[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35181-35191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10877]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 13

[NPS-AKRO-27791; PPAKAKROZ5, PPMPRLE1Y.L00000]
RIN 1024-AE38


Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service amends its regulations for sport 
hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska. This rule removes 
regulatory provisions issued by the National Park Service in 2015 that 
prohibited certain sport hunting practices otherwise permitted by the 
State of Alaska. These changes are consistent with Federal law 
providing for State management of hunting and trapping in Alaska 
preserves.

DATES: This rule is effective July 9, 2020.

[[Page 35182]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Striker, Acting Regional 
Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 
99501. Phone (907) 644-3510. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.

    On October 23, 2015, the National Park Service (NPS) published a 
final rule (2015 Rule) to amend its regulations for hunting and 
trapping in national preserves in Alaska. 80 FR 64325. The 2015 Rule 
imposed prohibitions on certain types of harvest practices that are or 
could be authorized by the State of Alaska in national preserves. The 
specific practices addressed by the rule are: Taking any black bear, 
including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites; 
harvesting brown bears over bait; taking wolves and coyotes (including 
pups) during the denning season (between May 1 and August 9); taking 
swimming caribou; taking caribou from motorboats under power; taking 
black bears over bait; and, using dogs to hunt black bears. In 
addition, the 2015 rule prohibited any State authorization or 
management action from being allowed in Alaska preserves if it related 
to a predator reduction effort, meaning with the intent or potential to 
alter or manipulate natural populations or processes in order to 
increase harvest of ungulates by humans. The prohibition of these 
practices is inconsistent with State of Alaska hunting regulations 
found at 5 AAC Part 85.
    Since early 2017, several actions have occurred which lead the NPS 
to reconsider portions of the 2015 rule that affect hunting and 
trapping opportunities on Alaska preserves and contradict State harvest 
regulations and wildlife management decisions. On March 2, 2017, 
Secretary Zinke signed Secretary's Order 3347, Conservation Stewardship 
and Outdoor Recreation, in order to ``enhance conservation stewardship, 
increase outdoor recreation, and improve the management of game species 
and their habitat.'' On September 15, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed 
Secretary's Order 3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and 
Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with State, 
Tribes, and Territories, to ``enhance and expand upon Secretary's Order 
3347 and further implement the recommendations provided by the 
Secretary.'' On September 10, 2018, Secretary Zinke issued a memorandum 
to the heads of Department of the Interior bureaus recognizing States 
as the first-line authorities for fish and wildlife management and 
expressing a commitment to defer to States in this regard except as 
otherwise required by Federal law. The memorandum further directed 
agencies to review all regulations, policies, and guidance pertaining 
to fish and wildlife conservation and management, specifically 
provisions that are more restrictive than otherwise applicable State 
provisions.
    Additionally, on April 3, 2017, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
rule for Alaska National Wildlife Refuges that was nearly identical in 
substance to the aspects of the 2015 Rule at issue in this rulemaking 
was repealed under the authority of the Congressional Review Act. See 
Public Law 115-20, 131 Stat. 86. House and Senate sponsors of the law 
strongly criticized those aspects of the NPS's 2015 Rule, e.g., 163 
Cong. Rec. H1260 (Feb. 16, 2017), S1864-69 (Mar. 21, 2017), but 
acknowledged that repeal through the Congressional Review Act was time-
barred, id. at S1868 (remarks of Sen. Murkowski). With the passage of a 
joint resolution of disapproval, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
cannot promulgate substantially similar regulations until specifically 
authorized by law. 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(2). While refuges operate under 
different frameworks than national preserves, this action by Congress 
was taken into account when interpreting consistency with the 
authorities and principles that were common to both rulemakings, 
including statutory requirements for wildlife management activities to 
be carried out under State law, as well as in considering how to 
complement regulations on surrounding lands and waters to the extent 
legally practicable.
    In light of the aforementioned actions and resulting analysis, the 
NPS has revisited its approach regarding the authorizations that are 
the subject of this rule, focusing on the statutory scheme that 
requires the management of hunting and trapping in preserves under 
State law and reserves limited closure authority to NPS for enumerated 
purposes. This rule complements State regulations by more closely 
aligning harvest opportunities in national preserves with harvest 
opportunities on surrounding lands. See Secretary's Order 3347, Sec. 1 
and 2; and Secretary's Order 3356, Sec. 4.b.(4) and 4.d.(7); September 
10, 2018, Memorandum. As mandated by the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), Public Law 96-487, 94 Stat. 2383, 
the NPS has consistently deferred to State laws, regulations, and 
management of hunting and trapping, other than for subsistence uses by 
rural Alaska residents under Federal regulations, in national preserves 
since their establishment in 1980. This rule acknowledges this 
longstanding deference to State law required by statute in removing the 
hunting and trapping prohibitions identified in this rule.
    Both the 2015 rule and the individual preserve closures that 
preceded it were intended to prevent any ``conflict with laws and 
policies applicable to NPS areas that require preserving natural 
wildlife populations'' and the State authorizations at issue in this 
rule were not ``allowed on NPS lands'' for that reason. 80 FR 64326-27. 
The harvest prohibitions were based on a view of the NPS legal and 
policy framework that was at odds with statutory mandates, and not on 
concerns over wildlife population-level effects from allowing those 
uses. 80 FR 64334. The NPS has carefully reassessed whether the State 
hunting and trapping authorizations applicable within Alaska preserves 
are prohibited by other law or policy.
    As a part of the National Park System, each preserve must be 
``administered in accordance with the provisions of any statute made 
specifically applicable to that area.'' General Authorities Act of 
1970, Public Law 91-383, Sec. 2(b), 84 Stat. 826. ANILCA specifically 
provides that ``the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and 
subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve 
under applicable State and Federal law and regulation[.]'' 16 U.S.C. 
3201. The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 provided for the transfer of 
``the administration and management of the fish and wildlife resources 
of Alaska'' from the Federal Government to the State of Alaska. Public 
Law 85-508, Sec. 6(e), 72 Stat. 341; Executive Order 10857, Dec. 29, 
1959; Letter to Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
from Fred A. Seaton, Secretary of the Interior, Apr. 27, 1959 (``I 
hereby certify that the Alaska State Legislature has made adequate 
provision for the administration, management, and conservation of the 
fish and wildlife resources of Alaska in the broad national 
interest.''). This general Federal-State relationship was confirmed in 
43 CFR 24.1(a), which found that ``Federal authority exists for 
specified purposes while State authority regarding fish and resident 
wildlife remains the comprehensive backdrop applicable in the absence 
of specific, overriding Federal law.''
    This specific Federal-State relationship was also confirmed in 
ANILCA, in which Congress established

[[Page 35183]]

and set aside national preserves in Alaska as NPS-administered units 
where sport hunting and trapping shall continue being managed by the 
State of Alaska, except that the ``Secretary may designate zones where 
and periods when no hunting, fishing, trapping, or entry may be 
permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and 
faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment.'' Public Law 96-487, 
Secs. 203, 1313, 1314, 94 Stat. 2483-84; see also S. Rep. No. 96-413, 
at 307-08 (1979) (describing the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources' intent to ``preserv[e] the status quo with regard to the 
responsibility and authority of the State to manage fish and wildlife, 
and . . . [a]t the same time . . . confir[m] the status quo with regard 
to the authority of the Secretary to manage the wildlife habitat on 
federal lands'' and noting ``the statutory requirement that the taking 
of fish and wildlife be allowed does not deprive the Secretary of his 
traditional authority to close public lands . . . to the taking of fish 
and wildlife under statutory criteria'').
    As stated in a 1981 NPS rulemaking to begin implementing the just-
passed ANILCA, the ``desire to continue sport fishing and hunting on 
all public lands in Alaska [was] a consistent and dominant theme of the 
public participation process during the development and final passage'' 
of ANILCA. 46 FR 5642. In 1983, NPS promulgated 36 CFR 2.2(b)(1), 
providing that ``[h]unting shall be allowed in park areas where such 
activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law.'' The NPS 
Management Policies provided the following guidance: ``In the 
administration of mandated uses, park managers must allow the use; 
however, they do have the authority to and must manage and regulate the 
use to ensure, to the extent possible, that impacts on park resources 
from that use are acceptable.'' Management Policies 2006, Sec. 1.4.3.1. 
As described in more detail below, analysis including more recent 
harvest data and the best available science does not demonstrate 
potential for unacceptable impacts to park resources from removing the 
prohibitions at issue in this rule.
    In a 1982 Master Memorandum of Understanding, both the Alaska 
Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and NPS agreed that ANILCA ``and 
subsequent implementing regulations recognize that the resources and 
uses of Service lands in Alaska are substantially different than those 
of similar lands in other states and mandate continued subsistence uses 
in designated National Parks plus sport hunting and fishing, 
subsistence, and trapping uses in National Preserves under applicable 
State and Federal laws and regulations[.]'' As outlined above, this 
includes NPS authority to, after consultation with ADFG, prohibit sport 
hunting, fishing, or trapping ``for reasons of public safety, 
administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and 
enjoyment.'' 16 U.S.C. 3201. Although the 2015 rule predominantly 
stemmed from finding state authorizations that ``liberalize predator 
harvest in areas that included national preserves'' were in ``conflict 
with laws and policies applicable to NPS areas that require preserving 
natural wildlife populations[,]'' it also referenced a need to 
``protect fauna and provide for public use and enjoyment consistent 
with ANILCA'' as well as ``public safety concerns associated with 
baiting.'' 80 FR 64326, 64329. Whether or to what extent these findings 
and reasons continue to apply was examined throughout the course of 
this rulemaking, and is explored in greater detail in the Responses to 
Comments.
    In addition to reconsidering the 2015 Rule in light of the 
requirements in ANILCA, new population data and information, and 
Congressional action, the NPS completed an Environmental Assessment, 
which was revised after the public comment period on this rule (as 
revised, the EA) to analyze the impacts these hunting methods would 
have on national preserves in Alaska. Similar to its findings in 2015, 
the EA concludes that under this rule, for the foreseeable future, 
healthy populations of wildlife will continue to exist in a manner 
consistent with the range of natural variability. This conclusion is 
based upon the low levels of additional take that are anticipated to 
occur under this rule. The NPS's findings regarding low levels of 
additional take are based upon harvest data from 2012-2016 that were 
not available to the NPS when it promulgated the 2015 Rule. This new 
data was provided by the State, and is more fully discussed in the EA 
(see EA, section 3.2.2). The conclusions in the EA are also based on 
the NPS's authority to take action whenever necessary to protect NPS 
resources and values from unacceptable impacts, including implementing 
specific, local closures to hunting and trapping pursuant to ANILCA. 16 
U.S.C. 3201.
    As stated in the EA, allowing the State regulations to apply within 
national preserves is not anticipated to cause population-level 
effects, and any reductions in opportunities for take of predator 
species over the long-term, or increases in prey species, are expected 
to be minimal and localized. Under Article VIII, Section 4, of the 
Alaska Constitution, the State manages take of wildlife under a 
``sustained yield principle'' which ``denotes conscious application 
insofar as practicable of principles of management intended to sustain 
the yield of the resource being managed'' and ``balance[s] maximum use 
of natural resources with their continued availability to future 
generations.'' See The Alaska Constitutional Convention, Proposed 
Constitution for the State of Alaska: A Report to the People of Alaska 
(1956). In accordance with this principle, which applies to both 
predator and prey populations, the State has assured the NPS that, in 
the event harvest were to increase beyond sustainable levels, the ADFG 
would close seasons by emergency order, if immediate action was 
necessary, and/or recommend more conservative seasons, bag limits, and/
or methods to the Alaska Board of Game for future hunting seasons.
    Application of the statutes and policies at issue is addressed in 
more detail in the Responses to Comments below, but generally, the NPS 
finds that the potential effect of the harvest practices does not 
threaten impairment of park resources under the Organic Act or the 
maintenance of healthy populations under ANILCA. Having reconsidered 
its prior position in light of specific mandates under ANILCA for 
Alaska preserves, revised guidance, new information, and the impacts 
permitting these hunting methods on national preserves in Alaska would 
have, the NPS has now determined that its 2015 characterization of the 
harvest methods as conflicting with NPS laws and policies was 
inconsistent with applicable law allowing hunting and trapping in 
national preserves. For these reasons, as explained in more detail 
below, the NPS promulgates this rule.

Proposed Rule and Responses to Comments

    On May 22, 2018, the NPS published the proposed rule in the Federal 
Register. 83 FR 23621. This rule was open for an initial 60-day public 
comment. The NPS extended the comment period twice, first on July 19, 
2018, 83 FR 34094, and again on September 6, 2018, 83 FR 45203, in 
response to requests from the public for more time to review the 
proposal. In total, the comment period was open for 168 days including 
both extensions. The comment period closed on November 6, 2018. The NPS 
invited comments through the mail, hand delivery, and through the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The NPS 
received approximately 211,780 pieces of correspondence on the proposed 
rule

[[Page 35184]]

with a total of 489,101 signatures. Of the 211,780 pieces of 
correspondence, approximately 176,000 were form letters and 
approximately 35,000 were unique comments.
    The NPS also held several government to government consultation 
meetings with the State of Alaska and Alaska Native tribes and 
corporations. Consultation meetings were requested by the State, 12 
tribal entities, and two corporations; meetings were conducted in 
February, March, and October of 2018.
    A summary of the pertinent issues raised in the comments received 
and NPS responses are provided below. After consultation, considering 
public comments, and revising the EA, the NPS did not make any changes 
in the final rule.
    1. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule 
violates the mandate in the NPS Organic Act that the NPS regulate the 
use of the National Park System to conserve the scenery, natural and 
historic objects, and wildlife in such manner and by such means as will 
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 54 
U.S.C. 100101.
    NPS Response: Through the Organic Act, Congress granted the NPS 
broad discretion over how to regulate activities within National Park 
System units. In national preserves in Alaska, however, Congress 
narrowed the scope of the NPS's discretion with respect to the harvest 
of wildlife, directing that national preserves shall be managed ``in 
the same manner as a national park . . . except that the taking of fish 
and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping 
shall be allowed in a national preserve under applicable State and 
Federal law and regulation[.]'' 16 U.S.C. 3201. No specific provision 
in the Organic Act as limited by ANILCA prohibits the harvest methods 
that are the subject of this rule, and the NPS has determined this rule 
will not result in unacceptable impacts or an impairment of park 
resources. See Non-Impairment Determination appended to the Finding of 
No Significant Impact for the EA. In light of new policy direction, 
revised guidance, newly available harvest data showing low levels of 
take, State law requiring the management of wildlife under the 
sustained yield principle, and a review of the impacts permitting these 
hunting methods on national preserves in Alaska would have, the NPS has 
determined that its 2015 determination that the harvest practices 
violated the Organic Act failed to take into account applicable 
statutory requirements under ANILCA.
    The EA concludes that due to the low levels of additional take 
anticipated under this rule, and considering the NPS's closure 
authority under ANILCA, healthy populations of wildlife will continue 
to exist in a manner consistent with the range of natural variability 
for the foreseeable future. Finally, for reasons discussed in the 
response to Comment 5, the NPS has concluded State management provided 
by ANILCA modifies and does not violate applicable NPS Management 
Policies that explain how the NPS implements the Organic Act and other 
laws that apply to the National Park System. Accordingly, the NPS has 
reconsidered its position in the 2015 Rule and concluded that allowing 
the hunting practices at issue in this rule would not violate the 
Organic Act.
    2. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule 
violates Sec. 101(b) of ANILCA, which states that Congress intends that 
the statute provide for the maintenance of sound populations of 
wildlife species.
    NPS Response: ANILCA states that Congress intended the statute to 
provide for the maintenance of sound populations of, and habitat for, 
wildlife species. 16 U.S.C. 3101(b). Specific to national preserves, 
each was established to allow for continued hunting and trapping under 
State management and, among other reasons, ``to protect habitat for and 
populations of fish and wildlife.'' 16 U.S.C. 410hh, 410hh-1. Three 
units include references to natural processes and/or biological 
processes in describing how the unit is to be managed. 16 U.S.C. 
410hh(1) (Aniakchak National Preserve: ``to study, interpret, and 
assure continuation of the natural process of biological succession''), 
410hh(8) (Noatak National Preserve: ``To maintain the environmental 
integrity of the Noatak River and adjacent uplands within the preserve 
in such a manner as to assure the continuation of geological and 
biological processes unimpaired by adverse human activity''), 410hh(10) 
(Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve: ``To maintain the 
environmental integrity of the entire Charley River basin, including 
streams, lakes and other natural features, in its undeveloped natural 
condition for public benefit and scientific study''). Title VIII of 
ANILCA, pertaining to subsistence uses, refers multiple times to 
managing for ``conservation of healthy populations'' of wildlife in 
national preserves. ANILCA also requires the NPS to allow the taking of 
wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves under applicable 
State and Federal law and regulation. 16 U.S.C. 3201, 3202. Therefore 
some level of sport hunting is appropriate and compatible with the 
various provisions of the law.
    ANILCA does not address specific harvest methods; rather, it defers 
to State fish and game management to establish methods and means and 
provides limited closure authority to the NPS for the protection of 
resources. It provides that agencies should manage wildlife using 
recognized principles of fish and wildlife management. 16 U.S.C. 
3101(c), 3112(1). The State's legal framework for managing wildlife in 
Alaska is based on the principle of sustained yield, see Alaska 
Constitution Article VIII, Section 4, which is defined as ``achievement 
and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level of 
human harvest of game, subject to preferences among beneficial uses, on 
an annual or periodic basis.'' AS 16.05.255. The State's constitutional 
mandate for sustained yield is consistent with NPS Management Policies, 
which state that the NPS ``manages [wildlife] harvest to allow for 
self-sustaining populations of harvested species.'' NPS Management 
Policies 2006, Sec. 4.4.3. The State asserts that it is legally 
obligated to implement this framework in a way that will maintain 
sustainable populations of wildlife. The State also maintains that the 
effects on wildlife populations from allowing these harvest methods in 
particular locations within national preserves will likely be 
negligible based on its analysis of similar harvest practices elsewhere 
in the state. This conclusion is consistent with the findings in the EA 
that population-level effects are not anticipated, and healthy 
populations of wildlife would continue to exist in a manner consistent 
with the range of natural variability. The State of Alaska assures the 
NPS that it is required to and will take immediate action if necessary 
to ensure sustainable population levels. This stated approach for 
managing wildlife is consistent with the direction in ANILCA to 
maintain sound populations of wildlife species.
    The rule also does not diminish the limited closure authority of 
the NPS to designate areas and periods of time where sport hunting and 
trapping would not be allowed in national preserves for reasons of 
public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public 
use and enjoyment. 16 U.S.C. 3201. ANILCA specifically granted this 
authority to the Secretary, and the NPS could implement specific, local 
closures if, when, and where necessary to prevent unacceptable impacts. 
For these reasons, this rule is consistent with the requirement in 
ANILCA to provide for the maintenance

[[Page 35185]]

of sound populations of wildlife species in national preserves.
    3. Comment: Several commenters expressed confusion about the term 
``sport hunting'' and stated that the proposed rule violates ANILCA 
because it authorizes methods of sport hunting that are not 
``sporting.''
    NPS Response: ANILCA states that ``the taking of fish and wildlife 
for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed 
in a national preserve under applicable State and Federal law and 
regulation.'' 16 U.S.C. 3201. Although ANILCA defines ``subsistence 
uses'' under 16 U.S.C. 3113, it does not define ``sport purposes.'' 
ANILCA defines who may engage in subsistence hunting under Title VIII, 
but does not restrict or otherwise define who may engage in sport 
hunting in national preserves. ANILCA is also silent in regard to 
harvest methods that can, and cannot, be used for sport purposes. 
Lacking any indication in the statute that Congress intended the phrase 
``sport purposes'' to have a specialized meaning, the NPS finds that 
the term was used by Congress merely to distinguish subsistence hunting 
from other types of hunting. Thus, it is the NPS's position that 
hunting for ``sport purposes'' is the harvest of wildlife in national 
preserves in Alaska that is authorized under applicable State and 
Federal law and that does not qualify as subsistence hunting under 
Title VIII. This represents a change from the 2015 rule in how the NPS 
has implemented ANILCA's authorization for sport hunting.
    In ANILCA Sec. 1314, regarding the ``Taking of Fish and Wildlife,'' 
Congress expressly retained the status quo regarding the respective 
responsibilities and authorities of ``the State of Alaska for 
management of fish and wildlife on the public lands'' and ``the 
Secretary over the management of the public lands.'' 16 U.S.C. 3202. 
The legislative history explains that, ``for the National Park System 
components, this provision intends to make applicable in Alaskan Parks 
and Preserves the same Federal-State relations on fish and wildlife 
management that apply in lower 48 State national parks and preserves.'' 
126 Cong. Rec. S15129, S15131 (Dec. 1, 1980).
    With few exceptions, compendiums in National Park System units 
where Congress has mandated hunting, trapping, and fishing are 
consistent with State harvest regulations. In its comments on the 
proposed rule, the State noted that ``national park units with mandated 
hunting in other states also allow activities that the proposed NPS 
Alaska rule will allow.'' State of Alaska letter to NPS Regional 
Director re: RIN 1024-AE38, p. 13 (Nov. 2, 2018) (2018 State Comments). 
This included, at the time, 25 national park units with year-round 
coyote seasons, six of which allow the use of artificial light, seven 
units which allow hunting black bears with dogs, and four which allow 
the harvest of black bears over bait. Moreover, unlike national 
preserves in Alaska, some of the units which allow these practices have 
explicit statutory closure authority for wildlife management or faunal 
protection and management in their enabling legislation.
    The position taken by the NPS in this final rule is supported by 
the State's comments on the proposed rule, which likewise determined 
that the methods that are the subject of this rule qualify as taking 
wildlife for ``sport purposes'' under ANILCA. It also furthers the 
direction in Secretary's Order 3356 and the September 10, 2018, 
Memorandum that hunting regulations for NPS lands and waters should 
complement the regulations on the surrounding lands and waters to the 
extent legally practicable.
    4. Comment: Several commenters stated that allowing sport hunters 
to use the same harvest methods as subsistence users frustrates 
ANILCA's subsistence preference in Title VIII.
    NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that this rule increases harvest 
opportunities for individuals hunting under State regulations in 
national preserves, which could increase competition with rural Alaska 
resident subsistence users in these locations. The NPS does not expect 
that the State's allowance of these harvest practices in national 
preserves will increase harvest levels to the degree that there are 
population-level impacts. This is supported by the NPS's analysis and 
conclusions in its ANILCA Section 810 Subsistence Evaluation and 
Finding appended to the EA. Qualified rural Alaska resident subsistence 
users will continue to have the opportunity to hunt in accordance with 
Federal subsistence regulations. Title VIII of ANILCA ensures rural 
Alaska residents have a priority for customary and traditional 
consumptive uses of fish and wildlife resources in national preserves 
in Alaska where conservation concerns require limitations on harvest. 
16 U.S.C. 3114. This rule does not change the methods and means for 
Federal subsistence harvest in national preserves and does not change 
the priority for subsistence uses in ANILCA. The Federal Subsistence 
Board has the authority to address competition among user groups in a 
variety of ways in order to provide a priority for rural Alaska 
resident subsistence users where there is a conservation concern.
    Further, rural Alaska resident subsistence users may harvest 
wildlife in national preserves under Federal subsistence regulations or 
State regulations, depending on the advantage. Some of the State 
authorizations that would no longer be prohibited under this rule were 
initially requested by rural Alaska resident subsistence users to allow 
cultural and traditional harvest and resource management practices to 
continue in their use area, which can include proposals to the State of 
Alaska Board of Game and/or the Federal Subsistence Board to either 
allow for or prevent certain harvest practices from being allowed in 
Alaska preserves.
    For example, in addressing proposals to allow take of cubs and 
females with cubs in dens as ``an opportunity for local people to take 
meat and to practice these customary and traditional methods,'' the 
Alaska Board of Game clarified the limited allowance was ``an attempt 
to move towards this goal of recognizing some of the customary and 
traditional practices that go on out in the Bush. A way people get food 
. . . this is in no way part of any predator management program.'' See 
Transcript of Nov. 10, 2008 Public Meeting of the Alaska Board of Game, 
quoted in 2018 State Comments, Att. C, at p. 70. This perspective is 
supported by the proposals to the Board, which reasoned that the fact 
``these practices were conducted for generations without any 
substantial, long-lasting or irreversible effects to predator 
populations is testimony to their ecological integrity, as well as 
substantiating assertions by Alaska's indigenous people that their 
traditional harvest activities were/are essentially a part of the 
evolved ecosystem(s).'' Proposal 55 from Orutsararmiut Native Council 
to the Alaska Board of Game (Nov. 2008).
    Subsistence users can also participate directly in the Federal 
Subsistence Management Program through statewide Subsistence Regional 
Advisory Councils, and Subsistence Resource Commissions advising on 
specific NPS-administered areas. The Wrangell-St. Elias National Park 
Subsistence Resource Commission has requested the 2015 rule be 
rescinded multiple times. At its October 2018 meeting, the Western 
Interior Subsistence Regional Advisory Council voted unanimously to 
support the adoption of State regulations in Alaska preserves, as 
proposed in this rule. Some concerns for subsistence users tend to 
reflect the complexity of regulating harvest in

[[Page 35186]]

Alaska, which council members agreed would be simplified by ``having 
Federal, State, and Park Service regulations match each other as much 
as possible.'' Transcript of Oct. 10, 2018 Public Meeting of the 
Western Interior Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council at p. 
86:10-12.
    The Eastern Interior Subsistence Regional Advisory Council 
maintained a similar position in its comments on the proposed rule. The 
Council found the ``regulations proposed for removal interfere with 
long-standing cultural practices of rural residents on and off park 
lands. Wildlife does not recognize administrative boundaries, so the 
application of different rules on NPS and State lands in areas of mixed 
land administration creates confusion and intrusion into traditional 
practices, which interferes with wildlife conservation. In addition, 
these rules are inconsistent with the rules adopted by the Federal 
Subsistence Board, adding unnecessary confusion for rural residents.'' 
Eastern Interior Subsistence Regional Advisory Council letter to NPS 
Regional Director, p. 2 (Nov. 5, 2018). The Council also noted that the 
2015 rule had been ``adopted despite the Council's strong objection to 
it based on potential negative effects on Federally qualified 
subsistence users[,]'' including their ``abilities to continue 
traditional practices with their families, while only allowing `sport' 
uses on National Preserves.'' Id. The Council continued to observe that 
``[m]any rural subsistence users hunt and trap under general State 
regulations and greatly benefit from those more liberal methods, 
seasons, and bag limits.'' Eastern Interior Subsistence Regional 
Advisory Council letter to NPS Regional Director, p. 2 (Nov. 20, 2014).
    5. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule 
violates Sec. 4.4.3 of NPS Management Policies with regard to 
prohibiting predator control. Several commenters stated that the 
proposed rule violates Secs. 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2 of NPS 
Management Policies with regard to protecting natural ecosystems and 
processes.
    NPS Response: NPS Management Policies explain how the NPS generally 
will implement the laws that apply to the National Park System, 
including the NPS Organic Act, and explain how the NPS will manage 
activities on lands and waters within the System. NPS Management 
Policies state that the legislative requirements of ANILCA, although 
not cited directly in the various policies, must be complied with in 
the interpretation and application of the management policies. NPS 
Management Policies 2006, Hierarchy of Authorities. NPS Management 
Policies can only be applied in a manner consistent with ANILCA's 
mandates, including the special status of the national preserves as 
park units where hunting and trapping are allowed under State and 
Federal law. As explained in the response to Comment 2, ANILCA provides 
for the management of sound populations, with the purposes for three 
units calling for maintenance of natural and/or biological processes, 
while at the same time mandating sport hunting.
    While NPS Management Policies state that ``activities to reduce the 
numbers of native species for the purpose of increasing numbers of 
harvested species (i.e. predator control)'' are not allowed on lands 
managed by the NPS, NPS Management Policies 2006, Sec. 4.4.3, ANILCA 
provides that the ``taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and 
subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve 
under applicable State and Federal law and regulation[,]'' 16 U.S.C. 
3201. It is the NPS' position that hunting for ``sport purposes'' is 
the harvest of wildlife in national preserves in Alaska that is 
authorized under applicable State and Federal law and that does not 
qualify as subsistence hunting under Title VIII, as outlined in the 
response to Comment 3. The NPS is also not allowing these hunting 
practices in national preserves in Alaska for the purpose of reducing 
predators, because the State has not provided for predator control 
activities in Alaska preserves. The State of Alaska's purpose in 
authorizing these practices is to expand hunting opportunities, rather 
than as part of a formal predator control or other program designed to 
reduce a population below sustainable levels. See 2018 State Comments, 
at p. 22.
    In the 2015 Rule, the NPS concluded that the harvest methods 
prohibited by that rule were inconsistent with NPS Management Policies 
in Sec. 4.4.3 because the NPS believed that the State's allowance of 
those methods was motivated by the goal of increasing the number of 
prey species. The NPS recognizes that requests submitted to the State 
of Alaska for liberalized harvest methods in game management units 
(GMUs) that include land within national preserves may have been 
motivated by a desire to reduce predators in order to increase prey. 
The NPS also recognizes that individual board members may have voted 
based in part on a desire to reduce predators. Nonetheless, these are 
management considerations reserved to the State under ANILCA. The State 
has shown that ``general hunting and trapping regulations are developed 
under sustained yield concepts for both predator and prey populations 
where there is a harvestable surplus,'' and are distinct from actions 
which ``aim to reduce predator populations and improve prey 
populations.'' Id. The State has also explained that the harvest 
methods that are the subject of this rule ``simply reflect the 
existence of an abundant population of wildlife and a small segment of 
the public's desire to hunt them that fit within the sustained yield 
concept of scientific management Alaska follows.'' Id. at p. 18.
    The NPS acknowledges that the State made similar assertions about 
the purpose of the harvest methods subject to this rule in its comments 
on the 2015 Rule and related environmental assessment (2014 EA), and 
that the NPS reached a different conclusion then. In reaching this 
conclusion, the NPS has carefully considered its statutory requirements 
and authorities, including that its policies must be applied consistent 
with ANILCA, all of the State's representations and explanations 
regarding its purposes for the harvest practices, as well as the fact 
that the NPS's own environmental analysis finds that allowing the 
harvest methods identified in this rule will still support healthy 
populations of wildlife within preserves. These findings are supported 
by 2012-2016 harvest data provided by the State to the NPS. The NPS is 
also now viewing the State's communications from the perspective 
inspired by Congressional disapproval and required by revised guidance 
and policy direction announced by the Secretary since the promulgation 
of the 2015 Rule. The NPS has determined that the State's 
representations and explanations regarding the authorizations at issue, 
as well as the legal and administrative requirements that support them, 
are more relevant to NPS action than the motivations of individual 
requesters or state game board members, especially in light of the 
recent reiteration of the State's position.
    Finally, the EA concludes that the hunting practices at issue will 
not have a significant effect on predator and prey populations and 
therefore will not have the effect of predator reduction or predator 
control, regardless of any perception of the purpose of the hunting 
practices. Based upon the NPS's purpose in complying with its statutory 
responsibilities to allow for harvest opportunities under State and 
Federal law, the State's comments on the 2015 Rule, and the State's 
November 2018 letter asserting that such activities serve to provide 
hunter opportunity rather than to reduce predators or increase

[[Page 35187]]

prey, and on the lack of any significant effect of predator reduction 
in practice, the NPS concludes these hunting activities do not violate 
Sec. 4.4.3 of the NPS Management Policies in light of the specific 
statutory requirements related to national preserves.
    Several provisions of NPS Management Policies require the NPS to 
protect natural ecosystems and processes, including the natural 
abundances, diversities, distributions, densities, age-class 
distributions, populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of 
wildlife. NPS Management Policies 2006, Secs. 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 
4.4.2. These policies can be read to be at odds with hunting and 
trapping, and so it is understandable that Congress established 
national preserves, new and distinct units of the National Park System 
where the differentiating characteristic is that harvest is allowed 
under State and Federal law. As mentioned above, while the NPS 
Management Policies call for maintaining natural populations, they must 
be read in the context of ANILCA's specific legal mandate to allow 
sport hunting in national preserves, which by its very nature is a 
human intrusion upon natural cycles, and ANILCA's call for preserves to 
be managed for sound populations of wildlife using limited closure 
authority. By specifically mandating that hunting be allowed, Congress 
intended to authorize management for something less than populations 
untouched by human influence, and this is how the NPS and the State 
have managed national preserves since ANILCA was enacted.
    Section 1.4.3.1 of NPS Management Policies provides that, ``[i]n 
the administration of mandated uses, park managers must allow the use; 
however, they do have the authority to and must manage and regulate the 
use to ensure, to the extent possible, that impacts on park resources 
from that use are acceptable.'' ANILCA limits this authority to 
closures for specified purposes, including the protection of wildlife. 
The State maintains that any effects to the natural abundances, 
diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions, 
populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife from 
implementing its regulations are likely negligible. ADFG letter to NPS 
Regional Director re: RIN 1024-AE21 (Nov. 26, 2014) (2014 State 
Comments). While data are limited, the State reports that increased 
harvest opportunities provided by its regulations have not resulted in 
meaningful effects on predator or prey abundance. Based upon the 
analysis in the EA, the NPS believes additional take that could occur 
from the harvest methods identified in this rule, as currently allowed 
by the State, would not likely alter natural predator-prey dynamics at 
the population level or have a significant foreseeable adverse impact 
to wildlife populations (including natural variability in terms of the 
range of natural variability), or otherwise impair park resources. As 
noted above, the NPS retains the authority to designate areas and 
periods of time where sport hunting and trapping would not be allowed 
in national preserves for purposes of protecting wildlife. 16 U.S.C. 
3201. For these reasons, the NPS does not believe these harvest 
practices violate NPS Management Policies Secs. 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 
4.4.2.
    6. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule does 
not advance the purposes of Secretary's Orders 3347 and 3356 because it 
would only affect harvest opportunities on 6% of lands in the State of 
Alaska and would not have any effect on harvest under Federal 
subsistence regulations.
    NPS Response: Section 1 of Secretary's Order 3347 identifies the 
purpose of the Order by stating that the Department of the Interior 
shall increase ``outdoor recreation opportunities, including hunting 
and fishing, for all Americans.'' Section 2 says that the Department 
will ``expand recreational and conservation opportunities for all 
Americans,'' including through the ``expansion and enhancement of 
hunting opportunities.'' Section 4.b.(4) of Secretary's Order 3356 
directs the NPS to identify whether hunting opportunities on NPS lands 
could be expanded.
    Allowing hunting and trapping opportunities under State law on 
national preserves is consistent with the direction in Secretary's 
Orders 3347 and 3356. The Orders do not establish a minimum acreage, 
percentage of the hunting population, or access threshold that would 
qualify as an expansion of hunting opportunities as that policy goal is 
articulated in the Orders. This rule would remove Federal restrictions 
on harvest methods that currently apply to hunters on more than 
22,000,000 acres of NPS-administered land.
    In addition to allowing for State hunting and trapping 
opportunities, this rule would comply with the direction in Secretary's 
Order 3356 to more closely align NPS management of wildlife with that 
of the State. Section 4.d. of Secretary's Order 3356 requires the NPS 
to work cooperatively with State wildlife agencies to ensure that 
hunting regulations for NPS lands and waters complement the regulations 
on the surrounding lands and waters to the extent legally practicable. 
As stated above, this rule more closely aligns with Federal law by 
aligning hunting opportunities in national preserves with hunting 
opportunities allowed by the State of Alaska on surrounding lands, 
ensuring State law applies inside the preserves.
    7. Comment: Several commenters stated that bear baiting creates a 
public safety hazard. Commenters noted that bait stations are often 
placed near roads and trails without proper signage which further 
increases the public safety risk and the risk of bears being taken in 
defense of life or property.
    NPS Response: The NPS acknowledges that negative human-bear 
interactions occur throughout the State. It is difficult to determine, 
however, which if any such interactions are attributable to bears 
obtaining food rewards specifically from bear baiting. That said, the 
NPS recognizes that some bears that are attracted to bait stations, but 
not harvested, could pose a threat to public safety. Further, such 
bears may be more prone to being taken in defense of life or property. 
The NPS also recognizes that bears occur throughout Alaska and that 
people engaging in outdoor activities on NPS lands may encounter them. 
Adverse human-bear interactions are rare, but the consequences of such 
interactions can be severe (serious injury or death).
    Bear baiting in national preserves would occur in the midst of 
nearly 20 million acres of very sparsely populated and remote areas, 
with few visitor facilities or services on site, if any. Human-bear 
interactions from bear baiting are likely to be rare--except for 
hunters seeking bears--both due to the lack of observed bear 
conditioning to associate bait stations with humans and the relatively 
few people in such remote areas to interact with bears. The State 
registers thousands of black bear bait stations yearly, and has done so 
for many years, but to date, it and other states which allow this 
practice have not detected problems that can be directly attributed to 
bear baiting. See 2014 State Comments, Att., at p. 14. The State also 
noted that ``[e]stablishing, maintaining and cleaning up bear bait 
stations involves significant labor and materials and is typically 
conducted off of road or trail systems. All but one preserve in Alaska 
is many miles from the road system and hunters are not likely to use 
those areas for this use due to the extra cost and effort involved when 
easier to access locations are available.'' 2018 State Comments, Att. 
B, at p. 54.

[[Page 35188]]

    Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulations for bear bait 
stations will serve to mitigate risk to public safety, as they include 
requirements for site registration, signage, site cleanup and removal, 
and minimum distances from maintained roads, trails, houses, businesses 
and developed recreational facilities. The NPS will work with the State 
to take actions to sustain and improve compliance with these risk-
mitigation regulations and will attempt to address any site-specific 
issues related to bear baiting through the Alaska Board of Game, to the 
maximum extent allowed by Federal law. ANILCA continues to provide the 
ability to enact specific closures if necessary in the future.
    The NPS recognizes that, even with safety measures in place, the 
practice of bear baiting could increase the frequency of adverse human-
bear interactions for visitors to national preserves. The EA observes 
that, ``[b]y design, baiting of bears alters their behavior to increase 
their predictability and facilitate harvest.'' EA, Sec. 3.2.2. Herrero 
(2002:41-44) referred to bears that become used to people through 
regular contact as ``habituated'' bears, and noted that if such bears 
also obtain food rewards, such as garbage that they associate with 
people, they can become ``food conditioned.'' Habituated and food 
conditioned bears are more likely to become a nuisance and be taken in 
defense of life or property, and they pose an elevated public safety 
risk. Herrero (1970, 1976, 2002).
    However, bear baiting differs in that bears do not necessarily 
associate baits with humans, and thus may not become food conditioned 
or habituated, as defined by Herrero (2002). Paquet (1991:2), cited in 
Hristienko and McDonald (2007) reported that bears exposed to bait in 
Manitoba did not become nuisance animals. Similarly, in its decades of 
experience, the State has found ``no evidence to support the claim that 
use of bait leads to food conditioned bears. Instead all information 
indicates just the opposite, which is that in areas where bear baiting 
is allowed there are fewer Defense of Life and Property (DLP) and 
agency kills.'' 2018 State Comments, Att. B, at pp. 52-53; see also 
2014 State Comments, Att., at p. 10 (arguing against the claim that 
prohibiting bear baiting would reduce nuisance bears as ``contrary to 
the observations of subsistence users, state wildlife biologists, and 
state law enforcement officers that baiting can help to reduce nuisance 
bear problems'').
    ANILCA and the Organic Act provide for a variety of public uses in 
national preserves, and some of the uses inherently detract from 
others, for example flightseeing and backcountry camping in designated 
wilderness. In these and many other cases, the NPS must exercise its 
discretion in managing competing authorized or mandated uses. Here, 
considering that habituation and safety issues related to bear baiting 
are expected to be rare, and the authority the NPS has to enact local 
closures if and where necessary, the NPS is removing Federal 
prohibitions on the harvest methods that are the subject of this rule. 
This will allow the State to determine whether bear baiting is allowed 
within national preserves consistent with ANILCA, and will also ensure 
State mitigations for human-bear interactions can be employed.
    8. Comment: Several commenters stated that bear baiting is 
inconsistent with the NPS's efforts to educate visitors about the risks 
of feeding wildlife and the importance of securing food to prevent 
adverse human-bear interactions.
    NPS Response: Consistent with NPS regulations that prohibit feeding 
wildlife, the NPS advises park visitors not to feed wildlife and to 
keep food and other attractants secure in order to avoid attracting 
bears. ANILCA allows sport hunting under State law, however, and State 
regulations allow individuals to take bears over bait in specific 
areas, some of which may be located within national preserves. If there 
is a tension between allowing bear baiting and prohibiting visitors 
from feeding bears, this is to be resolved in management 
considerations. The NPS's approach on this issue is informed by the 
Congressional mandate to allow sport hunting under State law. As stated 
above, the State has adopted regulations for bait stations to help 
prevent adverse human-bear interactions. Additionally, as noted in the 
EA, bear baiting differs from the act of feeding bears, in that bears 
do not necessarily associate baits with humans, Hristienko and McDonald 
(2007), and thus may not become food conditioned or habituated, Herrero 
(2002). Visitor feeding of bears, both in Alaska and elsewhere (such as 
Yellowstone National Park), has resulted in bears associating humans 
with food.
    9. Comment: Several commenters stated that bear baiting violates 
the Wilderness Act by degrading the untrammeled and undeveloped 
qualities of wilderness character.
    NPS Response: State management practices, including bear baiting, 
are allowed by ANILCA in the national preserves, including within 
designated wilderness. As discussed in the EA, implementation of this 
rule would have a minimal adverse impact on the untrammeled quality of 
wilderness in small and scattered locations by intentionally altering 
wildlife behavior. In addition, the presence of bear bait stations and 
associated debris would temporarily, in such small and scattered 
locations, degrade the undeveloped quality of wilderness. Overall, due 
to the low level of additional take expected under the proposed action, 
and the large areas of designated wilderness in national parks and 
preserves in Alaska, wilderness character would continue to exist in a 
manner similar to current conditions in accordance with statutory 
requirements in ANILCA and the Wilderness Act.
    Furthermore, ANILCA provides that designated wilderness is to be 
administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act except as otherwise 
expressly provided for by ANILCA. ANILCA includes several special 
provisions for wilderness areas in Alaska. These special provisions are 
referred to as ``non-conforming'' uses. Relevant to sport hunting, 
ANILCA requires the NPS to permit, subject to reasonable regulation to 
ensure compatibility, the establishment and use of temporary facilities 
and equipment directly and necessarily related to the taking of 
wildlife. 16 U.S.C. 3204(a). The establishment and use of bait stations 
in wilderness areas for the purpose of taking bears under State laws 
and regulations qualifies as an allowed, non-conforming use under this 
provision. The State requirements pertaining to clean-up and prompt 
removal of bait stations are consistent with protection of the areas 
while allowing for the Congressionally-mandated activity of sport 
hunting under applicable State and Federal law and regulation within 
national preserves.
    For these reasons, although bear baiting has minimal adverse 
impacts to wilderness character in small and scattered locations, this 
rule would not impair wilderness character and would ensure compliance 
with both ANILCA and the Wilderness Act.
    10. Comment: Some commenters stated available data are inadequate 
to evaluate the impact of liberalized hunting regulations on predators 
or prey. Some stated the proposed rule disregards scientific 
recommendations and conclusions made to and by the NPS through the 
public consultation process for the 2015 rule.
    NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that data necessary to evaluate 
potential impacts of hunting on predators and their prey are difficult 
and costly to

[[Page 35189]]

obtain. Neither the NPS nor the State of Alaska consistently collect 
population-level abundance or demographic data for black bears, brown 
bears, or wolves in GMUs that overlap with national preserves. Rather, 
the NPS typically evaluates historical harvest data, often in the 
context of evaluating proposals submitted to the Alaska Board of Game, 
to determine if significant impacts on predator populations are likely. 
Similarly, in preparing the EA, the NPS analyzed harvest data provided 
by the State for black bears, brown bears, and wolves in GMUs 
overlapping national preserves. National preserves composed less than 
11% of the land area of those GMUs, so hunting regulations in each GMU 
were largely unconstrained by the 2015 Rule or prior restrictions 
imposed by the NPS. Based in part on harvest data from 2012-2016 and 
consideration of potential additional harvest under current State 
regulations allowed by this rule, the NPS determined that, in general, 
meaningful population-level impacts on black bears, brown bears, or 
wolves are unlikely. The NPS will continue to work with the State to 
obtain and analyze harvest and population data, with particular 
attention to the most easily accessible areas. The NPS retains the 
authority under ANILCA to designate areas and periods of time where 
sport hunting and trapping would not be allowed in national preserves 
for purposes of protecting wildlife.
    In making its determinations, the NPS did not disregard scientific 
recommendations or conclusions arising from the public consultation 
process for the 2015 Rule. The 2015 Rule was based upon ``the NPS legal 
and policy framework[.]'' 80 FR 64328 (Frequently Asked Questions 
section). The NPS evaluated predator harvest and its influence on 
predator-prey systems in the context of population-level (i.e., GMU-
scale) impacts rather than localized impacts. See EA, Sec. 3.2.2. 
Further, the overall conclusion in the Finding of No Significant Impact 
(FONSI) for the EA supporting the current rule--a determination that 
the proposed action will not result in significant adverse impacts--is 
consistent with NPS statements made in the Finding of No Significant 
Impact for the 2015 Rule, which noted how neither of its alternatives 
was ``likely to have a significant effect on park resources.''
    The NPS reached its conclusions in the EA and FONSI that support 
the current rule by evaluating the management implications of available 
scientific literature and other data, some of which is new information 
not used or available during the public consultation process for the 
2015 rule. With regard to effects on wildlife, the 2014 EA stated, 
``[l]ocalized effects on individual animals, family groups, and packs 
may be substantial (e.g., direct mortality, increased mortality risk 
due to loss of family or group members, and food conditioning).'' The 
EA supporting the current rule reaches a similar conclusion relative to 
mortality risks; however, the effects were not found to be 
``substantial.'' As documented in the EA, the NPS considered harvest 
data from 2012-2016 and determined that there is likely to be only a 
low level of additional take of predators from preserves under the 
proposed action.
    With regard to impacts related to bear baiting, data not included 
in the 2015 Rule and EA, cited in Hristienko and McDonald (2007), 
suggest that, when managed correctly, there is no evidence to suggest 
that black bears exposed to baits are destined to become problem bears. 
See EA, Sec. 3.2.2. The EA supporting the current rule clarifies that 
food conditioned bears are those that become habituated to humans 
first, then learn to associate food with humans and thereby become a 
potential nuisance and public safety risk. Herrero (2002). Therefore, 
baiting that is conducted in a manner consistent with required 
mitigations (e.g., signage, setback, cleanup) is unlikely to result in 
food conditioning.
    The NPS acknowledges that several sources included in the 2014 EA 
are not used in the EA supporting the current rule. During its review 
of Boertje et al. (2012) for the current rule, the NPS determined the 
study does not apply as used in the 2014 EA because that study included 
impacts of targeted wolf control actions on the nutritional status and 
distribution of caribou. Such actions contrast with the practices that 
would be allowed under this rule, which are intended to expand hunting 
opportunities in preserves rather than to reduce predator populations.
    Commenters also pointed out that the following sources included in 
the 2014 EA are not included in the current EA: Barber-Meyer et al. 
(2008), Beschta and Ripple (2010), Evans et al. (2006), Ripple et al. 
(2014), and Ruth et al. (2004). These sources were cited once in the 
2014 EA to support the conclusion that, when striving to maintain 
natural processes, some consideration of the effects of designed 
management perturbations on an entire suite of species, their 
interactions, trophic cascades, and system stability is necessary. The 
NPS acknowledges and has considered these concepts, but based on the 
entirety of the information reviewed during the EA process, the NPS has 
determined that population-level effects that would alter the natural 
processes listed are unlikely. The NPS will continue to work with the 
State to monitor harvest and, where practicable, status of predator and 
prey populations, and retains the authority under ANILCA to designate 
areas and periods of time where sport hunting and trapping would not be 
allowed.

Final Rule

    The NPS is removing paragraphs (f) and (g) of 36 CFR 13.42. 
Paragraph (f) states that State of Alaska management actions or laws or 
regulations that authorize taking of wildlife are not adopted in park 
areas if they are related to predator reduction efforts, which are 
defined as efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate 
natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological 
processes, in order to increase harvest of ungulates by humans. 
Removing this provision will expand harvest opportunities, complement 
regulations on lands and waters within and surrounding national 
preserves, and defer to the State in regard to fish and wildlife 
management, which is consistent with the NPS Organic Act, ANILCA, and 
43 CFR part 24. This provision has not been utilized by the NPS since 
it was promulgated in 2015 and the NPS believes that removing it will 
help provide regulatory certainty to park users about what hunting 
practices are or are not allowed in national preserves.
    Paragraph (g) sets forth a table of prohibited methods of taking 
wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves in Alaska. Most of 
these prohibited methods are also prohibited by the State of Alaska. 
Some of them, however, conflict with authorizations by the State of 
Alaska as explained above.
    The NPS believes that removing paragraphs (f) and (g) is consistent 
with Congressional direction for the management of Alaska preserves and 
will better implement the policy direction announced in Secretary's 
Orders 3347 and 3356 by increasing hunting opportunities in national 
preserves and promoting consistency between Federal regulations and 
State wildlife harvest regulations. In addition, this rule removes the 
definitions of ``Big game'', ``Cub bear'', ``Fur animal'', and 
``Furbearer'' from Sec.  13.1 because those terms are only used in 
paragraphs (f) and (g).

[[Page 35190]]

Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders and Department Policy

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review 
all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
has determined that this rule is significant because it will raise 
novel legal or policy issues.
    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 
12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system 
to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, 
most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory 
ends. The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory 
approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of 
choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, 
and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 
emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available 
science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public 
participation and an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has developed this 
rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order 
13771)

    Enabling regulations are considered deregulatory under guidance 
implementing E.O. 13771 (M-17-21). This rule would remove prohibitions 
on certain methods of taking wildlife for sport purposes in national 
preserves in Alaska, thereby enabling those activities where they are 
allowed by State law.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public 
use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other 
agencies or governments. A statement containing the information 
required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

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

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule 
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only 
affects use of federally administered lands and waters, and seeks to 
align Federal and state regulations on lands and waters within and 
surrounding the preserves. A federalism summary impact statement is not 
required.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

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

Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department 
Policy)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its 
government-to government relationship with Indian Tribes through a 
commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their 
right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this 
rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the 
Department's tribal consultation and Alaska Native Claims Settlement 
Act (ANCSA) Native Corporation policies and have determined that this 
rule may have substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian 
tribes. The NPS invited Alaska Native tribes and corporations to 
consult on the proposed rule and has consulted with those tribes and 
corporations that have requested consultation.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment. The NPS prepared the EA 
and determined that a detailed statement under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the NPS 
reached the FONSI. The EA and FONSI are available online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro.

Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)

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

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13

    Alaska, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

PART 13--NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA

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


[[Page 35191]]


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


Sec.  13.1  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  13.1 remove the definitions of ``Big game'', ``Cub bear'', 
``Fur animal'', and ``Furbearer''.


Sec.  13.42  [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  13.42, remove and reserve paragraphs (f) and (g).

George Wallace,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2020-10877 Filed 6-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P