Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 208 (Monday, October 30, 2023)

[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