National Wildlife Refuge System; 2023-2024 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations, 74050-74066 [2023-23847]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 208 (Monday, October 30, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74050-74066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23847]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

[Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2023-0038; FXRS12610900000-234-FF09R20000]
RIN 1018-BG71


National Wildlife Refuge System; 2023-2024 Station-Specific 
Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), expand 
hunting opportunities on three National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). We 
also make changes to existing station-specific regulations in order to 
reduce the regulatory burden on the public, increase access for hunters 
and anglers on Service lands and waters, and comply with a Presidential 
mandate for plain language standards. Finally, the best available 
science, analyzed as part of this rulemaking, indicates that lead 
ammunition and tackle have negative impacts on both wildlife and human 
health. In this rule, Blackwater, Chincoteague, Eastern Neck, Erie, 
Great Thicket, Patuxent Research Refuge, Rachel Carson, and Wallops 
Island NWRs each adopt a non-lead requirement, which will take effect 
on September 1, 2026. While the Service continues to evaluate the 
future of lead use in hunting and fishing on Service lands and waters, 
this rulemaking does not include any opportunities increasing or 
authorizing the new use of lead beyond fall 2026.

DATES: This rule is effective October 27, 2023, except for the 
amendments to 50 CFR 32.38 (amendatory instruction 5), 32.39 
(amendatory instruction 6), 32.57 (amendatory instruction 11), and 
32.65 (amendatory instruction 15), which are effective September 1, 
2026.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Harrigan, (703) 358-2440. 
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of 
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or 
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals 
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within 
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in 
the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended (Administration Act), closes NWRs in 
all States except Alaska to all uses until opened. The Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary) may open refuge areas to any use, including 
hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that the use is 
compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge 
System (Refuge System) mission. The action also must be in accordance 
with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in 
coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), 
consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management 
and administration, and otherwise in the public interest. These 
requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, 
diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the 
benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
    We annually review hunting and sport fishing programs to determine 
whether to include additional stations or whether individual station 
regulations governing existing programs need modifications. Changing 
environmental conditions, State and Federal regulations, and other 
factors affecting fish and wildlife populations and habitat may warrant 
modifications to station-specific regulations to ensure the continued 
compatibility of hunting and sport fishing programs and to ensure that 
these programs will not materially interfere with or detract from the 
fulfillment of station purposes or the Service's mission.
    Provisions governing hunting and sport fishing on refuges are in 
title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at part 32 (50 CFR part 
32), and on hatcheries at part 71 (50 CFR part 71). We regulate hunting 
and sport fishing to:
     Ensure compatibility with refuge and hatchery purpose(s);
     Properly manage fish and wildlife resource(s);
     Protect other values;
     Ensure visitor safety; and
     Provide opportunities for fish- and wildlife-dependent 
recreation.

[[Page 74051]]

    On many stations where we decide to allow hunting and sport 
fishing, our general policy of adopting regulations identical to State 
hunting and sport fishing regulations is adequate to meet these 
objectives. On other stations, we must supplement State regulations 
with more-restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our 
management responsibilities, as outlined under Statutory Authority, 
below. We issue station-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations 
when we open wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries to migratory game 
bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing. 
These regulations may list the wildlife species that you may hunt or 
fish; seasons; bag or creel (container for carrying fish) limits; 
methods of hunting or sport fishing; descriptions of areas open to 
hunting or sport fishing; and other provisions as appropriate.

Statutory Authority

    The Administration Act, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act; Pub. L. 105-57), 
governs the administration and public use of refuges, and the Refuge 
Recreation Act of 1962 (Recreation Act; 16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) governs 
the administration and public use of refuges and hatcheries.
    Amendments enacted by the Improvement Act were built upon the 
Administration Act in a manner that provides an ``organic act'' for the 
Refuge System, similar to organic acts that exist for other public 
Federal lands. The Improvement Act serves to ensure that we effectively 
manage the Refuge System as a national network of lands, waters, and 
interests for the protection and conservation of our Nation's wildlife 
resources. The Administration Act states first and foremost that we 
focus our Refuge System mission on conservation of fish, wildlife, and 
plant resources and their habitats. The Improvement Act requires the 
Secretary, before allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding, 
renewing, or extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that 
the use is compatible with the purpose for which the refuge was 
established and the mission of the Refuge System. The Improvement Act 
established as the policy of the United States that wildlife-dependent 
recreation, when compatible, is a legitimate and appropriate public use 
of the Refuge System, through which the American public can develop an 
appreciation for fish and wildlife. The Improvement Act established six 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public 
uses of the Refuge System. These uses are hunting, fishing, wildlife 
observation and photography, and environmental education and 
interpretation.
    The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas 
within the Refuge System and Hatchery System for public recreation as 
an appropriate incidental or secondary use only to the extent that 
doing so is practicable and not inconsistent with the primary 
purpose(s) for which Congress and the Service established the areas. 
The Recreation Act requires that any recreational use of refuge or 
hatchery lands be compatible with the primary purpose(s) for which we 
established the refuge and not inconsistent with other previously 
authorized operations.
    The Administration Act and Recreation Act also authorize the 
Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts 
and regulate uses.
    We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to 
opening it to hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop 
station-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the 
programs with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge or 
hatchery and the Refuge and Hatchery System mission. We ensure initial 
compliance with the Administration Act and the Recreation Act for 
hunting and sport fishing on newly acquired land through an interim 
determination of compatibility made at or near the time of acquisition. 
These regulations ensure that we make the determinations required by 
these acts prior to adding refuges to the lists of areas open to 
hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71. We ensure 
continued compliance by the development of comprehensive conservation 
plans and step-down management plans, and by annual review of hunting 
and sport fishing programs and regulations.

Summary of Comments and Responses

    On June 23, 2023, we published in the Federal Register (88 FR 
41058) a proposed rule to expand hunting and fishing opportunities at 
three refuges for the 2023-2024 season. We accepted public comments on 
the proposed rule for 60 days, ending August 22, 2023. By that date, we 
received more than 18,500 comments on the proposed rule. More than 95 
percent of these comments were identical or nonsubstantive comments 
that were outside the scope of the proposed rule. We received 326 
unique comments, and 228 of those comments were substantive. We discuss 
the substantive comments we received below by topic. Beyond our 
responses below, additional station-specific information on how we 
responded to comments on particular hunting or fishing opportunities at 
a given refuge or hatchery can be found in that station's final hunting 
and/or fishing package, each of which can be located in Docket No. FWS-
HQ-NWRS-2023-0038 on https://www.regulations.gov.
    Comment (1): We received several comments expressing general 
support for the proposed hunting expansions in the rule. These comments 
of general support either expressed appreciation for the increased 
hunting access in the proposed rule overall, expressed appreciation for 
increased access at particular refuges, or both. In addition to this 
general support, some commenters requested additional hunting and 
fishing opportunities.On the topic of additional opportunities, a few 
commenters also noted that the proposed rule had relatively fewer 
openings and expansions than other rules in recent years.
    Our Response: Hunting and fishing on Service lands is a tradition 
that dates back to the early 1900s. In passing the Improvement Act, 
Congress reaffirmed that the Refuge System was created to conserve 
fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats, and would facilitate 
opportunities for Americans to participate in compatible wildlife-
dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing on Refuge System 
lands. We prioritize wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting 
and fishing, when doing so is compatible with the purpose of the refuge 
and the mission of the Refuge System.
    We will continue to open and expand hunting and sport fishing 
opportunities across the Refuge System; however, as detailed further in 
our response to Comment (2), below, opening or expanding hunting or 
fishing opportunities on Service lands is not a quick or simple 
process. The annual regulatory cycle begins in June or July of each 
year for the following hunting and sport fishing season (the planning 
cycle for this 2023-2024 final rule began in June 2022). This annual 
timeline allows us time to collaborate closely with our State, Tribal, 
and Territorial partners, as well as other partners including 
nongovernmental organizations, on potential opportunities. It also 
provides us with time to complete environmental analyses and other 
requirements for opening or expanding new opportunities. Therefore, it 
would be impracticable for the Service to complete multiple regulatory 
cycles in one calendar year due to the logistics of coordinating with 
various partners. Once we determine that a hunting or sport fishing 
opportunity can be carried

[[Page 74052]]

out in a manner compatible with individual station purposes and 
objectives, we work expeditiously to open it.
    This also applies to commenter requests for changes in the season 
dates, days of the week, hours open, methods of take, or other 
logistical requirements that would align our hunting and fishing 
regulations more closely with State hunting and fishing regulations, 
such as requests to allow Sunday hunting where State governments have 
removed previous prohibitions. The Service is committed to aligning 
with State regulations as closely as possible, while keeping in mind 
our conservation mission and unique ecosystem preservation and 
biodiversity responsibility among public lands, and has revised 
hundreds of regulations in recent rulemakings in the interest of 
alignment with State regulations. Nevertheless, we must complete our 
own evaluation and decision-making processes prior to changing any 
standing policies and regulations where they differ from newly adopted 
State regulations. We have completed such evaluations in Virginia for 
Wallops Island National Wildlife Refuge, where Sunday hunting is now 
open, and for Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge, where Sunday 
hunting is incompatible with other refuge uses. Additional refuges will 
be evaluated over time.
    This rule does contain relatively fewer opportunities than other 
recent annual rulemakings, but within the wider context of the full 
history of these annual rulemakings, it is near the median size. The 
size of our rulemakings always varies from year to year, and there are 
a few different contributing reasons for the size of this year's rule 
relative to larger rules such as the 2021-2022 final rule (86 FR 48822; 
August 31, 2021). First, we successfully streamlined our regulations 
and aligned with State regulations where possible at many stations in 
recent years, which means that during this streamlining effort there 
were many more stations proposing changes than there otherwise would 
have been in these annual rules. Some of these streamlining and 
alignment efforts even produced increased access and expanded 
opportunities, as season dates were extended or methods of take were 
added for certain NWRs. Second, due to the success of our efforts in 
recent years to create new hunting and fishing opportunities, there 
were fewer opening and expansions proposed this year. Many of these 
opportunities were identified and evaluated over the course of multiple 
years. This limits the size of our rules in subsequent years because we 
need time to identify and evaluate more potential openings and 
expansions. Third, there is ultimately a finite number of compatible 
hunting and fishing opportunities possible on the Refuge System at a 
given time; as we approach that limit, the opportunities contained in 
our annual rulemakings will necessarily decrease. Once we have 
maximized access throughout the Refuge System, we will only be able to 
increase access when we acquire new acres.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (2): Several commenters expressed general opposition to any 
hunting or fishing in the Refuge System. Some of these commenters 
stated that hunting was antithetical to the purposes of a ``refuge,'' 
which, in their opinion, should serve as an inviolate sanctuary for all 
wildlife. The remaining commenters generically opposed expanded hunting 
or fishing opportunities at specific stations.
    Our Response: The Service prioritizes facilitating wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities, including hunting and fishing, on 
Service land in compliance with applicable Service law and policy. For 
refuges, the Administration Act, as amended, stipulates that hunting 
(along with fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
environmental education and interpretation), if found to be compatible, 
is a legitimate and priority general public use of a refuge and should 
be facilitated (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)(3)(D)). Thus, we only allow hunting 
of resident wildlife on Refuge System lands if such activity has been 
determined compatible with the established purpose(s) of the refuge and 
the mission of the Refuge System as required by the Administration Act. 
For the three stations expanding hunting in this rule, we determined 
that the proposed actions were compatible.
    Each station manager makes a decision regarding hunting and fishing 
opportunities only after rigorous examination of the available 
information, consultation and coordination with States and Tribes, and 
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 
4321 et seq.) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as well as other applicable laws 
and regulations. The many steps taken before a station opens or expands 
a hunting or fishing opportunity on the refuge ensure that the Service 
does not allow any opportunity that would compromise the purpose of the 
station or the mission of the Refuge System.
    Hunting of resident wildlife on Service lands generally occurs 
consistent with State regulations, including seasons and bag limits. 
Station-specific hunting regulations can be more restrictive (but not 
more liberal) than State regulations and often are more restrictive in 
order to help meet specific refuge objectives. These objectives include 
resident wildlife population and habitat objectives, minimizing 
disturbance impacts to wildlife, maintaining high-quality opportunities 
for hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreation, minimizing 
conflicts with other public uses and/or refuge management activities, 
and protecting public safety.
    The word ``refuge'' includes the idea of providing a haven of 
safety as one of its definitions, and as such, hunting might seem an 
inconsistent use of the Refuge System. However, again, the 
Administration Act stipulates that hunting, if found compatible, is a 
legitimate and priority general public use of a wildlife refuge. 
Furthermore, we manage refuges to support healthy wildlife populations 
that in many cases produce harvestable surpluses that are a renewable 
resource. As practiced on refuges, hunting and fishing do not pose a 
threat to wildlife populations. It is important to note that taking 
certain individuals through hunting does not necessarily reduce a 
population overall, as hunting can simply replace other types of 
mortality. In some cases, however, we use hunting as a management tool 
with the explicit goal of reducing a population; this is often the case 
with exotic and/or invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability. 
Therefore, facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of 
the Service's roles and responsibilities as outlined in the legislation 
establishing the Refuge System, and the Service will continue to 
facilitate these opportunities where compatible with the purpose of the 
specific refuge and the mission of the Refuge System.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (3): We received comments from the Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies on the proposed rule. The Association of Fish and 
Wildlife Agencies expressed general support for increased access for 
hunters and anglers, but expressed concern about the individual refuges 
proposing non-lead requirements that take effect in fall 2026. The 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies also expressed appreciation 
for increased communication between the Service and State agencies on 
the use of lead

[[Page 74053]]

ammunition and tackle, and advocated for more collaboration.
    Our Response: The Service appreciates the support of, and is 
committed to working with, our State partners to identify additional 
opportunities for expansion of hunting and sport fishing on Service 
lands and waters. We welcome and value State partner input on all 
aspects of our hunting and fishing programs.
    In response to the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, we 
have not made any modifications to the rule. We appreciate the support 
for the hunting expansions in this rulemaking and value our shared 
commitment to compatible hunter and angler access on the National 
Wildlife Refuge System. On the topic of lead ammunition and tackle use, 
see our response to Comment (5), below, regarding our plan to require 
non-lead ammunition and/or tackle by fall 2026 at individual refuges. 
On the topic of collaboration with State agencies in determining the 
regulations and policies governing lead ammunition and tackle use on 
the Refuge System, we welcome such coordination and collaboration. We 
appreciate State agency efforts to educate the public about non-lead 
ammunition and tackle and to implement voluntary uptake programs 
encouraging hunters and anglers to voluntarily switch to non-lead 
ammunition and tackle, and we have long been engaged in similar efforts 
at our agency. We have also introduced non-lead ammunition and tackle 
requirements when and where necessary on individual refuges, after 
consultation with relevant State agencies. For example, all of the non-
lead requirements in this rule involved discussions with State agencies 
throughout the process. Going forward, we will continue to invite input 
and involvement from our State partners as we continue to evaluate the 
future of lead use on Service lands and waters as part of an open and 
transparent process to find the best methods to address lead's impact 
on human and ecological health.
    Comment (4): The majority of commenters expressed concern over the 
use of lead ammunition and/or lead fishing tackle on Service lands and 
waters. Nearly all of these commenters expressed support for the non-
lead requirements in the proposed rule. Some of these commenters urged 
the Service to make these requirements effective before 2026. Most of 
these commenters urged the Service to eliminate, whether immediately or 
after a set transition period, the use of lead ammunition and tackle 
throughout the Refuge System. Many commenters expressed concerns about 
raptor species, including the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), 
and other species that scientific studies have shown to be especially 
susceptible to adverse health impacts from lead ammunition and tackle.
    Our Response: The Service appreciates the concerns from commenters 
about the issue of bioavailability of lead in the environment and is 
aware of the potential impacts of lead on fish and wildlife. See, for 
example, the recent study from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) with 
Service collaboration, Vincent Slabe, et al. ``Demographic implications 
of lead poisoning for eagles across North America,'' which is available 
online at https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/groundbreaking-study-finds-widespread-lead-poisoning-bald-and-golden. 
Accordingly, the Service pays special attention to species susceptible 
to lead uptake and to sources of lead that could impact ecological and 
human health.
    Historically, the principal cause of lead poisoning in waterfowl 
was the high densities of lead shot in wetland sediments associated 
with migratory bird hunting activities (Kendall et al. 1996). In 1991, 
as a result of high bird mortality, the Service instituted a nationwide 
ban on the use of lead shot for hunting waterfowl and coots (see 50 CFR 
32.2(k)). However, lead ammunition is still used for other types of 
hunting, and lead tackle is used for fishing on private and public 
lands and waters, including within the Refuge System.
    Due to the continued lead use outside of waterfowl hunting, there 
remains concern about the bioavailability of spent lead ammunition 
(bullets) and fishing tackle on the environment, the health of fish and 
wildlife, and human health. The Service is aware of fish and wildlife 
species, including endangered and threatened species, that are 
susceptible to the build-up of lead in their systems coming directly 
from their food sources or secondhand through the food ingested by 
their food sources. There is also evidence that some species are 
susceptible to direct ingestion of lead ammunition or tackle due to 
their foraging behaviors. For example, the Service recognizes that 
ingested lead fishing tackle has been found to be a leading cause of 
mortality in adult common loons (Grade, T. et al., 2017, Population-
level effects of lead fishing tackle on common loons. The Journal of 
Wildlife Management 82(1): pp. 155-164). The impacts of lead on human 
health and safety have been a focus of several scientific studies. We 
are familiar with studies that have found the ingestion of animals 
harvested via the use of lead ammunition increased levels of lead in 
the human body (e.g., Buenz, E. (2016). Lead exposure through eating 
wild game. American Journal of Medicine, 128: p. 458).
    It is because of lead's potential for ecological health impacts 
that, in this rulemaking, the Service has continued to take a 
``measured approach in not adding to the use of lead on refuge lands'' 
(see 87 FR 35136, June 9, 2022). Accordingly, the opportunities in this 
final rule either do not involve the use of ammunition or tackle (i.e., 
waterfowl hunting or archery), already require the use of non-lead 
ammunition or tackle, or are being authorized at refuges that will 
require the use of non-lead ammunition or tackle by fall 2026. This 
measured approach is also part of the Service's larger commitment to 
evaluating the use of lead in order to determine what is the best 
course for the future of lead use throughout the Refuge System and 
whether lead use is addressed going forward through non-lead 
requirements or different methods, including, but not limited to, 
national action, individual refuge actions, or some combination.
    In response to commenters' position that 3 years is too long for 
non-lead use requirements at individual stations to take effect, the 
Service did not make any changes to the rule. Each individual station 
that will require non-lead ammunition and/or tackle starting in fall 
2026 determined that this timing would best serve the refuge's 
objectives, capacities, purposes, and mission. These determinations 
were made to the exclusion of both shorter and longer time frames for 
hunters and anglers to transition to the use of non-lead equipment. 
These determinations were made with consideration of all impacted 
parties (e.g., refuge wildlife, hunters and anglers, other visitors, 
refuge law enforcement) and balancing the Service's interest in 
reducing the potential for adverse lead impacts against the Service's 
interest in not placing an undue compliance burden on hunters and 
anglers. If, in the future, the Service sets any non-lead requirement 
timetables for one or more refuges, we will similarly consider the 
input of all relevant stakeholders and the impacts of our decision on 
all relevant stakeholders as we weigh the competing interests and reach 
the determination that best serves the public interest.
    In response to the commenters urging the Service to eliminate the 
use of lead ammunition and fishing tackle throughout the Refuge System, 
the

[[Page 74054]]

Service is committed to doing what best serves the public interest and 
our conservation mission, including facilitating compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational hunting and fishing. As we committed to do in 
our 2021-2022 rulemaking (see 86 FR 48822 at 48830, August 31, 2021) 
and our 2022-2023 rulemaking (see 87 FR 57108 at 57122, September 16, 
2022), the Service has been and continues to evaluate lead use in 
hunting and fishing on Service lands and waters. The reason this rule 
is crafted such that it is not expected to add to the use of lead on 
refuges beyond 2026 is so that the Service can continue to evaluate the 
future of lead use and to seek input from partners, as we conduct a 
transparent process to determine what actions and methods are 
appropriate for addressing lead's potential for adverse environmental 
and ecological health impacts.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (5): A substantial number of commenters expressed 
opposition to the Service requiring the use of non-lead ammunition and/
or fishing tackle on Service lands and waters. This included multiple 
campaigns of duplicate comments and 47 unique comments. Some of these 
commenters simply expressed a general opposition to the concept of non-
lead requirements, but the rest put forward one or more points in 
arguing against non-lead ammunition and/or tackle requirements. The 
concerns collectively expressed by these more substantive comments are 
addressed in Comment (6) through Comment (14), below.
    Our Response: The Service has allowed, and with the promulgation of 
this rule continues to allow, the use of lead ammunition and/or tackle 
in hunting and sport fishing in most of the Refuge System. The vast 
majority of stations and the vast majority of individual hunting and 
fishing opportunities currently permit lead use, which follows our 
general alignment with State regulations, as the vast majority of 
States permit the use of lead ammunition and tackle. Lead ammunition 
and tackle are currently allowed where we have previously determined 
the activity is not likely to result in dangerous levels of lead 
exposure. However, the Service has made clear that we take the issue of 
lead use seriously, and as the stewards of the Refuge System, we are 
evaluating what is best for the resources belonging to the American 
public regarding the future use of lead ammunition and tackle on 
Service lands and waters. The best available science, analyzed as part 
of this rulemaking, demonstrates that lead ammunition and tackle have 
negative impacts on both human health and wildlife, and those impacts 
are more acute for some species.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (6): Many of the comments opposed to regulations concerning 
the use of lead ammunition and tackle questioned the sufficiency of 
scientific support for non-lead requirements. Some of the commenters 
also claimed there is specifically a lack of scientific evidence of 
``population-level'' lead impacts and this means non-lead requirements 
are unwarranted, including one comment suggesting that ``population-
level'' impact requires ``a species-specific population decline.'' 
Other commenters raised concerns that the available scientific studies 
were not conducted at the physical site of the individual refuges 
implementing non-lead requirements.
    Our Response: We refer commenters concerned about scientific 
evidence in support of the rulemaking to the analyses of environmental 
impacts in the NEPA and ESA section 7 documentation for each refuge in 
the rulemaking and the cumulative impacts report accompanying the 
rulemaking. For our NEPA and ESA section 7 analyses, we considered 
peer-reviewed scientific studies evaluating the impacts of lead to 
humans, to wildlife generally, and to specific species--including 
endangered and threatened species and species especially susceptible to 
lead ammunition or tackle exposure. While this evidence is not 
determinative as to whether non-lead ammunition and tackle should be 
required in all cases, given the full range of factors to consider on 
the topic of lead use, it is inaccurate to claim that there is no 
scientific evidence of adverse impacts to human or ecological health 
from lead ammunition and tackle or that the Service has not presented 
such evidence as part of this rulemaking. Each refuge in this rule used 
the best available science and the expertise and sound professional 
judgment of refuge staff to determine that our management strategies, 
including promulgated non-lead requirements, are based on sound science 
and the specific circumstances of that individual refuge.
    Moreover, we also reject the related claim that scientific evidence 
of so-called ``population-level'' impacts to wildlife is both a 
prerequisite to Service action and lacking in the available science. 
Depending on the situation, we may manage wildlife at the ``population 
level'' or at the ``individual level,'' such as acting to protect 
individuals of an endangered or threatened species. Similarly, 
depending on the situation, we may adopt regulations, policies, or 
practices that respond to or prevent adverse impacts at the population 
level or to individual animals and plants. In fact, there are clear 
cases where we need to act preventatively or early to control invasive 
species, pests, or animal diseases, since they are much more difficult 
to eradicate when there is ``population-level'' damage. ``Population-
level'' impacts are not necessary for regulation to the exclusion of 
any other factors, although in the past the Service and others have 
regulated lead use based, at least in part, on addressing impacts to 
whole populations, as demonstrated impacts to waterfowl populations and 
the population of California condors prompted the 1991 nationwide 
prohibition on waterfowl hunting with lead ammunition and the 2019 
prohibition on hunting with lead ammunition in California, 
respectively. In any case, the scientific literature demonstrates that 
lead use has ``population-level'' impacts.
    There is evidence of population-level impacts and potential 
population-level impacts to waterfowl and upland game bird species from 
lead fishing tackle and lead ammunition through direct ingestion. Lead 
fishing tackle presents a risk of lead poisoning to many waterfowl 
species, including loons and swans (Pokras and Chafel 1992; Rattner et 
al. 2008; Strom et al. 2009). The primary concerns are discarded whole 
or fragmented lead sinkers, as well as other lead tackle and even lead 
ammunition released into the water, that rest on river and lake bottoms 
where diving birds ingest them alongside pebbles, as pebbles are 
necessary to break down food through grinding in their digestive 
systems. This results in lead poisoning because the grinding action 
breaks down the pieces of ingested lead into fine lead particles inside 
of the birds that can then enter their blood streams. Studies have 
consistently found impacts of ingested lead fishing tackle are a 
leading cause of mortality in adult common loons (Pokras and Chafel 
1992; Scheuhammer and Norris 1995; Franson et al. 2003; Pokras et al. 
2009; Grade et al. 2017; Grade et al. 2019). Strom, et al., assessed 
lead exposure in Wisconsin birds and found that approximately 25 
percent of the trumpeter swan fatalities from 1991 through 2007 were 
attributed to ingested lead (Strom et al. 2009). Also, lead ammunition 
discarded on land presents a similar risk of lead poisoning from upland 
game birds swallowing

[[Page 74055]]

discarded ammunition alongside the pebbles they use for digestion.
    Another source of population-level impacts and potential 
population-level impacts from lead is indirect ingestion by birds of 
prey and other scavengers from consuming animals shot with lead 
ammunition. The primary concerns for birds of prey are lead fragments 
from lead ammunition that remains in the carcasses and gut piles of 
hunted animals that are scavenged by these birds. The fine fragments of 
lead, observable in x-rays of harvested game animals, are ingested 
because they are embedded in the meat and other animal tissues being 
scavenged and then enter the digestive systems and blood streams of the 
birds of prey. Many studies have looked at the impacts of this lead 
exposure to eagle health (see, e.g., Kramer and Redig 1997; O'Halloran 
et al. 1998; Kelly and Kelly 2005; Golden et al. 2016; Hoffman 1985a, 
1985b; Pattee 1984; Stauber 2010). This includes the recent study, 
published in 2022, from the USGS with Service collaboration, Vincent 
Slabe, et al. ``Demographic implications of lead poisoning for eagles 
across North America,'' which is available online at https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/groundbreaking-study-finds-widespread-lead-poisoning-bald-and-golden. This study explicitly finds 
that lead poisoning is ``causing population growth rates to slow for 
bald eagles by 3.8 percent and golden eagles by 0.8 percent annually.'' 
These growth-slowing impacts to populations are statistically 
significant and, in the case of bald eagles, are occurring for a 
species that was previously endangered and is still in the process of 
recovering to historical levels. Thus, it is inaccurate to claim there 
are not known ``population-level'' impacts from lead use.
    A few commenters offer a definition that would leave out these 
effects to eagles in claiming that ``population-level'' impact requires 
``a species-specific population decline.'' This definition, however, is 
flawed in specifying that a species must be in overall decline, because 
overall decline tells us nothing about the amount of impact lead is 
having on a species, and even the amount of impact must be considered 
in a larger context. First, the exact same size of adverse impact from 
lead use to a population can be present whether the species is in 
decline, stable, or growing overall because many other factors impact 
populations. To illustrate, a -3 percent impact to a species from lead 
could reduce growth if all other factors would otherwise produce 5 
percent growth (5-3 = 2); could prevent growth if all other factors 
would otherwise produce 3 percent growth (3-3 = 0); and could increase 
decline if all other factors would otherwise produce a 1 percent 
decline (-1-3 = -4). Second, for similar reasons, in the case of 
impacts of different sizes there could be a larger impact to a species 
experiencing overall growth than to a species experiencing an overall 
decline. To illustrate, a large -5 percent impact might not be part of 
an overall decline, such as when the species would otherwise be growing 
at 7 percent (7-5 = 2), while a smaller -0.01 percent impact might be 
part of an overall decline, such as when the species would otherwise be 
declining at -3 percent (-3-0.01 = -3.01). Thus, overall decline alone 
tells us nothing about the impact of lead use, or any other individual 
factor, on a species population. Furthermore, the Service would not 
rely even on the size of the impact to a population alone, as the same 
impact can be of greater or lesser concern, depending on the status of 
the species (e.g., abundant species, recovering species, endangered or 
threatened species), the source of the impact (i.e., sources inherent 
to hunting, such as gun noise and hunter foot traffic, or sources that 
can be eliminated from hunting activities, such as lead use, off-road 
vehicles, and litter), the trade-offs involved in addressing the impact 
(i.e., impediments to conservation are prioritized over costs to 
hunters and anglers, which are prioritized over costs to commercial 
users, with respect to avoiding trade-offs), and other factors. These 
are the reasons why the Service does not let our decision making, when 
addressing impacts to wildlife health, rely solely on the concept of 
``population-level'' impacts.
    Similarly, the Service also rejects the notion advanced by multiple 
commenters that the available scientific evidence must be site-
specific, in the sense that a given study was conducted at the physical 
location of the refuge in question or is otherwise tied to the 
particular refuge and, by extension, the hunting and fishing activities 
and the wildlife occurring there. This idea that the Service must 
demonstrate that the ``units in question have experienced a particular 
problem with lead exposure'' is inconsistent with effective 
conservation science and misunderstands the Service's mission and 
statutory obligations. The commenters' position is inconsistent with 
effective conservation science because it ignores fundamental 
scientific concepts of statistical sampling and extrapolation. While 
there can be important regional and local differences in many threats 
to wildlife, in science-based management of wildlife it is standard 
practice to use professional expertise to account for any such 
differences while applying studies where the underlying data represent 
a representative sample of the population or a population from a 
different region or locality. In addition to being sound, widely 
accepted approaches, the use of statistical sampling and extrapolation 
are critical to conservation science, as it would be impractical, if 
not impossible, for researchers to directly study widely distributed 
wildlife species in every location where they occur. Instead, studies 
are carefully designed to maximize extrapolation, and wildlife 
biologists account for local differences when applying study results. 
With respect to the non-lead requirements in this rulemaking, expert 
Service personnel ensured valid extrapolation, and some of the cited 
studies, including the USGS study of bald and golden eagles, took 
statistical samples nationwide to ensure nationwide applicability of 
the results.
    Additionally, site-specific scientific studies are not required for 
any other aspect of our wildlife management and to require them would 
operate opposite our established processes and statutory obligations. 
First, individual refuges routinely use scientific studies that utilize 
statistical sampling and/or are expertly extrapolated to inform all our 
refuge management practices. The Service employs this approach when 
analyzing highly localized actions, such as altering waterways and 
hydrology; controversial actions, such as pest management; and 
difficult-to-reverse actions, such as species reintroductions. There is 
nothing distinguishing the question of permitting or prohibiting lead 
use from other management action determinations that have impacts on 
wildlife or ecosystem health that necessitates departing from the 
Service's typical approach to ensuring our management is guided by the 
best available science and sound professional judgment. Moreover, the 
Service is not willing to consider site-specific science as a 
precondition for our management actions, as this would effectively 
grind management to a halt. The Service cannot feasibly conduct 
localized studies for every routine action, including allowing refuge 
visitation, controlling invasive species, and opening and expanding 
hunting and fishing opportunities. In fact, this is precisely why the 
applicable statutes and regulations specify use of the best

[[Page 74056]]

available science, which ensures that informed decisions are made with 
the best data at hand. We cannot operate under the requirement that 
site-specific scientific evidence must be obtained and used for 
management actions, especially in this case where the best available 
scientific evidence has a clear consensus.
    Second, the Service's mission and statutory obligations require 
refuges to be closed to hunting and fishing by default, and this 
changes only when we have determined they are compatible with our 
conservation mission and have promulgated regulations to open 
designated areas to hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing access and 
opportunities are thus constrained by the regulations to only those 
activities that are compatible. Thus, the Service has an obligation to 
demonstrate, using the best available science, that any given aspect of 
hunting or fishing on the Refuge System is compatible with our mission. 
The Service has also built into our compatibility process the need to 
reevaluate compatibility determinations after a set period, either 10 
or 15 years, depending on the use, because new science or new 
conditions could compel the Service to change our compatibility 
determinations. In the case of the use of lead, our past determinations 
that lead ammunition and lead tackle were permissible to use on Refuge 
System lands does not change this fundamental structure of our 
processes. The use of lead ammunition and tackle, like any other 
visitor activity, can only be allowed on a refuge if, and only for as 
long as, the refuge applies the best available science and sound 
professional judgment to find it compatible. The commenters' suggestion 
would require that the use of lead be assumed compatible if used 
historically is therefore counter to our mission and statutory 
obligations. The Service will continue to revisit our compatibility 
determinations, as required, while considering the best available 
science and applying sound professional judgment. Similarly, refuge 
managers have the well-established authority to temporarily and 
immediately close refuge activities, including hunting and fishing 
opportunities, in the interest of wildlife health or public safety. 
This emergency authority also recognizes that our mission requires us 
to prioritize wildlife conservation over human activities, even if they 
have been previously authorized, whenever new information or new 
conditions bring the two into conflict. The Service is weighing all 
relevant factors in determining the best approach to lead use, but 
requiring that refuges prove adverse site-specific impacts before 
closing to certain human activities is inconsistent with our 
compatibility process.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (7): Many commenters opposed to requirements to use non-
lead ammunition and tackle claimed non-lead ammunition and non-lead 
tackle are more expensive than lead ammunition and tackle. Some of 
these commenters further expressed the concern that non-lead ammunition 
and tackle requirements ``price people out'' of participating in 
hunting and fishing.
    Our Response: We do not agree that non-lead ammunition and tackle 
are prohibitively expensive, especially in comparison to lead 
ammunition and tackle. However, we recognize that there could be some 
cost burden of compliance for hunting and fishing opportunities where 
non-lead ammunition or tackle is required. For example, non-lead 
ammunition is very close in price to premium lead ammunition but can be 
more expensive than some lead ammunition. Notably, the Maine Department 
of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and others have recognized that this 
cost difference is less than $10 per box of ammunition, with boxes 
typically lasting multiple hunting seasons (see online at https://www.maine.gov/ifw/hunting-trapping/hunting/nonlead-ammunition.html). 
When we have restricted lead use, we have first ensured that the 
ecological health and conservation benefits outweigh any potential for 
cost burden on hunters and anglers. We are confident that non-lead 
ammunition and tackle are not cost-prohibitive, as hunting and angling 
continues on all Refuge System stations where we have restricted lead 
use. Moreover, we have not seen declines in hunting use attributable to 
non-lead ammunition requirements. In other words, hunting-use day 
declines at stations that require non-lead ammunition do not appear to 
deviate from general trends of declining hunting participation that 
affect all stations in the Refuge System. We similarly have not seen 
growth slowed at stations requiring non-lead tackle such that it is out 
of step with general growth trends in angler participation. Where we 
have seen meaningful declines is in the price of non-lead alternatives, 
as there has been a continuous trend for years of decreasing prices for 
non-lead ammunition and tackle alternatives, and the 1991 nationwide 
ban on lead ammunition for waterfowl hunting shows that regulations can 
spur innovation and production, which brings the prices down for non-
lead options.
    Finally, even though the cost burden of compliance with non-lead 
ammunition and tackle requirements on individual refuges is not 
onerous, the Service is considering various measures to incentivize 
hunters and anglers to transition from lead to non-lead ammunition and 
tackle and mitigate the costs of the transition. The Service would 
focus any such efforts toward low-income and subsistence hunters and 
anglers who stand to be most impacted by any additional costs in 
obtaining non-lead rather than lead ammunition and tackle. The Service 
takes this environmental justice concern seriously. We look forward to 
working closely with our State agency and hunting and fishing 
organization partners to potentially implement future initiatives and 
programs to mitigate the costs of and incentivize the transition for 
these groups as part of our transparent process of finding the best 
solution to lead use impacts.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (8): Many commenters opposed to non-lead ammunition and 
tackle requirements asserted that there is limited availability of non-
lead ammunition and non-lead tackle compared to that of lead ammunition 
and tackle, such that requiring non-lead ammunition and tackle would 
prevent people from participating in hunting and fishing. Some of these 
commenters further noted that the availability of non-lead ammunition 
is more limited for older models of firearms than it is for newer 
models. A few commenters also, tangentially to the topic of 
availability, claimed that the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA; 18 U.S.C. 
921 et seq.) and associated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives (ATF) regulations concerning armor piercing ammunition 
hinder the production and thus availability of non-lead ammunition.
    Our Response: We do not agree that non-lead ammunition and tackle 
are insufficiently available to hunters and anglers in localities where 
we have restricted the use of lead ammunition or tackle, either in the 
past or through this rulemaking. However, we recognize that there could 
be some compliance burden in identifying and locating non-lead 
ammunition and tackle for hunting and fishing opportunities, where 
required. Where we have restricted lead use in the past or will 
restrict it through this rulemaking, we have ensured that the 
ecological health and conservation benefits outweigh any potential for 
compliance burden on hunters and

[[Page 74057]]

anglers, including the ease of locating available non-lead ammunition 
and tackle. As with the costs of non-lead options, for opportunities 
where non-lead ammunition and tackle are required, the Service has not 
seen declines in hunting or fishing participation that can be 
attributed to non-lead ammunition and tackle being less widely 
available than lead ammunition and tackle. Also, as with costs, there 
are existing trends of increasing availability of non-lead 
alternatives, and the 1991 national ban on lead ammunition for 
waterfowl hunting demonstrates that regulations requiring the use of 
non-lead ammunition can promote increased availability. Finally, the 
same types of programs that the Service is considering employing to 
mitigate transition costs and incentivize transition to non-lead 
alternatives would also help to address concerns about availability. 
The Service would focus any such efforts toward low-income and 
subsistence hunters and anglers who stand to be most impacted by any 
lack of availability when seeking to obtaining non-lead ammunition and 
tackle. The Service takes this environmental justice concern seriously. 
We look forward to working closely with our State agency and hunting 
and fishing organization partners to potentially implement future 
initiatives and programs to mitigate non-lead ammunition and tackle 
availability concerns and incentivize the transition for these groups 
as part of our transparent process of finding the best solution to lead 
use impacts.
    Additionally, we recognize that non-lead ammunition may be less 
available than lead ammunition, in general, for some older models of 
firearms, as well as certain calibers. Where lead use is restricted, 
this could theoretically be an obstacle to participation in certain 
hunting opportunities, depending on method of take restrictions. 
However, non-lead options are already increasing and can be expected to 
continue to increase, including options for older firearm models and 
less commonly used calibers. In the case of the individual refuges in 
this rule that will require non-lead ammunition use by fall 2026, 
appropriate non-lead ammunition is available for each type of hunting 
(i.e., migratory bird, upland game, and big game) and each individual 
hunting opportunity such that hunters will still be able to participate 
in all of the opportunities at these refuges. In the future, the 
Service will remain cognizant of the need to be sure that there are 
appropriate non-lead options in the market for any given opportunity 
for which we decide to require non-lead ammunition. We will also ensure 
the same for fishing opportunities and any potential requirement for 
non-lead fishing tackle.
    Finally, the claim that the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) and 
associated ATF regulations concerning armor piercing ammunition hinder 
the production and thus availability of non-lead ammunition is beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking. Moreover, the Service lacks any authority 
to change provisions of the GCA or associated ATF regulations. The 
Service does, however, believe that the ATF's existing framework for 
exemptions to the definition of armor piercing ammunition for 
ammunition that is ``primarily intended to be used for sporting 
purposes,'' as explicitly authorized by the GCA, should be sufficient 
to allow for the availability of non-lead ammunition for hunters (see 
the ATF Special Advisory available online at: https://www.atf.gov/news/pr/armor-piercing-ammunition-exemption-framework).
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (9): Some commenters objecting to non-lead ammunition and 
tackle requirements claimed non-lead ammunition and non-lead tackle do 
not perform as effectively as lead ammunition and lead tackle.
    Our Response: We do not agree and find that non-lead ammunition and 
tackle performs at least as effectively as lead ammunition and tackle. 
Some hunters and anglers on the Refuge System currently use non-lead 
ammunition and tackle, both voluntarily and as required by regulation, 
without any documented difference in success rates. In fact, the 
Service has, by policy since 2016, used non-lead ammunition for 
wildlife management when lethal control is necessary and has not found 
the performance of non-lead ammunition to impede these management 
activities in any way. As part of our hunter education efforts, many 
refuges offer field demonstrations of the effectiveness of non-lead 
ammunition. Scientific studies of effectiveness have supported this 
informal empirical evidence and found that non-lead ammunition performs 
as effectively as lead ammunition (see ``Are lead-free hunting rifle 
bullets as effective at killing wildlife as conventional lead bullets? 
A comparison based on wound size and morphology,'' Trinogga, et al., 
Science of The Total Environment. Volume 443, 15 January 2013, pp. 226-
232 (available online November 25, 2012) and ``Performance of Lead-Free 
versus Lead-Based Hunting Ammunition in Ballistic Soap,'' Gremse, et 
al., PLoS One. 2014; 9(7): e102015 (published online July 16, 2014)). 
There is no scientific evidence for the claimed differences in 
performance between non-lead and lead ammunition and tackle available 
on the market today. In fact, non-lead ammunition has a demonstrable 
performance advantage in that hunters kill only what they shoot 
because, unlike lead ammunition, non-lead ammunition will not poison 
non-target species. Where the Service restricts the use of lead on the 
Refuge System, there is no compliance burden on hunters and anglers in 
the form of reduced performance of ammunition or tackle.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (10): Some commenters opposed to non-lead ammunition and 
tackle requirements argued that any switching from lead ammunition and 
tackle to non-lead ammunition and tackle should be voluntary. Among 
these commenters advocating that the use of non-lead ammunition should 
remain voluntary were both those who felt there is a need for large-
scale uptake of non-lead ammunition and tackle, and those who felt it 
should be simply a preference decision for each hunter and angler. A 
few commenters further expressed that voluntarily adopting non-lead 
ammunition and tackle should be encouraged through hunter education 
and/or incentives for hunters to transition to non-lead options.
    Our Response: The Service has encouraged and will continue to 
encourage voluntary use of non-lead ammunition and tackle but will also 
impose regulatory requirements when and where necessary. For many 
years, the Service has encouraged voluntary use of non-lead ammunition 
and tackle through our hunter and angler education programs, which have 
included providing scientific information about the harm lead can do 
and demonstrating the performance of non-lead ammunition. Voluntary 
adoption of non-lead ammunition and tackle is an excellent way for 
hunters and anglers to demonstrate commitment to the ideals of avoiding 
harm to non-target species, fair chase, and serving as the original 
conservation stewards of our country's natural resources. The Service 
appreciates each and every one of the hunters and anglers who have 
voluntarily made the switch to non-lead ammunition and tackle, whether 
for their own health, their family's health, or the health of wildlife. 
Going forward, the Service will continue to urge voluntary use of non-
lead ammunition and tackle. While the Service is in the

[[Page 74058]]

process of evaluating the future of lead use, even if our determination 
were ultimately that lead use on the Refuge System needs to end, the 
Service would still consider all viable methods for achieving that 
outcome, including encouraging voluntary transition to non-lead 
ammunition and tackle. At the same time, we note that years of efforts 
toward educating hunters and encouraging non-lead use by the Service 
and other organizations have not yielded a significant transition to 
non-lead ammunition and tackle, despite some localized success stories.
    The commenters' suggestion of providing incentives could be a 
viable tool, although it will be important to construct a fair and 
targeted incentive structure for individual hunters and anglers. These 
types of programs are under consideration, not only within the context 
of non-lead regulatory requirements, but may also be used more broadly 
to encourage voluntary use of non-lead alternatives and other method(s) 
of addressing lead issues.
    The Refuge System, and all Service lands and waters, are different 
from private, State, and even other Federal public lands. We have legal 
obligations to prioritize wildlife health and biodiversity, to consider 
the compatibility of new and ongoing hunting and fishing activities, 
and to assess the potential impact of these activities on the natural 
resources under our jurisdiction. Although voluntary uptake may be part 
of a future with multiple methods of addressing lead use issues, the 
history of low compliance with voluntary adoption of non-lead 
ammunition and tackle prompts the Service to consider regulatory 
requirements to ensure compatibility. At this time, the Service is 
continuing to evaluate the future of lead use through an open and 
transparent process with input from a broad array of partners and 
stakeholders about how best to secure the appropriate future for the 
use of lead. We invite ideas and coordination from all the 
organizations that commented recommending voluntary uptake and/or are 
engaged in efforts to encourage volunteer uptake of non-lead ammunition 
and tackle.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (11): A few commenters pointed to sources of lead in the 
environment, other than hunting and fishing with lead ammunition and 
tackle (e.g., naturally occurring lead in the ground, lead paint, past 
use of leaded gasoline and pesticides, and discarded galvanized 
hardware). These commenters asserted that the Service should not have 
non-lead ammunition and tackle requirements because these other sources 
of lead cause negative health impacts for fish and wildlife.
    Our Response: While there are of course other potential sources of 
lead in the environment, including other sources that may be 
bioavailable to wildlife, the Service does not see this as diminishing 
the importance or conservation benefits of requiring the use of non-
lead ammunition and tackle, when and where necessary. While these other 
sources of lead vary in the degree of risk that they could present to 
wildlife, the Service is duly concerned by the health risks from any 
potential source of lead exposure for wildlife and humans. There are 
likely benefits to be had from efforts to address each of these sources 
in turn, but that is generally beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    Moreover, these other potential sources of lead do not change the 
fact that the best available science has drawn a clear link between the 
use of lead ammunition and tackle and its ecological health impacts. In 
fact, the study from Slabe, et al., cited earlier in our response to 
Comment (6), provides strong evidence that not only is there an impact 
to eagles from lead ammunition specifically, but there is also strong 
evidence that it represents the most important source of lead exposure 
for the species studied (Slabe 2022). Essentially, the study 
demonstrated that the highest rates of acute lead poisoning in eagles, 
measured by liver lead concentrations, corresponded in terms of timing 
with the use of lead ammunition in the form of a nationwide spike in 
lead poisoning in winter months in the midst of hunting seasons. To the 
extent other sources of lead do bear on our decisions about lead 
ammunition and tackle use, these additional lead sources in fact weigh 
in favor of lead use restrictions, as lead can accumulate in wildlife 
from repeated exposure from one or multiple sources (see, e.g., Behmke 
2015). This applies both to the sources mentioned by commenters and 
additional sources that were not mentioned, such as coal-fired power 
plants and certain heavy industry, including smelting (see Behmke 
2015). Similarly, the Service is also not discouraged from requiring 
the use of non-lead ammunition and tackle, where appropriate, by the 
continued use of lead ammunition and tackle for hunting and fishing on 
nearby State and privately held lands and waters. The Service will act 
to address threats, including from visitor uses, as necessary within 
our authority, in the interest of our conservation mission even if, and 
often especially when, human activities outside of refuge borders 
present similar threats.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (12): One comment opposed to non-lead ammunition and tackle 
requirements maintained that lead ammunition and tackle are made of an 
inorganic form of lead that poses less risk of harm to humans or 
animals.
    Our Response: While inorganic lead presents a low risk of adverse 
health impacts while it retains its solid, molded form (i.e., anglers 
face relatively little risk from handling lead tackle), the basis for 
concern about lead ammunition and tackle is that there are multiple 
ways for such lead to become harmful to human and ecological health. 
Organic lead (i.e., the banned gasoline additive tetramethyl lead) is 
more dangerous than inorganic lead because it can be absorbed through 
the skin. Yet, inorganic lead can also have serious impacts in certain 
forms (e.g., fragments and particles) and once inside an animal. First, 
as briefly described in response to Comment (6), lead ammunition, 
including bonded lead ammunition, fragments when it hits an animal, and 
this distributes tiny pieces of lead within a wide radius in the soft 
tissues of the harvested animal (see ``Fragmentation of lead-free and 
lead-based hunting rifle bullets under real life hunting conditions in 
Germany,'' Trinogga et al., Ambio. 2019 Sep; 48(9): 1056-1064 
(published online March 23, 2019)). These tiny fragments of lead are 
then consumed by scavenger species eating carcasses or gut piles left 
behind or humans eating the game meat. In this tiny, fragmented form 
and acted on by digestive enzymes and acids, the lead derived from 
ammunition can then shed particles that enter the blood stream and 
affect systems throughout the body, presenting both chronic and acute 
health risks. Second, as briefly described in response to Comment (6), 
lead ammunition and tackle that is deposited along shores or at the 
bottom of bodies of water can be ingested by several species of birds 
that forage in these locations for pebbles, as pebbles are necessary to 
break down food through grinding in a special organ of their digestive 
systems called a gizzard. This grinding process, along with digestive 
acids and enzymes that accompany food into the gizzard, can easily 
break down lead ammunition and tackle into fragments and cause it to 
shed particles, just as the process breaks down the stones and shells 
the birds intended to ingest. These lead particles are then able to 
enter the bloodstream and affect systems throughout the body, 
presenting both chronic and acute

[[Page 74059]]

health risks. Third, lead ammunition and tackle that ends up discarded 
in bodies of water may begin to dissolve and thus introduce lead 
particles into the water that present both chronic and acute health 
risks to both aquatic animals living in the water and terrestrial 
animals drinking from the water. This process requires high acidity in 
the water that dissolves lead ammunition or tackle, and it is 
essentially the same concern as the problem of corrosion from acidic 
water in lead water pipes. These particles of lead dissolved into the 
water are easily taken up into the bloodstream as they pass through 
digestive systems. It is through these known processes that lead 
ammunition and tackle present a risk, and the best available scientific 
evidence indicates that these processes are occurring at rates that are 
causing negative impacts on the health of both certain wildlife species 
and humans, and those impacts are more acute for some species. Thus, we 
seriously consider the impact of inorganic forms of lead, such as lead 
ammunition and tackle, on wildlife and human health.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (13): Several commenters who object to the regulation of 
lead ammunition and tackle expressed nonsubstantive concerns centered 
on their views about the constitutionality and/or legality of the 
Service creating non-lead ammunition and tackle requirements through 
our regulations, or of any agency regulation. Several commenters, 
instead or in addition, offered nonsubstantive concerns about their 
personal general projections of impacts to the ammunition and tackle 
industry and the broader economy.
    Our Response: The Service thoroughly addressed these and similar 
concerns in our 2022-2023 final rule (see 87 FR 57108 at 57117-57119, 
September 16, 2022). Our position remains the same on these topics in 
this 2023-2024 rulemaking.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (14): A few commenters expressed concerns about the 
availability of copper for use in ammunition, as copper is one of the 
alternatives to lead used for non-lead ammunition. The comments 
expressed concern that due to limited sources of copper and demand for 
copper for other uses, an increase in demand for copper for ammunition 
from non-lead ammunition requirements may not be possible or could 
drive up the cost of non-lead ammunition.
    Our Response: These concerns are outside the scope of this 
rulemaking and thus nonsubstantive. It is outside the expertise of the 
Service and the scope of this rule to speculate about the current or 
future availability of copper, or how it could affect prices for goods 
made using copper. There are, however, two things the Service can say 
on this topic. First, by requiring the use of non-lead ammunition at 
eight individual refuges beginning in fall 2026 in this rule, the 
Service is in no way specifically requiring the use of copper 
ammunition. Second, as noted above in our response to Comment (8), the 
non-lead ammunition regulations in this rulemaking impact a small 
portion of the market for ammunition.
    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.
    Comment (15): We also received several comments concerning 
regulations for the use of and training of hunting dogs at Silvio O. 
Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (NFWR). Two of these comments 
urged us to expand the season for dog training to align it with 
regulations in the relevant States. The majority of these comments, 
however, objected to the Service removing the special use permit 
requirement for those training or using more than two dogs, with some 
expressing the sentiment that any use of hunting dogs is inappropriate 
on Service lands.
    Our Response: All uses proposed as part of this rulemaking or 
otherwise authorized as part of hunting and fishing programs in the 
Refuge System are thoroughly assessed for compatibility with other 
visitor uses, the legislated purposes for which the refuge was 
established, and the Service's mission. Where authorized, the use of 
hunting dogs is carried out safely and without significant impacts to 
the environment or healthy wildlife populations.
    The Service has determined that allowing dog training for the full 
State seasons in the New Hampshire and Vermont sections of the refuge 
is not compatible with our conservation mission. The Service allows dog 
training in August and September at Conte NFWR, while each State also 
allows the activity to occur in June and July. We cannot allow the 
activity in June and July because migratory landbirds nest on the 
refuge during those months. Disturbance to these species during this 
vulnerable period may decrease nest and brooding success (Gutzwiller et 
al. 1998; Thompson, B. 2015). Nesting success is critical to maintain 
the population of game and non-game species. Many non-game species of 
migratory birds are declining across their range. Canada warbler, rusty 
blackbird, wood thrush, and veery, for example, have been listed as 
species in greatest need of conservation in the Birds of Conservation 
Concern 2021 by the Service's Migratory Bird Program. Canada warbler, 
rusty blackbird, and wood thrush are also high priority bird species of 
greatest conservation need as identified in Vermont's 2005 and 2015 
Wildlife Action Plans (Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VFWD) 
State Wildlife Action Plan 2015) and New Hampshire's Fish and Game 2015 
Wildlife Action Plan (New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFGD) 
2015). These species breed within forested habitats of the portions of 
Conte NFWR in New Hampshire and Vermont. Veeries and Canada warblers 
nest on or near the ground and their eggs and hatchlings are vulnerable 
to disturbance, predation, and trampling. While hunting is a priority 
public use of the Refuge System under the Improvement Act, training of 
dogs is not. Hunting is the legal authorization to take or harvest a 
game species. There is no legal authorization to take any species for 
the purpose of dog training on the refuge. We recognize that dog 
training is a component of the hunting experience, and with 
stipulations to shorten the training season, it is currently found 
compatible. Migratory landbirds are a trust resource, and based on our 
professional opinion and available science, dog training as a 
compatible use during the breeding season is not supported by science.
    At this time, the Service will not require individuals to obtain a 
refuge-specific permit for hunting with dogs or training dogs on the 
refuge. Hunting with and training of dogs is allowed on the refuge 
consistent with State regulations when found compatible with refuge 
purposes, as outlined in the hunt plan. The information collected from 
the previously required permit satisfied the refuge's need to engage 
with the user group. The Service will continue to monitor population 
trends of endangered and threatened species, and migratory birds, at 
the refuge. If there is evidence that trust resource populations are 
negatively impacted by either the training of hunting dogs or the use 
of hunting dogs, then we may revisit impacts associated with the use of 
dogs and take action to limit impacts. As with any refuge-specific 
regulations, we reserve the right to revisit the issue in a future 
annual rulemaking should anything change with respect to conditions on 
the refuge, the findings of the best available science on this topic, 
or our empirical experience with dog use on the refuge.

[[Page 74060]]

    We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these 
comments.

Changes From the Proposed Rule

    As discussed above, under Summary of Comments and Responses, based 
on comments we received on the June 23, 2023, proposed rule and NEPA 
documents for individual refuges, we made no changes in this final 
rule.

Effective Date

    We are making this rule effective upon the date of its filing at 
the Office of the Federal Register (see DATES, above), with the 
exception of the requirements to use non-lead ammunition and fishing 
tackle on Great Thicket, Rachel Carson, Blackwater, Eastern Neck, 
Patuxent Research Refuge, Erie, Chincoteague, and Wallops Island NWRs 
at 50 CFR 32.38, 32.39, 32.57, and 32.65(b)(1)(vi), (b)(2)(i), 
(b)(3)(i), (b)(4)(vi), (n)(1)(vi), (n)(2)(i), and (n)(3)(i), 
respectively, which will take effect on September 1, 2026. We provided 
a 60-day public comment period for the June 23, 2023, proposed rule (88 
FR 41058). We have determined that any further delay in implementing 
these station-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations would not 
be in the public interest, in that a delay would hinder the effective 
planning and administration of refuges' hunting and sport fishing 
programs. This rule does not impact the public generally in terms of 
requiring lead time for compliance. Rather, it relieves restrictions in 
that it allows activities on refuges and hatcheries that we would 
otherwise prohibit. Therefore, we find good cause under 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon the date of its filing at 
the Office of the Federal Register.

Amendments to Existing Regulations

Updates to Hunting and Fishing Opportunities on NWRs

    This document codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations all the 
Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that we are updating 
since the last time we published a rule amending these regulations (87 
FR 57108; September 16, 2022) and that are applicable at Refuge System 
units previously opened to hunting and/or sport fishing. We adopt these 
changes to better inform the general public of the regulations at each 
station, to increase understanding and compliance with these 
regulations, and to make enforcement of these regulations more 
efficient. In addition to finding these regulations in 50 CFR part 32, 
visitors to our stations may find them reiterated in literature 
distributed by each station or posted on signs.

                                               Table 1--Changes for 2023-2024 Hunting/Sport Fishing Season
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Station                       State            Migratory bird hunting    Upland game hunting      Big game hunting        Sport fishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cahaba River NWR...............  Alabama................  Closed.................  Already Open...........  E..................  Already Open.
Everglades Headwaters NWR......  Florida................  E......................  E......................  E..................  Closed.
Minnesota Valley NWR...........  Minnesota..............  E......................  E......................  E..................  Already Open.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key:
E = Expansion (Station is already open to the activity: the rule will add new lands/waters, modify areas open to hunting or fishing, extend season
  dates, add a targeted hunt, modify season dates, modify hunting hours, etc.)

    The changes for the 2023-2024 hunting/fishing season noted in the 
table above are each based on a complete administrative record which, 
among other detailed documentation, also includes a hunt plan, a 
compatibility determination (for refuges), and the appropriate NEPA 
analysis, all of which were the subject of a public review and comment 
process. These documents are available upon request.
    The Service remains concerned that lead is an important issue, and 
we will continue to appropriately evaluate and regulate the use of lead 
ammunition and tackle on Service lands and waters. The Service has 
initiated stakeholder engagement to implement a deliberate, open, and 
transparent process of evaluating the future of lead use on Service 
lands and waters, working with our State partners, and seeking input 
and recommendations from the Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Council, 
other stakeholders, and the public. The best available science, 
analyzed as part of this rulemaking, indicates that lead ammunition and 
tackle have negative impacts on both wildlife and human health. Based 
on the best available science and sound professional judgment, where 
appropriate, the Service may propose to require the use of non-lead 
ammunition and tackle on Service lands and waters, as we have done in 
certain cases already. While the Service continues to evaluate the 
future of lead use in hunting and fishing on Service lands and waters, 
we will continue to work with stakeholders and the public to evaluate 
lead use through the annual rulemaking process. In the interim, we will 
not allow for any increase in lead use on Service lands and waters. 
Therefore, this rule does not include any opportunities increasing or 
authorizing the new use of lead. Minnesota Valley NWR already requires 
non-lead ammunition for the migratory bird and upland game hunting 
opportunities being expanded, and the refuge's expansion of the big 
game hunt involves only archery deer hunting, which does not involve 
lead ammunition, as part of a special hunt program. The Cahaba River 
NWR is expanding archery deer hunting, which does not involve lead 
ammunition. Everglades Headwaters NWR is expanding existing migratory 
game bird, upland game, and big game hunting to new acres that will 
require the use of non-lead ammunition immediately in the fall 2023 
season; the rule will require non-lead ammunition only within the newly 
expanded acres for hunting on the refuge. This restriction on the use 
of lead ammunition was developed in coordination with the State of 
Florida's Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. As we noted in our 
September 16, 2022, final rule (87 FR 57108), in this rule, Blackwater, 
Chincoteague, Eastern Neck, Erie, Great Thicket, Patuxent Research 
Refuge, Rachel Carson, and Wallops Island NWRs will require non-lead 
equipment, effective on September 1, 2026. Specifically, all eight 
refuges will require the use of non-lead ammunition by fall 2026, and 
seven of the eight, excepting Chincoteague, will require the use of 
non-lead tackle by fall 2026 as well.

Fish Advisory

    For health reasons, anglers should review and follow State-issued 
consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing 
opportunities on Service-managed waters. You can find information about 
current fish-consumption advisories on the internet at https://www.epa.gov/fish-tech.

[[Page 74061]]

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 
14094

    Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and 
E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency 
efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance 
statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, 
and the Presidential Memorandum of January 20, 2021 (Modernizing 
Regulatory Review). Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 
appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the 
extent permitted by law. 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 final rule in a manner consistent with 
these requirements.
    E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides 
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant 
rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to 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 effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies 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 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    This rule expands hunting on three NWRs. As a result, visitor use 
for wildlife-dependent recreation on these stations will change. If the 
stations establishing new programs were a pure addition to the current 
supply of those activities, it would mean an estimated maximum increase 
of 586 user days (one person per day participating in a recreational 
opportunity; see table 2, below). Because the participation trend is 
flat in these activities, this increase in supply will most likely be 
offset by other sites losing participants. Therefore, this is likely to 
be a substitute site for the activity and not necessarily an increase 
in participation rates for the activity.

                   Table 2--Estimated Maximum Change in Recreation Opportunities in 2023-2024
                                           [2022 Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Additional
                            Station                               Additional      Additional    expenditures (in
                                                                 hunting days    fishing days      thousands)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cahaba River NWR..............................................             120  ..............                $4
Everglades Headwaters NWR.....................................             225  ..............                 9
Minnesota Valley NWR..........................................             241  ..............                 9
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................             586  ..............                22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent visitors spend time and money in the area of the 
station that they would not have spent there anyway, they contribute 
new income to the regional economy and benefit local businesses. Due to 
the unavailability of site-specific expenditure data, we use the 
national estimates from the 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, 
and Wildlife Associated Recreation to identify expenditures for food 
and lodging, transportation, and other incidental expenses. Using the 
average expenditures for these categories with the maximum expected 
additional participation of the Refuge System yields approximately 
$22,000 in recreation-related expenditures (see table 2, above). By 
having ripple effects throughout the economy, these direct expenditures 
are only part of the economic impact of these recreational activities. 
Using a national impact multiplier for hunting activities (2.51) 
derived from the report ``Hunting in America: An Economic Force for 
Conservation'' and for fishing activities (2.51) derived from the 
report ``Sportfishing in America'' yields a total maximum economic 
impact of approximately $56,000 (2022 dollars) (Southwick Associates, 
Inc., 2018).
    Since we know that most of the fishing and hunting occurs within 
100 miles of a participant's residence, then it is unlikely that most 
of this spending will be ``new'' money coming into a local economy; 
therefore, this spending will be offset with a decrease in some other 
sector of the local economy. The net gain to the local economies will 
be no more than $56,000 and likely less. Since 80 percent of the 
participants travel less than 100 miles to engage in hunting and 
fishing activities, their spending patterns will not add new money into 
the local economy and, therefore, the real impact will be on the order 
of about $22,000 annually.
    Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, 
gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait-and-tackle shops, and similar 
businesses) may be affected by some increased or decreased station 
visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade establishments in 
the local communities around NWRs qualify as small businesses (see 
table 3, below). 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 any region or nationally. As noted previously, we expect at most 
$22,000 to be spent in total in the refuges' local economies. The 
maximum increase will be less than one-tenth of 1 percent for local 
retail trade spending (see table 3, below). Table 3 does not include 
entries for those NWRs for which we project no changes in recreation 
opportunities in 2023-2024; see table 2, above.

[[Page 74062]]



 Table 3--Comparative Expenditures for Retail Trade Associated With Additional Station Visitation for 2023-2024
                                            [Thousands, 2022 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Estimated
                                                      maximum                                    Establishments
      Station/county(ies)         Retail trade in     addition   Addition as   Establishments    with fewer than
                                      2017 \1\        from new    % of total     in 2017 \1\     10 employees in
                                                     activities                                       2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cahaba River:
    Bibb, AL...................           $143,008           $5         <0.1                52                39
Everglades Headwaters:
    Hardee, FL.................            223,259            3         <0.1                75                63
    Highlands, FL..............          1,505,788            3         <0.1               342               246
    Polk, FL...................          9,949,483            3         <0.1             1,814             1,276
Minnesota Valley:
    Carver, MN.................          1,116,550            5         <0.1               220               142
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Census Bureau.

    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 stations. 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.

Congressional Review Act

    The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the 
Congressional Review Act. We anticipate no significant employment or 
small business effects. This rule:
    a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more. The minimal impact will be scattered across the country and will 
most likely not be significant in any local area.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government 
agencies; or geographic regions. This rule will have only a slight 
effect on the costs of hunting opportunities for Americans. If the 
substitute sites are farther from the participants' residences, then an 
increase in travel costs will occur. The Service does not have 
information to quantify this change in travel cost but assumes that, 
since most people travel less than 100 miles to hunt, the increased 
travel cost will be small. We do not expect this rule to affect the 
supply or demand for hunting opportunities in the United States, and, 
therefore, it should not affect prices for hunting equipment and 
supplies, or the retailers that sell equipment.
    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. This 
rule represents only a small proportion of recreational spending at 
NWRs. Therefore, this rule will have no measurable economic effect on 
the wildlife-dependent industry, which has annual sales of equipment 
and travel expenditures of $72 billion nationwide.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Since this rule will apply to public use of federally owned and 
managed refuges, 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)

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule will not have significant 
takings implications. This rule will affect only visitors at NWRs and 
describes what they can do while they are on a Service station.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    As discussed under Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act, above, this rule will not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
summary impact statement under E.O. 13132. In preparing this rule, we 
worked with State governments.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Department of the Interior has 
determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system 
and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the 
order.

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

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued E.O. 13211 on regulations 
that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. E.O. 
13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when 
undertaking certain actions. Because this rule will expand hunting at 
three NWRs, it 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.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 
13175)

    In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects 
on federally recognized Indian Tribes and have determined that there 
are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on NWRs and National 
Fish Hatcheries with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping 
jurisdiction before we propose the regulations.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). OMB 
previously approved the information collection requirements associated 
with application and reporting requirements associated with hunting and 
sport fishing and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0140 (expires 09/30/
2025). An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection

[[Page 74063]]

of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

    We comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), when developing comprehensive 
conservation plans and step-down management plans--which includes 
hunting and/or fishing plans--for public use of refuges and hatcheries, 
and prior to implementing any new or revised public recreation program 
on a station as identified in 50 CFR 26.32. We complied with section 7 
for each of the stations affected by this rulemaking.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), 43 
CFR part 46, and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 8.
    A categorical exclusion from NEPA documentation applies to 
publication of amendments to station-specific hunting and fishing 
regulations because they are technical and procedural in nature, and 
the environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to 
lend themselves to meaningful analysis (43 CFR 46.210 and 516 DM 8). 
Concerning the actions that are the subject of this rulemaking, we have 
complied with NEPA at the project level when developing each package. 
This is consistent with the Department of the Interior instructions for 
compliance with NEPA where actions are covered sufficiently by an 
earlier environmental document (43 CFR 46.120).
    Prior to the addition of a refuge or hatchery to the list of areas 
open to hunting and fishing in 50 CFR parts 32 and 71, we develop 
hunting and fishing plans for the affected stations. We incorporate 
these station hunting and fishing activities in the station 
comprehensive conservation plan and/or other step-down management 
plans, pursuant to our refuge planning guidance in 602 Fish and 
Wildlife Service Manual (FW) 1, 3, and 4. We prepare these 
comprehensive conservation plans and step-down plans in compliance with 
section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality's 
regulations for implementing NEPA in 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508, 
and the Department of Interior's NEPA regulations at 43 CFR part 46. We 
invite the affected public to participate in the review, development, 
and implementation of these plans. Copies of all plans and NEPA 
compliance are available from the stations at the addresses provided 
below.

Available Information for Specific Stations

    Individual refuge and hatchery headquarters have information about 
public use programs and conditions that apply to their specific 
programs and maps of their respective areas. To find out how to contact 
a specific refuge or hatchery, contact the appropriate Service office 
for the States and Territories listed below:
    Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Regional Chief, National 
Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside 
Federal Complex, Suite 1692, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 97232-
4181; Telephone (503) 231-6203.
    Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Chief, National 
Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, 
500 Gold Avenue SW, Albuquerque, NM 87103; Telephone (505) 248-6635.
    Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and 
Wisconsin. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, 
MN 55437-1458; Telephone (612) 713-5476.
    Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, 
and the Virgin Islands. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge 
System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, 
Atlanta, GA 30345; Telephone (404) 679-7356.
    Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. Regional Chief, National 
Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate 
Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589; Telephone (413) 253-8307.
    Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, 
Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228; 
Telephone (303) 236-4377.
    Alaska. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 1011 E Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503; Telephone 
(907) 786-3545.
    California and Nevada. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge 
System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2606, 
Sacramento, CA 95825; Telephone (916) 767-9241.

Primary Author

    Kate Harrigan, Division of Natural Resources and Conservation 
Planning, National Wildlife Refuge System, is the primary author of 
this rulemaking document.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 32

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

Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons described in the preamble, we amend title 50, 
chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 
below:

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; Pub. L. 115-20, 131 Stat. 86.


0
2. Amend Sec.  32.24 by revising paragraphs (s)(1)(iv) and (vi) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  32.24  California.

* * * * *
    (s) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv)We restrict hunters in the spaced zone area of the East Bear 
Creek Unit and West Bear Creek Unit to their assigned zone except when 
they are traveling to and from the parking area, retrieving downed 
birds, or pursuing crippled birds.
* * * * *
    (vi) We require State-issued Type A area permits for accessing the 
Freitas Unit on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  32.28 by revising paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  32.28  Florida.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Upland game hunting. We allow upland game hunting and the 
incidental take of nonnative wildlife as defined by the State on 
designated areas of the refuge in accordance with State regulations and 
applicable State Wildlife Management Area regulations and the following 
condition: We require the use of non-lead ammunition when hunting 
upland game and the incidental take of nonnative wildlife on the 
Corrigan Ranch/Okeechobee Unit.

[[Page 74064]]

    (3) Big game hunting. We allow big game hunting and the incidental 
take of nonnative wildlife as defined by the State on designated areas 
of the refuge in accordance with State regulations and applicable State 
Wildlife Management Area regulations and the following condition: We 
require the use of non-lead ammunition when hunting big game and the 
incidental take of nonnative wildlife on the Corrigan Ranch/Okeechobee 
Unit.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  32.35 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(v) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  32.35  Kansas.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) We close the Neosho River and refuge lands north of the Neosho 
River to all hunting from November 1 through March 1.
* * * * *

0
5. Effective September 1, 2026, amend Sec.  32.38 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(3)(i);
0
c. Adding paragraph (f)(1)(v); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (f)(2)(i), (f)(3)(i), and (f)(4)(ii).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  32.38  Maine.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells, 
ammunition, and tackle while in the field (see Sec.  32.2(k)).
    (2) * * *
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) 
and (v) of this section apply.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (iii) 
and (v) of this section apply.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells, 
ammunition, and tackle while in the field (see Sec.  32.2(k)).
    (2) * * *
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (iii), and 
(v) of this section apply.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The conditions as set forth at paragraphs (f)(1)(i), (iv), and 
(v) of this section apply.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (ii) The condition set forth at paragraph (f)(1)(v) of this section 
applies.
* * * * *

0
6. Effective September 1, 2026, amend Sec.  32.39 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(1)(iv);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(2)(i);
0
c. Adding paragraphs (a)(3)(vi), (a)(4)(iii), and (b)(2)(iv);
0
d. Revising paragraph (b)(3)(i) introductory text;
0
e. Adding paragraphs (b)(3)(iv), (b)(4)(iii), and (c)(1)(v); and
0
f. Revising paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3)(i), and (c)(4).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  32.39  Maryland.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells, 
ammunition, and tackle while in the field (see Sec.  32.2(k)).
    (2) * * *
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(3)(i) 
through (v) of this section apply.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (vi) The condition set forth at paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this 
section applies.
    (4) * * *
    (iii) The condition set forth at paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this 
section applies.
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells, 
ammunition, and tackle while in the field (see Sec.  32.2(k)).
    (3) * * *
    (i) The general hunt regulations for this paragraph (b)(3) are:
* * * * *
    (iv) The condition set forth at paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this 
section applies.
    (4) * * *
    (iii) The condition set forth at paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this 
section applies.
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells, 
ammunition, and tackle while in the field (see Sec.  32.2(k)).
    (2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of gray squirrel, eastern 
cottontail rabbit, and woodchuck on designated areas of the refuge 
subject to the following condition: The conditions set forth at 
paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v) of this section apply.
    (3) * * *
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), and (v) 
of this section apply.
* * * * *
    (4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on designated areas of 
the refuge subject to the following condition: The condition set forth 
at paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this section applies.


0
7. Amend Sec.  32.40 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(4)(iii); and
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(4) and (f)(4).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  32.40  Massachusetts.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) We allow fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
    (b) * * *
    (4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on designated areas of 
the refuge from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on designated areas of 
the refuge from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec.  32.47 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (iii);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (d)(1)(iv) and (v); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(2)(iii).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  32.47  Nevada.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) We allow hunting on designated days. We prohibit any migratory 
game bird hunting after January 31.
* * * * *
    (iii) From October 1 to February 1, you may only be in possession 
of or use 25 or fewer shot shells per hunt day.
    (iv) We only allow hunters to use watercraft to travel to and from 
their hunting location for each day's hunt. Watercraft must be 
completely immobilized while hunting, except to retrieve downed or 
crippled birds.
    (v) We prohibit shooting 150 feet (45 meters) from the center line 
of roads

[[Page 74065]]

(including access roads and two tracks), parking areas, levees, or into 
or from safety zones.
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (d)(1)(iii) and (iv) 
of this section apply.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec.  32.48 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  32.48  New Hampshire.

* * * * *
    (b) Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge--(1) 
Migratory game bird hunting. We allow hunting of duck, goose, coot, 
Wilson's snipe, and American woodcock on designated areas of the refuge 
subject to the following condition: We allow the use of dogs consistent 
with State regulations, except dog training is only allowed from August 
1 through the last Saturday in September during daylight hours.
    (2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of coyote, fox, raccoon, 
woodchuck, red squirrel, eastern gray squirrel, porcupine, skunk, crow, 
snowshoe hare, muskrat, opossum, fisher, mink, weasel, ring-necked 
pheasant, and ruffed grouse on designated areas of the refuge subject 
to the following condition: We allow the use of dogs consistent with 
State regulations, except dog training is only allowed from August 1 
through the last Saturday in September during daylight hours.
    (3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer, moose, 
black bear, and wild turkey on designated areas of the refuge subject 
to the following conditions:
    (i) We allow the use of dogs consistent with State regulations, 
except dog training is only allowed from August 1 through the last 
Saturday in September during daylight hours.
    (ii) We allow tree stands and blinds that are clearly marked with 
the owner's State hunting license number.
    (iii) You must remove your tree stand(s) and blind(s) no later than 
72 hours after the close of the season (see Sec.  27.93 of this 
chapter).
    (4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on designated areas of 
the refuge.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec.  32.56 by revising paragraph (l)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  32.56  Oregon.

* * * * *
    (l) * * *
    (2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of upland game birds and 
turkey on designated areas of the refuge subject to the following 
condition: The condition set forth at paragraph (l)(1)(i) of this 
section applies.
* * * * *

0
11. Effective September 1, 2026, amend Sec.  32.57 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(v);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (b)(3)(ii); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(4)(vi).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  32.57  Pennsylvania.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells, 
ammunition, and tackle while in the field (see Sec.  32.2(k)).
    (2) * * *
    (iii) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (v) of 
this section apply.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (ii) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(1)(iv) and (v) of 
this section apply.
    (4) * * *
    (vi) The condition set forth at paragraph (b)(1)(v) of this section 
applies.
* * * * *


Sec.  32.62  [Amended]

0
12. Amend Sec.  32.62 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (h)(3)(x); and
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (h)(3)(xi) through (xiii) as paragraphs 
(h)(3)(x) through (xii), respectively.


0
13. Amend Sec.  32.64 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (a)(4)(v); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (b).
    The addition and revision read as follows:


Sec.  32.64  Vermont.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (v) We allow fishing from legal sunrise to legal sunset.
    (b) Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge--(1) 
Migratory game bird hunting. We allow hunting of duck, goose, coot, 
crow, snipe, and American woodcock on designated areas of the refuge 
subject to the following conditions:
    (i) We allow disabled hunters to hunt from a vehicle that is at 
least 10 feet from the traveled portion of the refuge road if the 
hunter possesses a State-issued disabled hunting license and a Special 
Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G) issued by the refuge manager.
    (ii) We allow the use of dogs consistent with State regulations, 
except dog training is only allowed from August 1 through the last 
Saturday in September during daylight hours. We prohibit dog training 
on the Putney Mountain Unit.
    (iii) We prohibit shooting from, over, or within 25 feet of the 
traveled portion of any road that is accessible to motor vehicles.
    (2) Upland game hunting. We allow hunting of coyote, fox, raccoon, 
bobcat, woodchuck, red squirrel, eastern gray squirrel, porcupine, 
skunk, snowshoe hare, eastern cottontail, muskrat, opossum, weasel, 
pheasant, and ruffed grouse on designated areas of the refuge subject 
to the following conditions:
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of 
this section apply.
    (ii) At the Putney Mountain Unit, we allow the use of dogs only for 
hunting ruffed grouse, fall turkey, squirrel, and woodcock.
    (iii) We require hunters hunting at night to possess a Special Use 
Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-G) issued by the refuge manager.
    (3) Big game hunting. We allow hunting of white-tailed deer, moose, 
black bear, and wild turkey on designated areas of the refuge subject 
to the following conditions:
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of 
this section apply.
    (ii) You may use portable tree stands and/or blinds. You must 
clearly label your tree stand(s) and/or blind(s) with your hunting 
license number. You must remove your tree stand(s) and/or blind(s) no 
later than 72 hours after the close of the season (see Sec.  27.93 of 
this chapter).
    (iii) You may retrieve moose at the Nulhegan Basin Division with 
the use of a commercial moose hauler, if the hauler possesses a Special 
Use Permit (FWS Form 3-1383-C) issued by the refuge manager.
    (4) Sport fishing. We allow sport fishing on designated areas of 
the refuge consistent with State regulations.


0
14. Amend Sec.  32.65 by:
0
a. Adding paragraphs (b)(2)(vii) and (viii) and (c)(2)(iii); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(3)(i).
    The additions and revision read as follows:


Sec.  32.65  Virginia.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (vii) Hunting is allowed only during the regular State deer season.

[[Page 74066]]

    (viii) We prohibit hunting on Sundays.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) We prohibit hunting on Sundays.
    (3) * * *
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (ii), (iv), 
and (v) and (c)(2)(iii) of this section apply.
* * * * *

0
15. Effective September 1, 2026, further amend Sec.  32.65 by:
0
a. Adding paragraph (b)(1)(vi);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(3)(i);
0
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(4)(vi) and (n)(1)(vi); and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (n)(2)(i) and (n)(3)(i).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  32.65  Virginia.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells and 
ammunition while in the field (see Sec.  32.2(k)).
    (2) * * *
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (vi) of 
this section apply. All occupants of a vehicle or hunt party must 
possess a signed refuge hunt brochure and be actively engaged in 
hunting unless aiding a disabled person who possesses a valid State 
disabled hunting license.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and 
(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (v) through (viii) of this section apply.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (vi) The condition set forth at paragraph (b)(1)(vi) of this 
section applies.
* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (vi) You may only use or possess approved non-lead shot shells, 
ammunition, and tackle while in the field (see Sec.  32.2(k)).
    (2) * * *
    (i) The conditions set forth in paragraphs (n)(1)(i), (iii), and 
(vi) of this section apply.
* * * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) The conditions set forth at paragraphs (n)(1)(i), (ii), and 
(vi) and (n)(2)(iv) of this section apply.
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  32.66 by revising paragraph (b)(4)(i) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  32.66  Washington.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) On waters open to fishing, we allow fishing only from the start 
of the State season to September 30, except that we allow fishing year-
round on Falcon, Heron, Goldeneye, Corral, Blythe, Chukar, and Scaup 
Lakes.
* * * * *

Shannon Estenoz,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2023-23847 Filed 10-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P