[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3673-3681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[1018-AG18]


Draft Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy Pursuant to the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: We propose to establish, in policy, a procedure for 
determining when uses other than the six priority wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses are appropriate or not appropriate on a unit of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System (System). The National Wildlife Refuge 
System Improvement Act of 1997 (NWRSIA-1997), that amends the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (NWRSAA-1966), 
defines and establishes that wildlife-dependent recreational uses 
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
environmental education and interpretation) are the priority general 
public uses of the System and, if found compatible, will receive 
enhanced and priority consideration in refuge planning and management 
over other general public uses. This draft policy describes how we will 
provide priority to these uses, and establishes a process for deciding 
when it is appropriate to allow other, non-priority uses to occur on 
national wildlife refuges. We propose to incorporate this policy as 
Part 603 Chapter 1 of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this draft appropriate refuge 
uses policy by mail, fax or e:mail: by mail to J. Kenneth Edwards, 
Refuge Program Specialist, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 670, Arlington, 
Virginia 22203; by fax to (703) 358-2248; or by e:mail to 
Appropriate_Uses _Policy_ [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J. Kenneth Edwards, Refuge Program 
Specialist, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Telephone (703) 358-1744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NWRSIA-1997 amends and builds upon the 
NWRSAA-1966 providing an ``Organic Act'' for the System. The NWRSIA-
1997 clearly establishes that wildlife conservation is the singular 
System mission, provides guidance to the Secretary of the Interior 
(Secretary) for management of the System, provides a mechanism for 
refuge planning, and gives refuge managers uniform direction and 
procedures for making decisions regarding wildlife conservation and 
uses of the System.
    The NWRSIA-1997 identifies six wildlife-dependent recreational uses 
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
environmental education and interpretation) as the priority general 
public uses of the System. The NWRSIA-1997 also provides a set of 
affirmative stewardship responsibilities regarding our administration 
of the System. These stewardship responsibilities direct us to ensure 
that these six wildlife-dependent recreational uses are provided 
enhanced consideration and priority over other general public uses.
    The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (RRA-1962) also authorizes us to 
regulate or curtail public recreational uses in order to insure 
accomplishment of our primary conservation objectives. The RRA-1962 
also directs us to administer the System for public recreation when the 
use is an ``appropriate incidental or secondary use.''
    The determination of appropriateness is the first step in deciding 
whether we will permit a proposed or existing use on a refuge. After we 
decide a use is appropriate, we then must determine that it would be 
compatible before allowing. The six wildlife-dependent recreational 
uses are the priority public uses of the System and, when compatible, 
have been determined to be appropriate by law. Uses which are necessary 
for the safe, practical, and effective conduct of a priority public use 
are also appropriate. We will evaluate all other uses under a screening 
process established by this policy to determine their relationship to 
the System's wildlife conservation mission, individual refuge purposes, 
and the six priority public uses. This screening process, the 
``appropriate use'' test contained in this policy, is a decision 
process that refuge managers will use to quickly and systematically 
decide which uses are not appropriate on a national wildlife refuge. We 
then more thoroughly review uses, which we have

[[Page 3674]]

determined to be appropriate, for compatibility before we allow them on 
a refuge. This appropriate use policy and our compatibility policy are 
key tools refuge managers use together to fortify our commitment to 
provide enhanced opportunities for the public to enjoy wildlife-
dependent recreation while at the same time ensuring that no refuge 
uses compromise the System's wildlife conservation mission and the 
individual refuge purposes. Through careful planning, System-wide 
application of regulations and policies, diligent monitoring of the 
impacts of uses on natural resources, and by preventing or eliminating 
uses not appropriate to the System, we can achieve our wildlife 
conservation mission and individual refuge purposes while also 
providing people with lasting opportunities for the highest quality 
wildlife-dependent recreation.

Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy

    To ensure the primacy of the System wildlife conservation mission, 
the individual refuge purposes and to be sure we afford priority to the 
six wildlife-dependent recreational uses within the System, we are 
proposing to establish an appropriate refuge uses policy. This policy 
will apply to all proposed and existing uses of national wildlife 
refuges when we have jurisdiction over these uses. The following is a 
summary of the key provisions of this policy.
    The Refuge Manager will not further consider allowing a new use, 
nor renewing, extending, or expanding an existing use on a national 
wildlife refuge without determining the use to be an appropriate use. 
The Refuge Manager will halt, as expeditiously as practicable, existing 
uses determined to be not appropriate.
    An appropriate use of a refuge is a proposed or existing use that 
meets at least one of the following three conditions:
    1. The use is a priority public use or is necessary for the safe, 
practical, and effective conduct of a priority public use on the 
refuge;
    2. The use contributes to fulfilling the System mission, or the 
refuge purposes, goals, or objectives as described in a refuge 
management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the NWRSIA-
1997 was passed; or
    3. The use has been determined to be appropriate in a documented 
analysis by the Refuge Manager, with the Refuge Supervisor's 
concurrence. This documented analysis will address the following 11 
factors.
    a. Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations?
    b. Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and 
Department and Service policies?
    c. Is the use consistent with refuge goals and objectives in an 
approved refuge management plan?
    d. Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use?
    e. Is the use consistent with public safety?
    f. Is the use manageable within available budget and staff?
    g. Is the use consistent with other resource or management 
objectives?
    h. Will the use be easy to control in the future?
    i. Is the refuge the only place where this activity can reasonably 
occur?
    j. Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and 
appreciation of the refuge's wildlife or cultural resources, or is the 
use beneficial to the refuge's wildlife or cultural resources?
    k. Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-
dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide 
quality wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?
    If the answer is ``no'' to any of these questions, we will 
generally not allow the use. If the answers are consistently ``yes'' to 
these questions, or, if not, if there are compelling reasons why the 
Refuge Manager believes the use is appropriate on the refuge, the 
Refuge Manager then prepares a written justification, and obtains 
concurrence from the Refuge Supervisor. Requiring concurrence from the 
Refuge Supervisor will help us promote consistency within the System.
    Uses determined to be appropriate are also reviewed for 
compatibility before they may be allowed on a refuge.
    Some recreational activities, while wholesome and enjoyable, are 
not dependent on the presence of fish and wildlife, nor dependent on 
the expectation of encountering fish and wildlife. Many of these non-
wildlife-dependent recreational activities are often disruptive or 
harmful to fish, wildlife or plants, or may interfere with the use and 
enjoyment of a refuge by others engaged in wildlife-dependent 
recreation. These uses may more appropriately be conducted on private 
land, or other public lands not specifically dedicated for wildlife 
conservation.

Purpose of This Draft Policy

    The purpose of this draft policy is to modify the general guidance 
concerning proposed and existing uses of the System in compliance with 
the NWRSIA-1997. This policy establishes a procedure we will use for 
determining when uses are appropriate or not appropriate on a unit of 
the National Wildlife Refuge System, before we undertake assessing 
compatibility of the use.

Fish and Wildlife Service Directives System

    Because many of our field stations are in remote areas across the 
United States, it is important that all employees have available and 
know the current policy and management directives that affect their 
daily activities. The Fish and Wildlife Service Directives System, 
consisting of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (Service Manual), 
Director's Orders, and National Policy Issuances, is the vehicle for 
issuing the standing and continuing policy and management directives of 
the Service. New directives are posted on the Internet upon approval, 
ensuring that all employees have prompt access to the most current 
guidance.
    The Service Manual contains our standing and continuing directives 
with which our employees comply. We use it to implement our authorities 
and to ``step down'' our compliance with statutes, executive orders, 
and Departmental directives. It establishes the requirements and 
procedures to assist our employees in carrying out our authorities, 
responsibilities, and activities.
    Director's Orders are limited to temporary policy, procedures, 
delegations of authority, emergency regulations, special assignments of 
functions, and initial functional statements on the establishment of 
new organizational units. All Director's Orders must be converted as 
soon as practicable to appropriate parts of the Service Manual or 
removed. Material appropriate for immediate inclusion in the Service 
Manual generally is not issued as a Director's Order.
    National Policy Issuances promulgate the Director's national 
policies for managing the Service and its programs. These policies are 
necessarily broad and generally require management discretion or 
judgment in their implementation. They represent the Director's 
expectations of how the Service and its employees will act in carrying 
out their official responsibilities.
    The Service Manual, Director's Orders, and National Policy 
Issuances are available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/directives/direct.html. When finalized, we will incorporate this 
appropriate refuge uses policy into the Service Manual as Part 603 
Chapter 1.

[[Page 3675]]

Comment Solicitation

    We seek public comments on this draft appropriate refuge uses 
policy and will take into consideration comments and any additional 
information received during the 60-day comment period. You may submit 
comments on this draft appropriate refuge uses policy by mail, fax or 
e:mail: by mail to J. Kenneth Edwards, Refuge Program Specialist, 
National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 
North Fairfax Drive, Room 670, Arlington, Virginia 22203; by fax to 
(703) 358-2248; or by e:mail to Appropriate_Uses_ 
Policy_[email protected]. Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII 
file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 
Please also include: ``Attn: 1018-AG18'' and your name and return 
address in your Internet message. If you do not receive a confirmation 
from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us 
directly at (703) 358-1744. Finally, you may hand-deliver comments to 
the address mentioned above.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent 
allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold from the 
record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to 
withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at 
the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous 
comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses 
and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or 
officials of organizations or businesses, available for public 
inspection in their entirety.
    We published a notice in the Federal Register on January 23, 1998 
(63 FR 3583) notifying the public that we would be revising the Service 
Manual, establishing regulations as they relate to the NWRSIA-1997, and 
offering to send copies of specific draft Service Manual chapters to 
anyone who would like to receive them. We will mail a copy of this 
draft Service Manual appropriate refuge uses chapter to those who 
requested one. In addition, this draft Service Manual appropriate 
refuge uses chapter will be available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/directives/library/frindex.html during the 60-day comment 
period.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this 
policy is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) makes the final determination under Executive Order 
12866.
    (1) This policy will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 
environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit or full 
economic analysis is not required. This policy is administrative, 
legal, technical, and procedural in nature. This policy establishes the 
process for determining the appropriateness of proposed national 
wildlife refuge uses. This policy will have the effect of providing 
priority consideration for wildlife-dependent recreational uses 
involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
environmental education and interpretation. Existing policy has been in 
place since 1985 that encouraged the phase-out on refuges of non-
wildlife-oriented recreation. The NWRSIA-1997 does not greatly change 
this direction in public use, but provides legal recognition of the 
priority we afford to wildlife-dependent recreational uses. We expect 
these new procedures to cause only minor modifications to existing 
national wildlife refuge public use programs. While we may curtail some 
non-priority refuge uses, we may provide new and expanded opportunities 
for priority public uses. We expect an overall small increase, at most 
a 5 percent annual increase, in the amount of public use activities 
allowed on refuges as a result of this policy.
    The appropriate measure of the economic effect of changes in 
recreational use is the change in the welfare of recreationists. We 
measure this in terms of willingness to pay for the recreational 
opportunity. We estimated total annual willingness to pay for all 
recreation at national wildlife refuges to be $372.5 million in Fiscal 
Year 1995 (Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local 
Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, DOI/FWS/Refuges 
1997). We expect the appropriate use determination process implemented 
in this policy to cause at most a 5 percent annual increase in 
recreational use System-wide. This does not mean that every refuge will 
have the same increase in public use. We will allow the increases only 
on refuges where increases in hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-
dependent recreational visitation are compatible. Across the entire 
System, we expect an increase in hunting, fishing, and non-consumptive 
visitation to amount to no more than a 5 percent overall increase. If 
the full 5 percent increase in public use were to occur at national 
wildlife refuges, this would translate to a maximum additional 
willingness to pay of $21 million (1999 dollars) annually for the 
public. However, we expect the real benefit to be less than $21 million 
because we expect the final increase in public use to be smaller than 5 
percent. Furthermore, if the public substitutes non-refuge recreation 
sites for refuges, then we would subtract the loss of benefit 
attributed to non-refuge sites from the $21 million estimate.
    We measure the economic effect of commercial activity by the change 
in producer surplus. We can measure this as the opportunity cost of the 
change, i.e., the cost of using the next best production option if we 
discontinue production using the national wildlife refuge. National 
wildlife refuges use grazing, haying, timber harvesting, and row crops 
to help fulfill the System mission and refuge purposes. Congress 
authorizes us to allow economic activities on national wildlife 
refuges, and we do allow some. But, for all practical purposes (almost 
100 percent), we invite the economic activities to help achieve a 
refuge purpose or the System mission. For example, we do not allow 
farming per se, rather we invite a farmer to farm on the national 
wildlife refuge under a Cooperative Farming Agreement to help achieve a 
national wildlife refuge purpose. This policy will likely have minor 
changes in the amounts of these activities occurring on national 
wildlife refuges. Information on profits and production alternatives 
for most of these activities is proprietary, so a valid estimate of the 
total benefits of permitting these activities on national wildlife 
refuges is not available.
    (2) This policy will not create a serious inconsistency or 
otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency 
since the policy pertains solely to management of national wildlife 
refuges by the Service.
    (3) This policy does not alter the budgetary effects of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or 
obligations of their recipients. No grants or other Federal assistance 
programs are associated with public use of national wildlife refuges.
    (4) This policy does not raise novel legal or policy issues; 
however, it does provide a new approach. It adds the NWRSIA-1997 
provisions that ensure that wildlife-dependent recreational

[[Page 3676]]

uses are the priority public uses of the System, and adds consistency 
in application of public use guidelines across the entire System.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that this document will not have a significant economic 
effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 60l et seq.).
    Congress created the National Wildlife Refuge System to conserve 
fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats and facilitated this 
conservation mission by providing Americans opportunities to visit and 
participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, 
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 
education and interpretation) as priority general public uses on 
national wildlife refuges and to better appreciate the value of, and 
need for, wildlife conservation.
    This policy is administrative, legal, technical, and procedural in 
nature and provides more detailed instructions for the determination of 
the appropriateness of public use activities than have existed in the 
past. This policy may result in more opportunities for wildlife-
dependent recreation on national wildlife refuges, and may result in 
the reduction of some non-wildlife-dependent recreation. For example, 
more wildlife observation opportunities may occur at Florida Panther 
National Wildlife Refuge in Florida or more hunting opportunities at 
Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge in Arkansas. Conversely, we may no 
longer allow some activities on some refuges. For example, some refuges 
may currently allow water skiing on refuge-controlled waters or the use 
of off-road vehicles; we would likely curtail some of these uses as we 
implement this policy. The overall net effect of these regulations is 
likely to increase visitor activity near the national wildlife refuge. 
To the extent visitors spend time and money in the area that would not 
otherwise have been spent there, they contribute new income to the 
regional economy and benefit local businesses.
    National wildlife refuge visitation is a small component of the 
wildlife recreation industry as a whole. In 1996, 77 million U.S. 
residents over 15 years old spent 1.2 billion activity-days in 
wildlife-associated recreation activities. They spent about $30 billion 
on fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching trips (Tables 49, 54, 59, 
63, 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 
Recreation, DOI/FWS/FA, 1997). National wildlife refuges recorded about 
29 million visitor-days that year (RMIS, FY1996 Public Use Summary). A 
study of 1995 national wildlife refuge visitors found their travel 
spending generated $401 million in sales and 10,000 jobs for local 
economies (Banking on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local 
Communities of National Wildlife Refuge Visitation, DOI/FWS/Refuges, 
1997). These spending figures include spending which would have 
occurred in the community anyway, and so they show the importance of 
the activity in the local economy rather than its incremental impact. 
Marginally greater recreational opportunities on national wildlife 
refuges will have little industry-wide effect.
    Expenditures as a result of this policy are a transfer and not a 
benefit to many small businesses. We expect the incremental increase of 
recreational opportunities to be marginal and scattered, so we do not 
expect the policy to have a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities in any region or nationally.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This policy is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This policy:
    (1) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more. This policy will affect only visitors at national wildlife 
refuges. It may result in increased visitation at refuges and provide 
for minor changes to the methods of public use permitted within the 
System. Refer to response under Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    (2) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    (3) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501, 
et seq.):
    (1) This policy will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. See 
response to Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    (2) This policy will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million 
or greater in any year, i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. See response to 
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this policy does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required. This policy may result in increased visitation at refuges 
and provide for minor changes to the methods of public use permitted 
within the System. Refer to response under Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Federalism Assessment (E.O. 13132)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this policy does not have 
significant federalism effects. This policy will not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, in their relationship between the Federal 
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in 
accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have determined that this 
policy does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform (E. O. 12988)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that this policy does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order. This policy will expand upon established policies, and 
result in better understanding of the policies by refuge visitors.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This policy does not require an information collection from 10 or 
more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
is not required.

Section 7 Consultation

    We are in the process of reviewing the potential of this policy to 
affect species subject to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 
1531-1543). The findings of that consultation will be available as part 
of the administrative record for the final policy.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)) when developing national wildlife 
refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plans and public use management 
plans, and we make determinations required by NEPA before the addition 
of national wildlife refuges to the lists of areas open to

[[Page 3677]]

public uses. In accordance with 516 DM 2, Appendix 1.10, we have 
determined that this policy is categorically excluded from the NEPA 
process because it is limited to policies, directives, regulations and 
guidelines of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or 
procedural nature; or the environmental effects of which are too broad, 
speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis. 
Site-specific proposals, as indicated above, will be subject to the 
NEPA process.

Available Information for Specific National Wildlife Refuges

    Individual national wildlife refuge headquarters retain information 
regarding public use programs and the conditions that apply to their 
specific programs, and maps of their respective areas.
    You may also obtain information from the Regional Offices at the 
addresses listed below:
     Region 1--California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and 
Washington. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal Complex, Suite 1692, 911 N.E. 
11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; Telephone (503) 231-6214; 
http://pacific.fws.gov.
     Region 2--Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. 
Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; Telephone (505) 248-
7419; http://southwest.fws.gov.
     Region 3--Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, 
Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge 
System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, Fort 
Snelling, Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111; Telephone (612) 713-5300; 
http://midwest.fws.gov.
     Region 4--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, 
Room 324, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; Telephone (404) 679-7166; http://southeast.fws.gov.
     Region 5--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, Massachusetts 01035-9589; 
Telephone (413) 253-8306; http://northeast.fws.gov.
     Region 6--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, Colorado 80228; Telephone (303) 236-8145; http://www.r6.fws.gov.
     Region 7--Alaska. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge 
System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, 
Alaska 99503; Telephone (907) 786-3545; http://alaska.fws.gov.

Primary Author

    Tom C. Worthington, Refuge Program Specialist, Region 3, National 
Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the primary 
author of this notice.

Draft Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy

Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge System Uses

Refuge Management--Part 603 National Wildlife Refuge System Uses
Chapter 1 Appropriate Refuge Uses--603 FW 1
    1.1 What is the purpose of this chapter? This chapter establishes 
policy that refuge managers will apply when determining the 
appropriateness of proposed and existing uses of national wildlife 
refuges before they undertake assessing compatibility in accordance 
with 603 FW 2. Through this policy, we establish a procedure for 
determining when uses other than the six wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses are appropriate or not appropriate on a refuge. This 
policy clarifies and expands upon 603 FW 2.10(D), which describes when 
refuge managers should deny a proposed use without determining 
compatibility. This policy also underscores that the fundamental 
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (System) is wildlife 
conservation: ``Wildlife First.''
    A. National wildlife refuges are first and foremost national 
treasures for wildlife. Through careful planning, System-wide 
application of regulations and policies, diligent monitoring of the 
impacts of uses on wildlife resources, and by preventing or eliminating 
uses not appropriate to the System, we can achieve our wildlife 
conservation mission while also providing the public with lasting 
opportunities to enjoy the highest quality wildlife-dependent 
recreation.
    B. Through consistent application of this policy, we will establish 
an administrative record and build public understanding and consensus 
regarding the types of public uses that are legitimate and appropriate 
within the System.
    1.2 What is the scope of this policy? This policy applies to all 
proposed and existing uses of national wildlife refuges when we have 
jurisdiction over these uses. In situations where reserved rights or 
legal mandates provide that we must allow certain uses, the 
requirements of this policy will not apply. For example, we will not 
apply this policy to proposed public uses of wetland or grassland 
easement areas of the System because the rights we have acquired on 
these areas generally do not extend to control over public uses.
    1.3 What is the policy regarding the appropriateness of uses on a 
national wildlife refuge? At the initial stage of considering a use, 
Refuge Managers will not further consider allowing a new use on a 
national wildlife refuge, nor renewing, extending, or expanding an 
existing use on a national wildlife refuge, unless the Refuge Manager 
has determined the use to be an appropriate use. We will halt, as 
expeditiously as practicable, existing uses determined to be not 
appropriate.
    1.4 What is our statutory authority for this policy? A. The 
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended 
by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, 16 
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee (Refuge Administration Act). This law provides 
authority for establishing policies and regulations governing national 
wildlife refuge uses, including the authority to prohibit certain 
harmful activities. The Refuge Administration Act does not authorize 
any particular use but rather authorizes the Secretary to permit uses 
only when compatible and ``under said regulations as he may 
prescribe.'' This law specifically identifies certain public uses that 
when compatible, are legitimate and appropriate uses within the System. 
The law states ``* * * it is the policy of the United States that * * * 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation is a legitimate and 
appropriate general public use of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System 
* * *; * * * compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the 
priority general public uses of the [National Wildlife Refuge] System 
and shall receive priority consideration in national wildlife refuge 
planning and management; and * * * when the Secretary determines that a 
proposed wildlife-dependent recreational use is a compatible use within 
a national wildlife refuge, that activity should be facilitated * * * 
the Secretary shall

[[Page 3678]]

* * * ensure that priority general public uses of the [National 
Wildlife Refuge] System receive enhanced consideration over other 
general public uses in planning and management within the [National 
Wildlife Refuge] System * * *'' The law also states ``In administering 
the [National Wildlife Refuge] System, the Secretary is authorized to 
take the following actions: * * * Issue regulations to carry out this 
Act.'' This policy fortifies the standards set in the Refuge 
Administration Act, by showing how we will assure that the priority 
public uses are provided enhanced consideration over other public uses.
    B. The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, 16 U.S.C. 460k (Refuge 
Recreation Act). This law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to 
``* * *administer such areas [of the National Wildlife Refuge System] 
or parts thereof for public recreation when in his judgment public 
recreation can be an appropriate incidental or secondary use.''
    C. Activities on lands conveyed from the System pursuant to Section 
22(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act are not subject to 
this policy, but are subject to compatibility (see 603 FW 2).
    D. When allowing off-road vehicle use on refuges we comply with 
Executive Order 11644 which requires that we: designate areas as open 
or closed to off-road vehicles in order to protect refuge resources, 
promote safety, and minimize conflict among the various refuge users; 
monitor the effects of these uses, once they are allowed; and amend or 
rescind any area designation on the basis of the information gathered. 
Furthermore, Executive Order 11989 requires that we close areas to 
these types of uses when we determine that the use causes or will cause 
considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, 
habitat, or cultural or historic resources.
    1.5 What do these terms mean? A. Appropriate use. A proposed or 
existing use on a refuge that meets at least one of the following three 
conditions.
    (1) The use is a priority public use or is necessary for the safe, 
practical, and effective conduct of a priority public use on the 
refuge.
    (2) The use contributes to fulfilling the System mission, or the 
refuge purposes, goals, or objectives as described in a refuge 
management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 was passed.
    (3) The use has been determined to be appropriate as specified in 
section 1.10 of this chapter.
    B. Native American. American Indians in the conterminous United 
States, and Alaska Natives (including Aleuts, Eskimos, and Indians) who 
are members of federally recognized tribes.
    C. Priority public use. A wildlife-dependent recreational use 
involving hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or 
environmental education and interpretation.
    1.6 What are our responsibilities? A. Director. Provides national 
policy for determining the appropriateness of uses within the System to 
ensure that such determinations comply with all applicable authorities.
    B. Regional Director. (1) Ensures that refuge managers follow laws, 
regulations, and policies when determining appropriateness.
    (2) Notifies the Director regarding controversial or complex 
appropriateness determinations.
    C. Regional Chief. (1) Makes the final decision on appropriateness 
determinations when the Refuge Supervisor does not concur with the 
Refuge Manager.
    (2) Notifies the Regional Director regarding controversial or 
complex appropriateness determinations.
    D. Refuge Supervisor. (1) Reviews the Refuge Manager's 
determination that an existing or proposed use is appropriate when that 
use is not a priority public use, or does not support a priority public 
use, or is not already described in a refuge management plan approved 
after October 9, 1997.
    (2) Refers an appropriateness determination to the Regional Chief 
if the Refuge Supervisor does not concur with the Refuge Manager. 
Discusses non-concurrence with the Refuge Manager for possible 
resolution before referring to the Regional Chief.
    (3) Notifies the Regional Chief regarding controversial or complex 
appropriateness determinations.
    E. Refuge Manager. (1) Determines if a proposed or existing use is 
subject to this policy.
    (2) Determines whether a use is appropriate or not appropriate.
    (3) Documents all determinations under this policy as described in 
section 1.10 of this chapter in writing.
    (4) Refers all findings of appropriateness for any proposed use 
which is not a priority public use, or which does not directly support 
a priority public use, or which is not already described in a refuge 
management plan approved after October 9, 1997 to the Refuge Supervisor 
for concurrence.
    1.7 What is the relationship between appropriateness and 
compatibility? This policy describes the initial decision process the 
Refuge Manager follows when first considering whether to allow or not 
allow a proposed use on a refuge. This appropriateness decision occurs 
before the Refuge Manager undertakes a compatibility review of the use. 
This policy clarifies and expands upon 603 FW 2.10(D), which describes 
when refuge managers should deny a proposed use without determining 
compatibility. If we find a proposed use to be not appropriate, we will 
not allow the use, and there is no need to prepare a compatibility 
determination. By screening out proposed uses which are not appropriate 
to the System, the Refuge Manager avoids an unnecessary compatibility 
review. By following the process for determining the appropriateness of 
a use, we strengthen the System and help fulfill our wildlife 
conservation mission. We describe this appropriateness determination 
process in section 1.10 of this chapter. It is important to remember 
that although a refuge use may be determined to be both appropriate and 
compatible, the Refuge Manager retains the authority not to allow the 
use. For example, there may be occasions when two appropriate and 
compatible uses are in conflict with each other. In these situations, 
even though both uses are appropriate and compatible, the Refuge 
Manager may need to limit or entirely curtail one of the uses in order 
to optimize the greatest benefit to the public and to refuge resources. 
See 603 FW 2 for detailed policy on compatibility.
    1.8 How are uses considered in the comprehensive conservation 
planning process? A. We will manage all refuges in accordance with an 
approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP describes the 
desired future conditions of the refuge or refuge planning unit and 
provides long-range guidance and management direction to accomplish the 
purposes of the refuge and the System mission. The CCP is prepared with 
public involvement, and will include a review of the appropriateness 
and the compatibility of existing refuge uses and of any planned future 
uses. If during the CCP preparation we identify prior approved uses 
which we can no longer consider appropriate on the refuge, we will 
clearly explain to the public our reasons and describe how we will 
eliminate the use.
    B. We prepare CCPs with full public involvement, and provide the 
public an opportunity to review and comment on our decisions about 
which uses we will allow. For proposed new uses which we did not 
consider during the CCP preparation process, we will apply the 
guidelines contained in this policy and make an appropriateness 
determination without additional public review and comment. However, if 
we determine

[[Page 3679]]

that a proposed use is appropriate, the use must still pass the 
compatibility standard, which includes an opportunity for public review 
and comment. See 602 FW 1-4 for detailed policy on refuge planning.
    1.9 What are the different types of refuge uses? For the purposes 
of this policy, there are five types of uses.
    A. Priority public uses. These are uses involving hunting, fishing, 
wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 
interpretation. They are legitimate, appropriate, and are the first 
priority uses of the System. See 605 FW 1-7 for detailed policy on the 
priority public uses.
    B. Public uses that directly support a priority public use. These 
are uses necessary for the safe, practical, and effective conduct of 
priority public uses. When determined to be compatible, these are the 
second priority uses of the System. Uses that directly relate to and 
facilitate one of the six priority public uses are generally 
appropriate. Typically, these activities occur at the same time and 
place as the priority public use and are used either as a practical 
mode of access, or as an effective way to support a priority public 
use. In these cases, the primary reason for this use is to enable a 
person to enjoy one of the priority public uses. For example, boating 
on a refuge lake may be necessary to enjoy fishing or birdwatching; in 
this case the boating is an appropriate support activity. Conversely, 
speed boating for the pleasure of traveling on the open water is not an 
activity that supports one of the priority public uses. As another 
example, horseback riding and camping on the Charles M. Russell 
National Wildlife Refuge in Montana may be appropriate in support of 
big game hunting. In this case, horseback riding is a practical mode of 
access to remote, roadless areas, and camping is a necessary part of 
hunting in the remote parts of this vast refuge. On this refuge, or on 
other large or remote refuges, both horseback riding and camping may 
directly and appropriately support other priority public uses. As a 
contrasting example, camping on Necedah National Wildlife Refuge in 
Wisconsin, even if part of a hunting program, is not appropriate 
because the size of the refuge is such that camping is not necessary 
for reasonable access to its hunt areas, and there are camping and 
lodging accommodations nearby off the refuge. In order to ensure 
accessibility to refuge programs and activities for people with 
disabilities, we may authorize specialized means of access that are not 
normally allowed. We will provide these accommodations on a case-by-
case basis, depending on the nature of the individual's disability, and 
our needs to protect refuge resources. See 605 FW 1-7 for detailed 
policy on the priority public uses.
    C. Public uses not related to a priority public use. These public 
uses are not necessary to support a priority public use. Public uses 
not directly related to the priority public uses or that do not 
contribute to the fulfillment of refuge purposes, goals or objectives 
as described in current refuge management plans are the lowest priority 
for refuge managers to consider. Because these uses are likely to 
divert refuge management resources from higher priority public uses, or 
away from our wildlife conservation activities, there is general 
presumption, in both law and policy, against allowing such uses within 
the System. Before we will allow these uses, regardless of their 
frequency or duration, we must first determine that these public uses 
are appropriate as defined in section 1.10 of this chapter.
    D. Specialized uses. These are uses not usually allowed that 
require specific authorization from the Service, often in the form of a 
special use permit, letter of authorization, or other permit document. 
These uses do not include uses already granted by a prior existing 
right. We determine the appropriateness of specialized uses on a case-
by-case basis. Before we will allow a specialized use, we must 
determine it to be appropriate as defined in section 1.10 of this 
chapter. Any person denied a request for a specialized use, or 
adversely affected by the Refuge Manager's decision relating to a 
person's permit, may appeal the decision by following the procedures 
outlined in 50 CFR 25.45, and in 50 CFR 36.41(i). The appeals process 
for the denial of a right-of-way application is found in 50 CFR 29.22. 
The appeals process for persons who believe they have been improperly 
denied rights with respect to providing visitor services on Alaska 
refuges is found in 50 CFR 36.37(g). Some common examples of 
specialized uses include the following.
    (1) Right-of-ways. See 340 FW 3 and 603 FW 2 for detailed policy on 
right-of-ways.
    (2) Telecommunications facilities. We process a request to 
construct a telecommunication facility on a refuge the same way as any 
other right-of-way request. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not 
supersede any existing laws, regulations, or policy relating to right-
of-ways on refuges. The Refuge Manager should continue to follow the 
procedures found in 340 FW 3.
    (3) Military, NASA, border security, and other national defense 
uses. The following guidelines apply to refuge lands owned in fee title 
by the Service or lands to which the Service has management rights that 
provide for the control of such uses.
    (a) We will continue to honor existing, long-term written 
agreements such as Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the 
Service, the military, NASA, and other Federal agencies with national 
defense missions. Only the Director may approve any modification to 
existing agreements. We do not anticipate entering into any new 
agreements permitting military preparedness activities on national 
wildlife refuges. Where joint military/NASA--Service jurisdiction 
occurs by law, an MOU negotiated by the principal parties, and subject 
to the approval of the Director, will specify the roles and 
responsibilities, terms, and stipulations of the refuge uses. Wherever 
possible, we will work to find practical alternatives to the use of 
refuge lands, and to minimize the impacts to wildlife resources.
    (b) For routine or continuous law enforcement and border security 
activities, an MOU between the Service and the specific enforcement 
agency will clearly define roles and responsibilities of the enforcing 
agency and will specify steps they must take to minimize impacts to 
refuge resources. For emergency or undercover operations, reasonable 
notification must be given to and approval must be received from the 
Refuge Manager.
    (c) We consider military activities on refuge lands that directly 
benefit refuge purposes to be refuge management activities, and they 
are not subject to this policy. For example, in a case where a national 
guard unit is assisting the refuge with the construction of a water 
control structure, or helping to repair a refuge bridge, we consider 
these uses to be refuge management activities and do not consider them 
to be specialized uses.
    (4) Research. As a leader in wildlife management, we actively 
encourage cooperative wildlife resource-related research activities 
that address our management needs. We also encourage research related 
to the management of priority public uses. Wildlife resource-related 
research activities are generally appropriate. Research that directly 
benefits refuge management has priority over other research. These uses 
must be determined to be appropriate as defined in section 1.10 of this 
chapter.
    (5) Public safety training. We may assist local government agencies 
with

[[Page 3680]]

health, safety, and rescue training operations on the refuge if we 
determine the use to be appropriate. Examples include fire safety 
training, search and rescue training, and boat operations safety 
training. General law enforcement training exercises usually are not 
appropriate. We will evaluate these requests on a case-by-case basis, 
considering the availability of other local sites and the nature of 
other local resources. To the extent practicable, we will develop 
written agreements with the requesting agencies. These uses must be 
determined to be appropriate as defined in section 1.10 of this 
chapter, although it is unlikely that this type of use will pass the 10 
criteria listed there.
    (6) Native American ceremonial, religious, and traditional 
gathering of plants. We will review specific requests and provide 
reasonable access to Native Americans to refuge lands and waters for 
gathering plants for ceremonial, religious, medicinal, and traditional 
purposes. We may issue use permits if the use is consistent with 
treaties, judicial mandates, or Federal and Tribal law. These uses must 
be determined to be appropriate as defined in section 1.10 of this 
chapter.
    (7) Natural resource extractions. Although most refuges are 
withdrawn from the mining and mineral leasing laws (i.e., closed to 
mining activities), several are at least partially open. It is 
incumbent upon refuge managers to know if these laws affect their 
particular refuge. Where a refuge is closed, we will prohibit 
prospecting, exploration, development, extraction, or removal of 
leaseable (e.g., oil, gas, coal) and locatable (hardrock) minerals (see 
50 CFR 27.61 and .64). We only allow the extraction of certain mineral 
resources (such as gravel) that supports a refuge management activity 
when there is no practical alternative. We will not justify such 
activity by citing budgetary constraints, rather we will seek 
appropriate funding through our normal budgetary process for projects 
that require gravel or other such resources found on the refuge. In 
some instances, individual refuges may be subject to valid existing 
mineral rights reserved during the acquisition process or rights vested 
prior to our acquisition of the lands. The owners of valid mining 
rights have the right to extract the minerals, even if they do not own 
the surface, and we may not unduly interfere with this right. 
Activities or uses relative to prior existing rights are generally 
outside the scope of this chapter. In the case of reserved rights, the 
Refuge Manager should work with the owner of the property interest to 
develop stipulations in a special use permit or other access agreement 
to alleviate or minimize adverse impacts to the refuge (see 50 CFR 
29.32). ANILCA provides specific guidance for oil and gas leasing on 
Alaska refuges.
    (8) Commercial uses. Commercial uses on a refuge may be appropriate 
if they directly support a priority public use or are a refuge 
management economic activity. See 50 CFR 29.1 for additional 
information on economic uses of refuges. An example of an appropriate 
commercial use would be a concession-operated boat tour that 
facilitates wildlife observation and interpretation. All commercial 
uses are subject to appropriateness determinations. These uses must be 
determined to be appropriate as defined in section 1.10 of this 
chapter. The following is a list of references for more detailed policy 
on commercial uses.
    (a) Administration of commercial and economic uses 604 FW 2.
    (b) Administration of commercial guiding of wildlife observation, 
hunting and fishing 604 FW 2.
    (c) Concession management 604 FW 2.
    (d) Commercial audio-visual management 604 FW 7, and 43 CFR 5.
    (e) Commercial visitor services on Alaska Refuges 43 CFR 36.37.
    E. Prohibited uses. Regulations prohibiting certain activities on 
national wildlife refuges are listed in 50 CFR part 27.
    1.10  How do we determine the appropriateness of a use on a 
national wildlife refuge? A. A refuge use is appropriate if the use 
meets at least one of the following three conditions.
    (1) A use is appropriate if it is a priority public use or is 
necessary for the safe, practical, and effective conduct of a priority 
public use on the refuge. This finding does not require Refuge 
Supervisor concurrence.
    (2) A use is appropriate if it contributes to fulfilling the System 
mission, or the refuge purposes, goals, or objectives as described in a 
refuge management plan approved after October 9, 1997, the date the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 was passed. 
This finding does not require Refuge Supervisor concurrence.
    (3) A use is appropriate if the Refuge Manager documents in writing 
reasons why the use should be considered appropriate and obtains 
concurrence from the Refuge Supervisor (see Exhibit 1). The Refuge 
Manager will base this finding of appropriateness in consideration of 
the following 11 factors. If the answer is ``no'' to any of the 
following questions, we will generally not permit the use. If the 
answers are consistently ``yes'' to these questions, and if there are 
compelling reasons why the Refuge Manager believes the use is 
appropriate for the refuge, the Refuge Manager then prepares a written 
justification (Exhibit 1), and obtains the Refuge Supervisor's written 
concurrence before proceeding with preparation of a compatibility 
determination. Concurrence from the Refuge Supervisor will promote 
System consistency and will help us avoid establishing precedents that 
may be difficult to overcome in the future. Furthermore, refuge 
supervisors will usually consult with their Regional Chief as these 
decisions are made. This section specifically clarifies and expands 
upon 603 FW 2.10(D) Denying a proposed use without determining 
compatibility.
    (a) Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations? The 
proposed use must be consistent with all applicable laws and 
regulations (e.g., Wilderness Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine 
Mammal Protection Act, 50 CFR part 27). Uses that are prohibited by law 
are immediately rejected.
    (b) Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and 
Department and Service policies? If the proposed use conflicts with an 
applicable executive order, or Department or Service Policy then the 
use should be rejected.
    (c) Is the use consistent with refuge goals and objectives in an 
approved refuge management plan? Refuge goals and objectives are 
documented in approved refuge management plans (e.g., Comprehensive 
Conservation Plans, comprehensive management plans, master plans, step-
down management plans). If the proposed use, either directly or in 
combination with other uses or activities, conflicts with a refuge 
goal, objective or management strategy, the use should not be 
considered further. If a plan which addresses this use has not been 
developed or yet approved, refer to 1.10.A(1)(g) of this chapter.
    (d) Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use? If we 
have already considered the proposed use in a refuge planning process 
and rejected it as not appropriate, then the use should not be 
considered further. If circumstances have changed significantly, then 
we may consider the use further. If we did not raise the proposed use 
as an issue during a refuge planning process, we may further consider 
the use.
    (e) Is the use consistent with public safety? If the proposed use 
creates an unreasonable level of risk to visitors or refuge staff, or 
if the use requires refuge

[[Page 3681]]

staff to take unusual safety precautions to assure the safety of the 
public or other refuge staff, then the use should be rejected.
    (f) Is the use manageable within available budget and staff? 
Priority public uses take precedence over other public uses. If a 
proposed use diverts management efforts or resources away from the 
proper and reasonable management of a priority use, or from a refuge 
management activity, the proposed use should be rejected.
    (g) Is the use consistent with other resource or management 
objectives? If the Refuge Manager cannot articulate why a proposed use 
would be consistent with a stated wildlife conservation or other 
resource or public use management objective of the refuge, then the use 
should be rejected.
    (h) Will the use be easy to control in the future? If the use would 
lead to recurring requests for the same or similar activities that will 
be difficult to control in the future, then the request should be 
rejected. If we can manage the use so that impacts to wildlife 
resources are minimal or inconsequential, or if we can establish 
clearly defined limits, then we may further consider the use.
    (i) Is the refuge the only place this activity can reasonably 
occur? If there are other nearby public or private lands that can 
reasonably accommodate the use, then the use should be rejected. If the 
proposed use involves or commemorates a culturally or historically 
significant event or activity that has direct connection to the refuge, 
then we may further consider the use.
    (j) Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and 
appreciation of the refuge's wildlife or cultural resources, or is the 
use beneficial to the refuge's wildlife or cultural resources? We 
generally will not allow other uses that are not beneficial to or which 
do not lead to greater public understanding or appreciation of the 
refuge's cultural or wildlife resources.
    (k) Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses or reducing the potential to 
provide quality wildlife-dependent recreation into the future?
    B. If the Refuge Manager finds that a proposed use is not 
appropriate, the finding must be documented for the refuge files 
(Exhibit 1). This finding does not require Refuge Supervisor 
concurrence.
    C. Following the issuance of this policy, refuge managers must 
review all existing uses for appropriateness within 1 year. If the 
Refuge Manager finds that an existing use is not appropriate, the use 
must be modified so it is appropriate, or it must be terminated or 
phased out as expeditiously as practicable. This finding must be 
documented for the refuge files (Exhibit 1). A finding of ``not 
appropriate'' does not require Refuge Supervisor concurrence. However, 
the decision to modify or terminate a use may be subject to the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Refuge managers should 
consult with their Regional NEPA Coordinator to see if this decision 
would be subject to NEPA.
    D. The System Headquarters will maintain a database of refuge uses. 
This database will include a refuge-by-refuge listing of all uses that 
have been approved and not approved by refuge managers. With this 
information, refuge managers will know when proposed uses have already 
been approved or denied at any other unit of the System. This 
information will help strengthen the System by reinforcing consistency 
and integrity in the way we consider refuge uses.

Determination of Appropriateness of a Proposed Refuge Use

Refuge Name:-----------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Use:----------------------------------------------------------

    This form is not required for priority public uses, uses that 
support a priority public use, or uses already described in a 
current CCP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Yes           No
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed refuge use:
    Does the use comply with applicable laws and regulations?                           ...........  ...........
    Is the use consistent with applicable Executive Orders and Department and Service   ...........  ...........
     policies?
    Is the use consistent with refuge goals and objectives in an approved refuge        ...........  ...........
     management plan?
    Has an earlier documented analysis not denied the use?                              ...........  ...........
    Is the use consistent with public safety?                                           ...........  ...........
    Is the use manageable within available budget and staff?                            ...........  ...........
    Is the use consistent with other resource or management objectives?                 ...........  ...........
    Will this use be easy to control in the future?                                     ...........  ...........
    Is the refuge the only place this activity can reasonably occur?                    ...........  ...........
    Does the use contribute to the public's understanding and appreciation of the       ...........  ...........
     refuge's wildlife or cultural resources, or is the use beneficial to the refuge's
     wildlife or cultural resources?
    Can the use be accommodated without impairing existing wildlife-dependent
     recreational uses or reducing the potential to provide quality wildlife-dependent
     recreation into the future?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the answer to any of these questions is no, the proposed use 
is probably not appropriate and we should generally not consider it 
further. However, if there are compelling reasons why the Refuge 
Manager believes the use should be considered, the Refuge Manager 
must justify the use in writing on an attached sheet, and obtain the 
Refuge Supervisor's concurrence.
    Based on an overall assessment of these factors, my summary 
conclusion is that the proposed use is:

Not Appropriate--------------------------------------------------------

Appropriate------------------------------------------------------------

Refuge Supervisor:-----------------------------------------------------

Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
    If determined to be Not Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor does 
not need to sign concurrence:
    If determined to be Appropriate, the Refuge Supervisor must sign 
concurrence:

Refuge Supervisor:-----------------------------------------------------

Date:------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compatibility determination is required before the use may be 
allowed.

    Dated: December 18, 2000.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 01-19 Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U