Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska, 52247-52273 [2016-18117]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52247-52273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18117]



[[Page 52247]]

Vol. 81

Friday,

No. 151

August 5, 2016

Part VI





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Parts 32 and 36





Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure 
Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2016 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 52248]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Parts 32 and 36

[Docket No. FWS-R7-NWRS-2014-0005; FF07R00000 FXRS12610700000 156 
Obligation #4500093321]
RIN 1018-BA31


Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and 
Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or FWS), are 
amending regulations for National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in Alaska 
that govern predator control and public participation and closure 
procedures. The amendments to the regulations are designed to clarify 
how our existing mandates for the conservation of natural and 
biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health on 
refuges in Alaska relate to predator control; prohibit several 
particularly effective methods and means for take of predators; and 
update our public participation and closure procedures. This rule does 
not change Federal subsistence regulations or restrict the taking of 
fish or wildlife for subsistence uses under Federal subsistence 
regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective September 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Brady, Chief of Conservation 
Planning and Policy, or Carol Damberg, Inventory and Monitoring 
Biologist, National Wildlife Refuge System, Alaska Regional Office, 
1011 E. Tudor Rd., Mail Stop 211, Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone (907) 
306-7448 or (907) 786-3327. If you use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Proposed Rule and Public Comment Period

    On January 8, 2016, we published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (81 FR 887) to amend our regulations for refuges in Alaska to 
clarify how our existing mandates for the conservation of natural and 
biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health on 
refuges in Alaska relate to predator control; to prohibit several 
particularly effective methods and means for take of predators; and to 
update our public participation and closure procedures. The proposed 
rule was initially open for public comment for 60 days, ending March 8, 
2016. On February 26, 2016, we extended the comment period by 30 days, 
which resulted in a 90-day comment period on the proposed rule ending 
on April 7, 2016 (see 81 FR 9799). We invited comments through the U.S. 
mail or hand delivery, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov, and at scheduled public hearings (see our 
announcement of the public hearings at 81 FR 886; January 8, 2016).
    During the comment period, we held nine public hearings on the 
proposed rule (January 26, 2016, in Kotzebue, AK; February 8, 2016, in 
Bethel, AK; February 10, 2016, in Fairbanks, AK; February 11, 2016, in 
Tok, AK; February 16, 2016, in Soldotna, AK; February 18, 2016, in 
Anchorage, AK; March 1, 2016, in Dillingham, AK; March 2, 2016, in 
Kodiak, AK; and March 3, 2016, in Galena, AK). Approximately 218 
individuals attended these hearings, and 104 participants provided 
testimony during the public hearings. We also offered to consult in 
person with Tribes and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 43 U.S.C. 
1601 et seq. (ANCSA or Native), corporations and attended numerous 
Regional Advisory Council (RAC) meetings. Correspondence was received 
from 28 tribal entities (Native nonprofits, Tribal Governments, RACs) 
and from four ANCSA corporations. We met with eight Tribes and one 
ANCSA corporation that requested consultation in person or via 
conference call: Allakaket Council, Alatna Council, Doyon Corporation, 
Gwichyaa Zhee Tribal Council, Kaktovik Tribal Council, Nulato Tribe, 
Togiak Tribal Council, Native Village of Venetie Tribal Council, and 
Venetie Village Council.
    We received approximately 3,643 pieces of correspondence on the 
proposed rule during the public comment period, and from the 
correspondence, we derived over 80 comment statements (a comment 
statement is a portion of the text within a correspondence that 
addresses a single subject). Correspondence included unique comment 
letters and form letters. Approximately 2,530 correspondence documents 
were form letters. Approximately 409 pieces of correspondence received 
provided substantive comments. Some commenters sent comments by 
multiple methods. We attempted to match such duplicates and count them 
as one comment. Additionally, many comments were signed by more than 
one person. We counted a letter as a single comment, regardless of the 
number of signatories. A summary of comments and FWS responses is 
provided below in the section entitled Summary of and Response to 
Public Comments. After considering the public comments and conducting 
additional review, FWS made some changes in this final rule from that 
proposed. These changes are summarized below in the table entitled, 
Summary of primary differences between our proposed rule and this final 
rule.

Federal and State Mandates for Managing Wildlife

    FWS and the State of Alaska work together to manage fish and 
wildlife in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWR System). State 
fish and wildlife authority remains the comprehensive management 
backdrop in the absence of specific, overriding Federal law which 
exists for specific statutory purposes. As explained below, FWS has 
ultimate management authority over resources in the Federal NWR System 
pursuant to a variety of statutes. However, effective stewardship of 
fish and wildlife resources, various statutory provisions, and 
Department of the Interior policy require close cooperation with the 
State. Indeed, as a general rule, State regulations governing hunting 
and fishing on refuges in Alaska are adopted with exceptions tailored 
to the purpose of each refuge and the relevant Federal authority.
1. Federal Authorities
    FWS has various mandates it must adhere to in managing the National 
Wildlife Refuge System (NWR System). There are three statutes in 
particular that provide direction and authority specific to NWRs in 
Alaska: The 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 
(ANILCA; 16 U.S.C. 3111-3126); the National Wildlife Administration Act 
of 1966 (Administration Act) as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) (16 U.S.C. 668dd-ee); 
and the 1964 Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136).
    The Improvement Act provides that ANILCA controls if there is a 
conflict between the two. ANILCA added approximately 54 million acres 
of land to the NWR System in Alaska, by establishing new NWRs or 
expanding and redesignating existing NWRs. ANILCA also designated 18.7 
million acres in 13 wilderness areas on refuges in Alaska as units of 
the National Wilderness Preservation System.

[[Page 52249]]

    Under ANILCA, each refuge in Alaska has a list of purposes for 
which it was established, including the first-listed purpose to 
``conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural 
diversity'' followed by a list of representative species particular to 
each refuge. Kenai NWR has an additional statutory purpose to provide 
opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation in a manner 
compatible with these purposes. The other purposes established by 
ANILCA for Alaska refuges (except international treaty obligations) 
must be managed consistent with the purpose to conserve fish and 
wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity. 
Legislative history for ANILCA provides important guidance on the 
intent and meaning of the term ``natural diversity.'' The 1979 Senate 
Report on H.R. 39 (ANILCA) states that refuges represent, ``the 
opportunity to manage these areas on a planned ecosystem-wide basis 
with all of their pristine ecological processes intact'' (S. Rep. No. 
96-413 at 174 (1979), reprinted in the 1980 United States Code 
Congressional and Administrative News (U.S.C.C.A.N.) 5118). During 
consideration of the concurrent resolution to correct the enrollment of 
H.R. 39 (ANILCA), Alaska's U.S. Senator Ted Stevens submitted 
statements explaining H.R. 39 that included the following regarding 
``natural diversity'' (126 Cong. Rec. S15131 (Dec. 1, 1980)): 
``Sections 302 and 303 of title III designate as a major purpose of 
each new or expanding refuge the conservation of fish and wildlife 
populations and habitats `in their natural diversity.' The phrase `in 
their natural diversity' was included in each subsection of those two 
sections to emphasize the importance of maintaining the flora and fauna 
within each refuge in a healthy condition. The term is not intended to, 
in any way, restrict the authority of the Fish and Wildlife Service to 
manipulate habitat for the benefit of fish or wildlife populations 
within a refuge or for the benefit of the use of such populations by 
man as part of the balanced management program mandated by the Alaska 
National Interest Lands Conservation Act and other applicable law. The 
term also is not intended to preclude predator control on refuge lands 
in appropriate instances.'' Senator Stevens goes on to state, ``Section 
815(1) recognizes this difference by providing that the level of 
subsistence uses within a National Park or National Park Monument may 
not be inconsistent with the conservation of `natural and healthy' fish 
and wildlife populations within the park or monument, while within 
National Wildlife Refuges the level of subsistence uses of such 
populations may not be inconsistent with the conservation of `healthy' 
populations.''
    Nine days after ANILCA was signed into law on December 2, 1980, 
Congressman Morris Udall, Chairman of the Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs and Floor Manager for H.R. 39, during a speech on the 
floor of the House of Representatives described the source of the term 
``natural diversity.'' He stated that the conservation of natural 
diversity refers to ``protecting and managing all fish and wildlife 
populations within a particular wildlife refuge system unit in the 
natural `mix,' not to emphasize management activities favoring one 
species to the detriment of another'' (126 Cong. Rec. H12, 352-53 
(daily ed. Dec. 11, 1980) (statement of Rep. Udall)). During this floor 
speech, Congressman Udall also stated that in managing for natural 
diversity it was the intent of Congress, ``to direct the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service to the best of its ability, . . . to manage wildlife 
refuges to assure that habitat diversity is maintained through natural 
means, avoiding artificial developments and habitat manipulation 
programs. . .; to assure that wildlife refuge management fully 
considers the fact that humans reside permanently within the boundaries 
of some areas and are dependent, . . . on wildlife refuge subsistence 
resources; and to allow management flexibility in developing new and 
innovative management programs different from lower 48 standards, but 
in the context of maintaining natural diversity of fish and wildlife 
populations and their dependent habitats for the long term benefit of 
all citizens'' (126 Cong. Rec. H12, 352-53 (daily ed. Dec. 11, 1980) 
(statement of Rep. Udall)).
    Although the above congressional testimonies provide slightly 
differing views about what is encompassed by managing for natural 
diversity, there is a common theme to protect and maintain the flora 
and fauna within each refuge while providing opportunities for 
subsistence under Title VIII of ANILCA. This legislative history, other 
ANILCA background documentation, and FWS laws, mandates, and policies 
serve to guide refuge management to meet the natural diversity purpose 
language of ANILCA and were used to develop the definition of natural 
diversity contained in this rule.
    In its ANILCA Title VIII statement of policy, Congress also stated, 
``nonwasteful subsistence uses of fish and wildlife and other renewable 
resources [by rural residents] shall be the priority consumptive uses 
of all such resources on the public lands of Alaska when it is 
necessary to restrict taking in order to assure the continued viability 
of a fish or wildlife population or the continuation of subsistence 
uses of such population, the taking of such population for nonwasteful 
subsistence uses shall be given preference on the public land over 
other consumptive uses'' (16 U.S.C. 3112(2)). This subsistence priority 
applies within all National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.
    All refuges in Alaska (except Kenai National Wildlife Refuge) have 
among their stated statutory purposes the requirement to provide the 
opportunity for continued subsistence use by local rural residents in a 
manner consistent with the conservation of fish and wildlife 
populations and habitats in their natural diversity and fulfilling the 
international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to 
fish and wildlife and their habitats. In a further statement of ANILCA 
Title VIII policy, Congress stated that ``consistent with sound 
management principles, and the conservation of healthy populations of 
fish and wildlife, the utilization of the public lands in Alaska is to 
cause the least adverse impact possible on rural residents who depend 
upon subsistence uses of the resources of such lands; consistent with 
management of fish and wildlife in accordance with recognized 
scientific principles and the purposes for each unit established . . . 
the purpose of this title [Title VIII] is to provide the opportunity 
for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to do so'' (16 
U.S.C. 3112(1)). The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
in its report on H.R. 39 stated that ``the phrase `the conservation of 
healthy populations of fish and wildlife' is to mean the maintenance of 
fish and wildlife resources in their habitats in a condition which 
assures stable and continuing natural populations and species mix of 
plants and animals in relation to their ecosystems, including 
recognition that local rural residents engaged in subsistence uses may 
be a natural part of that ecosystem . . .'' (S. Rep. No. 96-413 at 233, 
reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5177). Furthermore, Congress also 
expressly stated that nothing in Title VIII shall be construed as 
``modifying or repealing the provisions of any Federal law governing 
the conservation or protection of fish and wildlife, including the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 . . .'' (16 
U.S.C. 3125(4)).
    FWS recognizes the importance of the fish, wildlife, and other 
natural

[[Page 52250]]

resources in the lives and cultures of Alaska Native people(s) and 
rural residents, and in the lives of all Alaskans, and we continue to 
recognize subsistence uses of fish and wildlife and other renewable 
resources as the priority consumptive use on Federal lands in Alaska, 
which includes all NWRs in Alaska. This rule does not change the 
existing Federal subsistence regulations (title 36 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) at part 242 (36 CFR part 242) and 50 CFR part 
100) or restrict the taking of fish or wildlife for subsistence uses 
under the Federal subsistence regulations.
    The Improvement Act states that refuges must be managed to fulfill 
the mission of the NWR System and purposes of the individual refuge. 
The Improvement Act established the mission of the NWR System, to 
``administer a national network of lands and waters for the 
conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of fish, 
wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United 
States for the benefit of present and future generations of 
Americans.'' Section 4(a)(4)(B) of the Improvement Act states that ``In 
administering the System, the Secretary shall . . . ensure that the 
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health [BIDEH] of 
the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 
generations of Americans . . .'' (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)(B)). The FWS 
BIDEH policy (601 FW 3), which provides guidance for implementation of 
this aspect of the Improvement Act, defines biological integrity as 
``biotic composition, structure, and functioning at genetic, organism, 
and community levels comparable with historic conditions, including the 
natural biological processes that shape genomes, organisms, and 
communities.'' In that policy, biological diversity is defined as ``the 
variety of life and its processes, including the variety of living 
organisms, the genetic differences among them, and communities and 
ecosystems in which they occur.'' The policy defines environmental 
health as the ``composition, structure, and functioning of soil, water, 
air, and other abiotic features comparable with historic conditions, 
including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment.'' 
Abiotic features are nonliving chemical and physical features of the 
environment (e.g., soil, air, water, temperature, etc.). The policy 
also defines ``historic conditions'' as the ``composition, structure, 
and functioning of ecosystems resulting from natural processes that we 
believe, based on sound professional judgment, were present prior to 
substantial human related changes to the landscape.'' In implementing 
this policy on refuges, we favor ``management that restores or mimics 
natural ecosystem processes or functions to achieve refuge 
purposes(s).'' Additionally, under this policy, we ``formulate refuge 
goals and objectives for population management by considering natural 
densities, social structures, and population dynamics at the refuge 
level'' and manage populations for ``natural densities and levels of 
variation.''
    Based on the above discussion, we conclude that management in 
accordance with the BIDEH policy mandated by the Improvement Act is 
essentially the same as managing for natural diversity as mandated by 
ANILCA. Each mandate requires us to manage for natural diversity using 
minimum manipulation where possible, but also recognizes that active 
management may be required relative to other mandates, altered 
landscapes, and changing human influences. Each mandate allows 
appropriate management tools to remain available as needed for future 
refuge management. The terms biological integrity, diversity, and 
environmental health are defined in the BIDEH policy, which directs FWS 
to maintain the variety of life and its processes; to maintain biotic 
and abiotic compositions, structure, and functioning; and to manage 
populations for natural densities and levels of variation throughout 
the NWR System.
    The Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136) states that wilderness 
``is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of 
life are untrammeled by man . . . which is protected and managed so as 
to preserve its natural conditions.'' Our wilderness stewardship policy 
(610 FW 1) interprets ``untrammeled'' to be ``the freedom of a 
landscape from the human intent to permanently intervene, alter, 
control, or manipulate natural conditions or processes.'' The second 
chapter of the wilderness stewardship policy, which outlines 
administration and resource stewardship (610 FW 2), directs that FWS 
will not manipulate ecosystem processes, specifically including 
predator/prey fluctuations, in wilderness areas unless ``necessary to 
accomplish the purposes of the refuge, including Wilderness Act 
purposes, or in cases where these processes become unnatural'' (i.e., 
disrupted predator/prey relationships, spread of invasive species, and 
so forth). Additionally, nothing in this rule applies to or is 
inconsistent with our policy that outlines special provisions for 
Alaska wilderness (610 FW 5).
    The overarching goal of our wildlife-dependent recreation policy is 
to enhance opportunities and access to quality visitor experiences on 
refuges and to manage the refuge to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, 
and their habitats (605 FW 1.6). We recognize hunting as one of many 
priority uses of the NWR System (when and where compatible with refuge 
purposes) that is a healthy, traditional outdoor pastime, deeply rooted 
in the American heritage (605 FW 2). As stated at 50 CFR part 36, the 
taking of fish and wildlife through public recreational activities, 
including sport hunting, is authorized on refuges in Alaska ``as long 
as such activities are conducted in manner compatible with the purposes 
for which the areas were established'' (50 CFR 36.31(a)).
2. Applicability of State Authority
    In 1970, the Secretary of the Interior developed a policy statement 
on intergovernmental cooperation in the preservation, use, and 
management of fish and wildlife resources. The purpose of the policy 
(36 FR 21034, November 3, 1971; 43 CFR part 24) was to strengthen and 
support the missions of the several States and the Department of the 
Interior respecting fish and wildlife. Federal authority exists for 
specified purposes while State authority regarding fish and resident 
wildlife remains the comprehensive backdrop applicable in the absence 
of specific, overriding Federal law.
    In general, the States possess broad trustee and police powers over 
fish and wildlife within their borders, including fish and wildlife 
found on Federal lands within a State. Under the Property Clause of the 
Constitution, Congress is given the power to ``make all needful Rules 
and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to 
the United States.'' In the exercise of power under the Property 
Clause, Congress may choose to preempt State management of fish and 
wildlife on Federal lands and, in circumstances where the exercise of 
power under the Commerce Clause is available, Congress may choose to 
establish restrictions on the taking of fish and wildlife whether or 
not the activity occurs on Federal lands, as well as to establish 
restrictions on possessing, transporting, importing, or exporting fish 
and wildlife.
    Units of the National Wildlife Refuge System constitute federally 
owned or controlled areas set aside primarily as conservation areas for 
migratory waterfowl and other species of fish or wildlife. In contrast 
to multiple use public lands, the conservation,

[[Page 52251]]

enhancement, and perpetuation of fish and wildlife is almost invariably 
the principal reason for the establishment of a unit of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System. In consequence, Federal activity respecting 
management of migratory waterfowl and other wildlife residing on units 
of the National Wildlife Refuge System involves a Federal function 
specifically authorized by Congress. Units of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System, therefore, shall be managed, to the extent practicable 
and compatible with the purposes for which they were established, in 
accordance with State laws and regulations, comprehensive plans for 
fish and wildlife developed by the States, and Regional Resource Plans 
developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the 
States.
    In Alaska, as such, sport hunting and trapping on refuges are 
generally regulated by the States, unless further restricted by Federal 
law (see 50 CFR 32.2(d)) or closures to Federal public land, such as 
under Federal subsistence regulations (36 CFR 242.26 or 50 CFR 100.26). 
In Alaska, sport hunting is commonly referred to as general hunting and 
trapping and includes State subsistence hunts and general permits open 
to both Alaska residents and nonresidents (see definition of ``sport 
hunting'' under the Regulation Promulgation section, below). These 
activities remain subject to Federal law, including mandates under 
ANILCA; the Improvement Act; and, where applicable, the Wilderness Act. 
Applicable directives and guidance can also be found in policies in the 
Service Manual at 601 FW 3 (Biological Integrity, Diversity, and 
Environmental Health), 605 FW 2 (Hunting), 610 FW 2 (Wilderness 
Administration and Resource Stewardship), and 610 FW 5 (Special 
Provisions for Alaska Wilderness). Additionally, the regulations at 50 
CFR 36.32(a) state that the Refuge Manager ``may designate areas where, 
and establish periods when, no taking of a particular population of 
fish or wildlife shall be permitted.''
    The State of Alaska's (State) legal framework for managing wildlife 
is based on a different principle than the legal framework applicable 
to management of the NWR system; it is based on the principle of 
sustained yield, which is defined by statute to mean ``the achievement 
and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level of 
human harvest of game, subject to preferences among beneficial uses, on 
an annual or periodic basis'' (Alaska Statute (AS) 16.05.255(j)(5)). 
Since 1994, Alaska State law (AS 16.05.255) has prioritized human 
consumptive use of ungulates--specifically moose, caribou, and deer. 
Known as the Intensive Management (IM) statute, the law requires the 
Alaska Board of Game (BOG) to designate populations of ungulates for 
which human consumptive use is the highest priority use and to set 
population and harvest objectives for those populations. To that end, 
the BOG must ``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 16.05.255(e)). Once designated as an IM population, if 
either populations or harvests fail to meet management objectives, 
nonresident hunting must first be eliminated, followed by reductions or 
eliminations of resident harvest opportunities. However, under the IM 
statute, the BOG may not significantly reduce the harvest opportunities 
of an identified IM ungulate population unless it has adopted or is 
considering the adoption of regulations ``to restore the abundance or 
productivity of the ungulate population through habitat enhancement, 
predation control, or other means'' (AS 16.05.255(e)-(g) and (j)).
    The BOG has adopted regulations under the IM statute that require 
targeted reductions of wolf, black bear, brown bear, or a combination 
of these in designated ``predation control areas'' within game 
management units. These State regulations are implemented through IM 
plans (5 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 92.106-5 AAC 92.127) that 
authorize activities including aerial shooting of wolves or bears or 
both by State agency personnel, trapping of wolves by paid contractors, 
allowance under permit for same-day airborne hunting of wolves and 
bears by the public, and allowance under permit for the take of any 
black or brown bear through baiting or snaring by the public (5 AAC 
92).
    Thirteen of the 16 refuges in Alaska contain lands within game 
management units officially designated for IM. While predator control 
activities occurring under the authority of an IM plan have not been 
permitted by FWS on any refuge in Alaska, some predator control 
programs and activities are being implemented in predation control 
areas immediately adjacent to refuges. Given the large home ranges of 
many species affected by IM actions, these control programs have the 
potential to impact wildlife resources, natural systems, and ecological 
processes, as well as conservation and management of these species on 
adjacent refuges.
    In recent years, concurrent with its adoption and implementation of 
IM plans for predation control areas, the BOG has also authorized 
measures under its general hunting and trapping regulations that 
potentially increase the take of predators to a degree that disrupts 
natural processes and wildlife interactions. Examples of these recently 
adopted measures, which apply beyond areas officially designated for 
IM, including many refuges in Alaska, are:
     Harvesting brown bears over bait at registered black bear 
bait stations;
     Taking wolves and coyotes (including pups) during the 
denning season;
     Expanding season lengths and increasing bag limits;
     Classifying black bears as both furbearers and big game 
species (which could allow for trapping and snaring of bears and sale 
of their hides and skulls); and
     Authorizing same-day airborne take of bears at registered 
bait stations (5 AAC 85).
    Many of the recent actions by the BOG to liberalize the State's 
regulatory frameworks for general hunting and trapping of wolves, 
bears, and coyotes reverse long-standing prohibitions and restrictions 
on take of these wildlife species under State law. Unlike the recent 
practice of taking brown bears over bait, black bear baiting has been 
an authorized practice in Alaska since 1982, including on refuges. 
Black bear baiting is authorized by the State pursuant to a permit and, 
in some instances, a special use permit (Service Form 3-1383-G) issued 
by refuges. Taking of brown bears at black bear baiting stations was 
recently authorized under State regulations in certain game management 
units within the State (several of which are within refuges) and is 
subject to the same restrictions as black bear baiting. The State 
regulations prohibit setting up a bait station within 1 mile of a home 
or other dwelling, business, or campground, or within \1/4\ mile of a 
road or trail (5 AAC 85).
3. The Interplay of Federal and State Regulations at Refuges in Alaska
    Implementation of IM actions under the IM statute and many of the 
recent liberalizations of the general hunting and trapping regulations 
have direct implications for the management of refuges in Alaska. The 
different purposes of State and Federal laws and the increased focus on 
predator control by the State have resulted in the need for FWS to 
deviate, in certain respects, from applying State regulations within

[[Page 52252]]

refuges. This is because predator-prey interactions represent a dynamic 
and foundational ecological process in Alaska's arctic and subarctic 
ecosystems, and are a major driver of ecosystem function. State 
regulations allowing activities on refuges in Alaska that are 
inconsistent with the conservation of fish and wildlife populations and 
their habitats in their natural diversity, or the maintenance of 
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health, are in 
direct conflict with our legal mandates for administering refuges in 
Alaska under ANILCA, the Improvement Act, and the Wilderness Act, as 
well as with applicable agency policies (601 FW 3, 610 FW 2, and 605 FW 
2).
    In managing for natural diversity, FWS conserves, protects, and 
manages all fish and wildlife populations within a particular wildlife 
refuge system unit in the natural `mix,' not to emphasize management 
activities favoring one species to the detriment of another. FWS 
assures that habitat diversity is maintained through natural means on 
refuges in Alaska, avoiding artificial developments and habitat 
manipulation programs, whenever possible. FWS fully recognizes and 
considers that rural residents use, and are often dependent on, refuge 
resources for subsistence purposes, and FWS manages for this use 
consistent with the conservation of species and habitats in their 
natural diversity.
    This rule does not change Federal subsistence regulations (36 CFR 
part 242 and 50 CFR part 100) or otherwise restrict the taking of fish 
or wildlife for subsistence by federally qualified users under those 
regulations. The rule does not apply to take in defense of life and 
property as defined under State regulations (see 5 AAC 92.410). Hunting 
and trapping are priority uses of refuges in Alaska. The rule will not 
affect implementation of State hunting and trapping regulations that 
are consistent with Federal law and FWS policies on refuges, nor will 
it restrict hunting or trapping activities outside FWS-managed refuge 
lands and waters.

This Final Rule

Summary of Final Rule

    We developed the changes to existing refuge regulations included in 
our January 8, 2016, proposed rule to meet our legal mandates and to 
ensure consistency with policy, directives, and approved management 
plans.
    This rule makes the following substantive changes to existing NWR 
regulations:
    (1) We define ``natural diversity'' in regulation based on the 
legislative history from ANILCA. Natural diversity means the existence 
of all fish, wildlife, and plant populations within a particular 
wildlife refuge system unit in the natural mix and in a healthy 
condition for the long-term benefit of current and future generations. 
Managing for natural diversity includes avoiding emphasis of management 
activities favoring some species to the detriment of others and 
assuring that habitat diversity is maintained through natural means, 
avoiding artificial developments and habitat manipulation programs 
whenever possible.
    (2) We prohibit predator control on refuges in Alaska, unless it is 
determined necessary to meet refuge purposes; is consistent with 
Federal laws and policy; and is based on sound science in response to a 
conservation concern. Demands for more wildlife for human harvest 
cannot be the sole or primary basis for predator control.
    We define predator control as the intention to reduce the 
population of predators for the benefit of prey species. For clarity, 
this includes predator reduction practices, such as, but not limited 
to, those undertaken by government officials or authorized agents, 
aerial shooting, or same-day airborne take of predators. Other less 
intrusive predator reduction techniques such as, but not limited to, 
live trapping and transfer, authorization of particularly effective 
public harvest methods and means, or utilizing physical or mechanical 
protections (barriers, fences) are also included with exception for 
barriers for human life and property safety.
    A Refuge Manager will authorize predator control activities on a 
National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska only if:
    (a) Alternatives to predator control have been evaluated as a 
practical means of achieving management objectives;
    (b) Proposed actions have been evaluated in compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
    (c) A formal refuge compatibility determination has been completed, 
as required by law; and
    (d) The potential effects of predator control on subsistence uses 
and needs have been evaluated through an ANILCA section 810 analysis.
    This rule ensures that take of wildlife on refuges in Alaska under 
State regulations and implementation of predator control is consistent 
with our legal mandates and policies for administration of those 
refuges.
    (3) This rule prohibits the following practices for the taking of 
wildlife on Alaska National Wildlife refuges (except for subsistence 
uses by federally qualified subsistence users in accordance with 
applicable Federal laws and regulations):
     Taking black or brown bear cubs or sows with cubs 
(exception allowed for resident hunters to take black bear cubs or sows 
with cubs under customary and traditional use activities at a den site 
October 15-April 30 in specific game management units in accordance 
with State law);
     Taking brown bears over bait;
     Taking of bears using traps or snares;
     Taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season (May 
1-August 9); and
     Taking bears from an aircraft or on the same day as air 
travel has occurred. The take of wolves or wolverines from an aircraft 
or on the same day as air travel has occurred is already prohibited 
under current refuge regulations.
    FWS requested comment on the type of bait allowed to be used for 
the baiting of black or brown bears. Currently, State regulations, 
which are adopted on refuges, require the bait used at bear baiting 
stations to be biodegradable. People use a range of different types of 
bait for the baiting of bears, including parts of fish and game that 
are not required to be salvaged when these species are harvested, as 
well as human and pet food products. We received very few comments 
expressing opinions on appropriate baits. Based on this, we will 
continue to adopt State regulations.
    (4) We update our regulations to reflect Federal assumption of 
management of subsistence hunting and fishing under Title VIII of 
ANILCA by the Federal Government from the State in the 1990s.
    (5) As set forth in our January 8, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 887), 
we remove a statement at the current 50 CFR 36.32(e) that references 
compliance with other mandates (such as the Airborne Hunting Act, 16 
U.S.C. 742j-1) in order to reduce redundancy. The requirement for 
compliance with applicable State and Federal laws is set forth at 50 
CFR 36.32(a) in this final rule. We also correct the regulations at 50 
CFR part 36 by removing a statement set forth at the current 50 CFR 
36.32(e) that references sections of subchapter C of title 50 of the 
CFR (regarding the taking of depredating wildlife) that no longer 
exist.
    (6) We amend 50 CFR 32.2(h) to state that black bear baiting is 
authorized in accordance with State regulations on NWRs in Alaska. This 
change ensures

[[Page 52253]]

consistency between the provisions of the national hunting regulations 
at 50 CFR part 32 regarding baiting in Alaska and the Alaska-specific 
regulations at 50 CFR part 36.
    (7) We update procedures for implementing closures or restrictions 
on refuges, including the taking of fish and wildlife under sport 
hunting and trapping, to more effectively engage and inform the public 
and make the notice and durational provisions more consistent with 
procedures set forth in Federal subsistence closure policy and 
regulations at 36 CFR 242.19 and 50 CFR 100.19 for emergency special 
actions on Federal public lands in Alaska. Improved consistency between 
these Federal regulations and processes will help minimize confusion 
and make it easier for the public to be involved in the process.
    The regulations provide for emergency, temporary, and permanent 
closures and restrictions. This rule limits emergency closures and 
restrictions to 60 days, and temporary closures and restrictions are 
limited to the minimum time necessary, and will not exceed 12 months.
    This rule also updates the closures and restrictions notification 
procedures for refuges in Alaska to reflect the availability of 
alternative communications technologies and approaches that have 
emerged or evolved over the last few decades. These changes recognize 
that the Internet has become one of the primary methods to communicate 
with the public and is an effective tool for engaging Alaskans and the 
broader American public and that there are other forms of broadcast 
media, beyond just the radio, that we may want to use.
    The changes to the notification procedures are not intended to 
limit public involvement or reduce public notice; rather, we intend to 
engage in ways more likely to encourage public involvement and in a 
manner that is fiscally responsible. We recognize that in-person public 
meetings will continue to be the most effective way to engage Alaskans, 
and we intend to continue that practice. We also recognize that many 
individuals in rural Alaska do not have access to high speed Internet, 
and for that reason, we will continue to use other methods of 
communication, such as regional and local newspapers, posting flyers at 
local post offices, and radio announcements, where available to provide 
adequate notice.

Table--Summary of Primary Differences Between Our Proposed Rule and This
                               Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   What we proposed in the January 8,      What we are making final in
   2016, proposed rule  (81 CFR 887)                this rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  50 CFR 32.2(h): What are the requirements for hunting on areas of the
              National Wildlife Refuge System?; Use of bait
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to revise this provision to  We are revising this provision
 add the following statement: ``(Black    to add the following
 bear baiting is authorized in            statement: ``(Black bear
 accordance with State regulations on     baiting and use of bait to
 national wildlife refuges in             trap furbearers are authorized
 Alaska.)''                               in accordance with State
                                          regulations on national
                                          wildlife refuges in Alaska.)''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          50 CFR 36.2: What do these terms mean? (Definitions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to add 13 definitions to     Of the 13 definitions proposed,
 the regulations.                         we are defining 8 terms in
                                          this final rule. We are not
                                          adding definitions for
                                          ``biological diversity,''
                                          ``biological integrity,''
                                          ``environmental health,''
                                          ``historic conditions,'' or
                                          ``Regional Director'' to the
                                          regulations in this final
                                          rule.
                                         We revised the proposed
                                          definition of ``natural
                                          diversity'' by removing the
                                          following: ``and taking into
                                          consideration the fact that
                                          humans are dependent on
                                          wildlife refuge subsistence
                                          resources.'' The definition of
                                          ``natural diversity'' we are
                                          adopting in this final rule
                                          reads: ``Natural diversity
                                          means the existence of all
                                          fish, wildlife, and plant
                                          populations within a
                                          particular wildlife refuge
                                          system unit in the natural mix
                                          and in a healthy condition for
                                          the long-term benefit of
                                          current and future
                                          generations. Managing for
                                          natural diversity includes
                                          avoiding emphasis of
                                          management activities favoring
                                          some species to the detriment
                                          of others and assuring that
                                          habitat diversity is
                                          maintained through natural
                                          means, avoiding artificial
                                          developments and habitat
                                          manipulation programs whenever
                                          possible.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     50 CFR 36.32(b): Taking of fish and wildlife; predator control
                               prohibition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed the following language to    We are removing the words ``is
 set forth when predator control is       consistent with our mandates
 allowed on a refuge: ``Predator          to manage for natural and
 control is prohibited on National        biological diversity,
 Wildlife Refuges in Alaska, unless it    biological integrity, and
 is determined necessary to meet refuge   environmental health'' and
 purposes, Federal laws, or policy; is    removing the word
 consistent with our mandates to manage   ``significant'' before the
 for natural and biological diversity,    words ``conservation
 biological integrity, and                concern.'' In addition, we
 environmental health; and is based on    removed the words
 sound science in response to a           ``attempted'' and
 significant conservation concern.        ``exhausted'' in the first
 Demands for more wildlife for human      step of the process to approve
 harvest cannot be the sole or primary    predator control activities.
 basis for predator control. A Refuge     The paragraph now reads:
 Manager will authorize predator          ``Predator control is
 control activities on a National         prohibited on National
 Wildlife Refuge in Alaska only if:       Wildlife Refuges in Alaska,
                                          unless it is determined
                                          necessary to meet refuge
                                          purposes, is consistent with
                                          Federal laws and policy, and
                                          is based on sound science in
                                          response to a conservation
                                          concern. Demands for more
                                          wildlife for human harvest
                                          cannot be the sole or primary
                                          basis for predator control. A
                                          Refuge Manager will authorize
                                          predator control activities on
                                          a National Wildlife Refuge in
                                          Alaska only if:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Alternatives to predator control     (1) Alternatives to predator
 have been evaluated, attempted, and      control have been evaluated as
 exhausted as a practical means of        a practical means of achieving
 achieving management objectives;         management objectives;

[[Page 52254]]

 
(2) Proposed actions have been           (2) Proposed actions have been
 evaluated in compliance with the         evaluated in compliance with
 National Environmental Policy Act (42    the National Environmental
 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);                    Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
                                          seq.);
(3) A formal refuge compatibility        (3) A formal refuge
 determination has been completed, as     compatibility determination
 required by law; and                     has been completed, as
                                          required by law; and
(4) The potential effects of predator    (4) The potential effects of
 control on subsistence uses and needs    predator control on
 have been evaluated through an ANILCA    subsistence uses and needs
 section 810 analysis.''                  have been evaluated through an
                                          ANILCA section 810
                                          analysis.''.
  50 CFR 36.42(b) Public participation and closure procedures; Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to add conservation of       We are not adding conservation
 natural diversity, biological            of natural diversity,
 integrity, biological diversity, and     biological integrity,
 environmental health to the list of      biological diversity, and
 criteria for closures.                   environmental health to the
                                          list of criteria for closures.
                                          We are retaining the original
                                          closure criteria and
                                          regulatory language.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      50 CFR 36.42(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) Emergency closures or
                              restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We did not propose any changes.........  In response to a comment, we
                                          are adding clarifying
                                          language, or making editorial
                                          changes, concerning notice of
                                          emergency closures or
                                          restrictions. Specifically, we
                                          are adding reference to 50 CFR
                                          36.42(f), notice procedures,
                                          to these paragraphs of the
                                          regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   50 CFR 36.42(c)(4): Emergency closures or restrictions; time frame
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed that ``Emergency closures    We are adopting the following
 or restrictions may not exceed a         statement: ``No emergency
 period of 60 days. Extensions beyond     closure or restriction will
 60 days are subject to nonemergency      exceed 60 days. Closures or
 closure procedures.''                    restrictions requiring longer
                                          than 60 days will follow
                                          nonemergency closure
                                          procedures (i.e., temporary or
                                          permanent; see paragraphs (d)
                                          and (e), respectively, of this
                                          section).''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      50 CFR 36.42(d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3): Temporary closures or
                              restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed revised language concerning  We are adopting our proposed
 temporary closures or restrictions       language with additional
 related to the use of aircraft,          clarifying language, or
 snowmachines, motorboats, or             editorial changes, concerning
 nonmotorized surface transportation      notice of temporary closures
 and to the taking of fish and wildlife   or restrictions. Specifically,
 and to other temporary closures.         we are adding reference to 50
                                          CFR 36.42(f), notice
                                          procedures, to these
                                          paragraphs of the regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Proposed 50 CFR 36.42(d)(5) and (d)(6): Temporary closures or
                              restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed language concerning the      We are not adopting proposed 50
 time period, evaluation, and removal     CFR 36.42(d)(5) or (d)(6).
 of temporary closures at proposed 50     Instead, at 50 CFR
 CFR 36.42(d)(5). We proposed language    36.42(d)(4), we retain
 concerning a list of closures and        historic temporary closure or
 restrictions at proposed 50 CFR          restriction language to limit
 36.42(d)(6).                             temporary closures to a
                                          maximum of 12 months;
                                          provided, however, a new
                                          temporary closure or
                                          restriction may be adopted
                                          thereafter by following the
                                          applicable procedures set
                                          forth at 50 CFR 32.42(d)(1),
                                          (d)(2), or (d)(3).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           50 CFR 36.42(e): Permanent closures or restrictions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed language for permanent       We revised the language to be
 closures or restrictions related to      consistent with 43 CFR
 the use of aircraft, snowmachines,       36.11(h)(3). The paragraph now
 motorboats, or nonmotorized surface      reads: ``Permanent closures or
 transportation and to the taking of      restrictions related to the
 fish and wildlife that read:             use of aircraft, snowmachines,
 ``Permanent closures or restrictions     motorboats, or nonmotorized
 relating to the use of aircraft,         surface transportation, or
 snowmachines, motorboats, or             taking of fish and wildlife,
 nonmotorized surface transportation,     will be effective only after
 or taking of fish and wildlife, will     notice pursuant to paragraph
 be effective only after allowing for     (f) of this section, and shall
 the opportunity for public comment and   be published by rulemaking in
 a public hearing in the vicinity of      the Federal Register with a
 the area(s) affected and other           minimum public comment period
 locations as appropriate, and after      of 60 days and shall not be
 publication in the Federal Register.     effective until after a public
 Permanent closures or restrictions       hearing(s) is held in the
 related to the taking of fish and        affected vicinity and other
 wildlife would require consultation      locations as appropriate.
 with the State and affected Tribes and   Permanent closures or
 Native Corporations.''                   restrictions related to the
                                          taking of fish and wildlife
                                          require consultation with the
                                          State and affected Tribes and
                                          Native Corporations.''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (8) We codify definitions for several terms (see the Regulation 
Promulgation section, below). These terms include ``Bait,'' ``Big 
game,'' ``Cub bear,'' ``Furbearer,'' ``Natural diversity,'' ``Predator 
control,'' ``Sport hunting,'' and ``Trapping.'' Most of these 
definitions, including bait, big game, cub bear, furbearer, and 
predator control, are based on existing definitions in Federal 
subsistence regulations or policy.
    During our scoping and comment period, and through tribal 
consultation efforts, we heard that definitions for biological 
integrity, biological diversity, natural diversity, and environmental 
health and the origins of these definitions are of significant interest 
to people. As discussed above, FWS is mandated under the Improvement 
Act to ``ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and 
environmental health [BIDEH] of the System are maintained

[[Page 52255]]

for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. . .'' 
(16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)(B)). The FWS BIDEH policy (601 FW 3), which 
provides guidance for implementation of the Improvement Act, provides 
definitions for each of these terms, as well as the term ``historic 
conditions.'' As also discussed above, the definition of ``natural 
diversity'' in this rule is derived from FWS' review of ANILCA's 
legislative history and FWS' conclusion that the concepts of natural 
diversity and BIDEH are essentially the same.

Summary of and Response to Public Comments

    We reviewed and considered all substantive information we received 
during the comment period. A summary of substantive comments and FWS 
responses is provided below. The previous table sets out changes we 
have made to the provisions of the proposed rule based on the analysis 
of the comments and other considerations. As comments were often 
similar or covered multiple topics, we have grouped comments and 
responses by topic areas, which generally correspond to specific 
sections of the January 8, 2016, proposed rule.

Guiding Laws and Regulations, Native Americans, and States Rights

    (1) Comment: Commenters stated what we proposed is not aligned with 
ANILCA and gives subsistence a lower priority than other uses.
    FWS Response: ANILCA sections 302 and 303 (with the exception of 
Kenai NWR) established the opportunity for subsistence uses by local 
residents as one of the main purposes (Refuge purposes) for which NWRs 
in Alaska (created or expanded by ANILCA) were established and are to 
be managed. The first two purposes listed for each NWR under ANILCA 
are: (i) To conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in 
their natural diversity, and (ii) to fulfill the international treaty 
obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and 
their habitats. The third purpose listed is to provide, in a manner 
consistent with the purposes set forth in (i) and (ii), above, the 
opportunity for continued subsistence uses by local residents. Although 
the subsistence purpose carries the same weight as the first two 
purposes, it is subject to consistency with the first two purposes. 
ANILCA makes clear that the subsistence purpose (third-listed purpose) 
is equally important insofar as it is consistent with the preceding 
purposes ((i) and (ii)). This rule is fully consistent with the 
purposes and requirements of ANILCA.
    (2) Comment: Commenters expressed concerns with FWS' definition of 
the term ``natural diversity'' and stated the FWS definition derived 
from the congressional testimony of Congressman Udall was not 
appropriate and excluded predator control as a management tool.
    FWS Response: ANILCA does not include a definition of the term 
``natural diversity.'' FWS' definition was developed after carefully 
considering the statutory language as well as the legislative history 
of ANILCA. In response to public comments that our proposed discussion 
and definition did not fully reflect the full legislative history of 
ANILCA, we added a discussion concerning the portions of Alaska Senator 
Ted Steven's floor statements that referenced natural diversity. In 
this final rule, we are defining ``natural diversity'' at 50 CFR 36.2 
(see the Regulation Promulgation section, below). As it has since the 
enactment of ANILCA in 1980, FWS will continue to rely on the statutory 
provisions of ANILCA, its legislative history, and applicable FWS 
mandates, laws, and policies to guide NWR management in Alaska. FWS may 
authorize predator control on Alaska NWRs when it is determined to be 
in accordance with FWS laws, mandates, and policies. This rule 
identifies when we will authorize predator control and clarifies how 
our existing statutory mandates for the conservation of natural and 
biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health on 
NWRs in Alaska apply to predator control.
    (3) Comment: Commenters stated what was proposed violates the 
intent of ANILCA, and they object to any action that violates the 
existing Master Memorandum of Understanding (MMOU) between the State 
and FWS. They feel the State should have primacy in regards to the 
management of fish and wildlife.
    FWS Response: The State of Alaska and FWS have differing missions, 
goals, and objectives, and authorities are derived through State or 
Federal statutes, respectively. The purpose of this rule is to exercise 
FWS' management authority on NWR lands in Alaska to achieve goals of 
ANILCA's NWR purposes. ANILCA (1980) section 304(a) states, ``Each 
refuge shall be administered by the Secretary . . . in accordance with 
the laws governing the administration of units of the NWR System and 
this Act.'' This rule is consistent with the Administration Act, the 
Improvement Act, the purposes for which the NWRs were created or 
expanded as stated in ANILCA sections 302 and 303, and with other 
provisions of ANILCA. Neither ANILCA nor the MMOU (1982, Recommitment 
2006) suggests that the State has or should have primacy in the 
management of fish and wildlife on NWRs. The MMOU stresses cooperation 
between FWS and the State, ``to manage fish and resident wildlife 
populations in their natural diversity on FWS lands.'' FWS prefers to 
defer to the State on regulations of hunting and trapping on NWRs in 
Alaska, unless doing so would be inconsistent with Federal laws and 
policy.
    (4) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed 
changes are likely not in keeping with what was intended in ANILCA 
(sections 101, 102). Other commenters suggested that FWS should 
recognize that wildness is the overarching condition that ANILCA seeks 
to perpetuate relative to management of NWRs.
    FWS Response: FWS manages Alaska NWRs for the purposes expressed in 
section 101 of ANILCA and consistent with the definitions of terms 
found in section 102. The term ``wildness'' is not specifically used in 
the purposes section of ANILCA, sections 101 and 102, but it is alluded 
to. FWS meets the purposes of ANILCA sections 101 and 102, by managing 
for natural diversity on all Alaskan refuges.
    (5) Comment: Commenters were concerned FWS was not considering the 
Supreme Court's recent ruling in Sturgeon v. Frost, 577 U.S. (2016), 
which ordered the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals to reconsider its 
decision. The Supreme Court opinion stated that ``Alaska is often the 
exception, not the rule'' when it comes to Federal regulation.
    FWS Response: FWS fully recognizes the statutory differences for 
management of NWRs in Alaska and those in the rest of the United 
States. Those differences have long been reflected in the Service's 
regulations and policies. This rule complies with the applicable 
provisions of ANILCA, is limited in its applicability to activities 
occurring only on public lands administered by FWS, and is therefore 
fully consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.
    (6) Comment: One commenter expressed concern about whether the 
changes proposed by FWS are consistent with ANCSA and ANILCA, and 
suggested FWS engage with rural communities and consult with Alaska 
Native villages and ANCSA corporations to identify and address any 
issues pertaining to the proposed regulations.
    FWS Response: Our intention in issuing the January 8, 2016, 
proposed

[[Page 52256]]

rule (81 FR 887), as well this final rule, was to ensure consistency 
with applicable provisions of ANCSA or ANILCA. We took public comments 
on the proposed rule for 90 days. This final rule modifies certain 
provisions of the proposed rule based on comments from the public at 
large, State of Alaska, rural residents, Tribes, and other Alaska 
Native entities, to reduce the potential effects on federally qualified 
subsistence users on Alaska NWR lands. This rule does not change 
Federal subsistence regulations. This rule does not restrict federally 
qualified subsistence users who are hunting in accordance with Federal 
subsistence regulations. ANILCA section 304(a) requires that ``Each 
refuge shall be administered by the Secretary . . . in accordance with 
the laws governing the administration of units of the NWR System and 
this Act.'' Further, section 815 of ANILCA is explicit that nothing in 
Title VIII, the subsistence title, modifies or repeals the provisions 
of the Administration Act. This rule is consistent with the 
Administration Act, the Improvement Act, and the purposes for which the 
NWRs were created or expanded as stated in ANILCA sections 302 and 303.
    FWS agrees that consultation with all constituent communities is 
extremely important and in particular continues to strive for increased 
cooperation and dialogue with rural Alaskans. We held nine public 
meetings in urban and rural communities, attended RAC and BOG meetings 
throughout the State, and contacted Alaska Native Tribes for 
government-to-government consultation and ANCSA corporations for 
consultations. We met and communicated with the Tribes and ANCSA 
corporations that requested formal consultation. Details on the 
outreach that was conducted with Tribes, the State, and the public are 
detailed in this rule and the finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 
FWS remains available to discuss the application of the rule with 
Tribes and ANCSA corporations at their request.
    (7) Comment: Commenters expressed discontent with the BOG 
management of wildlife on Alaska NWRs. Commenters stated that the 
public (nationwide) owns the lands within NWRs, and therefore the State 
should not have sole responsibility for managing these lands and their 
associated wildlife populations. They also had concerns that the BOG 
favored management of wildlife for the interests of hunters and 
trappers and ignored nonconsumptive user groups.
    FWS Response: FWS is authorized by ANILCA, the Administration Act, 
and the Improvement Act to manage wildlife and their habitats within 
Alaska NWRs. As directed by the Improvement Act, six wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses are the priority general public uses of the Refuge 
System. These uses are defined in the Improvement Act to consist of 
consumptive uses (hunting and fishing) and nonconsumptive uses 
(wildlife observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, 
and environmental interpretation).
    (8) Comment: Commenters stated FWS does not have the authority to 
take the proposed action and indicated FWS should resolve issues by 
working with the State. Commenters were concerned the proposal would 
affect game on State lands. Commenters stated FWS was preempting the 
intent of Congress for the State's integral role in fish and wildlife 
management. Commentators assert that the Improvement Act, 16 U.S.C. 
668dd(m), reserves to the States management authority over wildlife on 
refuge lands.
    FWS Response: First, nothing in this rule applies to wildlife when 
located on other than Refuge-administered lands. At 16 U.S.C. 668dd(l), 
the Improvement Act states: ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
authorize the Secretary to control or regulate hunting or fishing of 
fish and resident wildlife on lands or waters that are not within the 
System.''
    Second, FWS is committed to continuing to work with the State and 
prefers for the State to manage wildlife populations on refuge lands 
when consistent with NWR mandates, policies, and laws. However, as 
explained in more detail above, FWS is required under Federal law to 
make decisions regarding management of wildlife on refuges to ensure 
consistency with the purposes for which Congress established those 
refuges. While State law is the backdrop for fish and wildlife 
management, pursuant to the Property Clause, Congress enacted certain 
statutes, including those referenced in the Department's Wildlife 
Policy statement found at 43 CFR part 24, which obligate FWS to manage 
Federal refuge lands consistent with their authorized purposes. 
Cooperation with the States is required in certain respects, but 
specific laws have provided the Secretary the ultimate authority to 
make decisions that are required and/or allowed by Federal law. 
Congress in enacting the Administration Act and the Improvement Act 
provided FWS with the authority to manage fish and wildlife and their 
habitats on Federal lands including those within the boundaries of 
Alaska NWRs. ANILCA section 304(a) directs that ``Each refuge shall be 
administered by the Secretary . . . in accordance with the laws 
governing the administration of units of the NWR System and this Act.''
    In addition to the authorities discussed above, the Improvement Act 
(Act) clarifies Federal and State authorities in (16 U.S.C. 668dd(k)): 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Secretary may 
temporarily suspend, allow, or initiate any activity in a refuge in the 
System if the Secretary determines it is necessary to protect the 
health and safety of the public or any fish or wildlife populations.''
    With respect to the role of the States, one commenter asserted that 
the Improvement Act actually affords States the authority, to the 
exclusion of FWS, to make management decisions for fish and wildlife on 
Federal refuges. At 16 U.S.C. 668dd(m), the Improvement Act states: 
``Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting the authority, 
jurisdiction, or responsibility of the several States to manage, 
control, or regulate fish and resident wildlife under State law or 
regulations in any area within the System. Regulations permitting 
hunting or fishing of fish and resident wildlife within the System 
shall be, to the extent practicable, consistent with State fish and 
wildlife laws, regulations, and management plans.'' This section 
establishes a preference for State management and reliance on State 
regulations where ``practicable,'' but by its very terms contemplates 
that FWS must make independent determinations to ensure 
``practicability,'' which includes compatibility with refuge purposes. 
The section affirms the responsibility of the State to enforce its fish 
and wildlife laws and the role of the State in management of fish and 
wildlife even on Federal refuges, but does not suggest that State 
authority is exclusive. Furthermore, the reading suggested by the 
commenter would have the effect of nullifying the many other provisions 
of the Improvement Act and other laws that impose upon FWS the 
responsibility to make decisions regarding management of Federal 
refuges.
    Furthermore, this final rule is consistent with the provisions 
regarding taking of fish and wildlife that are stated in section 1314 
of ANILCA. Subsection (a) provides that except for Federal subsistence, 
nothing in ANILCA ``is intended to enlarge or diminish the 
responsibility and authority of the State of Alaska for management of 
fish and wildlife on the public lands''; subsection (b) states that 
except as specifically provided in ANILCA, ``nothing in this Act is 
intended to enlarge or diminish the responsibility

[[Page 52257]]

and authority of the Secretary over the management of the public 
lands.''
    Prior to initiating this rulemaking process, FWS met with State 
officials on multiple occasions over the past 10 years to discuss and 
attempt to resolve the issues that are finally addressed in this rule. 
Additional meetings with the State occurred during the development of 
the rule and after we published the proposed rule, but we have been 
unable to come to common ground. Thus we are proceeding with this 
rulemaking process in order to ensure that wildlife management on 
Alaskan NWRs remains consistent with the Service's legal mandates and 
authorities.

Compliance With Mandates, Laws, and Policies

    (9) Comment: Commenters stated the rulemaking violated the intent 
of the Improvement Act and ANILCA. They also asserted FWS elevated 
inappropriately through regulations one of the 14 non-hierarchical 
``broad responsibilities'' identified in the Improvement Act: ``to 
ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental 
health of the system are maintained for the benefit of present and 
future generations of Americans.''
    FWS Response: This rule codifies regulations that will help FWS 
meet the mandates of the Improvement Act and that are fully consistent 
with ANILCA--sections 302, 303, Title VIII, and section 1314, in 
particular. Under ANILCA, each refuge in Alaska has a list of purposes 
for which it was established, including to ``conserve fish and wildlife 
populations and habitats in their natural diversity'' followed by a 
list of representative species particular to each refuge. The 
Improvement Act specifically states that in administering the NWR 
System, the Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to carry out 
that Act (see 16 U.S.C. 668dd(b)(5)). This rule will specifically help 
NWRs to comply with the following parts of the Improvement Act: (1) 
Provide for the conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their 
habitats within the NWR System (see 16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)(A)); and (2) 
ensure that the BIDEH of the NWR System is maintained for the benefit 
of present and future generations of Americans (see 16 U.S.C. 
668dd(a)(4)(B)). As identified in the preamble of this rule, FWS 
management to fulfill management for biological diversity is 
essentially the same as management for natural diversity as defined in 
this rulemaking. This rule directly supports the mission of the NWR 
System as identified in Improvement Act and also supports the 14 
directives listed in the Improvement Act, including specifically the 
directive that states the Secretary shall in administering the system 
ensure that the BIDEH of the NWR System is maintained for the benefit 
of present and future generations of Americans (see 16 U.S.C. 
668dd(a)(4)(B)). This rule does not elevate or prioritize the 
importance of this directive over the other directives, but does 
specifically identify its importance and relevance to the justification 
for actions specified in the rule.
    By law (Improvement Act), regulations (43 CFR part 24), and policy 
(the Service Manual at 605 FW 1 and 605 FW 2), FWS must, to the extent 
practicable, ensure that NWR regulations permitting hunting and fishing 
are consistent with State laws, regulations, and management plans. In 
recognition of the above, non-conflicting State general hunting and 
trapping regulations are usually adopted on NWRs. Hunting and trapping, 
however, remain subject to legal mandates, regulations, and management 
policies pertinent to the administration and management of NWRs.
    (10) Comment: Commenters pointed out that uses allowed on NWRs must 
be compatible with NWR purposes as per the Improvement Act and also 
noted that the Improvement Act gives equal priority for priority public 
uses.
    FWS Response: The Service agrees with this comment. Under the 
Improvement Act, FWS is required to manage NWRs for natural diversity 
and BIDEH across ecosystems. The Improvement Act also established and 
reinforced the compatibility standard as the legal backbone for NWRs, 
defining a ``compatible'' use as one that does not ``materially 
interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System or the purposes of the national wildlife refuge'' (603 FW 
2.6B.). While Alaskan NWRs have historically recognized sport hunting 
and fishing as priority public uses, the Improvement Act gave equal 
priority to wildlife viewing, photography, and environmental education 
and interpretation as priority public uses. The Improvement Act 
identifies hunting as a permissible use of NWRs, but consumptive 
recreational uses are not given any higher priority than nonconsumptive 
uses (such as wildlife watching, hiking, camping, photography, etc.), 
and protection of wildlife and other natural resources found within 
NWRs continue to be accorded the highest of priorities (see 16 U.S.C. 
668dd). Moreover, the Improvement Act retains and re-emphasizes the 
Administration Act's compatibility requirements and imposes other 
standards that require more, not less, biological and ecological 
evidence to support decisions to open or close NWRs to activities.
    (11) Comment: Commenters were concerned that the proposed 
regulations would be applied to all NWRs nationwide in the future.
    FWS Response: In 1981, the Service added a new part 36 to its 
regulations in title 50 of the CFR to specifically address the 
requirements of ANILCA. The general National Wildlife Refuge System 
regulations continue to apply to Alaska refuges, ``except as 
supplemented or modified by these [part 36] regulations or amended by 
ANILCA.'' In general, FWS defers to the respective States for 
management of wildlife on NWRs across the United States. However, it is 
common for NWRs outside of Alaska to promulgate refuge specific hunting 
and fishing regulations to ensure refuge management complies with NWR 
System laws and policies. Public participation and closure procedures 
for NWRs in the lower 48 States are found at 50 CFR 25.21 and 50 CFR 
25.31. The regulations at 50 CFR part 36 are specific to Alaska, and 
NWRs in other States are subject to their own rulemaking procedures.

Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health

    (12) Comment: Concern was expressed that our definition of 
``natural diversity'' precludes FWS' ability to use predator control as 
a tool.
    FWS Response: ``Natural diversity'' is defined in this rule as the 
existence of all fish, wildlife, and plant populations within a 
particular wildlife refuge system unit in the natural mix and in a 
healthy condition for the long-term benefit of current and future 
generations. Managing for natural diversity includes avoiding emphasis 
of management activities favoring some species to the detriment of 
others and assuring that habitat diversity is maintained through 
natural means, avoiding artificial developments and habitat 
manipulation programs whenever possible. In the preamble of this rule, 
we described statements by Chairman Udall and Senator Stevens, who were 
floor managers involved in enactment of ANILCA, to provide background 
on how congressional leaders involved in drafting ANILCA interpreted 
the words ``natural diversity'' and the term's context relative to 
future management of NWRs in Alaska. This legislative history provides 
important context to this rule. This rule does not preclude predator 
control as a management tool, but instead provides that FWS will only 
use

[[Page 52258]]

predator control on NWRs in Alaska when it is determined necessary to 
meet refuge purposes, is consistent with Federal laws and policy, and 
is based on sound science in response to a conservation concern. FWS 
continues to recognize predator control as an important and valid 
management tool when appropriate to meet NWR purposes or the NWR 
System's mission. As explained above, natural diversity is discussed 
and defined in this rule because it is a statutory purpose of every 
refuge unit in Alaska, but the term is not defined in ANILCA. The 
inclusion of a discussion and definition of natural diversity in this 
rule is to clarify how we interpret this term. The discussions cited 
from the legislative history on the meaning of natural diversity are an 
important element considered in our interpretation. Managing to 
maintain the natural diversity of fish and wildlife and their habitats 
includes avoiding emphasis of management activities favoring some 
species to the detriment of others; assuring that habitat diversity is 
maintained through natural means, avoiding artificial developments and 
habitat manipulation programs whenever possible.
    (13) Comment: The definition of ``natural diversity'' used in the 
proposed rule was not vetted with the State and Tribes prior to 
publication of the proposed rule.
    FWS Response: The Service did consult with Tribal governments, 
Native Corporations, and the State before issuing a proposed rule. The 
Service also engaged in further discussions/consultations after the 
proposed rule was issued. In the preamble of this rule, we reference 
ANILCA's legislative history to provide background on how congressional 
leadership interpreted the term ``natural diversity'' and its context 
relative to future management of NWRs. This background information 
provides important context for this rule and how we developed the 
definition of ``natural diversity'' in this rule.
    The context for FWS' interpretation of ``natural diversity'' was 
included in information shared with the State and the Tribes as early 
as 2014. Reference to legislative history information that provided 
specific context for developing FWS' definition of ``natural 
diversity'' was provided repeatedly to the State and Tribes during the 
drafting of the rule starting in 2014. Upon repeated requests from the 
State and Tribes throughout the 2014-2015 rule development, FWS 
developed the definition of ``natural diversity'' set forth in this 
rule. We included this definition in the draft of the proposed rule 
that we shared with the State and Tribes (November 2015) prior to 
publishing the proposed rule in January 2016. In addition, there was a 
90-day comment period to provide a revised or alternate definition. One 
commenter referenced an alternate definition (see Comment (24), below) 
that was evaluated and determined inappropriate for this rule. In 
response to comments, we added additional ANILCA legislation history 
language from Senator Ted Stevens to the preamble of this rule to 
provide a broader context for evaluating the interpretation of natural 
diversity.
    (14) Comment: Commenters were concerned the proposal provided FWS 
Refuge Managers too much latitude for interpreting and making decisions 
about future management for BIDEH.
    FWS Response: The actions Refuge Managers are authorized to take in 
this rule, and the criteria to be applied when doing so, are consistent 
with Federal law and are comparable to the actions the managers have 
long been authorized to take in administering refuges. Refuge Managers 
are subject matter experts regarding management of refuge units. Refuge 
Managers are selected to manage operations of a NWR because of their 
expertise. Refuge Managers receive assistance from their local refuge 
staff, as well as regional refuge staff as needed or required to make 
appropriate management decisions. Refuge Managers also seek out 
scientific information and traditional ecological knowledge from 
appropriate experts including State biologists and tribal entities. 
Refuge Managers' decisions are based on a variety of sources, 
including, but not limited to, laws, regulations, policies, legislative 
history, and planning documents for which the public has had the 
opportunity to provide input such as comprehensive conservation plans 
and step-down management plans. The use of the BIDEH policy guidance by 
Refuge Managers is incorporated into a diversity of short- and long-
term decision-making situations. A few of the examples where BIDEH 
policy guidance is utilized by a Refuge Manager include development of 
comprehensive conservation plans, inventory and monitoring plans, and 
compatibility determinations. A Refuge Manager's decisions to conduct 
or recommend management actions relative to BIDEH policy are, as 
appropriate, further evaluated by the respective regional refuge 
supervisors and refuge chiefs.
    (15) Comment: Commenters stated the use of the BIDEH policy is so 
broad and unspecific that it also allows FWS to justify nearly any 
action it desires, as long as it is in ``the professional judgment'' of 
FWS employees.
    FWS Response: Section 4(a)(4)(B) of the Improvement Act states that 
``In administering the System, the Secretary shall . . . ensure that 
the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health [BIDEH] 
of the System are maintained for the benefit of present and future 
generations of Americans. . .'' (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(4)(B)). The FWS 
BIDEH policy (601 FW 3) provides guidance for implementation of this 
aspect of the Improvement Act. The integration of BIDEH policy language 
in the preamble of this rule and at 50 CFR 36.1 provides clarification 
of how the rule supports FWS policy mandates and subsequently NWR 
purposes and the NWR System mission. Refuge Managers will use sound 
professional judgment when implementing the BIDEH policy primarily 
during the comprehensive conservation planning process to assess the 
complex evaluations that are required by the BIDEH policy. Sound 
professional judgment incorporates field experience, knowledge of 
refuge resources, the refuge's role within an ecosystem, applicable 
laws, and best available science including consultation with others 
both inside and outside FWS. The use of a Refuge Manager's 
``professional judgment'' is just one component of decision making and 
is constrained by the requirement to meet NWR System purposes, 
mandates, and laws. The BIDEH policy is one of several directives for 
Refuge Managers to follow while achieving NWR purposes and the NWR 
System mission. Decisions by Refuge Managers will require professional 
judgment that can integrate into the decision-making process, a 
collective understanding and knowledge of the best available science 
and applicable laws. The BIDEH policy is comprehensive and provides for 
the consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, 
wildlife, and habitat resources found on NWRs and associated 
ecosystems. However, the BIDEH policy also provides Refuge Managers 
with an effective and purposeful evaluation process to analyze their 
refuges and recommend the best management direction to prevent further 
degradation of environmental conditions. Where appropriate, the BIDEH 
policy, in concert with NWR purposes and NWR System mission, allows a 
Refuge Manager to pursue the restoration of lost or severely degraded 
resources.
    (16) Comment: Some commenters indicated FWS should not be 
conducting a formal rulemaking process that encompasses the entire 
region.

[[Page 52259]]

Commenters suggested FWS should instead follow section 3.9(g) of the 
BIDEH policy that identifies that compatibility reviews and 
comprehensive conservation plans are the required approach to address 
NWR specific issues.
    FWS Response: FWS adheres to the guidance provided in section 
3.9(g) of the BIDEH policy that states, ``Through the Comprehensive 
Conservation Plan (CCP) process, interim management planning, or 
compatibility review, determine the appropriate management direction to 
maintain and, where appropriate, restore BIDEH, while achieving NWR 
purposes.'' FWS, in evaluating the purpose and need for this rule, 
determined that it is not a refuge-specific rule and should be applied 
to all Alaska NWRs. This rule was developed because FWS wanted to 
establish consistent definitions and guidance for all Alaska NWRs to 
abide by when evaluating predator control requests on an NWR. It 
specifically clarifies how our existing mandates for the conservation 
of natural and biological diversity, biological integrity, and 
environmental health on NWRs in Alaska relate to predator control (50 
CFR 36.32). This rule is fundamental to ensure that Alaska NWRs 
consistently evaluate predator control requests using standardized 
criteria and to ensure the public understands the legal authorities 
associated with predator management decisions.
    (17) Comment: Commenters were concerned with FWS definitions for 
BIDEH and the legality of codifying these terms. They further stated 
that BIDEH terms require clearer definitions than what we proposed.
    FWS Response: We do not include definitions of ``biological 
diversity,'' ``biological integrity, ``environmental health,'' and 
``historic conditions'' in the Regulation Promulgation section of this 
final rule; these definitions remain in our BIDEH policy (601 FW 3). 
The NWR System Improvement Act states that, in administering the NWR 
System, the Secretary shall ``ensure that the biological integrity, 
diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained for 
the benefit of present and future generations of Americans'' (16 U.S.C. 
668dd(a)(4)(B)). Refuge Managers are required to comply with the 
Improvement Act including maintaining BIDEH on NWRs in Alaska. Adequate 
guidance for Refuge Managers currently exists in policy, including 
clear definitions of BIDEH. As explained above, the concepts of BIDEH 
and natural diversity are essentially the same.
    (18) Comment: Commenters supported the FWS BIDEH policy because it 
is consistent with legal requirements for management of NWRs. They 
stated concerns with State IM program indicating the State did not 
manage for BIDEH and is not receptive to the nonconsumptive user 
concerns.
    FWS Response: We note these comments.
    (19) Comment: Commenters suggest FWS should periodically determine 
population and genetic status of predator species to establish baseline 
information to address future criticisms of the use of the BIDEH policy 
to justify management.
    FWS Response: FWS agrees that the collection of population and 
genetic data for predators is important for informing future management 
decisions. We recognize the importance of collecting both types of data 
when funding and resources are available, and of considering the 
available data to guide our management decisions. We will also seek to 
continue to partner with the State, other agencies, and appropriate 
organizations and persons to gather the data that will best inform our 
current and future management decisions.
    (20) Comment: The proposed regulations add a new paragraph (a) to 
section 36.1, and there was concern the new paragraph fails to 
accurately and fully reflect Alaska NWR purposes.
    FWS Response: The new paragraph at 50 CFR 36.1 clarifies how NWRs 
in Alaska meet the primary conservation mandates of ANILCA and the 
Improvement Act. As identified in the preamble section of the rule, the 
Service finds that the requirements in ANILCA for maintaining the 
natural diversity of wildlife and their habitats is essentially the 
same as the BIDEH mandate in the Improvement Act. The added paragraph 
includes reference to NWR purposes provided in ANILCA (conserving 
natural diversity) and managing NWRs in accordance with NWR laws, 
mandates, and policies (Improvement Act, BIDEH policy, etc.). The 
language does not, nor is intended to, diminish or minimize ANILCA, the 
Improvement Act, or other purposes for any of the NWRs in Alaska.
    (21) Comment: One commenter referenced ``Executive Order 13443'' 
and interpreted that it prioritizes hunting opportunities above all 
other wildlife-dependent uses and directs FWS to actively ``foster'' 
healthy and productive wildlife populations. The commenter indicated 
FWS does not have the legal option to ignore such a mandate that so 
clearly expresses its intent.
    FWS Response: The purpose of Executive Order 13443, ``Facilitation 
of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation,'' is to ``direct Federal 
agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable 
effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife 
management, including the Department of the Interior and the Department 
of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting 
opportunities and the management of game species and their habitat . . 
. consistent with agency missions.'' There is no directive in that 
Executive Order (E.O.) for Federal agencies to prioritize hunting over 
all other uses. Section 2(e) of the E.O. directs Federal agencies to 
``Establish short and long term goals, in cooperation with State and 
tribal governments, and consistent with agency missions, to foster 
healthy and productive populations of game species and appropriate 
opportunities for the public to hunt those species.'' FWS manages 
Alaska NWR lands in compliance with this directive. Alaska NWRs will 
continue to facilitate hunting opportunities on NWRs in compliance with 
NWR purposes, the Improvement Act, and the Refuge Recreation Act (16 
U.S.C. 460k et seq.), in addition to E.O. 13443.
    (22) Comment: Concern was expressed that the proposal seeks to 
limit management tools and preclude manipulation of habitat and/or 
wildlife populations for the purpose of benefitting hunters, including 
subsistence users. The commenter quoted from the Senator Stevens Senate 
Congressional Record of December 1, 1980, S15131, p. 157.
    FWS Response: FWS is required to conduct all NWR activities in a 
manner that complies with law and policy, and we are not attempting to 
preclude actions that could benefit hunters or subsistence users. To 
the contrary, FWS has an extensive and lengthy history of management 
actions for wildlife species that also benefit a variety of user groups 
including hunters; however, these actions have complied with governing 
law and policy. This rule responds to the State's IM statute and 
corresponding recent liberalized methods and means for the take of 
predators designed for ``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)).'' This is not consistent with statutory mandates 
for NWRs under the Improvement Act or ANILCA purposes for NWRs in 
Alaska. There is additional language from the Congressional Record 
associated with ANILCA that adds context to how

[[Page 52260]]

NWRs should be managed relative to the term ``natural diversity'' 
(statements of U.S. Representative Udall and U.S. Senator Stevens, as 
noted above). The BIDEH policy also does not preclude the manipulation 
of habitat or populations. Guidance in the BIDEH policy (601 FW 3.7E.) 
specifically states, ``Management, ranging from preservation to active 
manipulation of habitats and populations, is necessary to maintain 
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health [BIDEH]. We 
favor management that restores or mimics natural ecosystem processes or 
functions to achieve refuge purpose(s). Some refuges may differ from 
the frequency and timing of natural processes in order to meet refuge 
purpose(s) or address [BIDEH] at larger landscape scales.'' This 
approach benefits a variety of user groups including hunters and 
subsistence users. This rule does not change existing Federal 
subsistence regulations (36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100) or 
restrict subsistence uses under Federal subsistence regulations.
    (23) Comment: Commentators expressed concern that FWS values BIDEH 
more than the human environment.
    FWS Response: The mission of the NWR System is to administer a 
national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, 
and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant 
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit 
of present and future generations of Americans. The NWR System exists 
because people value wildlife. Congress, through its actions, has made 
the decision to conserve these resources within the NWR System. The 
Improvement Act makes clear that one of our priority responsibilities 
is to maintain the natural diversity, ecological processes, and 
ecological functions of NWRs as expressed by the BIDEH policy. Taking 
care of these priorities helps us ensure these natural resources will 
be available for future generations to enjoy, thereby maintaining or 
improving these areas for people as well. Refuge Managers work to 
balance the diverse demands of the public with the requirement to meet 
NWR purposes and the NWR System mission, utilizing the best available 
science to make decisions.
    (24) Comment: One commenter offered a different definition of 
natural diversity (FWS policy at 701 FW 1) and suggested we consider it 
as an alternate definition for the rule.
    FWS Response: After considering the public comments, we are 
defining ``natural diversity'' in this final rule as proposed, with the 
exception that we have removed the phrase ``and taking into 
consideration the fact that humans are dependent on wildlife refuge 
subsistence resources'' from the definition. As explained above, in 
promulgating this definition, we have carefully considered the 
legislative history of ANILCA, other ANILCA background documentation, 
and FWS laws, mandates, and policies. The context for the development 
of the definition of ``natural diversity'' is appropriate because it 
derives from ANILCA legislation and speaks to the intent of that 
legislation, which is specific to Alaska. Managing to meet the 
definition of ``natural diversity'' in this rule is essentially the 
same as management to achieve the definitions of biological integrity 
and diversity provided in BIDEH policy, as noted above.
    (25) Comment: One commenter provided written quotations from refuge 
CCPs that identified language that acknowledged our ability to conduct 
or permit predator control on NWRs and therefore suggested we should 
not pursue this rulemaking process.
    FWS Response: The information about predator control and predator 
management that was cited from refuge CCPs supports the provisions of 
this rule. The excerpts from the CCPs indicate that, when appropriate, 
FWS does conduct predator control on NWRs and that we can allow for the 
harvest of predators on NWRs, as long as these actions are in 
compliance with applicable legal and policy mandates. In evaluating the 
purpose and need for this rule, FWS determined that it is not a refuge-
specific rule and should be applied regionally to all Alaska NWRs. This 
rule was developed to establish consistent definitions and guidance for 
all Alaska NWRs to follow when evaluating predator control requests and 
to ensure the public understands the associated legal authorities.
    (26) Comment: Concern was expressed that the environmental 
assessment (EA) and BIDEH policy does not take into consideration fish.
    FWS Response: While this rule was developed to address specific 
predator control proposals for terrestrial species, including specific 
methods and means for the harvest of bears, wolves, and coyotes, the 
requirements of natural diversity and the BIDEH policy apply to other 
species, including fish. Refuge Managers evaluate refuge conditions and 
future refuge management relative to the BIDEH policy and consider all 
resources associated with an NWR, including fish. The BIDEH policy is 
an additional directive for managers to follow while achieving NWR 
purpose(s) and the NWR System mission. It provides for the 
consideration and protection of the broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, 
habitat, and vegetation resources found on NWRs and associated 
ecosystems.

Economic Impacts

    (27) Comment: Commenters expressed concern that depleted predator 
populations may reduce ecotourism opportunities, like wildlife watching 
and photography, in the future. Others were concerned the proposal may 
negatively impact hunting tourism.
    FWS Response: Maintaining healthy and sustainable ecosystems on 
NWRs contributes to the wildlife-based tourism business in Alaska. 
Although this rule may result in slight changes in refuge visitor 
experiences, we do not expect this rule to significantly impact 
visitors engaged in either hunting or nonconsumptive uses like wildlife 
viewing. In fact, the rule supports the long-term sustainability of 
both consumptive and nonconsumptive uses on NWRs. FWS recognizes that 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 
observation and photography, and environmental education and 
interpretation), when determined to be compatible with NWR purposes, 
are legitimate and appropriate public uses of the NWR System as 
mandated by the Improvement Act. As a result of this rule, there may be 
slight effects to recreational big game hunting on refuges by 
eliminating a hunter's ability to use a few specific methods and means 
of take. However, until recent years, many of these methods and means 
were prohibited Statewide. Due to the historical ban on these methods 
and means of take of predators, it is estimated that these hunting 
methods (take of brown bears over bait, take of brown bears using traps 
or snares, take of wolves and coyotes during the denning season, and 
same-day airborne take of bears) represent a very small fraction of all 
big game hunting on NWRs. As a result, opportunities for big game 
hunting on NWRs will likely change minimally. From 2009 to 2013, big 
game hunting on NWRs in Alaska averaged about 40,000 days annually and 
represented 2 percent of wildlife-related recreation on NWRs. Big game 
hunting on NWRs in Alaska represented only 4 percent of all Statewide 
big game hunting days (1.2 million days) for the State (U.S. Department 
of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal 
Aid, 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated 
Recreation; and U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish

[[Page 52261]]

and Wildlife Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Refuge Annual 
Performance Plan 2009-2013. Washington, DC, unpublished). With this 
final rule and prohibition of certain effective methods and means of 
take of predators, there may be a small direct positive effect to 
wildlife watching activities for nonconsumptive users. This rule will 
not affect the majority of State general hunting regulations or other 
allowable public uses on NWRs in Alaska. A more naturally functioning 
ecosystem will better facilitate a diversity of public uses.

Moose

    (28) Comment: Commenters expressed concerns about a shortage of 
moose for subsistence hunters near the Kenai NWR that is likely due to 
lack of predator management. Other commenters were concerned that moose 
near Kenai, Alaska, are negatively impacted by trapping lines, disease, 
habitat loss, and trophy hunting.
    FWS Response: Moose populations on the Kenai Peninsula have 
numbered 5,000 to 6,000 since the mid-1980s and are likely to increase 
in the near term due to recent and expected wildfires. In the longer 
term, the effects of a warming climate that include the potential 
introduction of lethal diseases (e.g., Chronic Wasting Disease) and 
winter ticks, thermal stress in the spring, and a changing fire regime 
may negatively impact Kenai moose. In addition, moose-vehicle 
collisions on the Kenai Peninsula have averaged 244 per year (or about 
30 percent of moose killed by humans every year), translating to over 
7,100 moose killed by vehicles since 1980. Small numbers of moose may 
also be killed or maimed by traps, snares, and dogs. Bears and wolves 
do prey on calves and infirm moose, but their effect on moose 
population demographics is generally compensatory and not additive 
unless moose populations are extremely low (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service. 2015. Draft Environmental Assessment: Non-subsistence Take of 
Wildlife: Proposed Regulatory Updates to Methods and Means for Predator 
Harvest on NWRs in Alaska). Overall moose populations within Alaska 
appear to be healthy and expanding into western portions of the State. 
Depending on where you are located in Alaska, some populations of moose 
are at low densities but are stable populations. These populations may 
be limited in many ways beyond simply predators. In many places, the 
food availability may actually be the more limiting factor.

Bears

    (29) Comment: Comments were received pertaining to allowable bait 
for bears, as the proposed rule specifically stated FWS was seeking 
comment on the type of bait that should be allowed for the baiting of 
black bears. One commenter wrote that the use of carcass remains was 
``unethical.'' Three commenters suggested using ``natural'' baits that 
bears would normally eat (e.g., fish and game remains).
    FWS Response: We received few comments regarding they type of bait 
that should be allowed for baiting bears. As a result of public 
comments, we have decided to continue to adopt State regulations on 
allowable baits for black bear hunting. Currently, State regulations, 
which are adopted on NWRs, require the bait used at bear baiting 
stations to be biodegradable.
    (30) Comment: Commenters opposed same-day aerial shooting of 
wildlife on NWRs because it benefits trophy hunters, is not in keeping 
with Refuge tenets, and is not in keeping with the spirit of fair 
chase.
    FWS Response: The allowance for same-day airborne hunting of wolves 
and bears by the public reverses a long-standing prohibition in the 
State. It has only recently been allowed by the State in areas where 
the overall State goal is to reduce predator populations. Same-day 
airborne take of wildlife is already prohibited on all Alaska NWRs for 
many species. This rule will add bears to the list of species that 
cannot be taken by hunters the same day they were airborne. Same-day 
airborne take of black and brown bears would likely increase harvest 
pressure and reduce bear populations because it allows the hunter the 
ability to observe bears from the air, land, and harvest the animal 
that same day, which provides a large advantage over a person on the 
ground dealing with limited visibility. Same-day airborne take of black 
and brown bears is prohibited in this rule because it is a particularly 
effective means of harvesting predators with the potential to 
significantly impact predator populations and subsequently impact 
important ecological process like the predator-prey relationship.
    (31) Comment: Certain commenters proposed that the practice of 
killing bears and cubs in their winter dens should be prohibited, but 
others expressed support for the harvest method to continue for local 
residents for cultural reasons only.
    FWS Response: In Alaska, State-regulated hunting of sows and cubs 
has mostly been limited to predator control areas, where the intention 
is to significantly reduce bear population numbers. There is an 
allowance under State general hunting regulations for the take of black 
bears, including sows with cubs and cubs, by resident hunters from a 
den site from October 15 through April 30 (year-round in Unit 25D, 
which is within Yukon Flats NWR) for customary and traditional use in 
interior Alaska. These State regulations open this season to any Alaska 
resident. These State regulations specify the game management units and 
seasons during which this method of harvest can occur. This rule 
prohibits taking black or brown bear cubs or sows with cubs (exception 
allowed in accordance with State law and regulations for resident 
hunters to take black bear cubs or sows with cubs under customary and 
traditional use activities at a den site October 15-April 30 in 
specific Game Management Units (GMUs)). Allowing cubs, and sows with 
cubs, to be harvested under general hunting regulations year-round or 
outside of customary and traditional uses would likely have the 
consequence of reducing the overall bear population. This would be a 
high-intensity impact, as the ecological function of a top predator 
would be reduced and the effects would be considered long term due to 
life strategies of these species.
    (32) Comment: Some commenters were concerned that bait attracts 
both intended and unintended wildlife species, and the concentrations 
of wildlife caused by baiting may spread disease. Commentators stated 
that bear baiting is a serious human safety issue, as bears become 
habituated and potentially dangerous encounters between bears and 
humans increase.
    FWS Response: We prohibit harvesting brown bears over bait due to 
the potential to reduce their population by significantly increased 
harvest rates. Based on basic biological differences in productivity 
and survival, the recovery time for brown bear populations is much 
longer than for black bears. At this time, available data do not yet 
indicate that baiting at current hunter participation levels has 
resulted in the overharvest of black bears. Brown bears can be 
attracted to black bear baiting stations in areas where their ranges 
overlap, and this is an area of concern that FWS will continue to 
monitor. There is a potential for baited bears to become human-
habituated and food-conditioned. While there have been few studies that 
linked baiting for brown bears to increases in bear attacks on humans, 
there are studies documenting an increase in negative bear-human 
encounters when bears become food-conditioned and tolerant of humans.

[[Page 52262]]

Previous information on food conditioning and human habituation 
provides evidence that indirect problems associated with these methods 
are likely to occur at some level. There is also potential for higher 
instances of defense of life and property mortalities associated with 
food- and human-conditioned bears. Brown bear populations in proximity 
to villages, towns, and cities are often subject to higher rates of 
mortality from humans related to defense of life and property (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Draft Environmental Assessment: Non-
subsistence Take of Wildlife: Proposed Regulatory Updates to Methods 
and Means for Predator Harvest on NWRs in Alaska). This source of 
mortality must be factored into the management of overall human-caused 
mortality when regulating bear hunting for long-term health and 
survival of the population. The spread of disease related to bear 
baiting has not been documented as a problem at this time. Public 
safety of visitors to NWRs in Alaska is a high priority for FWS. There 
are inherent risks to visiting remote locations in Alaska, and the 
provisions of this final rule do not change that. This rule will 
however, enhance maintenance of more intact ecosystems, and healthier 
and more resilient populations of animals for both consumptive and 
nonconsumptive users.
    (33) Comment: Commenters expressed concerns regarding the practice 
of trapping bears and believed it is not humane and not selective 
relative to bear type, sex, or age.
    FWS Response: This rule prohibits the use of traps to harvest bears 
on NWRs in Alaska. Trapping of bears is a nonselective harvest method 
that will result in the harvest of cubs or sows with cubs. Harvest of 
these classes of bears is generally only employed when the goal is to 
reduce the overall population.
    (34) Comment: Concerns were expressed regarding the cultural and 
biological significance in taking brown bears over bait. Commenters 
suggested that data have not been collected that indicate that brown 
bears are harvested on NWRs using bait, and there are no data that 
indicate brown bear baiting is a particularly effective method of take 
in certain areas in Alaska.
    FWS Response: For federally qualified subsistence users, where the 
baiting of brown bears is customary and traditional, proposals should 
be submitted to the Federal Subsistence Board (FSB). For example, the 
FSB recently allowed the harvest of brown bears over bait in game 
management units 11, 12, and 25D, an area which includes Tetlin NWR, 
most of Yukon Flats NWR, and a portion of Arctic NWR. In terms of 
biological significance, baiting for brown bears has been shown to be a 
highly effective tool for reducing brown bear populations in some 
areas. Because of the documented importance of apex predators for 
maintaining long-term fitness and resilience in their prey populations, 
and because such predators are part of NWRs' natural diversity, this 
rule prohibits baiting of brown bears for general sport hunting on all 
NWRs in Alaska. Even though bear baiting may not be practiced on all 
refuges, and the effects of bear baiting for population reduction will 
vary from region to region and from habitat to habitat in Alaska, FWS 
is legally tasked with maintaining natural diversity and healthy 
ecosystems. It is not prudent to wait until the practice spreads to new 
areas or impacts previously unaffected brown bear populations before 
taking action. Thus, we are proactively precluding the loss of 
diversity and degradation of ecosystem functions by prohibiting this 
practice on NWRs Statewide, both where it may have occurred already and 
where it could be initiated in the future.
    (35) Comment: A commenter stated the BOG's management is not 
scientifically driven and could result in widespread reductions of 
Alaska's grizzly \1\ bear populations. The commenter cited that hunter 
kill rates on wolves, grizzly bears, and other carnivores has a 
multiplier effect on total mortality over time that exceeds natural 
mortality rates and is due to loss of mature reproductive individuals 
and disruptions of social structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to MacDonald and Cook (2009), brown and grizzly 
bear are one in the same: Ursus arctos. For the purposes of this 
final rule, brown bear includes grizzly bear but will only be 
referred to as brown bear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FWS Response: FWS proposed regulatory changes specifically to 
address methods and means employed to reduce predator populations on 
NWRs in Alaska. Many of these methods this rule prohibits involve the 
harvest of adult female animals and/or females with dependent young. We 
concur with the commenter that such approaches have impacts on predator 
populations beyond just the animals harvested. Predator reduction 
methods allowed by the State are permitted where the goal is to reduce 
predator numbers. The elimination or reduction of ungulate predators 
and predatory forces on wild ungulate populations may seem like the 
best way to produce more ungulates, but these ecological systems rely 
on predation and apex predators to maintain long-term fitness and 
resilience of ungulate populations. It is these ecological processes 
that must be maintained to provide healthy ungulate populations on NWRs 
in Alaska for future generations of both consumptive and nonconsumptive 
users.
    (36) Comment: Commenter stated it was inappropriate for FWS to 
extrapolate the overharvest of brown bears on Kenai NWR, which resulted 
from State regulations, to a potential scenario of overharvest of brown 
bears to the rest of the State.
    FWS Response: Under its general or sport hunting regulations, the 
State had a long-standing prohibition on the harvest of brown bears 
over bait. This was only recently changed in the 2012-2013 regulatory 
year, when one of the stated goals of the 20E intensive management 
area, located adjacent to Tetlin NWR, was to significantly reduce brown 
bear populations to enhance moose populations. That was the reason 
offered by the State in allowing the harvest of brown bears over bait. 
While every designed program results in varying amounts of take, the 
use of bait for brown bears has been and continues to be employed to 
reduce brown bear population levels. FWS also considered the cumulative 
impacts from all the various methods and means that have been changed 
by the State for the purpose of reducing predators. While the level of 
effectiveness of each method may vary in a given unit or circumstance, 
the impact of these cumulative changes have had and will have the 
collective effect of reducing predator populations for the stated goals 
of increasing ungulate populations for human consumption. Although 
current human-use patterns that potentially negatively impact brown 
bear populations on the Kenai may differ relative to the rest of the 
State today, human-use and access patterns are neither static nor 
perfectly predictable. In addition, historically remote areas are 
becoming increasingly accessible. As a result, FWS finds it necessary 
to adopt these regulatory changes across all NWRs in Alaska. FWS is 
mandated to preserve the natural diversity of the wildlife and their 
habitats. Ungulate populations benefit from having apex predators as 
one of the natural forces driving their populations and maintaining 
their fitness and resilience. These benefits are lost when predator 
populations are sharply reduced and maintained at low levels for long 
periods of time. For these reasons, FWS finds it is necessary to adopt 
the regulatory changes set forth in this rule for nonsubsistence 
hunting on NWRs in

[[Page 52263]]

Alaska. Protection of the ecological processes will provide healthier 
ungulate populations for all users, both consumptive and 
nonconsumptive.
    (37) Comment: A commenter identified a discrepancy between baiting 
regulations at 50 CFR 32.2 and at 50 CFR 36.32.
    FWS Response: We correct that error in this rule.

Wolves and Coyotes

    (38) Comment: Multiple commenters expressed that wolf and coyote 
season closures should extend through November. Commenters were 
concerned with the practice currently allowed by the State that allows 
taking animals while in the denning season. Concerns were expressed 
about the value of pelts taken in summer.
    FWS Response: This rule prohibits the take of wolves and coyotes 
from May 1 through August 9 for nonsubsistence users. These dates 
reflect the former longstanding State harvest seasons that provided 
reasonable harvest opportunities while still maintaining natural 
diversity with viable and healthy wolf and coyote populations. For the 
reasons stated herein, this rule maintains this traditional and 
historically effective management standard that had been used by both 
State and Federal managers rather than adopting recent State general 
hunting regulations that lengthened the hunting seasons on both 
species. FWS understands that some individuals may have uses for wolf 
pelts that are harvested outside the normal trapping season. This rule, 
however, protects wolves and coyotes during the denning season when 
they and their young are vulnerable but allows the opportunity for 
harvest during the winter months. Should wolf or coyote population 
levels become a concern with respect to natural diversity in the 
future, FWS will work with the State and/or the FSB, as applicable, to 
consider appropriate actions at that time.
    (39) Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that predator control 
measures can eliminate wolf packs and negatively impact wolf pack 
dynamics, and that hunting can increase levels of cortisol and 
reproductive hormones that may negate the intent of predator control as 
intended. Other commenters were concerned about the survival of 
orphaned pups, and the maintenance of healthy wolf and coyote 
populations as a whole.
    FWS Response: This rule expressly prohibits certain particularly 
effective harvest methods and means on Alaska NWRs and clarifies when 
predator control can be authorized. Predator control will not be 
implemented on a NWR unless it is based on sound science in response to 
a conservation concern. The rule is intended to reasonably limit, but 
not eliminate, public hunting opportunities of both wolves and coyotes. 
The rule shortens hunting seasons for these species to minimize 
negative impacts to these populations that can occur if species are 
harvested while raising their pups.
    (40) Comment: A commenter opposes restrictions on taking coyotes 
since they are in conflict with regulations established in other 
States.
    FWS Response: This rule is consistent with the former longstanding 
State harvest seasons that balance both coyote harvest and coyote 
conservation. NWRs in other States have a diverse array of coyote 
hunting seasons ranging from no coyote hunting to seasons lasting 
several months. Alaska NWRs regulations are developed to meet Alaska 
NWRs purposes consistent with both ANILCA and the Improvement Act, and 
these regulations only apply to Alaska NWRs.
    (41) Comment: Commenters request reasonable daily bag limits on 
wolves.
    FWS Response: With this rule, FWS intends to address ``particularly 
effective'' methods of harvest, and does not specifically address daily 
bag limits for the affected species. Although certain bag limits may 
have potential to result in a conservation concern in a given area or 
for a certain species, this rule does not address them. In general, bag 
limits are more appropriately addressed through the State's regulatory 
processes and the FSB program in conjunction with harvest information 
and population data. Should the issue surrounding excessive bag limits 
become a concern in the future with respect to maintaining natural 
diversity, FWS will work with the State and the FSB as appropriate.

Sport/General Hunting and State Subsistence Hunting

    (42) Comment: Commenters expressed concern the rule would 
negatively affect subsistence hunting, and if wildlife populations 
fluctuate to low levels, subsistence users will be required to purchase 
more food.
    FWS Response: ANILCA provides a priority to rural Alaskans for the 
nonwasteful taking of fish and wildlife for subsistence uses on Federal 
public lands in Alaska, including on NWRs. Under ANILCA, all NWRs in 
Alaska are also mandated to provide the opportunity for continued 
subsistence use by local rural residents, as long as this use is not in 
conflict with the conservation of fish and wildlife populations and 
habitats in their natural diversity or with fulfilling the 
international treaty obligations of the United States. Additionally, 
Title VIII of ANILCA, section 802, states that ``consistent with sound 
management principles, and the conservation of healthy populations of 
fish and wildlife . . . the purpose of this title is to provide the 
opportunity for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to 
do so.'' FWS recognizes the importance of the fish, wildlife, and other 
natural resources in the lives and cultures of Alaska Native peoples 
and in the lives of all Alaskans, and in accordance with section 804 of 
ANILCA, we continue to recognize subsistence uses of fish and wildlife 
and other renewable resources as the priority consumptive use on Alaska 
NWRs. This rule does not change existing Federal subsistence 
regulations (36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100) or restrict the 
taking of fish or wildlife for subsistence uses under Federal 
subsistence regulations. FWS is committed to allowing subsistence 
harvest across a broad taxonomic spectrum of species, specifically so 
that as some populations decline others remain stable or increase and 
thus remain readily available for harvest by those who rely on them.
    (43) Comment: Commenters expressed concern the rule would 
negatively affect hunters, as prohibited predator control methods for 
taking game are important culturally and biologically to hunters.
    FWS Response: FWS recognizes that some hunters will be impacted by 
this rule; however, because this rule maintains methods and means for 
take of predators that were formerly prohibited by the State, the rule 
will impact only a small fraction of all big game hunting opportunities 
on NWRs. This rule restricts certain methods and means of harvest on 
NWR lands under the State general hunting regulations; it does not 
prohibit the harvest of predators. In addition, this rule does not 
affect the current State harvest regulations that are applicable to 
hunting on non-Federal lands. The Federal subsistence regulations on 
NWR lands remain unchanged. The Federal subsistence regulations reflect 
the flexibility that federally qualified subsistence users' desire in 
seasons and harvest limits.
    (44) Comment: Commenters expressed concern about the inappropriate 
techniques (such as baiting bears, trapping bears, and same-day 
airborne take of wildlife) used for sport hunting and negative impacts 
to individual animals and populations.
    FWS Response: The specific methods and means for the general or 
sport

[[Page 52264]]

harvesting of predators that are prohibited in this rule conflict with 
FWS mandates to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in 
their natural diversity and to maintain BIDEH on NWRs in Alaska. One 
aspect of the rule is to prohibit certain methods and means for taking 
predators under State general hunting regulations on NWR lands. While 
many commenters identified these methods as ``unethical'' or 
``inhumane,'' this rulemaking specifically addresses prohibiting those 
methods and means that have the potential to greatly increase predator 
harvests and to disrupt natural diversity and the interactions of 
wildlife.
    (45) Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that it is equally 
important for Alaska residents to be able to hunt on all lands in 
Alaska. There were also concerns the rule is more about eliminating 
hunting on refuge lands than predator control management.
    FWS Response: This rule does not eliminate subsistence or 
nonsubsistence hunting on NWR lands for any species. The intent of the 
rule is to prohibit a small number of specific, highly effective 
methods and means of predator harvest on NWR lands that have been 
allowed under the State's general hunting regulations. The Background 
section, above, discusses the laws and policies that relate to 
subsistence and nonsubsistence hunting on NWR lands, including the 
preference/priority for subsistence uses that applies to all Federal 
lands in Alaska, including NWRs. The Background discussion also states 
that hunting is recognized as one of several priority uses of the NWR 
System (605 FW 2), and that taking of fish and wildlife through public 
recreational activities is authorized on NWRs in Alaska ``as long as 
such activities are conducted in a manner compatible with the purposes 
for which the areas were established'' (50 CFR 36.31(a)).
    (46) Comment: One commenter indicated that the proposed rule will 
be unenforceable due to lack of resources.
    FWS Response: The methods and means of harvest prohibited by this 
rule will be enforced by the Service in a similar fashion to other 
applicable State and Federal harvest regulations. The Service will 
continue to prioritize its resources to provide for effective 
enforcement, recognizing that enforcement issues will likely be the 
greatest near refuge boundaries or in areas with checkerboard land 
ownerships.
    (47) Comment: Commenters expressed concern about the use of drones.
    FWS Response: The Alaska State hunting regulations were modified in 
2014 to prohibit the use of any device that has been airborne, 
controlled remotely, and used to spot or locate game with the use of a 
camera or video device (5 AAC 92.080(7)). 50 CFR 36.32(a) continues to 
adopt non-conflicting State and Federal laws pertaining to the taking 
of fish and wildlife. This Alaska law regarding drones is an example of 
such an adopted regulatory provision, and such use of a drone is also a 
violation of this rule.

Intensive Management (IM) Programs

    (48) Comment: Commenters expressed concern that State IM practices 
on lands near or adjoining NWRs in Alaska will negatively impact the 
predator and/or prey populations on NWR lands.
    FWS Response: It is possible that IM practices on neighboring lands 
may have impacts to resources on NWR lands. Each Federal and State 
agency involved with managing land in Alaska has a different management 
mandate, and there will be instances where animals that cross 
boundaries are exposed to different management regimes. This challenge 
for managers is not new. It is the longstanding practice of FWS that 
our refuge regulations apply on to the lands and waters that FWS 
administers.
    Fortunately, Alaska NWRs are generally large enough to maintain 
natural and biological diversity and integrity, despite these 
challenges. Despite differences in their respective management 
mandates, Federal and State wildlife managers throughout Alaska strive 
for as much interagency consistency as possible when developing and 
implementing wildlife management actions. Such consistency is in the 
best interests of both our constituents and the wildlife resources they 
value.
    (49) Comment: Commenters stated that enabling legislation for 
Alaska NWRs does not include directives to conduct IM practices on 
NWRs. Some commenters believe IM practices are costly and not based on 
sound science.
    FWS Response: IM is a State, not Federal, mandate. The rule will 
help the agencies and the public better understand differences between 
the State mandate and Federal laws and policies.
    (50) Comment: Some commenters stated that the proposal is 
politically driven or intended to impede State efforts to manage 
wildlife on Alaska lands.
    FWS Response: The sole purpose of this rule is to ensure that FWS 
carries out its statutorily mandated responsibilities for Alaska NWRs. 
The rule establishes definitions and administrative processes that 
fulfill these responsibilities. This effort is not politically driven, 
but it is an administrative process to clarify and define the legally 
mandated management responsibilities of Alaska NWRs, particularly when 
they are not consistent with those of the State. The regulations 
clarify FWS' mandate under ANILCA ``to conserve fish and wildlife 
populations, and habitats in their natural diversity,'' the first-
listed management purpose for each Alaska NWR. This effort to clarify 
and define the natural diversity mandate is intended to provide a 
better understanding of when predator control is allowed by FWS on 
Alaska NWRs. Harvest techniques come in many forms, such as lengthening 
seasons, increasing bag limits, government-funded control, and allowing 
more effective means of pursuit. These techniques are, however, subject 
to NWR System laws, regulations, and policies. It is for this reason 
that we are making the regulatory changes set forth in this rule.

Predator and Prey Species Management

    (51) Comment: Commenters expressed support for the proposal and 
stated the State's current predator management practices do not 
recognize the importance of apex predators, and many disagreed with BOG 
predator control measures.
    FWS Response: We note this comment.
    (52) Comment: Commenters expressed the need to include a 
prohibition against using Pittman-Robertson funds for predator control.
    FWS Response: Addressing the use of Pittman-Robertson (Wildlife 
Restoration or WR) grant funds is outside the scope of this rulemaking. 
Regulations for the use of Federal assistance, including WR funds, are 
uniform and national in scope (see 2 CFR part 200 and 50 CFR part 80). 
Eligibility of WR funds specific to predator control is not currently 
addressed in our regulations, but rather in FWS policy (521 FW 1).
    (53) Comment: Commenters stated opinions that predator control is 
effective for providing continued (ungulate) populations for 
subsistence and nonsubsistence users.
    FWS Response: FWS recognizes predator control as a management tool 
and, as stated above, authorizes the technique when appropriate and 
consistent with Federal laws and policies.
    (54) Comment: Commenters were concerned the rule will negatively

[[Page 52265]]

impact hunting and other activities on Alaska's NWRs.
    FWS Response: As stated above, the methods and means restrictions 
do not apply to the take of fish and wildlife under the Federal 
subsistence regulations. Because this rule follows practices 
historically used by State wildlife regulators until only recently, 
there will be minimal incremental impacts to nonsubsistence general 
hunting through the implementation of the restrictions on certain 
methods and means of take. The definition of ``predator control'' at 50 
CFR 36.2 and the process of allowing predator control on NWRs in Alaska 
are designed to clearly articulate to Refuge Managers and the public 
under what circumstances and conditions FWS will consider predator 
control programs. Not conducting active predator control programs 
allows predator-prey populations to fluctuate naturally in response to 
factors that drive these dynamics, including habitat conditions. As a 
result, healthier populations of both predators and prey will exist but 
will fluctuate and, at times, may either increase or decrease game 
hunting opportunities. Predator control programs may temporarily 
increase prey populations, but can have undesirable impacts such as 
habitat damage, disease, or declines in herd fitness that also 
negatively affect opportunities for hunting. This rule complies with 
ANILCA's legislated purpose that the NWRs were established and shall be 
managed to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their 
natural diversity.
    (55) Comment: Some commenters stated restrictions on predator 
management would impact FWS' ability to maintain healthy predator-prey 
populations.
    FWS Response: The large landscapes within the NWR units in Alaska 
are still largely intact and fully capable of supporting healthy 
predator-prey populations without the need for human management actions 
such as predator control programs. The relationships between predators, 
prey, and habitat is complicated, subject to large population or 
habitat condition swings that can be triggered by other factors, 
including weather, fire, disease, and other wildlife species. When 
considering predator-prey population dynamics, FWS must also carefully 
consider human impacts that can affect these relationships, including 
impacts from hunting (i.e., bag limits and seasons); disturbance, 
particularly during critical periods such as calving or wintering; 
potential for introduction of disease; human-caused habitat impacts 
such as fire or climate change; barriers to movement; and other 
factors. Successful management of these factors and preserving the 
natural ecosystem functions of landscapes will enable us to continue to 
maintain healthy, dynamic prey-predator populations.
    (56) Comment: Several commenters are concerned that the term 
``predator control'' is vague and could be taken out of context or 
banned from use.
    FWS Response: We have added clarifying language to the preamble of 
this rule to help readers better understand predator control and its 
context. The rule defines predator control as ``the intention to reduce 
the population of predators for the benefit of prey species.'' For 
clarity, this includes predator reduction practices, such as, but not 
limited to, those undertaken by government officials or authorized 
agents, aerial shooting, or same-day airborne take of predators. Other 
less intrusive predator reduction techniques, such as, but not limited 
to, live trapping and transfer, and authorization of particularly 
effective public harvest methods and means, are also included. FWS 
recognizes predator control as a management tool and uses the 
technique, when appropriate and consistent with Federal laws and 
policies governing Alaska NWRs. This rule clarifies, for the public and 
agencies, how FWS complies with its ANILCA mandate to conserve fish and 
wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, the 
first-listed management purpose for Alaska NWRs. This clarification of 
the ANILCA natural diversity mandate is intended to provide a better 
understanding of when predator control techniques are allowed on Alaska 
NWRs.
    (57) Comment: Commenters would like more flexibility in working 
with resource managers in order to decide if and when predator control 
is necessary.
    FWS Response: Any predator control program proposed for NWRs in 
Alaska must be consistent with Federal laws and policies. A purpose of 
this rule is to implement a consistent approach for determining when 
predator control will be conducted and to clarify how Alaska NWRs' 
natural diversity mandate is linked to predator control management on 
NWRs. Refuge Managers will continue to discuss refuge management issues 
with tribal leaders, the State, and other interested parties.
    (58) Comment: Commenters expressed that keeping healthy populations 
of prey species could best be accomplished by maintaining healthy 
populations of apex predator species.
    FWS Response: The Service agrees with this comment.
    (59) Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that ungulates are more 
negatively affected by other factors than by predators.
    FWS Response: There are many factors other than predators that 
affect ungulate populations. Natural phenomena, such as weather and 
fires, can have significant effects on habitat and wildlife. FWS must 
also carefully consider human impacts that can affect ungulate 
populations, including impacts from hunting (i.e., bag limits, methods 
and seasons); disturbance, particularly during critical periods such as 
calving or wintering; potential for introduction of disease; human-
caused habitat impacts such as fire or introduction of weed species; 
barriers to movement; and other factors.
    (60) Comment: Commenters drew parallels to the wilderness 
characteristics at stake on Alaska's NWRs compared to what occurred at 
Yellowstone and other National Parks with the loss of wolves (and 
subsequent reintroduction), bears, and other predators.
    FWS Response: The long-term absence (70 years) of wolves in 
Yellowstone National Park and their subsequent reintroduction is a 
classic science-based example of the influence of apex predators in 
sustaining naturally diverse and healthy ecosystems (https://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/RippleBeschtaYellowstone_BioConserv.pdf). The studies following wolf 
reintroductions completed in 1995-1996 indicate substantial vegetation, 
bio-diversity, and hydrologic responses related to reintroducing wolves 
and their subsequent influence on prey species like elk. Elk density 
and behavioral changes (primarily foraging) resulting from wolf 
reintroductions have had cascading positive impacts throughout the 
Yellowstone ecosystem. ANILCA and the Improvement Act mandate FWS to 
manage NWRs using a natural diversity approach that maintains healthy 
ecosystems and where natural biotic and abiotic processes and systems 
continue to flourish. Maintaining a diverse and healthy population of 
predators is essential to meeting these mandates, and this rule 
supports FWS' ability to achieve these mandates while also providing 
for subsistence and other uses as applicable.

Comment Period

    (61) Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that the public comment 
period was too short to allow for a review of the proposed rule and 
environmental assessment.

[[Page 52266]]

    FWS Response: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (see 5 U.S.C. 
553), a general notice of proposed rulemaking shall be published in the 
Federal Register, and after that publication, the agency must 
ordinarily provide the public a reasonable opportunity to submit 
written data, views, or arguments on the proposed rulemaking for 
consideration by the agency. Executive Order 12866 establishes 60 days 
as the standard for a proposed rule's comment period (see section 
6(a)(1) of Executive Order 12866).
    We published our proposed rule on January 8, 2016 (81 FR 887). The 
comment period for our proposed rule, as extended (see 81 FR 9799; 
February 26, 2016), lasted 90 days, ending April 7, 2016. In accordance 
with the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-347), FWS provided for 
submission of comments by electronic means, as well as by hard copy or 
in person or at public meetings, and made available online the comments 
and other materials included in the rulemaking docket. We received over 
3,600 comments, including substantial comments from the State, BOG, 
Alaska Native Tribes, ANCSA corporations, RACs, Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), and numerous other Alaskan constituents, 
organizations, and businesses. Electronic sites to notify the public 
about the 30-day extension of the original 60-day comment period (81 FR 
9799; February 26, 2016) for the proposed rule were updated immediately 
on the Alaska NWR System Web site (February 25, 2016) and the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov) (February 26, 2016). 
Both Web sites remained fully functional for the entire comment period. 
Within the Alaska NWR system Web site, the extended comment period date 
was highlighted in red text to attract and alert a reviewer to the new 
comment period deadline. FWS posted phone and email contact information 
on all social media, electronic Web site, and printed outreach 
materials to ensure that anyone needing assistance to acquire documents 
or comment on the proposed rule and EA could contact an FWS 
representative for assistance. The extensive outreach history conducted 
prior to and after publication of the proposed rule is well documented 
in both this rule and the FONSI. FWS is confident, given our 
comprehensive outreach history and the proposed rule's 90-day comment 
period, that all interested constituents had a reasonable opportunity 
to understand and comment on the proposed rule and EA.
    (62) Comment: One commenter was concerned there may be last minute 
language changes or additions to the rule that will not be part of the 
public commenting process.
    FWS Response: The intent of the formal comment period is to obtain 
feedback and suggested changes on the proposed rule. The 
notice[hyphen]and[hyphen]comment process enables anyone to submit a 
comment on any part of the proposed rule. At the end of the process, 
the agency must base its reasoning and conclusions on the rulemaking 
record, consisting of the comments, scientific data, expert opinions, 
and facts accumulated during the pre[hyphen]rule and proposed rule 
stages. In the case of this rule, FWS has not relied on significant new 
data or arguments received after the comment period, and we have 
determined that any modifications to the proposed rule are a logical 
outgrowth of the information made available to us during the rulemaking 
period.

Regulations for Closures and Public Participation Procedures

    (63) Comment: Commenters expressed agreement with FWS for adding 
the Internet as a method of notifying affected people and organizations 
about hearings pertaining to closures or restrictions.
    FWS Response: We note this comment.
    (64) Comment: Some commenters stated that Internet-based means of 
soliciting comments might invite people who will never visit Alaska to 
sway FWS' decision.
    FWS Response: The mission of the NWR System is to administer a 
national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, 
and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit 
of present and future generations of Americans. Therefore, when we 
propose a change to our NWR regulations, we accept all timely comments 
regardless of their source. Everyone has a right to offer comments on 
regulations affecting the public lands. FWS is committed to using a 
wide variety of notification and comment methods to ensure everyone 
with a vested interest in a given proposal has the opportunity to 
comment. Utilization of Internet-based communications is in furtherance 
of, and fully consistent with, the directives of Congress in the E-
Government Act of 2002 (see our response to Comment (61)). The 
eRulemaking Program is a widely utilized method of communication for a 
wide variety of interested members of the public covering a broad 
geographic area, including many (not all) parts of Alaska. The public 
comment process is not like a ballot initiative or an 
up[hyphen]or[hyphen]down vote in a legislature; agencies cannot simply 
base a final rule on the number of comments in support or against a 
particular proposal. At the end of the comment process, the agency must 
base its decision on the record before it which consists of the 
comments, scientific and other data, expert opinions, laws, policies 
and facts accumulated during the rulemaking process. A broader range of 
views and opinions about any agency proposal is critical to FWS in 
ensuring that the best resource decisions are made for the continuing 
benefit of the American people. FWS is committed to utilizing a broad 
range of communication methods to ensure all interested individuals 
have an opportunity to participate in the process.
    (65) Comment: Commenters expressed concern about FWS using the 
Internet as a method to notify the public because Internet access is 
limited in rural Alaska. Commenters expressed concerns that the rule 
removes traditional methods of notification like radio and newspapers.
    FWS Response: The rule does not reduce the methods used to conduct 
public outreach but rather expands the methods that should be used to 
communicate information to a broadly dispersed and diverse public that 
includes Alaska and the rest of the United States. FWS is very 
sensitive to the fact that electronic communication of information may 
not be appropriate or reliable in rural areas of Alaska, and therefore 
FWS will continue to use traditional means of communication such as 
newspapers, postal mail, radio announcements, flyers, and so forth, in 
addition to providing information via electronic methods like Web 
sites, list serves, and email. This rule updates our regulations to 
take advantage of our current options for communication by adding the 
use of the Internet, broadcast media, or other available methods, in 
addition to continuing to use the more traditional methods of 
newspapers, signs, and radio.
    (66) Comment: Several commenters indicated that public meetings and 
hearings are appreciated, but the rule is inconsistent regarding 
whether or not they are required, in particular as it relates to 
closures.
    FWS Response: We revised applicable paragraphs in the ``Public 
participation and closure procedures'' section of this rule (50 CFR 
36.42 in the Regulation Promulgation section, below) to address

[[Page 52267]]

this comment and to clarify when meetings and hearings are required.
    (67) Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concern about the 
closure procedures in the proposed rule. Concerns included increasing 
the emergency closure period from 30 days to 60 days, which may 
encompass most or all of an entire hunting season for some species; and 
fear that temporary closures may extend for years, thus restricting 
access for subsistence use. Others stated that the proposal for 
temporary closures eliminates the need for permanent closures.
    FWS Response: FWS recognizes that emergency closures may be 
implemented at any time and may extend up to 60 days, thereby 
potentially impacting all user groups, including hunters. If an 
emergency closure is implemented, it is the intent of FWS to resolve 
the emergency as quickly as possible to reduce impacts to all NWR user 
groups. Invoking an emergency closure is a serious action that FWS 
understands may have important consequences and hence will be invoked 
only when absolutely necessary. FWS clarified language in this rule to 
indicate that an emergency closure will not exceed 60 days. Closures 
requiring longer than 60 days will require FWS to comply with temporary 
or permanent nonemergency closure procedures that require consultation 
with the State, affected Tribes, and Native Corporations as well as the 
opportunity for public comment and a public hearing in the vicinity of 
the area(s) affected. Based on public comments, the time for temporary 
closures or restrictions related to the taking of fish and wildlife 
will extend only for as long as necessary to achieve the purpose of the 
closure or restriction, and may not exceed 12 months. Another temporary 
closure or restriction may be allowed only after public comment, 
hearing, and consultation with State, Native Corporations, and Tribes 
as indicated in 50 CFR 36.42(d)(2). Permanent closures or restrictions 
related to the taking of fish and wildlife have no time limit 
associated with the closure period. This is distinctly different from 
temporary closures, which are implemented with the intent of extending 
only as long as necessary to achieve a desired purpose for the closure 
or restriction.
    (68) Comment: Some commenters are concerned FWS plans to remove the 
requirement for FWS to hold a hearing on the emergency closure 
procedure.
    FWS Response: This rule does not change hearing procedures for 
emergency closures. Emergency closures or restrictions relating to the 
taking of fish and wildlife will be accompanied by notice pursuant to 
50 CFR 36.42(f) with a subsequent hearing.
    (69) Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concern about the 
authority given to the Refuge Manager to initiate closures without 
input from the public. Commenters suggested that there is consultation 
with other entities before closures occur.
    FWS Response: Only certain emergency closures can be implemented by 
a Refuge Manager without receiving formal input from the public, State, 
Tribes, and Native Corporations. For any closure extending beyond 60 
days, the manager is required to consult with the State, Tribes, and 
Native Corporations and provide the opportunity for public comment. To 
date, there has been a very low level of emergency closures executed on 
NWRs in Alaska.

Public Process and Involvement

    (70) Comment: One commenter was concerned that if FWS received many 
comments from special interest groups, those comments from 
``outsiders'' might outnumber those received from persons directly 
affected, such as tribal members.
    FWS Response: The mission of the NWR System is to ``administer a 
national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, 
and where appropriate, restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant 
resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit 
of present and future generations of Americans.'' Therefore, all 
Americans have vested interest in the management of NWRs, regardless of 
where they live. The notice[hyphen]and[hyphen]comment process enables 
anyone to submit a comment on any part of the proposed rule. This 
process is not like a ballot initiative or an up[hyphen]or[hyphen]down 
vote in a legislature. An agency is not allowed to base its final rule 
on the number of comments in support of the rule over those in 
opposition to it. The agency also does not weigh comments based on 
where the commenter resides. At the end of the process, the agency must 
base its reasoning and conclusions on the rulemaking record, consisting 
of the substantive comments, scientific data, expert opinions, and 
facts accumulated during the pre[hyphen]rule and proposed rule stages.
    (71) Comment: One commenter was concerned that permanent closures 
for the take of fish and wildlife would not require a public hearing.
    FWS Response: Permanent closures or restrictions related to the 
taking of fish and wildlife will be effective only after allowing for 
the opportunity for public comment and a public hearing in the vicinity 
of the area(s) affected and publication in the Federal Register. These 
closures also require consultation with the State and affected Tribes 
and Native Corporations.
    (72) Comment: Commenters expressed discontent with certain ``public 
process'' experiences, saying they do not believe Alaska residents and 
other American citizen concerns are being heard.
    FWS Response: As a result of public comments during scoping for the 
proposed rule and EA, and from comments we received during the 90-day 
public comment period on the proposed rule, FWS made several changes to 
this rule (see table above titled, Summary of primary differences 
between our proposed rule and this final rule). These changes are 
documented in this final rule and the FONSI along with FWS' response to 
comments. FWS strived to gather input on the proposed rule using a 
broad array of outreach efforts that included public hearings, open 
houses, meetings, and communicating the availability of the rule via 
radio, television, newspapers, Web sites, listservs, emails, posters, 
flyers, and phone calls. When distributing paper or electronic 
information, FWS ensured that there was always a phone contact included 
so that a person could call someone to receive materials or get 
assistance on how to comment. As a result of this process, we gathered 
over 3,600 comments, of which 409 were substantive.
    (73) Comment: Commenter stated that conserving and enhancing 
resources for the benefit of the people requires collaborating with the 
State and enhancing public involvement in decision making.
    FWS Response: FWS agrees, and throughout this regulatory process 
FWS engaged the public, agencies, and nongovernmental organizations in 
conversations. Public involvement is fundamental to our mission and 
required by law. Public lands are held in trust for the American 
people, and they have the right to provide input on how these lands 
will be managed. Successful management of NWR resources is achieved by 
working with our conservation partners, like the Alaska Department of 
Fish and Game (ADFG). FWS prefers to defer to the State on regulations 
of hunting and trapping on NWRs in Alaska, unless, when doing so, FWS 
would not be in compliance with Federal laws and FWS policy.

[[Page 52268]]

Pubic Uses

    (74) Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concern about real or 
perceived decreased opportunities for wildlife viewing and photography 
as a result of the State's predator control regulations and IM actions. 
Commenters were concerned that hunters had higher priority than other 
public uses and wanted NWRs to have a natural variety of wildlife 
species.
    FWS Response: FWS is mandated by the Improvement Act to permit for 
a diversity of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities that 
includes both consumptive and nonconsumptive opportunities. This rule 
facilities our ability to manage NWRs for natural diversity and BIDEH, 
which in turn will facilitate providing a diversity of recreational 
opportunities from wildlife observation and photography of predators to 
harvest of predators.
    (75) Comment: Commenters expressed concerns that only predators 
would exist in the future for the public to view due to an unbalanced 
ecosystem that has resulted from removal of predator control practices.
    FWS Response: Maintaining healthy predator-prey relationships is an 
important part of managing Alaska NWRs. Predators cannot survive 
without prey. Indeed, predator and prey populations in Alaska co-
existed and fluctuated naturally for millennia without intensive 
predator management.

Scientific Methods

    (76) Comment: Commenters expressed concern about the science used 
to support the proposed rule and were specifically concerned with FWS' 
use of the terms ``potential'' and ``intent'' relative to proposed 
management practices and outcomes.
    FWS Response: The terms ``intent'' or ``potential'' are used in 
this rule and the EA to express our interpretation or understanding of 
information. The use of these terms is appropriate in that we do not 
necessarily always have specific studies or references for specific 
Alaska populations or NWRs, but rather we make decisions based on the 
best available science. In the ideal scenario, we have the data and 
analysis completed for a specific situation and location that can be 
directly applied to a decision-making process. Sometimes, however, we 
are charged with making decisions based on the best scientific 
information available as well as the professional judgment of our 
biologists and managers. The justifications for actions identified in 
this final rule are soundly supported by the best available science and 
do incorporate analyses of Alaska-specific data where available. FWS' 
evaluation of the best available science data, along with the 
professional judgment of our biologists and managers, indicate a strong 
potential and/or intent that the specific methods and means of take 
prohibited by this rule will have significant negative impacts to 
specific populations and the overall conservation of NWR natural 
ecological processes. It is not the intent of, nor is it appropriate 
for, FWS to simply wait and document negative impacts of threats that 
can be avoided. Rather, the prudent conservation approach is to be 
proactive in our management by curtailing and protecting NWRs from 
threats that we infer, based on best available science, will have 
negative consequences (precautionary principal). Throughout the 
rulemaking process, FWS worked to collect and apply the best available 
scientific information to evaluate and develop the regulatory changes 
set forth in this rule. There are substantial references cited in the 
EA that document our current knowledge of the importance of predator-
prey relationships relative to sustaining healthy ecosystems and that 
clearly outline the justification and rationale for the methods and 
means prohibitions identified in this rule. This rule is not based on 
achieving or maintaining any particular wildlife population levels, and 
therefore did not require comprehensive data documenting those levels. 
Rather, the rule reflects FWS' responsibility to manage NWRs for 
natural processes, including predator-prey relationships, and responds 
to practices that are intended to alter those relationships.
    (77) Comment: Commenters expressed support for the proposed rule 
and agreed with the science and philosophy used by FWS to support 
regulatory changes and how wildlife is managed on NWRs. Commenters 
questioned the science behind the purpose and need for the State's 
current predator management practices, expressing that the State does 
not recognize the scientific importance of maintaining healthy 
populations of top predators and does not evaluate other important 
factors influencing ungulate populations like habitat.
    FWS Response: We note this comment.

General or Other Comments

    (78) Comment: Commenter expressed concerns over the layout and 
organization of the proposed rule document and offered suggestions for 
improvements.
    FWS Response: Editorial suggestions from commenters for the rule 
focused on the layout of the table that summarized the changes proposed 
to the existing procedures for public participation and closures at 50 
CFR 36.42. The suggested edits were evaluated and incorporated as 
appropriate to clarify rule changes.
    (79) Comment: Commenters expressed strong support for the changes 
proposed by FWS. Many commenters stated they believe the proposed rule 
does not violate ANILCA and other laws and regulations, will allow for 
continued subsistence use, and will help secure the BIDEH of the NWR 
System for the continued benefit of present and future generations.
    FWS Response: We note this comment.
    (80) Comment: Commenters requested that FWS delete 50 CFR 
36.12(d)(3) from the regulations or provide an exception for Unit 23 
Selawik NWR. A commenter proposed modifying language to read, ``except 
for in Unit 23, Selawik NWR, a snowmachine may be used to position a 
caribou, wolf, or wolverine for harvest provided that the animals are 
not shot from a moving snowmachine machine.'' Commenters indicated that 
such use of machines is necessary to pursue and harvest wildlife, 
especially predators.
    FWS Response: This comment cannot be addressed as part of this 
final rule because it is outside the scope of this rulemaking. We did 
not include any proposed changes to 50 CFR 36.12 in the proposed rule, 
and the public was not given notice or a chance to comment on the 
change. To amend this section of the regulations would require a 
separate rulemaking.
    (81) Comment: Commenters expressed a concern that managing for 
natural diversity is different in NWRs compared to National Parks.
    FWS Response: Alaska NWRs have different management mandates from 
National Parks and Monuments, as specified by ANILCA and other laws. 
NWRs are managed differently than National Parks as illustrated in the 
Senate Congressional Record that states that habitat manipulation and 
predator control and other management techniques frequently employed on 
NWR lands are inappropriate within National Parks and NPS Monuments 
(ANILCA, Senate Record, Dec. 1980). Alaska NWRs may use habitat 
manipulation, predator control, or other management techniques, as 
appropriate, when there is a conservation concern and a sound 
biological justification for the action.

[[Page 52269]]

Required Determinations

Plain Language Mandate

    This rule, as well as the proposed rule, contains revisions to 
regulations in order to comply with longstanding Presidential 
directions to use plain language in regulations. Such revisions do not 
modify the substance of the previous regulations. These types of 
changes include using ``you'' to refer to the reader and ``we'' to 
refer to the NWR System, using the word ``allow'' instead of ``permit'' 
when we do not require the use of a permit for an activity, and using 
active voice (i.e., ``We restrict entry into the refuge'' vs. ``Entry 
into the refuge is restricted'').

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 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 E.O. 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. E.O. 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses, 
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the RFA to require 
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for 
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory 
flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold 
for ``significant impact'' and a threshold for a ``substantial number 
of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule would have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    As described above and in the January 8, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 
887), the changes in this rule will amend regulations for NWRs in 
Alaska. This rule primarily: (1) Codifies how our existing mandates 
relate to predator control in Alaska (50 CFR 36.1); (2) prohibits 
several particularly effective methods and means for take of predators 
(50 CFR 36.32); and (3) updates our public participation and closure 
procedures (50 CFR 36.42). Predator control is prohibited on NWRs in 
Alaska unless it is determined necessary to meet refuge purposes, is 
consistent with Federal laws and policy, and is based on sound science 
in response to a conservation concern. Demands for more wildlife to 
harvest cannot be the sole or primary basis for predator control. This 
rule does not change Federal subsistence regulations (36 CFR part 242 
and 50 CFR part 100) or restrict taking of fish or wildlife for 
subsistence uses under Federal subsistence regulations. Codifying how 
our existing mandates relate to predator control in Alaska (50 CFR 
36.1) will not result in a significant change of refuge use because 
these practices were historically prohibited by the State, and thus 
enforced as a matter of the adoption of non-conflicting provisions of 
State law. The rule ensures that these prohibitions continue. Codifying 
previously and currently prohibited sport hunting and trapping 
practices will not have a significant impact because the few changes 
that have occurred have been relatively recent, and this rule 
constitutes a reinstatement of the prior status quo. State general 
hunting and trapping regulations currently apply to NWRs in Alaska. 
Therefore, the prohibition of particular methods and means for the take 
of predators under State regulations on NWRs in Alaska that may affect 
visitor use on those NWRs include the take of brown bears over bait, 
take of wolves and coyotes during the denning season, and same-day 
airborne take of bears. The take of black bear sows with cubs is only 
allowed under State regulations in specific game management units for 
customary and traditional use; therefore, it is not currently nor in 
the past has it been legal for the general public to participate in 
this activity outside of that framework. As a result, big game hunting 
may decrease if a hunter's preferred hunting method is prohibited on a 
NWR and they choose not to hunt elsewhere where such methods are not 
prohibited. Conversely, wildlife watching activities may well increase 
if there are increased opportunities to view wildlife, including bears, 
wolves, and coyotes. From 2009 to 2013, big game hunting on NWRs in 
Alaska averaged about 40,000 days annually and represented 2 percent of 
wildlife-related recreation on NWRs. For Statewide hunting, big game 
hunting on NWRs in Alaska represented only 4 percent of all big game 
hunting days (1.2 million days). Due to the past ban on these 
prohibited methods and means for take of predators, we estimate that 
these hunting methods (take of brown bears over bait, take of wolves 
and coyotes during the denning season, and same-day airborne take of 
bears) represent a small fraction of all big game hunting on NWRs. As a 
result, big game hunting on NWRs is expected to change minimally. This 
change in opportunity will most likely be offset by other sites 
(located outside of NWRs) gaining participants. Therefore, there may be 
a substitute site for these hunting methods, and participation rates 
will not necessarily change.
    Hunters' spending contributes income to the regional economy and 
benefits local businesses. Due to the unavailability of site-specific 
expenditure data, we use the Alaska estimate from the 2011 National 
Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation to 
identify expenditures for food and lodging, transportation, and other 
incidental expenses. Using the average trip-related expenditures for 
big game hunting ($139 per day) yields approximately $5.9 million 
annually in big game hunting-related expenditures on NWRs in Alaska. 
Since only a small fraction of big game hunters are likely to choose 
not to hunt on NWRs because of this rule, the impact will be minimal. 
The net loss to the local communities should be no more than $5.9 
million annually, and most likely considerably less because few hunters 
use the prohibited methods and those hunters that do will likely choose 
a substitute site.

[[Page 52270]]

    Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, 
gas stations, taxidermy shops, etc.) may be impacted from some 
decreased refuge visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade 
establishments in local communities around NWRs qualify as small 
businesses. We expect that the incremental recreational changes will be 
scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
in Alaska.
    With the small change in overall spending anticipated from this 
rule, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will 
have more than a small impact from the spending change near the 
affected NWRs. Therefore, we certify that this rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Accordingly, a small 
entity compliance guide is not required.

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. Will 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. Will 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

    As this rule applies to uses on federally owned and managed NWRs, 
it will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. 
The rule will 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 (E.O. 12630)

    This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under E.O. 12630. This rule affects only the 
public use and management of Federal lands managed by FWS in Alaska. A 
takings implication assessment is not required.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    As discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act sections, above, this rule will not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
summary impact statement under E.O. 13132. The rule's effect is limited 
to Federal NWR lands managed by FWS in Alaska, and the rule will not 
have a substantial direct effect on State and local governments in 
Alaska. In preparing this rule, we worked with State governments. A 
federalism summary impact statement is not required.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 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 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Native Corporations

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951 (May 4, 1994)), Executive Order 13175 
(Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; 65 FR 
67249 (November 9, 2000)), and the Department of the Interior Manual, 
512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to communicate 
meaningfully with recognized Federal Tribes on a government-to-
government basis, and we did seek the Tribes' input in evaluating the 
proposed rule. In addition, we evaluated the proposed rule in 
accordance with 512 DM 4 under Department of the Interior Policy on 
Consultation with Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) 
Corporations, August 10, 2012.
    Prior to the development of the proposed rule, we sought feedback 
from interested parties, including Tribal governments, ANCSA 
corporations, the State of Alaska, and the Federal Subsistence RACs. We 
contacted 146 Tribal governments, 12 regional and 106 village ANCSA 
corporations, and 13 Native nonprofits, all within proximity to NWRs in 
Alaska. In response to what we heard, we significantly narrowed the 
scope and complexity of what we proposed (e.g., reducing the number of 
proposed prohibited methods and means of take from 16 to 5; not opening 
collection of natural resources (berries, mushrooms, downed timber); 
and shortening the temporary closure from a maximum of 5 years to 
maximum of 3 years and providing additional clarification, where 
possible).
    We sent out an initial invitation consultation to Tribal 
governments, ANCSA corporations, and Native nonprofit organizations in 
Alaska, and the Alaska Federation of Natives, on September 24, 2014. We 
then sent a follow-up letter to the same contacts in the first week of 
February 2015, and another in mid-May 2015. In December 2015, several 
weeks prior to publication of the proposed rule and EA, we sent out a 
fourth letter notifying the Tribal governments and ANCSA corporations 
of the impending publication and scheduled hearings, and we provided an 
overview of the proposed rule, as well as another invitation to consult 
with us on the proposed rule. In early March 2016, we sent letters and/
or emails to all Tribal governments, ANCSA corporations, and Native 
nonprofit organizations to notify them that we extended the comment 
period on the proposed rule for another 30 days, ending April 7, 2016.
    FWS conducted three Statewide Tribal consultation teleconferences 
that included opportunity to dialogue with the Regional Director and 
the Chief of NWRs for Alaska. These teleconferences were held in 
November 2014 and February 2015. We also reached out to Tribal 
governments, ANCSA corporations, and Native nonprofit organizations 
through phone calls, emails, and meetings to notify them of our 
availability for consultation and to encourage comment on the proposed 
rule. Specific consultations requested during the comment period 
occurred with the following: Allakaket Council and Alatna Council on 
March 1, 2016; Doyon Corporation on March 7, 2016; Gwichyaa Zhee Tribal 
Council on February 24, 2016; Kaktovik Tribal Council on February 16, 
2016; Native Village of Venetie Tribal Council and the Venetie Village 
Council on February 25, 2016; Nulato Tribe on February 3, 2016; and 
Togiak Tribal Council on April 1, 2016.
    We provided information on the proposed rule at conferences and 
meetings including the Alaska Federation of Natives (October 2014 and 
2015), Bureau of Indian Affairs Service Providers Conference (December 
2014 and 2015), and the Federal Subsistence RACs meetings (September-
October

[[Page 52271]]

2014, February-March 2015, October-November 2015, and March 2016).
    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 evaluated this rule 
under the criteria in E.O. 13175 and under the Department's tribal 
consultation and ANCSA corporation policies and determined that tribal 
consultation is not required because the rule will have no substantial 
direct effect on federally recognized Indian Tribes. While FWS has 
determined the rule will have no substantial direct effect on federally 
recognized Indian Tribes or ANCSA corporation lands, water areas, or 
resources, FWS has consulted with Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA 
corporations on the proposed rule as indicated above.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The application (FWS Form 3-1383-G) for 
the special use permit mentioned in this rule is already approved by 
OMB under OMB control number 1018-0102, which expires on June 30, 2017. 
We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond 
to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

    FWS has analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the 
Department of the Interior's manual at 516 DM. An environmental 
assessment (EA) entitled ``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife: Proposed 
Regulatory Updates to Methods and Means for Predator Harvest on 
National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska Draft Environmental Assessment, 
December 23, 2015'' was prepared to determine whether this rule will 
have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. The 
draft EA was adopted without changes. 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 significant impact (FONSI). The EA 
and FONSI are available online at https://www.regulations.gov under 
Docket No. FWS-R7-NWRS-2014-0005.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking actions that significantly affect 
energy supply, distribution, or use. This rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866, and we do not expect it to 
significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, 
this action is not a significant energy action, and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

Authors

    The primary authors of this rule are Heather Abbey Tonneson, 
Stephanie Brady, and Carol Damberg of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Alaska Regional Office, with considerable review and input 
from other Service Alaska refuge and Office of Subsistence Management 
managerial and biological staff.

List of Subjects

50 CFR Part 32

    Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.

50 CFR Part 36

    Alaska, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife refuges.

Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service amends title 
50, chapter I, subchapter C, of the Code of Federal Regulations as 
follows:

PART 32--HUNTING AND FISHING

0
1. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd-668ee, and 
715i.


Sec.  32.2  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  32.2(h) by removing the words, ``(Baiting is authorized 
in accordance with State regulations on national wildlife refuges in 
Alaska)'' and adding in their place the words, ``(Black bear baiting 
and use of bait to trap furbearers are authorized in accordance with 
State regulations on national wildlife refuges in Alaska.)''.

PART 36--ALASKA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES

0
3. The authority citation for part 36 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 460(k) et seq., 668dd-668ee, 3101 et seq.

Subpart A--Introduction and General Provisions

0
4. Amend Sec.  36.1 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) as paragraphs (b), (c), 
and (d), respectively; and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  36.1  How do the regulations in this part apply to me and what do 
they cover?

    (a) National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska are maintained to conserve 
species and habitats in their natural diversity and to ensure 
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of these 
refuges are maintained for the continuing benefit of present and future 
generations.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec.  36.2 by adding, in alphabetical order, definitions for 
``Bait'', ``Big game'', ``Cub bear'', ``Furbearer'', ``Natural 
diversity'', ``Predator control'', ``Sport hunting'', and ``Trapping'' 
to read as follows:


Sec.  36.2  What do these terms mean?

* * * * *
    Bait means any material excluding a scent lure that is placed to 
attract an animal by its sense of smell or taste; however, those parts 
of legally taken animals that are not required to be salvaged and which 
are left at the kill site are not considered bait.
    Big game means black bear, brown bear, bison, caribou, Sitka black-
tailed deer, elk, mountain goat, moose, muskox, Dall 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.
* * * * *
    Furbearer means a beaver, coyote, arctic fox, red fox, lynx, 
marten, mink, least weasel, short-tailed weasel, muskrat, river (land) 
otter, flying squirrel, ground squirrel, red squirrel, Alaskan marmot, 
hoary marmot, woodchuck, wolf, or wolverine.
    Natural diversity means the existence of all fish, wildlife, and 
plant populations within a particular wildlife refuge system unit in 
the natural mix and in a healthy condition for the long-term benefit of 
current and future generations. Managing for natural diversity includes 
avoiding emphasis of management activities favoring some species to the 
detriment of others and assuring that habitat diversity is maintained 
through natural means, avoiding artificial developments and

[[Page 52272]]

habitat manipulation programs whenever possible.
* * * * *
    Predator control is the intention to reduce the population of 
predators for the benefit of prey species.
* * * * *
    Sport hunting means the taking of or attempting to take wildlife 
under State hunting or trapping regulations. In Alaska, this is 
commonly referred to as general hunting and trapping and includes State 
subsistence hunts and general permits open to both Alaska residents and 
nonresidents.
* * * * *
    Trapping means taking furbearers under a trapping license.

Subpart B--Subsistence Uses


Sec.  36.11  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  36.11 by removing paragraph (d) and by redesignating 
paragraph (e) as paragraph (d).
0
7. Revise Sec.  36.13 to read as follows:


Sec.  36.13  Subsistence fishing.

    Fish may be taken by federally qualified subsistence users, as 
defined at 50 CFR 100.5, for subsistence uses on Alaska National 
Wildlife Refuges where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with 
this subpart and 50 CFR part 100.
0
8. Revise Sec.  36.14 to read as follows:


Sec.  36.14  Subsistence hunting and trapping.

    Federally qualified subsistence users, as defined at 50 CFR 100.5, 
may hunt and trap wildlife for subsistence uses on Alaska National 
Wildlife Refuges where subsistence uses are allowed in compliance with 
this subpart and 50 CFR part 100.

Subpart D--Non-Subsistence Uses

0
9. Revise the heading of subpart D to read as set forth above.
0
10. Revise Sec.  36.32 to read as follows:


Sec.  36.32  Taking of fish and wildlife.

    (a) The taking of fish and wildlife for sport hunting and trapping 
and for sport fishing is authorized in accordance with applicable State 
and Federal law, and such laws are hereby adopted and made a part of 
these regulations, except as set forth in this section and provided 
however, that the Refuge Manager, pursuant to Sec.  36.42, may 
designate areas where, and establish periods when, no taking of a 
particular population of fish or wildlife will be allowed.
    (b) Predator control is prohibited on National Wildlife Refuges in 
Alaska, unless it is determined necessary to meet refuge purposes, is 
consistent with Federal laws and policy, and is based on sound science 
in response to a conservation concern. Demands for more wildlife for 
human harvest cannot be the sole or primary basis for predator control. 
A Refuge Manager will authorize predator control activities on a 
National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska only if:
    (1) Alternatives to predator control have been evaluated as a 
practical means of achieving management objectives;
    (2) Proposed actions have been evaluated in compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
    (3) A formal refuge compatibility determination has been completed, 
as required by law; and
    (4) The potential effects of predator control on subsistence uses 
and needs have been evaluated through an ANILCA section 810 analysis.
    (c) The exercise of valid commercial fishing rights or privileges 
obtained pursuant to existing law, including any use of refuge areas 
for campsites, cabins, motorized vehicles, and aircraft landing 
directly incident to the exercise of such rights or privileges, is 
authorized; Provided, however, that the Refuge Manager may restrict or 
prohibit the exercise of these rights or privileges or uses of 
federally owned lands directly incident to such exercise if the Refuge 
Manager determines, after conducting a public hearing in the affected 
locality, that they are inconsistent with the purposes of the refuge 
and that they constitute a significant expansion of commercial fishing 
activities within such refuge beyond the level of such activities in 
1979.
    (d) The following provisions apply to any person while engaged in 
the taking of fish and wildlife within an Alaska National Wildlife 
Refuge:
    (1) Trapping and sport hunting. (i) Each person must secure and 
possess all required State licenses and must comply with the applicable 
provisions of State law unless further restricted by Federal law.
    (ii) Each person must comply with the applicable provisions of 
Federal law.
    (iii) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c) of 
this section, each person must continue to secure a trapping permit 
from the appropriate Refuge Manager prior to trapping on the Kenai, 
Izembek, and Kodiak Refuges and the Aleutian Islands Unit of the Alaska 
Maritime Refuge.
    (iv) It is 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, wolf, or wolverine until after 3 a.m. on the day following the 
day in which the flying occurred, except that a trapper may use a 
firearm or any other weapon to dispatch a legally caught wolf or 
wolverine in a trap or snare on the same day in which the flying 
occurred. This prohibition does not apply to flights on regularly 
scheduled commercial airlines between regularly maintained public 
airports.
    (v) The following methods and means for take of wildlife are 
prohibited:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Prohibited acts                         Exceptions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Using snares, nets, or traps to    None.
 take any species of bear.
(B) Using bait.......................  (1) Bait may be used to trap
                                        furbearers.
                                       (2) Bait may be used to hunt
                                        black bears.
(C) Taking wolves and coyotes from     None.
 May 1 through August 9.
(D) Taking bear cubs or sows with      In accordance with Alaska State
 cubs.                                  law and regulation, resident
                                        hunters may take black bear cubs
                                        or sows with cubs under
                                        customary and traditional use
                                        activities at a den site October
                                        15-April 30 in game management
                                        units 19A, 19D, 21B, 21C, 21D,
                                        24, and 25D.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Sport and commercial fishing. (i) Each person must secure and 
possess all required State licenses and must comply with the applicable 
provisions of State law unless further restricted by Federal law.
    (ii) Each person must comply with the applicable provisions of 
Federal law.
    (e) Persons transporting fish or wildlife through Alaska National 
Wildlife Refuges must carry an Alaska State hunting or fishing license, 
or in cases where a person is transporting game for another person, 
they are required to carry an Alaska State ``Transfer of Possession 
Form'' on their person and make these available when

[[Page 52273]]

requested by law enforcement personnel.
    (f) Nothing in this section applies to or restricts the taking or 
transporting of fish and wildlife by federally qualified subsistence 
users under Federal subsistence regulations.
    (g) Animal control programs will only be conducted in accordance 
with a special use permit issued by the Refuge Manager.
0
11. Amend Sec.  36.42 by revising paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), 
(g), and (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  36.42  Public participation and closure procedures.

    (a) Applicability and authority. The Refuge Manager may close an 
area or restrict an activity in an Alaska National Wildlife Refuge on 
an emergency, temporary, or permanent basis in accordance with this 
section.
    (b) * * *
    (c) Emergency closures or restrictions. (1) Emergency closures or 
restrictions relating to the use of aircraft, snowmachines, motorboats, 
or nonmotorized surface transportation will be made after notice 
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section and hearing;
    (2) Emergency closures or restrictions relating to the taking of 
fish and wildlife will be accompanied by notice pursuant to paragraph 
(f) of this section with a subsequent hearing;
    (3) Other emergency closures or restrictions will become effective 
upon notice as prescribed in paragraph (f) of this section; and
    (4) No emergency closure or restriction will exceed 60 days. 
Closures or restrictions requiring longer than 60 days will follow 
nonemergency closure procedures (i.e., temporary or permanent; see 
paragraphs (d) and (e), respectively, of this section).
    (d) Temporary closures or restrictions. (1) Temporary closures or 
restrictions relating to the use of aircraft, snowmachines, motorboats, 
or nonmotorized surface transportation will be effective only after 
notice pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section and hearing in the 
vicinity of the area(s) affected by such closures or restriction, and 
other locations as appropriate.
    (2) Temporary closures or restrictions related to the taking of 
fish and wildlife will be effective only after notice pursuant to 
paragraph (f) of this section and after allowing for the opportunity 
for public comment and a public hearing in the vicinity of the area(s) 
affected, and other locations as appropriate. Temporary closures or 
restrictions related to the taking of fish and wildlife also require 
consultation with the State and affected Tribes and Native 
Corporations.
    (3) Other temporary closures will be effective upon notice as set 
forth at paragraph (f) of this section.
    (4) Temporary closures or restrictions will extend only for as long 
as necessary to achieve the purpose of the closure or restriction, and 
may not exceed 12 months; Provided, however, a new temporary closure or 
restriction may be adopted thereafter by following the applicable 
procedures set forth at paragraph (d)(1), (d)(2), or (d)(3) of this 
section.
    (e) Permanent closures or restrictions. Permanent closures or 
restrictions related to the use of aircraft, snowmachines, motorboats, 
or nonmotorized surface transportation, or taking of fish and wildlife, 
will be effective only after notice pursuant to paragraph (f) of this 
section, and shall be published by rulemaking in the Federal Register 
with a minimum public comment period of 60 days and shall not be 
effective until after a public hearing(s) is held in the affected 
vicinity and other locations as appropriate. Permanent closures or 
restrictions related to the taking of fish and wildlife require 
consultation with the State and affected Tribes and Native 
Corporations.
    (f) Notice. Emergency, temporary, or permanent closures or 
restrictions will be published on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/alaska/nwr/ak_sp_hunt_regs.htm. 
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 
and in local newspapers;
    (2) Use of electronic media, such as the Internet and email lists;
    (3) Broadcast media (radio, television, etc.); or
    (4) Posting of signs in the local vicinity or at the Refuge 
Manager's office.
    (g) Openings. In determining whether to open an area to public use 
or activity otherwise prohibited, the Refuge Manager will provide 
notice in the Federal Register and will, upon request, hold a public 
meeting in the affected vicinity and other locations, as appropriate, 
prior to making a final determination.
    (h) Except as otherwise specifically allowed under the provisions 
of this part, entry into closed areas or failure to abide by 
restrictions established under this section is prohibited.

    Dated: July 22, 2016.
Michael J. Bean,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2016-18117 Filed 8-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P