule.
    NPS Response: NPS has an obligation to consult with tribes prior to 
making a decision that would have a substantial direct effect on 
federally-recognized tribes. Even though the NPS determined that the 
proposed rule would not have a substantial direct effect on tribes, the 
NPS initiated consultation shortly after publication of the proposed 
rule. The NPS emailed a letter to tribes inviting them to consult and 
notifying them of two statewide conference calls dedicated to tribal 
consultation in the fall of 2014. No one provided comments or asked 
questions during the first call. On the second call, four individuals 
who serve as members of tribal councils provided comments. Park 
managers also contacted tribes with ties to the park areas by phone, 
email, and letter to invite them to consult. NPS met in person with 
three tribes that requested additional consultation. The NPS also 
provided information to affected Subsistence Resource Commissions and 
Regional Advisory Councils beginning when the first temporary wildlife 
harvest restrictions were considered in 2010, and provided periodic 
updates throughout the process. Since these harvest restrictions were 
first proposed, the NPS stated its intention to initiate rulemaking and 
solicited public comment on these provisions. After the proposed rule 
was published, the NPS provided 121 days for written comment, met with 
and provided information to multiple groups, and held an additional 26 
public hearings across the State, in rural locations near affected 
units as well as Anchorage, Fairbanks, Palmer, and Soldotna.
    3. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS did not respond to 
comments and questions from the State of Alaska on the temporary 
wildlife harvest restrictions that were included in the proposed rule, 
which might have enabled the State to take action that would make the 
proposed harvest restrictions unnecessary. Commenters also suggested 
the NPS work with the State of Alaska collaboratively to address the 
wildlife harvest issues in this rule.
    NPS Response: The NPS would have preferred a collaborative approach 
with a solution in State law or regulation rather than federal 
regulation. To that end, the NPS has testified before the Board of Game 
many times, requested the Board of Game take specific regulatory action 
to address NPS concerns, met with ADF&G, provided explanations for the 
restrictions in writing, and responded to comments in the annual park 
compendiums. The NPS acknowledges the State requested scientific data 
to support the temporary restrictions on taking black bears, including 
cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites, taking 
brown bears over bait, and prohibiting the take of wolves and coyotes 
during the summer months. However, neither the temporary restrictions 
nor this rule are based on particular wildlife population levels, and 
do not require the preparation of such scientific data. The basis of 
the compendium provisions, as well as the rule, is the NPS legal and 
policy framework, which has been communicated verbally and in writing 
several times.

Process for Publishing the Proposed Rule

    4. Comment: Several comments stated that the NPS should give more 
weight to comments on the proposed rule from Alaskans than other 
members of the public. Another comment urged the NPS to increase 
cooperation and dialogue with rural Alaskans. Others expressed concern 
that the NPS is not considering public comments when developing the 
final rule, and did not adequately respond to public comments delivered 
at public meetings.
    NPS Response: The NPS agrees that it will continue to strive to 
increase cooperation and dialogue with rural Alaskans, many of whom 
live near the national preserves and may be affected by this rule. 
After consideration of public comments on the proposed rule, the NPS 
has included a provision in the final rule requiring it hold one or 
more public meetings near the affected NPS unit before implementing any 
non-emergency closure or restriction on the sport take of fish or 
wildlife in national preserves.
    During the comment periods for the proposed rule, the NPS held 26 
public hearings in Alaska in an effort to solicit the opinions and 
comments of Alaskans. The NPS has considered all relevant comments it 
received on the proposed rule, including those from rural Alaskans and 
those delivered at public meetings. The NPS considers each comment 
based upon its substantive content, and does not give greater weight to 
any comment based upon the residence of the commenter. This is also 
consistent with the statutory purpose for establishing the national 
preserves in Alaska for the benefit, use, education, and inspiration of 
present and future generations of all Americans.
    5. Comment: Some comments stated that the NPS did not provide the 
public with sufficient time to review and comment on the proposed rule. 
Other comments felt that the NPS should not be allowed to make changes 
to the proposed rule without allowing the public to review and comment 
on those changes.
    NPS Response: The policy of the U.S. Department of the Interior is 
ordinarily to provide at least 60 days for public comment on any 
proposed rule that is published in the Federal Register. Due to the 
anticipated interest in this rule, the NPS provided an initial comment 
period of 90 days so that the public would have additional time to 
consider the proposal and submit timely comments. After the initial 90-
day comment period expired, the NPS received several requests to reopen 
the comment period to give the public more time to review and prepare 
comments. Acknowledging the interest in this rule, the NPS agreed with 
these requests and reopened the comment period for an additional 31 
days. In total, the NPS provided the public with 121 days to review and 
comment on the proposed rule, and appreciates the thoughtful

[[Page 64332]]

consideration and responses it received. The NPS believes that the 
length of the combined public comment period was adequate and does not 
intend to reopen, for a second time, the public comment period.
    After considering public comments and after additional review, the 
NPS made certain changes to the proposed rule, which are described in 
the section below entitled ``Changes from the Proposed Rule.'' The 
changes are a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule, and were 
reasonably foreseeable by the public when the proposed rule was 
published. For example, the NPS specifically requested comment on 
taking black bears over bait in the proposed rule. This notified the 
public that the proposed rule could change with respect to this issue 
after consideration of public comment. Other changes to the proposed 
rule, such as requiring a public meeting before adopting a closure or 
restriction for taking wildlife, are consistent with the existing 
regulations at 36 CFR 13.50.

Comments on Guiding Laws and Regulations

    6. Comment: Some commenters stated that NPS does not have the 
authority to supersede State wildlife regulations, while others 
requested the NPS clarify its authority to preempt conflicting State 
regulations under the Property and Supremacy Clauses of the 
Constitution.
    NPS Response: Under the Property and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. 
Constitution, State wildlife laws that conflict with NPS's efforts to 
carry out its statutory mandate are preempted. See, e.g. Kleppe v. New 
Mexico, 426 U.S. 529 (1976); Hunt v. United States, 278 U.S. 96 (1928); 
New Mexico State Game Comm'n v. Udall, 410 F.2d 1197 (10th Cir.), cert. 
denied, New Mexico State Game Comm'n v. Hickel, 396 U.S. 961 (1969); 
United States v. Brown, 552 F.2d 817 (8th Cir. 1977). Certain State-
authorized hunting and trapping practices are not consistent with the 
NPS implementation of the NPS Organic Act and ANILCA. Consequently, the 
final rule is an appropriate exercise of the authority affirmed by the 
cases cited above.
    7. Comment: Several commenters questioned how any take of wildlife 
on national preserve lands is permissible when regulations that may 
``alter the natural predator/prey dynamics, distribution, densities, 
age-class distributions, populations, genetics or behavior of a 
species'' are interpreted as being incompatible with the laws and 
policies of the National Park Service.
    NPS Response: ANILCA provides for harvest of wildlife in national 
preserves. Therefore some level of take is appropriate and compatible 
with the NPS legal and policy framework for Alaska national preserves. 
This rule does not prohibit all State-authorized hunting and trapping. 
The vast majority of State regulations are, and are expected to remain, 
compatible with the NPS management framework. Over the past several 
decades, only a handful of State regulations have been superseded by 
NPS regulations.
    The NPS believes that the standard in the rule is a workable and 
limited standard that satisfies our legal and policy framework and does 
not include all actions that result in the harvest of wildlife. This 
rule provides that the NPS does not adopt State management actions or 
laws or regulations that authorize taking of wildlife, which are 
related to predator reduction efforts, meaning that they have the 
intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural predator-prey 
dynamics and associated natural ecological processes, in order to 
increase harvest of ungulates by humans. The NPS acknowledges that the 
public would benefit from greater clarity as to exactly which State 
laws and regulations are not adopted by the NPS. As a result, the rule 
requires the Regional Director to publish at least annually a list of 
all such laws and regulations not adopted in national preserves.

General Comments

    8. Comment: Some commenters objected to the NPS description that 
some of the harvest practices, such as taking swimming caribou and 
hunting caribou from a motorboat while under power, are ``longstanding 
prohibited.''
    NPS Response: The harvest methods prohibited by this rule stem from 
general hunting and trapping restrictions in State law and regulation, 
some of which have been relaxed in recent years in response to 
proposals to the BOG. Some of these proposals to relax hunting and 
trapping restrictions were adopted in whole or in part to reduce 
predators. Three of these proposals removed longstanding prohibitions 
on harvest methods. In response, the NPS prohibited these methods on a 
temporary basis: (1) Taking any black bear, including cubs and sows 
with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; (2) taking brown bears 
over bait; and (3) taking wolves and coyotes during the summer months. 
This rule makes the temporary restrictions permanent. This rule also 
prohibits some additional practices that the NPS acknowledges were not 
historically prohibited. These practices, however, existed only as 
exceptions to general prohibitions in State law: (1) Taking swimming 
caribou or taking caribou from a motorboat while under power, in GMUs 
23 and 26; (2) black bear baiting; and (3) using dogs to hunt black 
bears. For the reasons explained herein, NPS believes these practices 
should also now be prohibited in national preserves.
    9. Comment: Some comments stated that the hunting methods that 
would be prohibited by the proposed rule were not intended to reduce 
predators but were allowed by the BOG based on requests from the 
Alaskans for additional harvest opportunity or to authorize traditional 
practices. Other comments stated the NPS proposed rule would prefer 
predators over ungulates. Others supported the proposed rule because it 
would prohibit harvest practices designed to reduce predators, which is 
inconsistent with NPS laws.
    NPS Response: The NPS acknowledges many of the harvest practices 
recently authorized by the State were based in whole or in part on 
proposals from Alaskan hunters, some of whom may also be federally-
qualified subsistence users. However, the record shows some of these 
proposals and the decisions to act on them were based wholly or in part 
on a desire to reduce predator populations, and often far in excess of 
any previous authorizations. Before the BOG authorized taking cubs and 
sows with cubs at den sites, it had only allowed this activity as part 
of a predator control program. (Findings of the Alaska Board of Game 
2012-194-BOG, Board of Game Bear Conservation, Harvest, and Management 
Policy, expiration June 30, 2016 (January 18, 2012)). The State's 
decision to expand wolf and coyote seasons was based in part on a 
desire to elevate survival rates of moose and caribou calves.
    As explained in the background section of this rule, NPS management 
policies prohibit the manipulation of wildlife populations, and require 
the NPS to protect natural abundances, distributions, densities, and 
populations of wildlife. This rule does not favor predators over 
ungulates, which would also violate NPS management policies. The rule 
is primarily focused on the take of predators because the allowances 
implemented by the State target predators, not ungulates. Even in these 
circumstances, the rule is consistent with NPS policy to allow for the 
fluctuation of natural populations of all species in national 
preserves, by prohibiting the purposeful decrease of predator 
populations to achieve (or attempt) an increase of ungulate populations 
to benefit hunters.
    10. Comment: One commenter stated the NPS misinterpreted the State

[[Page 64333]]

sustained yield mandate in the proposed rule and requested the NPS 
clarify the State's statutory definition to make it clear the State has 
authority to manage for a variety of beneficial uses of wildlife rather 
than only to support a high level of human harvest of wildlife.
    NPS Response: NPS acknowledges that the State may have broader 
authorities and goals, but in general, interpretation and clarification 
of State law is a matter for the State. This rule ensures that taking 
of wildlife in national preserves is consistent with federal laws and 
NPS policies that require the NPS to manage national preserves for 
natural processes.
    11. Comment: Several commenters directly or indirectly commented on 
State-authorized subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. Some 
commenters suggested ANILCA authorizes State subsistence separate from 
Title VIII subsistence. Some comments stated the proposed rule 
restricts subsistence uses by Alaska Natives. Some commenters stated 
that federally qualified subsistence users often prefer to harvest 
wildlife under State regulations because the State regulations are more 
liberal than federal subsistence regulations and the Federal 
Subsistence Board regulatory process is cumbersome and takes too long. 
Conversely, some subsistence hunters voiced support for the proposed 
regulations as they do not consider some of the methods prohibited by 
this rule to be traditional or consistent with natural processes and 
population dynamics.
    NPS Response: ANILCA, 16 U.S.C. 3201, states that national 
preserves shall be managed ``in the same manner as a national park . . 
. except that the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and 
subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national 
preserve[.]'' Under ANILCA and in this rule, the term ``subsistence'' 
refers only to subsistence activities authorized by Title VIII of 
ANILCA, which must comply with the federal subsistence regulations 
(among other things, they are restricted to rural Alaska residents). 
ANILCA did not authorize any separate State subsistence activities. 
Take of wildlife is authorized in national preserves only to the extent 
it is consistent with either the federal subsistence regulations or 
with regulations applicable to taking of wildlife for ``sport 
purposes.''
    The NPS acknowledges that some rural residents eligible to harvest 
wildlife under federal subsistence regulations in NPS units also 
harvest wildlife under State regulations in national preserves, 
particularly when the State methods, seasons, and bag limits are more 
liberal. To the extent that this harvest does not conflict with NPS 
regulations applicable to sport hunting, these opportunities are 
preserved. Any changes to federal subsistence regulations should be 
proposed to the Federal Subsistence Board.
    12. Comment: Some commenters objected to the use of the term 
``sport hunting'' in the proposed rule as offensive and inaccurate in 
certain cases such as when a federal subsistence user moves out of the 
area and is no longer eligible to harvest under federal subsistence 
regulations.
    NPS Response: The NPS understands that some hunters who harvest 
wildlife under State regulations are not hunting for recreation or 
``sport.'' Sometimes individuals who are harvesting under State 
regulations were once rural residents but are no longer federally 
qualified subsistence users. However, Congress used the term ``sport 
purposes'' in ANILCA and it would be inappropriate for the NPS to allow 
harvest that is neither for ``subsistence purposes'' nor for ``sport 
purposes'' under 16 U.S.C. 3201.
    13. Comment: Some commenters supported the prohibition on the 
methods of take in the proposed rule because they are unsporting or 
unethical; others stated the NPS should not regulate ethics regarding 
wildlife harvest.
    NPS Response: Although the term ``sport'' is not defined in ANILCA, 
each term in a statute is presumed to have meaning. Sportsmanship in 
hunting has more than a hundred years of tradition and meaning in the 
conservation movement in America. See John F. Reiger, American 
Sportsmen and the Origin of Conservation (Winchester Press 1975). When 
methods of harvest go beyond traditionally accepted norms of ``sport'' 
in hunting, they may fall outside of what Congress intended when it 
authorized hunting in statutes like ANILCA. In some such cases, NPS 
believes regulations may be needed to curtail these activities that 
were never intended to occur in units of the National Park System. Such 
situations historically have been rare. Except for the prohibition of 
same-day airborne hunting in 1995, the NPS has not restricted the 
practices authorized by the State through federal rulemaking published 
in the CFR. There has, however, been a departure in recent years by the 
BOG, which has sought to advance the goals of increasing harvested 
species by targeting predators. In order to comply with federal law and 
NPS policy, these recent allowances have been prohibited by the NPS in 
national preserves on a temporary basis through compendium actions, and 
are now permanently prohibited by this rule.
    The NPS also recognizes that some practices that are being 
prohibited for ``sport'' hunters may be appropriate for subsistence 
users. An example of this is taking swimming caribou. On NPS lands, the 
take of swimming caribou for subsistence is allowed in accordance with 
federal subsistence regulations, but it is not appropriate as a 
``sport'' hunting practice on waters within national preserves.
    14. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule would 
prohibit Alaska residents from participating in State subsistence 
fisheries.
    NPS Response: This rule makes no changes to fishing regulations 
other than allowing the use of native species as bait for fishing. 
Fishing in NPS units under federal subsistence regulations must be in 
accordance with 36 CFR 13.470 and 50 CFR part 100. Other noncommercial 
fishing is authorized under 36 CFR 13.40 and in accordance with the 
provisions of 36 CFR 2.3. To the extent it is consistent with those 
regulations, State-authorized subsistence fishing is allowed within NPS 
units.
    15. Comment: Some commenters asserted that NPS does not have 
authority to enact the proposed regulations and that the NPS actions 
are inconsistent with 16 U.S.C. 3114 and 16 U.S.C. 3125(3) of ANILCA.
    NPS Response: This final rule is not promulgated under 16 U.S.C. 
3114, which provides that subsistence take of fish and wildlife has 
priority over other uses when it is necessary to restrict the harvest 
of fish or wildlife to protect the viability of the population or to 
continue subsistence uses. The restrictions in this rule are not 
necessary to protect the viability of a population or to continue Title 
VIII subsistence uses, nor do they affect subsistence uses or priority. 
The NPS is promulgating this rule under the NPS Organic Act and 16 
U.S.C. 3201, which provide NPS with authority to restrict the taking of 
wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves for reasons of public 
safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and 
enjoyment.
    Similarly, 16 U.S.C. 3125(3) does not apply to this rule. That 
provision provides that ``[n]othing in this title shall be construed as 
. . . authorizing a restriction on the taking of fish and wildlife for 
nonsubsistence uses . . . unless necessary for the conservation of 
healthy populations of fish and wildlife . . . to continue subsistence 
uses of such populations [.]'' The phrase ``this

[[Page 64334]]

title'' refers solely to Title VIII of ANILCA--this section does not 
apply to 16 U.S.C. 3201, which was enacted as part of Title XIII. This 
section thus does not preclude the NPS from authorizing restrictions 
under other titles in ANILCA (such as Title XIII) or other federal laws 
(such as the NPS Organic Act), as is the case here.
    16. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS should limit hunting to 
traditional harvest methods because current technology could result in 
overharvest. Commenters also stated that resources should be allocated 
to most local users when harvest must be reduced.
    NPS Response: In consultation with the State and the Federal 
Subsistence Board, the NPS will consider restrictions on specific 
harvest practices on a case by case basis. In times of shortage ANILCA, 
16 U.S.C. 3114, provides priority to local subsistence users over 
others.
    17. Comment: Some commenters objected to the statement in the 
proposed rule that management of wildlife on national preserves must 
protect natural processes, because ANILCA calls for ``healthy'' 
populations, not ``natural'' populations.
    NPS Response: Title VIII of ANILCA refers to conserving ``healthy'' 
populations of wildlife on federal public lands in Alaska. ANILCA also 
states that nothing in the statute modifies or repeals any federal law 
governing the conservation or protection of fish and wildlife. The 
statute explicitly identifies the NPS Organic Act as one of those 
federal laws. The NPS Organic Act requires the NPS to conserve the wild 
life in units of the National Park System (including national 
preserves) and to provide for visitor enjoyment of the wild life for 
this and future generations. 54 U.S.C. 100101. Policies implementing 
the NPS Organic Act require the NPS to protect natural ecosystems and 
processes, including the natural abundances, diversities, 
distributions, densities, age-class distributions, populations, 
habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife. NPS Management Policies 
2006 Sec. Sec.  4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2. The legislative history of 
ANILCA reflects that Congress did not intend to modify the NPS Organic 
Act in this respect: ``the Committee recognizes that the policies and 
legal authorities of the managing agencies will determine the nature 
and degree of management programs affecting ecological relationships, 
population's dynamics, and manipulations of the components of the 
ecosystem.'' Senate Report 96-413, Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources at pages 232-233 (hereafter Senate Report 96-413). This is 
reflected in the statutory purposes of various national preserves that 
were established by ANILCA, which include the protection of populations 
of fish and wildlife.
    18. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule includes 
ambiguous terms and gives too much discretion to park superintendents.
    NPS Response: The NPS believes the actions the superintendents are 
authorized to take in the rule are consistent with federal law and are 
comparable to the actions superintendents have long been authorized to 
take in similar circumstances. It also recognizes that superintendents 
are the subject matter experts regarding management of the park unit 
and have been delegated responsibility to take action and respond to 
changing circumstances that may affect the values and resources of a 
park unit.
    19. Comment: Some commenters questioned the basis of the proposed 
rule because the NPS did not cite or provide evidence or data related 
to wildlife population-level effects or any conservation concern.
    NPS Response: As discussed above, the rule is based on the NPS 
legal and policy framework, which among other things ``requires 
implementation of management policies which strive to maintain natural 
abundance, behavior, diversity and ecological integrity of native 
animals as part of their ecosystem . . . .'' Senate Report 96-413, at 
page 171. This rule is not based on particular wildlife population 
levels, and did not require the preparation of data on those levels. 
Rather the rule reflects the NPS responsibility to manage national 
preserves for natural processes, including predator-prey relationships, 
and responds to practices that are intended to alter those processes.
    20. Comment: A couple of commenters asked for clarification about 
the harvest opportunities that would be prohibited by the proposed rule 
on a unit by unit basis.
    NPS Response: The NPS believes the rule clearly describes the 
harvest practices that are prohibited. All but three of these practices 
are already prohibited by either NPS temporary actions or existing 
State law. The only currently allowed harvest practices that will be 
prohibited under this rule are taking caribou that are swimming or 
taking caribou from a motorboat while under power (currently allowed in 
portions of Noatak, Gates of the Arctic, and Bering Land Bridge 
National Preserves), black bear baiting, and using dogs to hunt black 
bears. The NPS will assist the public to understand the impacts of the 
rule on sport harvest of wildlife in national preserves. The public and 
visitors are encouraged to contact or visit the local NPS offices for 
information or assistance.
    21. Comment: One commenter opposed the prohibition on the take of 
muskrats at pushups, adding that this practice has been authorized by 
the State since 1967 and that the practice is not known to have caused 
conservation or user problems.
    NPS Response: The proposed rule would have prohibited the take of 
muskrats at pushups, which is currently authorized under State 
regulations. This was not the NPS's intent, and the final rule has been 
modified to allow for this practice.
    22. Comment: One commenter stated the allowance in the proposed 
rule for using electronic calls to take big game (except moose) should 
be modified to allow electronic calls for all game (except moose).
    NPS Response: The NPS agrees with the suggestion, which is 
consistent with State law. The NPS has modified the rule accordingly.
    23. Comment: Some commenters objected to the practice of trapping 
and snaring generally due to the potential for user conflicts and 
safety concerns due to traps and snares on or near trails. Some 
commenters specifically objected to snaring bears. Some commenters said 
trapping should not be allowed near trails used by others in order to 
protect those visitors and their pets. Some commenters said trappers 
should be required to identify their traps with their name and contact 
information.
    NPS Response: ANILCA generally allows for trapping (including 
snaring) in national preserves. Under this rule and adopted State law, 
there are restrictions on animals that may be trapped under a trapping 
license, types of traps, as well as restrictions on locations where 
traps may be set. Because pets are required to be leashed, traps--even 
those set near trails--have not been a concern historically. In the 
event that trapping presents safety concerns, the NPS will address 
those concerns on a case-by-case basis.
    24. Comment: Commenters suggested there is an inconsistency between 
what is being proposed for NPS lands in Alaska and allowances in some 
Lower 48 parks, including taking coyotes year-round.
    NPS Response: Units of the National Park System are ``united 
through their interrelated purposes and resources into one National 
Park System,'' and managed in a manner ``consistent with and founded in 
the purpose established

[[Page 64335]]

by'' the NPS Organic Act, ``to the common benefit of all the people of 
the United States.'' 54 U.S.C. 100101. But units also are managed 
consistent with their enabling statutes and other laws specifically 
applicable to those units, such as ANILCA. Hunting of any kind is 
generally prohibited in units of the National Park System, 36 CFR 2.2, 
except where specifically authorized by statute, as is the case for 
national preserves in Alaska (as well as subsistence activities in 
other Alaska units). In those units that do allow hunting, hunting 
seasons for particular species generally vary from unit to unit and are 
often set by State law. When NPS sets seasons or other restrictions by 
regulation, it does so case by case, based on the resource and 
management needs of the particular unit.
    25. Comment: Some commenters suggested that the rule should 
prohibit the more subtle means of affecting the natural functioning 
ecosystem, such as hunters not being required to obtain tags or permits 
for predators, same-day airborne hunting and trapping, and sale of raw 
hides and skulls.
    NPS Response: Many of the activities described by the commenter are 
already prohibited under federal regulations. For example, same-day 
airborne hunting of big game animals, arctic fox, red fox, or lynx is 
not allowed on NPS lands. Additionally, sale of raw hides and skulls is 
not allowed under existing NPS regulations. The NPS has not identified 
a need for NPS-issued tags and permits and consequently has not 
required harvest permits and tags beyond those required by State 
regulations and federal subsistence regulations.
    26. Comment: One commenter said that while ungulates will probably 
remain the focus of the State's intensive management program, it is 
conceivable that another species could become the focus in the future 
due to fads or economic interests. The commenter suggested that NPS 
needs the flexibility to include additional species when necessary to 
provide for naturally functioning ecosystems.
    NPS Response: While naturally functioning ecosystems include 
natural diversity and abundances of native wildlife populations, the 
NPS does not believe it is necessary to modify the proposed rule to 
address this concern. Should the issue arise in the future, the NPS 
will work with the State and consider appropriate action at that time.
    27. Comment: One commenter suggested adding ``intercepting'' 
wildlife to the list of prohibited actions that cannot be taken by an 
aircraft, snowmachine, or other motor vehicle. Also, the term 
``positioning'' is used to refer to the practice of using snowmachines 
for lining caribou up for a shot. It should be clarified whether this 
practice is considered ``herding.''
    NPS Response: Paragraph (g)(4) of this rule prohibits using an 
aircraft, snowmachine, off-road vehicle, motorboat, or other motor 
vehicle to harass wildlife, including chasing, driving, herding, 
molesting, or otherwise disturbing wildlife. Using an aircraft, 
snowmachine, or other motor vehicle to ``intercept'' or ``position'' 
wildlife is prohibited by this provision, because the wildlife would be 
(among other things) harassed, chased, driven, herded, molested, or 
otherwise disturbed by the use of the aircraft, snowmachine, or motor 
vehicle. As a result, the NPS does not believe it is necessary to 
revise the proposed rule to specifically prohibit ``intercepting'' or 
``positioning'' wildlife as these activities are already covered by the 
rule.
    28. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS should also address bag 
limits for certain species, such as wolves.
    NPS Response: The NPS generally believes bag limits are more 
appropriately addressed through the State regulatory process and 
Federal Subsistence Program in conjunction with harvest information and 
population data. Should bag limits become a concern in the future, the 
NPS will work with the State and the Federal Subsistence Board as 
appropriate.
    29. Comment: Some commenters objected to prohibiting the harvest 
methods identified in the proposed rule as unnecessary since they 
duplicate State regulations already in effect or would eliminate 
harvest opportunities for Alaskans.
    NPS Response: The NPS affirms current State prohibitions on harvest 
methods by codifying them as federal law. Should exceptions to these 
State prohibitions be made in the future, the NPS will consider whether 
to adopt the same exceptions for national preserves. The majority of 
existing harvest opportunities provided under State law will still be 
available for hunters in national preserves.

Annual List of Harvest Regulations Not Adopted

    30. Comment: Some commenters objected to the provision in the 
proposed rule requiring the Regional Director to compile an annual list 
of State laws and regulations that are not adopted in national 
preserves because they are aimed at reducing predators. Some comments 
suggested that the NPS hold public hearings and a public comment period 
before the Regional Director places laws and regulations on this list. 
Other commenters stated this provision is inconsistent with ANILCA and 
would give superintendents too much discretionary authority.
    NPS Response: The provision requiring the Regional Director to 
identify State laws and regulations not adopted under paragraph (f) is 
designed to remove any ambiguity about which State-authorized 
activities are prohibited on national preserves. The NPS does not 
believe that a hearing or public comment period is appropriate for the 
annual list because these activities will be prohibited by paragraph 
(f)(2) without any further action by the NPS or the Regional Director. 
The purpose of the list is to inform the public about which laws and 
regulations are not adopted by the NPS so that there is no confusion 
about what is allowed in national preserves. The list is expected to 
change only to the extent the State authorizes new predator reduction 
activities that otherwise would affect national preserves. The overall 
goal of this provision is to maintain the traditional status quo and 
prevent the introduction of new predator reduction activities in 
national preserves.
    ANILCA allows the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the 
NPS) to restrict sport hunting and trapping in national preserves after 
consultation with the State of Alaska, and does not diminish the 
authority of the Secretary of the Interior over the management of 
public lands. See the Background section of this final rule for more 
information about NPS authority to promulgate this rule. The NPS 
believes that compiling and annually updating a list of the activities 
prohibited by paragraph (f) is consistent with the statutory authority 
provided to the NPS for the management of national preserves.

Taking Bears Over Bait

    31. Comment: Some commenters stated that the practice of baiting 
black bears and brown bears is appropriate because it will not have 
adverse ecological or public safety effects. Others commented that 
baiting black bears and brown bears should be prohibited because it may 
create public safety issues, food-conditioned bears, or impact natural 
populations or processes.
    NPS Response: The NPS proposed prohibiting the harvest of brown 
bears over bait to avoid public safety issues, to avoid food 
conditioning bears and other species, and to maintain natural bear 
behavior as required by the NPS legal and policy framework. By design, 
baiting typically uses human or pet food

[[Page 64336]]

to alter the natural behavior of bears to predictably attract them to a 
specific location for harvest. Land and wildlife management agencies 
strive to eliminate the feeding of bears through individual and 
collective educational efforts, due to the increased likelihood that 
food-conditioned bears are killed by agency personnel or the public in 
defense of life or property. Food-conditioned bears are also believed 
more likely to cause human injury. To that end, NPS regulations 
prohibit feeding wildlife and the practice of baiting is at odds with 
this.
    Because the concerns presented by taking brown bears over bait also 
apply to black bear baiting, the NPS requested public comment on 
whether taking black bears over bait should be allowed to continue on 
national preserves. After reviewing public comment, the NPS has decided 
to prohibit taking black bears over bait in national preserves. This 
decision is consistent with State regulations applicable to Denali 
State Park, where taking of wildlife is authorized but taking black 
bears over bait is prohibited (see 2014-2015 Alaska Hunting 
Regulations, p. 27 and 78 and 5 AAC 92.044 for game management units 
where the practice is authorized).
    Bait stations tend to be located in accessible areas due to the 
infrastructure (typically a 55 gallon drum) and quantity (including 
weight) of bait used to engage in this activity and the frequency with 
which the stations must be replenished. Because of the accessibility of 
these areas, they are typically used by multiple user groups, which 
contributes to the public safety concerns associated with baiting. 
Although there are State regulations that prohibit bait stations within 
a certain distance of structures (cabins/residences), roads, and 
trails, these distances lack biological significance relative to bears, 
whose home ranges can include tens to hundreds of square miles.
    32. Comment: Some commenters stated that bear baiting should be 
allowed in national preserves because it is a historical practice that 
predates the establishment of national preserves and it a customary 
practice by many Alaskans. Commenters also stated the practice should 
be allowed because the amount of take is or would be small.
    NPS Response: According to information provided by the State of 
Alaska, harvest of black bears over bait was authorized by State 
regulations in 1982. The creation of all NPS areas in Alaska preceded 
this date. Harvest of bears over the remains of legally-harvested 
animals not required to be salvaged will continue to be lawful provided 
the remains are not moved. To the extent the practice of baiting bears 
is a customary and traditional practice by rural residents, those uses 
may be authorized for Federally qualified rural residents pursuant to 
regulations adopted by the Federal Subsistence Board.
    The NPS recognizes that the number of bears harvested over bait in 
national preserves may not be large. However, this provision is not 
based on how many bears are harvested or whether that harvest would 
impact bear population levels. It is based on the legal and policy 
framework that governs national preserves and calls for maintaining 
natural ecosystems and processes and minimizing safety concerns 
presented by food-conditioned bears.
    33. Comment: One commenter recommended the definition of bait 
exclude legally taken fish and that bait should exclude legally taken 
wildlife that is not required to be salvaged under federal as well as 
State law. A comment was received that game that died of natural causes 
should not be considered bait.
    NPS Response: The NPS has modified the definition of bait in a 
manner that excludes native fish, consistent with State law. Upon 
review, the NPS determined it is not necessary to reference State or 
federal law regarding salvage requirements in the definition of bait. 
The result is that parts of legally taken fish or wildlife that are not 
required to be salvaged are not considered bait if the parts are not 
moved from the kill site. The rule excludes from the definition of bait 
game that died of natural causes, if not moved from the location where 
it was found.

Taking Black Bears With Artificial Light at Den Sites

    34. Comment: Some comments stated that the use of artificial light 
to aid the harvest of black bears in dens should be allowed to ensure 
proper species identification, prevent take of cubs or sows with cubs, 
and facilitate a human shot placement. Others commented that the use of 
artificial light to aid the harvest of black bears in dens should be 
prohibited due to effects on ecological processes and populations and 
the potential for dangerous orphaned cubs.
    NPS Response: Although artificial light may, in some cases, aid the 
harvest of black bears in dens by assisting with species identification 
and shot placement, the NPS does not support authorizing this practice 
for sport hunting in national preserves. For rural subsistence users, 
the NPS believes this matter is more appropriately addressed by the 
Federal Subsistence Board. The final rule maintains the proposed 
prohibition on using artificial light to take wildlife, subject to 
certain exceptions.

Using Dogs To Hunt Black Bears

    35. Comment: In response to a question in the proposed rule, some 
commenters supported the use of unleashed dogs to hunt black bears 
pursuant to a State permit. Some commenters stated that the use of dogs 
to hunt black bears has been allowed since 1970 and is not historically 
illegal. Other commenters opposed the use of dogs to hunt black bears. 
These comments stated that this activity would increase stress and 
trauma for the dogs and bears, reduce bear populations in national 
preserves, disrupt the natural balance of predator-prey dynamics, alter 
bear feeding patterns, harass other wildlife, transmit diseases to 
wildlife, interfere with other sport and subsistence hunters, and be 
dangerous for the dogs and humans in the area (including by driving 
bears into roadways and onto private property). Several comments stated 
that dogs used for hunting roam over large portions of the land, often 
out of the sight and control of their handlers. Some comments stated 
that this activity is unethical, unsportsmanlike, and does not have a 
traditional or cultural basis in Alaska. Other comments stated that 
dogs are often used to ``tree'' bears, which makes it difficult to 
determine the sex of the bear and could result in the killing of 
females with cubs.
    NPS Response: Commenters are correct that using dogs to hunt black 
bears is not ``historically illegal.'' While State of Alaska law 
generally prohibits taking big game with the aid or use of a dog, there 
is an exception for using a dog to take black bears pursuant to a non-
transferable permit issued by the ADF&G. The NPS agrees that this 
practice could have some of the adverse impacts suggested by commenters 
who oppose the practice. The NPS also believes the use of unleashed 
dogs to hunt black bears is one of the practices that is inconsistent 
with the traditional ``sport hunting'' that is authorized by ANILCA, as 
discussed above. The rule generally prohibits taking big game with the 
aid of use of a dog. The proposed rule has been modified to eliminate 
an exception that would have allowed the use of dogs to harvest black 
bears under a State permit.
    36. Comment: Some commenters supported the use of unleashed dogs to 
hunt ``problem animals'' and the use of leashed dogs to hunt wounded 
black bears.

[[Page 64337]]

    NPS Response: There is no allowance in State law to use unleashed 
dogs to hunt ``problem animals.'' Current State law allows use of a 
single, leashed dog in conjunction with tracking and dispatching a 
wounded big game animal, including black bear. The intent of the leash 
requirement is to ensure that native wildlife are not pursued, 
harassed, or killed by unleashed dogs and to prevent any contact 
between native wildlife and domestic dogs. The State-authorized use of 
a single, leashed dog in conjunction with tracking and dispatching a 
wounded big game animal will remain authorized in national preserves. 
The NPS will take appropriate action to protect the safety of park 
visitors and other wildlife from problem animals, such as bears.
    37. Comment: Some commenters supported using sled dogs to travel to 
and from hunting and trapping areas, in search of game, and to haul out 
taken game, but not to chase wildlife.
    NPS Response: Sled dogs are allowed under 16 U.S.C. 3121(b) of 
ANILCA for subsistence uses and under 16 U.S.C. 3170(a) of ANILCA for 
other traditional activities, unless prohibited or restricted on a site 
specific basis. There are currently no prohibitions or restrictions on 
this activity in areas where hunting and trapping are authorized. 
Herding, harassing, hazing, or driving wildlife is prohibited under NPS 
regulations. This includes ``chasing'' wildlife.

Wolves and Coyotes

    38. Comment: Several commenters supported the limitations on taking 
wolves and coyotes in the proposed rule, and suggested additional 
protections such as extending the duration of the no-take period and 
imposing bag limits. These comments were concerned about hunting 
pressure, declining populations, and protecting pregnant females to 
avoid orphaned pups and unsuccessful rearing. Other commenters opposed 
the limitations on taking wolves and coyotes in the proposed rule, and 
suggested additional allowances for taking these species, including 
adoption of the State hunting seasons. Several commenters stated that 
extended hunting seasons for wolves and coyotes allow for a traditional 
form of hunting specifically authorized under the State subsistence 
program, and are not meant to be predator control.
    NPS Response: The rule prohibits taking wolves and coyotes from May 
1 through August 9. These dates reflect previously longstanding State 
harvest seasons that provided harvest opportunities while maintaining 
viable wolf and coyote populations. The rule maintains the decades-old 
management paradigm of State and federal managers, rather than adopting 
recently liberalized State regulations that lengthen the hunting 
seasons. Should wolf or coyote population levels become a concern in 
the future, the NPS will work with the State and consider appropriate 
action at that time.
    39. Comment: Some commenters stated that coyotes are not native to 
Alaska.
    NPS Response: Coyotes are native to North America, and while 
coyotes may not have historically occupied all of their current range, 
their expansion most likely occurred through natural processes. 
Consequently, the NPS manages coyotes in the same manner as other 
native species consistent with NPS Management Policies (Sec. Sec.  4.1, 
4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2).
    40. Comment: A few commenters questioned whether wolf pelts taken 
during the denning season have limited value.
    NPS Response: The NPS understands that some individuals may have 
uses for wolf pelts that are harvested outside the normal trapping 
season. This rule, however, protects wolves during the denning season 
when they are vulnerable. The rule preserves the opportunity to harvest 
wolves when the pelts are thicker for cold winter temperatures. A pelt 
that has begun to shed out for summer is thinner, may become patchy, 
and for these reasons is not generally considered as valuable.

Swimming Caribou

    41. Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed prohibition on 
taking swimming caribou would be difficult to enforce because the 
harvest opportunities are along the river's edge and animals often fall 
in the low spots or the water. Another commenter supported the 
prohibition, noting that there are sufficient opportunities for sport 
hunters to harvest caribou on land.
    NPS Response: NPS agrees that there are adequate opportunities for 
sport hunters to harvest caribou on land. Although there may be a few 
situations where it is difficult to tell whether a caribou was taken 
while swimming, the NPS believes that the prohibition will be 
enforceable. Also, under existing State regulations, this practice is 
limited to waters in GMUs 23 and 26. Noatak, Gates of the Arctic, and 
Bering Land Bridge are the only national preserves within these GMUs. 
To the extent individuals who are not federally qualified subsistence 
users engage in this activity elsewhere (e.g., Onion Portage within 
Kobuk Valley National Park), such use is not authorized under existing 
NPS regulations, which allow only federally qualified subsistence users 
to hunt within certain national parks and monuments in Alaska.
    42. Comment: Several commenters opposed the prohibition on the take 
of swimming caribou, stating that it would prevent those who no longer 
live in rural Alaska from harvesting foods in a traditional manner. 
Commenters stated that former residents would not be allowed to return 
to hunt or to assist elders with hunting in traditional ways. Other 
commenters supported the proposed prohibition of taking caribou while 
swimming, noting that it is unsporting and not consistent with fair 
chase.
    NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that taking caribou while swimming 
is a customary and traditional subsistence practice in some areas of 
the State. The NPS supports continuation of this practice under federal 
subsistence regulations in NPS units. The NPS also agrees with the 
comment that the practice of taking caribou while swimming is not 
consistent with fair chase and thus believes it is not appropriate to 
allow as a sport hunting practice. Although former local residents who 
no longer qualify to hunt under federal subsistence regulations will 
not be able to engage in such subsistence harvests, they may 
participate in other aspects of the traditional practice.

Obstruction of Hunting

    43. Comment: Some commenters opposed the proposed prohibition on 
obstructing hunting activities as unnecessary or providing special 
treatment to hunters. Others questioned the need for the provision 
because it is already in State law.
    NPS Response: In the past, the NPS has received reports of 
individuals actively attempting to obstruct others from hunting. While 
this conduct is prohibited under State law, it is not currently 
prohibited under NPS regulations. Consequently, in the event of a 
violation of this type in a national preserve, only the State could 
take enforcement action. This rule allows the NPS also to take 
enforcement action. This protects the lawful rights of hunters in 
national preserves, but does not afford them special treatment above 
what they are currently entitled to by State law.

Bait for Fishing

    44. Comment: Commenters generally supported using native species as 
bait for fishing. Some commenters suggested the species used should be 
obtained from the waters being fished to avoid introducing a species 
that is native to

[[Page 64338]]

Alaska but not native to a particular watershed.
    NPS Response: The NPS agrees that bait species should be limited to 
those native to Alaska, but does not believe that allowing the use of 
species not native to a particular watershed poses a risk that new 
species will be introduced into that watershed. Existing State and 
federal regulations already prohibit the use of live fish for bait in 
fresh water, and using dead fish or unfertilized eggs removed from a 
harvested fish will not result in the introduction of new species that 
are not native to a particular watershed. In marine waters, existing 
regulations already require that any fish used for bait come from the 
same waters being fished.
    45. Comment: One commenter supported allowing bait for fishing but 
stated the rule is not necessary because State regulations that allow 
bait apply to NPS units.
    NPS Response: Section 13.40(b) provides that fishing must be 
consistent with 36 CFR 2.3. Section 2.3 prohibits the use of live or 
dead minnows or other bait fish, amphibians, nonpreserved fish eggs or 
fish roe as bait for fishing in fresh waters, along with methods other 
than hook and line. Consequently this rule is necessary to allow the 
use of native species of fish or fish eggs as bait for fishing.
    46. Comment: Some commenters supported the intent to allow bait for 
fishing since it is a common practice and commonly allowed in Alaska, 
but said it would create confusion on waters where the State has 
prohibited bait. These commenters also noted the State allows many 
forms of bait that would not be considered native species, such as 
natural or synthetic scents, and natural or processed vegetable matter.
    NPS Response: NPS regulations adopt non-conflicting State 
regulations. Under existing NPS regulations, the use of bait is allowed 
in accordance with State law under 36 CFR 2.3 except for the use of 
fish, amphibians or their eggs. This rule allows the use of native 
fish, amphibians, and their eggs as bait if authorized by the State. If 
the State does not allow the use of these types of bait in waters 
within NPS areas, State law will govern and the use of native fish, 
amphibians, and their eggs as bait will not be allowed.

Updating Federal Subsistence Regulations

    47. Comment: Some commenters opposed removal of regulatory language 
providing for consultation with the State regarding potential closures 
to subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. A suggestion was made to 
retain the provision adopting non-conflicting State laws for 
subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife. A comment also suggested 
adding several provisions to the subsistence closure procedures in 36 
CFR 13.490, including consultation with various stakeholders, holding 
public hearings in the affected vicinity, and holding hearings in 
coordination with other meetings.
    NPS Response: The existing provision that adopts non-conflicting 
State laws is not necessary due to the assumption by the Federal 
Subsistence Board of regulatory authority over Title VIII subsistence 
harvest of fish and wildlife. Federal subsistence regulations, which 
apply in NPS units where Title VIII subsistence is allowed, include 
regulatory language that adopts non-conflicting State laws. The 
provision in 36 CFR 13.490 is no longer necessary and will be removed 
by this rule.
    Upon review of comments and considering the practices of the 
Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS agrees with the recommendation to 
retain the language providing for consultation with the State prior to 
the NPS implementing closures to subsistence take of fish and wildlife. 
Because harvest is regulated by the Federal Subsistence Board, the NPS 
has modified the proposed rule to also include consultation with the 
Federal Subsistence Board.
    Finally, for consistency with 36 CFR 13.50, which was modified 
based upon comments (addressed below), the rule has been modified to 
specify that public hearings will be held near the affected park unit 
(rather than the ``affected vicinity'') prior to implementing the 
management action in nonemergency situations.

Updating Closure and Restriction Procedures

    48. Comment: Some commenters objected to the changes in 36 CFR 
13.50 as inconsistent with ANILCA or not appropriate for Alaska.
    NPS Response: The changes to 36 CFR 13.50 bring procedures for 
implementing closures and restrictions more in line with procedures 
that apply to the entire National Park System under 36 CFR 1.5, as well 
as procedures used by Alaska State Parks. 11 AAC 12.355. The public 
will benefit from aligning procedures with other NPS units as well as 
Alaska State Parks. This consistency will enable the public to more 
effectively engage managers regarding their uses of the public lands 
and the resources on them.
    While commenters referred generally to the proposed changes as 
being inconsistent with ANILCA, the only provision cited was 16 U.S.C. 
3202. That section contains general savings provisions preserving the 
Secretary's authority to manage public lands and preserving the State's 
non-conflicting authority to manage fish and wildlife on those lands. 
Nothing in that section is specifically relevant to the closure and 
restriction provisions of 36 CFR 13.50; accordingly the NPS finds no 
conflict between ANILCA and these procedural updates.
    49. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule would give 
too much authority to the superintendents to adopt restrictions, 
specifically on taking of fish or wildlife for sport purposes. Some 
commenters stated that closures or restrictions must be based upon 
demonstrated biological considerations (e.g., wildlife population 
data).
    NPS Response: Federal statutes, including ANILCA, provide the NPS 
with substantial discretion in managing units of the National Park 
System. Generally, National Park System regulations need only be 
``necessary or proper for the use and management of System units.'' 54 
U.S.C. 100751. With respect to sport hunting in national preserves in 
Alaska, Congress authorized the NPS to restrict these activities for 
reasons of ``public safety, administration, floral and faunal 
protection, or public use and enjoyment.'' 16 U.S.C. 3201. The NPS thus 
is not required to base its management decisions regarding these 
restrictions only on biological considerations. The rule maintains the 
superintendent's long established authority to make management 
decisions for NPS units based upon a variety of criteria. The NPS plans 
to continue to require review of all proposed closures and restrictions 
at the regional level.
    50. Comment: Some commenters were concerned that the proposed 
changes to 36 CFR 13.50 would limit Alaskans' ability to comment on 
potential closures and restrictions on NPS-managed areas by shortening 
the comment period, soliciting comments from non-residents of Alaska, 
and reducing the number of public meetings.
    NPS Response: While hearings are required in certain circumstances 
(e.g., restricting subsistence harvest of fish or wildlife under Title 
VIII of ANILCA or access authorized under 16 U.S.C. 3170(a)), there is 
no statutory requirement to take public comment on closures or 
restrictions that are not required to be published in the Federal 
Register. The NPS believes, however, that public involvement is an 
important component of managing NPS units.

[[Page 64339]]

Alaskans and all Americans have an important say in how these national 
interest lands are managed. Accordingly, except in emergencies, the 
rule requires an opportunity for public comment, including holding at 
least one public meeting near the affected NPS unit, prior to adopting 
a closure or restriction related to taking fish or wildlife. The 
changes to Sec.  13.50 will not limit any existing opportunities, 
including public meetings, for Alaskan residents to comment on proposed 
closures and restrictions for NPS units in Alaska. The NPS posts online 
proposed closures and restrictions for NPS units in Alaska and invites 
public comment on them. The NPS intends to continue this practice.
    51. Comment: Some commenters objected to removing the requirement 
that the NPS hold a hearing before implementing closures or 
restrictions on taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes. Some 
were concerned that the NPS would cease meeting with local communities 
or that the change would give superintendents too much discretion to 
decide whether to meet with local communities. Some commenters stated 
the NPS should not consider the time or expense to the government or 
anticipated number of attendees in determining whether to hold public 
hearings.
    NPS Response: The proposed rule would have replaced the existing 
regulatory requirement to hold a hearing in the affected vicinity with 
a requirement to provide an opportunity for public comment, which could 
include a written comment period, public meeting, public hearing, or a 
combination thereof. After reviewing comments and considering the 
similar procedures used by the BOG and the Federal Subsistence Board, 
the NPS modified the proposed rule to add a requirement to hold one or 
more public meetings near the affected park unit prior to implementing 
a closure or restriction on taking fish and wildlife in national 
preserves, except in the case of emergencies. The NPS will attempt to 
hold public meetings in conjunction with other events, like Subsistence 
Resource Commission meetings, when possible. The NPS will consider 
holding more than one public meeting depending the nature of the 
action, local interest, and other opportunities for engagement. The 
rule will also require the NPS to continue the current practice of 
providing an opportunity for public comment prior to implementing 
proposed closures and restrictions related to taking fish and wildlife. 
The NPS intends to continue its current practice of accepting written 
comments submitted electronically or by mail or hand delivery. This 
will give Alaskans and other Americans an opportunity to provide 
meaningful input on these management actions.
    52. Comment: Some comments suggested the NPS provide public notice 
and hold a hearing prior to adopting emergency closures relating to 
fish and wildlife.
    NPS Response: Although the NPS supports providing the public with a 
meaningful opportunity to comment, in certain circumstances action may 
be necessary to protect wildlife or public safety before there is an 
opportunity for public comment or a hearing. The NPS will provide 
appropriate notice of emergency closures and restrictions in accordance 
with the provisions of 36 CFR 13.50.
    53. Comment: Some commenters stated the proposed rule would 
eliminate a requirement to do written determinations stating the basis 
for closures, restrictions, and other designations.
    NPS Response: Although the procedures in 36 CFR 1.5(c) require a 
written determination of need explaining the reasons for closures or 
restrictions on public use, the current procedures in Sec.  13.50 do 
not. The NPS however, has provided such determinations for all proposed 
closures and restrictions in NPS units in Alaska to better inform the 
public about the reasons for its decisions. This comment highlights the 
complexity regarding the various procedural regulations that currently 
apply to NPS units in Alaska. The NPS believes it is in the public's 
interest to streamline procedures as much as possible in order to make 
them more consistent. This will make it easier for the public to be 
involved in NPS decision-making in Alaska. Accordingly, the NPS has 
decided to apply the procedures of 36 CFR 13.50, as revised in this 
rule, to all closures and restrictions in NPS units in Alaska unless a 
more specific regulation in part 13 provides otherwise (i.e., 36 CFR 
13.490 pertaining to closures to subsistence harvest of fish and 
wildlife). These revised procedures that apply to all NPS units in 
Alaska require a written determination explaining the basis of the 
restriction.
    54. Comment: Some commenters objected to utilizing web-based tools 
for information sharing and taking public comment since not all 
Alaskans have reliable internet. Other commenters objected to using the 
internet because it is easier for individuals outside Alaska to provide 
input. Some commenters interpreted the proposed rule to imply that the 
NPS will engage the public using social media exclusively.
    NPS Response: The NPS acknowledges that some individuals, 
especially in rural Alaska, may not have reliable internet access or 
may prefer other methods of communicating with the NPS. The methods of 
providing notice in the rule are consistent with NPS practices in place 
in Alaska for more than a decade. The primary method of notifying the 
public of closures or restrictions has been posting notice online and 
disseminating press releases by email. It has been the practice for the 
NPS to invite public comment through electronic means as well as by 
mail or hand delivery. The majority of public comments are received 
electronically. The NPS will continue to accept written comments 
through electronic and traditional means (mail or hand delivery). The 
NPS will also use other notification procedures such as posting in 
local post offices and other public places when practical. Individuals 
may also request copies of the park compendium and other NPS documents 
by mail or in person. Social media is a valuable tool to inform as well 
as engage a certain segment of the public, but it is not, and will not 
be, the only way the NPS engages and communicates with the public. The 
NPS believes that using the internet will make it easier for some 
segments of the American public, regardless of residency, to provide 
input on proposed management actions for NPS units in Alaska. This is 
appropriate because National Park System units are federal lands that 
are protected and preserved for all Americans.
    55. Comment: Some commenters suggested that the proposed rule 
should provide opening procedures.
    NPS Response: The procedures in the rule apply to the termination 
and relaxation of closures and restrictions, which includes actions 
that open areas and allow activities that had been closed or 
restricted.
    56. Comment: Some commenters suggested retaining the distinction 
between permanent and temporary restrictions. These commenters 
recommend temporary restrictions be limited to 12 months and rulemaking 
be required for all permanent restrictions or those restrictions in 
place longer than 12 months. Other comments stated the existing 30-day 
limitation on emergency closures should be retained with no extensions.
    NPS Response: The categories distinguishing permanent and temporary 
closures or restrictions have been problematic and difficult to 
implement, as noted by the State and

[[Page 64340]]

others during the annual compendium review process on several 
occasions. Under current regulations, closures or restrictions in place 
for more than 12 months must be implemented by rulemaking and cannot be 
extended, regardless of significance or public interest. The result of 
this structure is that the NPS must repropose and reissue temporary 
closures or restrictions each year, even in circumstances where there 
is little public interest in the action, or where the action is an 
insignificant management decision. The existing framework is overly 
rigid and complicated, and unnecessarily compromises the NPS's ability 
to protect resources and provide for public use and enjoyment. The NPS 
has determined that the criteria-based rulemaking structure that exists 
in the nationwide NPS regulations (and is mirrored by Alaska State 
Parks) provides a better framework. A criteria-based framework requires 
notice and comment rulemaking based on the impact the closure or 
restriction will have on the values, resources, and visitors of the 
park unit. This framework allows the superintendent to implement 
closures or restrictions that do not significantly impact values, 
resources, or visitor use without needing to publish a rule in the 
Federal Register or propose the same action again every year. For 
example, a prohibition on smoking near fuel storage tanks would not 
necessarily require a rulemaking, but closing an area to all sport 
harvest on a permanent basis would. The criteria-based framework allows 
managers to be more flexible and adapt to changing circumstances. The 
improved consistency with other NPS units and Alaska State Parks will 
also make it easier for the public to be involved in decision-making 
regarding the use of public lands in Alaska.
    With regard to the duration of emergency closures, the NPS rule is 
more consistent with the practice of other agencies and NPS regulations 
that apply outside of Alaska. The existing regulations limit emergency 
closures to 30 days without extension. Federal subsistence regulations 
regarding subsistence harvest of fish and wildlife provide for 
emergency closures of up to 60 days and allow for extensions. National 
Park System-wide regulations and Alaska State Parks regulations do not 
provide a time limit on emergency closures. 36 CFR 1.5, 11 AAC 12.355. 
With respect to restrictions on taking fish and wildlife for sport 
purposes in national preserves, the NPS adopts the 60-day timeframe and 
allows for extensions--after consultation with the State and public 
comment (including a public meeting)--if the emergency persists. The 
NPS believes the public will benefit from this consistency with respect 
to emergency closures or restrictions on taking of fish or wildlife. 
Other emergency actions will have no explicit expiration date and may 
exist until the emergency is resolved. This is consistent with 
regulations for NPS units located outside of Alaska and for Alaska 
State Parks.
    57. Comment: Some commenters stated the NPS should retain the 
provision requiring consultation with the State and with 
``representatives of affected user groups'' prior to adopting 
restrictions on the take of wildlife for sport purposes, including 
Subsistence Resource Commissions, federal subsistence regional advisory 
councils, local fish and game advisory committees, tribes, and others. 
Some commenters also stated the NPS must implement the recommendations 
of Subsistence Resources Commissions unless the criteria of 16 U.S.C. 
3118(b) apply.
    NPS Response: 16 U.S.C. 3201 requires the NPS to consult with the 
State prior to prescribing restrictions relating to hunting, fishing, 
or trapping in national preserves. The rule does not eliminate that 
statutory requirement; it has moved this requirement into Sec.  13.50 
because it relates to closures and restrictions. The rule also requires 
the NPS to provide an opportunity for public comment, including one or 
more public meetings near the affected national preserve prior to 
implementing a closure or restriction on taking fish or wildlife. This 
will provide representatives of affected user groups an opportunity to 
provide comments to the NPS prior to the action being implemented. User 
groups are invited and encouraged to provide input on all such proposed 
actions.
    The NPS agrees that input from advisory groups, NPS Subsistence 
Resource Commissions, and others is important and valuable and the NPS 
encourages these groups to engage with the park superintendents on 
topics of interest. The NPS, however, does not agree that the 
provisions of 16 U.S.C. 3118(b) apply as broadly as suggested. Under 16 
U.S.C. 3118, Subsistence Resource Commissions are established for areas 
designated as national parks and monuments (not national preserves) to 
provide subsistence hunting program recommendations. ANILCA further 
provides that a subsistence hunting program recommendation for national 
parks and monuments must be implemented unless it ``violates recognized 
principles of wildlife conservation, threatens the conservation of 
healthy population of wildlife . . . is contrary to the purposes for 
which the park or park monument is established, or would be detrimental 
to the satisfaction of subsistence needs of local residents.'' While 
Subsistence Resource Commissions provide valuable input on multiple 
topics that affect national parks, monuments, and national preserves, 
the Subsistence Resource Commission's statutory charge is specific to 
Title VIII subsistence hunting program recommendations in national 
parks and monuments. This rule does not restrict Title VIII subsistence 
and applies only to sport harvest on national preserves. Therefore 16 
U.S.C. 3118(b) does not apply.
    58. Comment: Some commenters stated that the factors in the rule 
that must be considered by superintendents prior to adopting a closure 
or restriction are ambiguous and give too much discretion to park 
superintendents. Other commenters suggested adding factors, including 
``natural,'' ``natural and healthy,'' ``healthy,'' and ``species of 
concern,'' to those in the proposed rule. Other commenters suggested 
retaining the reference to emergencies.
    NPS Response: The factors that must be considered by 
superintendents place appropriate guidelines around their authority to 
manage NPS units in Alaska. The discretionary authority granted to 
superintendents recognizes that they are subject matter experts 
regarding management of the park unit and allows them to take action 
and respond to changing circumstances in the unit.
    Under the existing regulations, the superintendent must consider 
factors including public health and safety, resource protection, 
protection of cultural or scientific values, subsistence uses, 
conservation of endangered or threatened species, and other management 
considerations in determining whether to adopt closures or restrictions 
on an emergency basis. These factors appear elsewhere in 36 CFR part 13 
(e.g., 36 CFR 13.460(b) and 13.485(c)). The NPS proposed to modify this 
section by requiring the superintendent to consider these factors for 
all closures and restrictions (not just emergencies), and adding the 
criteria of ``naturally functioning ecosystems'' based on NPS 
Management Policies 2006, which implement the NPS Organic Act.
    In the final rule, the NPS has decided that adding a requirement 
that the superintendent consider protecting ``naturally functioning 
ecosystems'' is unnecessary because this consideration is encompassed 
by the existing

[[Page 64341]]

requirement that the superintendent consider ``resource protection.'' 
The NPS considered adding the terms ``natural,'' ``natural and 
healthy,'' ``healthy,'' and ``species of concern,'' but determined such 
terms are not necessary because they are a part of ``resource 
protection'' or in some cases ``conservation of endangered or 
threatened species.''

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    After taking the public comments into consideration and after 
additional review, the NPS made the following substantive changes in 
the final rule:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   13.1............................  Added an exception to the
                                          definition of ``bait'' for
                                          legally taken fish not
                                          required to be salvaged if not
                                          moved from the kill site. This
                                          change is consistent with
                                          State law and would exclude
                                          this practice from the
                                          prohibition on using bait in
                                          the rule. The term ``game''
                                          was changed to ``wildlife''
                                          for consistency with NPS
                                          terminology.
Sec.   13.42(g)........................  Delayed implementation of the
                                          prohibited methods of taking
                                          wildlife until January 1,
                                          2016.
Sec.   13.42(g)(8).....................  Added an allowance for using
                                          electronic calls to take all
                                          game animals (not limited to
                                          big game animals) except for
                                          moose.
Sec.   13.42(g)(10)....................  Removed an exception that would
                                          have allowed the taking black
                                          bears over bait, which is now
                                          prohibited.
Sec.   13.42(g)(11)....................  Removed an exception that would
                                          have allowed the use of dogs
                                          to take black bears under a
                                          State permit.
Sec.   13.42(g)(14)....................  Added an exception to the
                                          prohibition on taking a fur
                                          animal by disturbing or
                                          destroying a den to allow
                                          taking muskrats at pushups or
                                          feeding houses.
Sec.   13.42(e)........................  Modified an existing
                                          requirement that individuals
                                          transporting wildlife through
                                          park areas must identify
                                          themselves and the location
                                          where the wildlife was taken
                                          to any NPS personnel. This
                                          information must now only be
                                          given to NPS law enforcement
                                          personnel. This type of
                                          information is relevant for
                                          law enforcement purposes and
                                          accordingly, the
                                          identification requirement
                                          should be limited to law
                                          enforcement officers.
Sec.   13.50(a)........................  Modified to reflect the
                                          applicability of Sec.   13.50
                                          to all NPS closures and
                                          restrictions in Alaska unless
                                          more specific procedures in
                                          part 13 apply.
Sec.   13.50(b)........................  Changed the title from
                                          ``criteria'' to ``factors''
                                          because the regulatory text
                                          refers to the considerations
                                          as ``factors.'' Removed
                                          ``protecting the integrity of
                                          naturally functioning
                                          ecosystems'' as factor that
                                          must be considered by the
                                          superintendent in determining
                                          whether to close an area or
                                          restrict an activity.
Sec.   13.50(c)........................  Change the title from
                                          ``duration'' to ``rulemaking
                                          requirements'' to accurately
                                          reflect the content of the
                                          subsection. Removed the
                                          provision limiting all
                                          emergency closures and
                                          restrictions to 60 days.
Sec.   13.50(d)........................  Added a provision requiring
                                          written explanation of the
                                          reasons for implementing,
                                          relaxing, or terminating a
                                          closure or restriction, except
                                          in emergencies.
Sec.   13.50(e)........................  Prior to implementing
                                          nonemergency closures or
                                          restrictions on taking fish or
                                          wildlife, added a requirement
                                          to hold one or more public
                                          meetings near the affected NPS
                                          unit. Added a 60-day time
                                          limit for emergency closures
                                          or restrictions on taking fish
                                          or wildlife with extensions
                                          only upon consultation with
                                          the State and public comment,
                                          including a meeting near the
                                          affected NPS unit.
Sec.   13.50(f)........................  Closures or restrictions will
                                          be ``posted on the NPS
                                          website'' rather than
                                          ``effective upon publication
                                          on the NPS website.'' This
                                          change reflects that the NPS
                                          may post closures or
                                          restrictions on the NPS
                                          website prior to them taking
                                          effect. Also added a
                                          requirement to compile a
                                          written list, updated
                                          annually, of closures and
                                          restrictions which is posted
                                          on the NPS website.
Sec.   13.50...........................  Removed existing regulations on
                                          ``Openings'' and ``Facility
                                          closures and restrictions''
                                          because they are redundant
                                          with the revisions to this
                                          section.
Sec.   13.50(g)........................  Shortened for clarity and
                                          brevity.
Sec.   13.490..........................  Added a requirement to consult
                                          with the State and the Federal
                                          Subsistence Board before
                                          temporary restrictions on
                                          taking fish or wildlife for
                                          subsistence uses under Title
                                          VIII of ANILCA. Updated the
                                          language regarding location of
                                          hearings to near the
                                          ``affected NPS unit'' for
                                          consistency with the changes
                                          in Sec.   13.50.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders, and Department Policy

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will 
review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not 
significant.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 
12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system 
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, 
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory 
ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory 
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of 
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, 
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available 
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public 
participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this 
rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

[[Page 64342]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on the cost-
benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses found in the report 
entitled ``Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Proposed 
Revisions to Wildlife Harvest Regulations in National Park System 
Alaska Region'' which can be viewed online at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro, by clicking the link entitled ``Amend 
Hunting and Trapping Regulations in National Preserves In Alaska'' and 
then clicking the link entitled ``Document List.''

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the SBREFA. 
This rule:
    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions
    c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S. based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement 
containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings 
implication assessment is not required.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule 
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement. The rule's effect 
is limited to federal lands managed by the NPS in Alaska and it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on state and local government in 
Alaska. A Federalism summary impact statement is not required.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. 
Specifically, this rule:
    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all 
regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be 
written to minimize litigation; and
    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all 
regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal 
standards.

Consultation with Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175 and Department policy) and 
ANCSA Native Corporations

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its 
government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a 
commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their 
right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this 
rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the 
Department's tribal consultation and Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
Act (ANCSA) Native Corporation policies and have determined that tribal 
consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial 
direct effect on federally recognized Indian tribes. While the NPS has 
determined the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally 
recognized Indian tribes or ANCSA Native Corporation lands, water 
areas, or resources, the NPS consulted with Alaska Native tribes and 
Alaska Native Corporations on the proposed rule, as discussed above.

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and 
a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act is not required. We may not conduct or sponsor and you 
are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The NPS has analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of 
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 516 DM. We prepared an 
environmental assessment entitled ``Wildlife Harvest On National Park 
System Preserves In Alaska'' (EA) to determine whether this rule will 
have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. This 
rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting 
the quality of the human environment, and an environmental impact 
statement is not required, because we reached a Finding of No 
Signficant Impact (FONSI). The EA and FONSI are available online at 
https://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/akro, by clicking on the link entitled 
``Amend Hunting and Trapping Regulations in National Preserves In 
Alaska'' and then clicking on the link entitled ``Document List.''

Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

    This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition 
in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not 
required.

Drafting Information

    The primary authors of this regulation are Jay Calhoun, Regulations 
Program Specialist, National Park Service, Division of Jurisdiction, 
Regulations, and Special Park Uses; Philip Hooge, Denali National Park 
and Preserve; Barbara Cellarius, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and 
Preserve; and Guy Adema, Debora Cooper, Joel Hard, Grant Hilderbrand, 
Brooke Merrell, Bud Rice, and Andee Sears of the Alaska Regional 
Office, National Park Service.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13

    Alaska, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends 
36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:

PART 13--NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA

0
1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 3124; 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102; 
Sec. 13.1204 also issued under Sec. 1035, Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 
4240.


0
2. In Sec.  13.1, add in alphabetical order the terms ``Bait'', ``Big 
game'', ``Cub bear'', ``Fur animal'', ``Furbearer'', and ``Trapping'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  13.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Bait means, for purposes of taking wildlife other than fish, any 
material used to attract wildlife by sense of smell or taste except:
    (1) Parts of legally taken wildlife or fish that are not required 
to be salvaged if the parts are not moved from the kill site; or
    (2) Wildlife or fish that died of natural causes, if not moved from 
the location where it was found.

[[Page 64343]]

    Big game means black bear, brown bear, bison, caribou, Sitka black-
tailed deer, elk, mountain goat, moose, muskox, Dall's sheep, wolf, and 
wolverine.
* * * * *
    Cub bear means a brown (grizzly) bear in its first or second year 
of life, or a black bear (including the cinnamon and blue phases) in 
its first year of life.
* * * * *
    Fur animal means a classification of animals subject to taking with 
a hunting license, consisting of beaver, coyote, arctic fox, red fox, 
lynx, flying squirrel, ground squirrel, or red squirrel that have not 
been domestically raised.
    Furbearer means a beaver, coyote, arctic fox, red fox, lynx, 
marten, mink, least weasel, short-tailed weasel, muskrat, land otter, 
red squirrel, flying squirrel, ground squirrel, Alaskan marmot, hoary 
marmot, woodchuck, wolf and wolverine.
* * * * *
    Trapping means taking furbearers under a trapping license.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  13.40, revise the section heading and paragraphs (d) and 
(e) to read as follows:


Sec.  13.40  Taking of fish.

* * * * *
    (d) Use of native species as bait. Use of species native to Alaska 
as bait for fishing is allowed in accordance with non-conflicting State 
law and regulations.
    (e) Closures and restrictions. The Superintendent may prohibit or 
restrict the non-subsistence taking of fish in accordance with the 
provisions of Sec.  13.50.

0
4. Add Sec.  13.42 to read as follows:


Sec.  13.42  Taking of wildlife in national preserves.

    (a) Hunting and trapping are allowed in national preserves in 
accordance with applicable Federal and non-conflicting State law and 
regulation.
    (b) Violating a provision of either Federal or non-conflicting 
State law or regulation is prohibited.
    (c) Engaging in trapping activities as the employee of another 
person is prohibited.
    (d) It shall be unlawful for a person having been airborne to use a 
firearm or any other weapon to take or assist in taking any species of 
bear, caribou, Sitka black-tailed deer, elk, coyote, arctic and red 
fox, mountain goat, moose, Dall sheep, lynx, bison, musk ox, wolf and 
wolverine until after 3 a.m. on the day following the day in which the 
flying occurred. This prohibition does not apply to flights on 
regularly scheduled commercial airlines between regularly maintained 
public airports.
    (e) Persons transporting wildlife through park areas must identify 
themselves and the location where the wildlife was taken when requested 
by NPS law enforcement personnel.
    (f) State of Alaska management actions or laws or regulations that 
authorize taking of wildlife are not adopted in park areas if they are 
related to predator reduction efforts. Predator reduction efforts are 
those with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate natural 
predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological processes, in 
order to increase harvest of ungulates by humans.
    (1) The Regional Director will compile a list updated at least 
annually of State laws and regulations not adopted under this paragraph 
(f).
    (2) Taking of wildlife, hunting or trapping activities, or 
management actions identified in this paragraph (f) are prohibited. 
Notice of activities prohibited under this paragraph (f)(2) will be 
provided in accordance with Sec.  13.50(f).
    (g) This paragraph applies to the taking of wildlife in park areas 
administered as national preserves except for subsistence uses by local 
rural residents pursuant to applicable Federal law and regulation. As 
of January 1, 2016, the following are prohibited:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Prohibited acts                      Any exceptions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Shooting from, on, or across a park  None.
 road or highway.
(2) Using any poison or other substance  None.
 that kills or temporarily
 incapacitates wildlife.
(3) Taking wildlife from an aircraft,    If the motor has been
 off-road vehicle, motorboat, motor       completely shut off and
 vehicle, or snowmachine.                 progress from the motor's
                                          power has ceased.
(4) Using an aircraft, snowmachine, off- None.
 road vehicle, motorboat, or other
 motor vehicle to harass wildlife,
 including chasing, driving, herding,
 molesting, or otherwise disturbing
 wildlife.
(5) Taking big game while the animal is  None.
 swimming.
(6) Using a machine gun, a set gun, or   None.
 a shotgun larger than 10 gauge.
(7) Using the aid of a pit, fire,        Killer style traps with an
 artificial salt lick, explosive,         inside jaw spread less than 13
 expanding gas arrow, bomb, smoke,        inches may be used for
 chemical, or a conventional steel trap   trapping, except to take any
 with an inside jaw spread over nine      species of bear or ungulate.
 inches.
(8) Using any electronic device to       (i) Rangefinders may be used.
 take, harass, chase, drive, herd, or    (ii) Electronic calls may be
 molest wildlife, including but not       used for game animals except
 limited to: artificial light; laser      moose.
 sights; electronically enhanced night   (iii) Artificial light may be
 vision scope; any device that has been   used for the purpose of taking
 airborne, controlled remotely, and       furbearers under a trapping
 used to spot or locate game with the     license during an open season
 use of a camera, video, or other         from Nov. 1 through March 31
 sensing device; radio or satellite       where authorized by the State.
 communication; cellular or satellite    (iv) Artificial light may be
 telephone; or motion detector.           used by a tracking dog handler
                                          with one leashed dog to aid in
                                          tracking and dispatching a
                                          wounded big game animal.
                                         (v) Electronic devices approved
                                          in writing by the Regional
                                          Director.
(9) Using snares, nets, or traps to      None.
 take any species of bear or ungulate.
(10) Using bait........................  Using bait to trap furbearers.
(11) Taking big game with the aid or     Leashed dog for tracking
 use of a dog.                            wounded big game.
(12) Taking wolves and coyotes from May  None.
 1 through August 9.
(13) Taking cub bears or female bears    None.
 with cubs.
(14) Taking a fur animal or furbearer    Muskrat pushups or feeding
 by disturbing or destroying a den.       houses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 64344]]

    (h) The Superintendent may prohibit or restrict the non-subsistence 
taking of wildlife in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  13.50.
    (i) A person may not intentionally obstruct or hinder another 
person's lawful hunting or trapping by:
    (1) Placing oneself in a location in which human presence may alter 
the behavior of the game that another person is attempting to take or 
the imminent feasibility of taking game by another person; or
    (2) Creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus in 
order to alter the behavior of the game that another person is 
attempting to take.

0
5. Revise Sec.  13.50 to read as follows:


Sec.  13.50  Closure and restriction procedures.

    (a) Applicability and authority. The Superintendent will follow the 
provisions of this section to close an area or restrict an activity, or 
terminate or relax a closure or restriction, in NPS areas in Alaska.
    (b) Factors. In determining whether to close an area or restrict an 
activity, or whether to terminate or relax a closure or restriction, 
the Superintendent must ensure that the activity or area is managed in 
a manner compatible with the purposes for which the park area was 
established. The Superintendent's decision under this paragraph must 
therefore be guided by factors such as public health and safety, 
resource protection, protection of cultural or scientific values, 
subsistence uses, conservation of endangered or threatened species, and 
other management considerations.
    (c) Rulemaking requirements. This paragraph applies only to a 
closure or restriction, or the termination or relaxation of such, which 
is of a nature, magnitude and duration that will result in a 
significant alteration in the public use pattern of the area; adversely 
affect the area's natural, aesthetic, scenic, or cultural values; or 
require a long-term modification in the resource management objectives 
of the area. Except in emergency situations, the closure or 
restriction, or the termination or relaxation of such, must be 
published as a rulemaking in the Federal Register.
    (d) Written determination. Except in emergency situations, prior to 
implementing or terminating a closure or restriction, the 
superintendent shall prepare a written determination justifying the 
action. That determination shall set forth the reasons the closure or 
restriction authorized by paragraph (a) of this section has been 
established. This determination will be posted on the NPS Web site at 
www.nps.gov.
    (e) Restrictions on taking fish or wildlife. (1) Except in 
emergencies, the NPS will consult with the State agency having 
responsibility over fishing, hunting, or trapping and provide an 
opportunity for public comment, including one or more public meetings 
near the affected NPS unit, prior to implementing a closure or 
restriction on taking fish or wildlife.
    (2) Emergency closures or restrictions may not exceed a period of 
60 days and may not be extended without following the nonemergency 
procedures of this section.
    (f) Notice. A list of closures and restrictions will be compiled in 
writing and updated annually. The list will be posted on the NPS Web 
site at www.nps.gov and made available at park headquarters. Additional 
means of notice reasonably likely to inform residents in the affected 
vicinity will also be provided where available, such as:
    (1) Publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the State 
or in local newspapers;
    (2) Use of electronic media, such as the internet and email lists;
    (3) Radio broadcast; or
    (4) Posting of signs in the local vicinity.
    (g) Violating a closure or restriction is prohibited.


Sec.  13.400  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  13.400, remove paragraph (e) and redesignate paragraph (f) 
as new paragraph (e).

0
7. Revise Sec.  13.470 to read as follows:


Sec.  13.470  Subsistence fishing.

    Fish may be taken by local rural residents for subsistence uses in 
park areas where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with 
applicable Federal law and regulation, including the provisions of 
Sec. Sec.  2.3 and 13.40 of this chapter. Local rural residents in park 
areas where subsistence uses are allowed may fish with a net, seine, 
trap, or spear; or use native species as bait, where permitted by 
applicable Federal law and regulation.

0
8. Revise Sec.  13.480 to read as follows:


Sec.  13.480  Subsistence hunting and trapping.

    Local rural residents may hunt and trap wildlife for subsistence 
uses in park areas where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance 
with this chapter and 50 CFR part 100.

0
9. In Sec.  13.490, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  13.490  Closures and restrictions to subsistence uses of fish and 
wildlife.

    (a) The Superintendent may temporarily restrict a subsistence 
activity or close all or part of a park area to subsistence uses of a 
fish or wildlife population after consultation with the State and the 
Federal Subsistence Board in accordance with the provisions of this 
section. The Superintendent may make a temporary closure or restriction 
notwithstanding any other provision of this part, and only if the 
following conditions are met:
    (1) The restriction or closure must be necessary for reasons of 
public safety, administration, or to ensure the continued viability of 
the fish or wildlife population;
    (2) Except in emergencies, the Superintendent must provide public 
notice and hold a public hearing near the affected NPS unit;
    (3) The restriction or closure may last only so long as reasonably 
necessary to achieve the purposes of the closure.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 9, 2015.
Michael Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2015-26813 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P