[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 122 (Monday, June 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36418-36430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5644]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

RIN 1018-AU25


Final Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Uses Policy Pursuant to the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This policy explains how we will provide visitors with quality 
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
environmental education and interpretation opportunities on units of 
the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). The National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) that 
amends the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 
(Administration Act) defines and establishes that compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
photography, and environmental education and interpretation) are the 
priority general public uses of the Refuge System and will receive

[[Page 36419]]

enhanced and priority consideration in refuge planning and management 
over other general public uses. This final policy describes how we will 
facilitate these uses. We are incorporating this policy as Part 605, 
chapters 1-7, of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.

DATES: This policy is effective July 26, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Carson, Refuge Program 
Specialist, Division of Conservation Planning and Policy, National 
Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North 
Fairfax Drive, Room 670, Arlington, Virginia 22203; telephone (703) 
358-1744.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We published the Draft Wildlife-Dependent 
Recreational Uses Policy in the Federal Register on January 16, 2001 
(66 FR 3681). We invited the public to provide comments on the draft 
policy. The initial comment period closed on March 19, 2001. On March 
15, 2001, we extended the comment period to April 19, 2001 (66 FR 
15136). On May 15, 2001, we reopened the comment period to June 14, 
2001 (66 FR 26879), and on June 21, 2001, we reopened the comment 
period until June 30, 2001 (66 FR 33268). In our June 21, 2001, notice, 
we also corrected the May 15, 2001, notice to reflect that comments 
received between April 19 and May 15, 2001, would be considered and 
need not be resubmitted.

Background

    The Improvement Act (Pub. L. 105-57) amends and builds upon the 
Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 662dd et seq.), providing an ``organic 
act'' for the Refuge System. The Improvement Act clearly establishes 
the Refuge System mission, provides guidance to the Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary) for management of the Refuge 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 Refuge System.
    The Improvement Act defines six wildlife-dependent recreational 
uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
environmental education and interpretation) that, when compatible, are 
the priority general public uses of the Refuge System. The Improvement 
Act also provides a set of affirmative stewardship responsibilities 
regarding our administration of the Refuge System. These stewardship 
responsibilities direct us to ensure that compatible wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses are provided enhanced consideration and priority over 
other general public uses.
    The Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460-460k-4) 
(Recreation Act) authorizes us to regulate or curtail public 
recreational uses in order to ensure that we accomplish our primary 
conservation objectives. The Recreation Act also directs us to 
administer the Refuge System for public recreation when the use is an 
``appropriate incidental or secondary use.'' The Improvement Act 
provides the Refuge System mission and includes specific directives and 
a clear hierarchy of public uses of the Refuge System.
    Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority 
general public uses of the Refuge System, have been determined to be 
appropriate by law, and are to be facilitated. This wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses policy, along with the appropriate refuge uses policy 
and our compatibility policy and regulations, are key tools refuge 
managers use together to fortify our commitment to provide enhanced 
opportunities for the public to enjoy compatible wildlife-dependent 
recreation while at the same time ensuring that no refuge uses 
compromise individual refuge purpose(s) or the Refuge System mission. 
Through careful planning, consistent Refuge Systemwide 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 Refuge System, we can achieve individual refuge 
purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission while providing people with 
lasting opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent recreation.

Final Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Uses Policy

    To ensure we achieve individual refuge purpose(s) as well as the 
Refuge System mission and to be sure we afford priority to compatible 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses within the Refuge System, we are 
establishing a policy on wildlife-dependent recreational uses. This 
policy is intended to improve the internal management of the Service, 
and it is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, 
substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party 
against the United States, its Departments, agencies, instrumentalities 
or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person. The 
following is a summary of this policy.
    Chapter 1, General Guidance, provides Service policies, strategies, 
and requirements concerning the management of wildlife-dependent 
recreation programs within the Refuge System. Refuges are national 
treasures for the conservation of wildlife and for people who enjoy the 
wonders of the outdoors. Wildlife-dependent recreation programs promote 
understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources and 
their management in the Refuge System. To assure that the Refuge 
System's fish, wildlife, and plant resources are professionally 
managed, their needs should be considered first. Therefore we only 
allow wildlife-dependent recreational uses on a refuge after we 
determine the use to be compatible. We encourage refuge staff to 
develop and take full advantage of opportunities to work with other 
partners who have an interest in helping us promote quality wildlife-
dependent recreational programs on refuges. Our general policy is to 
provide the American public quality opportunities to take part in 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. To accomplish this policy, we 
ensure consistency and professionalism in planning and implementing 
wildlife-dependent recreational use programs and activities in the 
Refuge System. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses 
(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
environmental education and interpretation) are the priority general 
public uses of the Refuge System and will receive enhanced and priority 
consideration in refuge planning and management over all other general 
public uses.
    Chapter 2, Hunting, provides Service policy governing the 
management of recreational hunting within the Refuge System. The 
Improvement Act identifies hunting as a wildlife-dependent recreational 
use of the Refuge System. Hunting programs help promote understanding 
and appreciation of natural resources and their management in the 
Refuge System. Hunting is also an integral part of a comprehensive 
wildlife management program. We strongly encourage refuge managers to 
provide the public quality compatible hunting opportunities. We work 
cooperatively with the State fish and wildlife agencies to plan and 
implement hunting programs, and we conduct the programs, to the extent 
practicable, consistent with applicable State laws, regulations, and 
management plans. In addition, we plan hunting programs in consultation 
and cooperation with appropriate tribal agencies, and we conduct them, 
to the extent practicable, consistent with applicable tribal 
regulations. We encourage refuge staff to develop and take full 
advantage of

[[Page 36420]]

opportunities to work with other partners who have an interest in 
helping us promote quality wildlife-dependent recreational programs on 
refuges.
    Chapter 3, Fishing, provides Service policy governing the 
management of recreational fishing within the Refuge System. The 
Improvement Act identifies fishing as a wildlife-dependent recreational 
use of the Refuge System. Fishing programs help promote understanding 
and appreciation of natural resources and their management in the 
Refuge System. We strongly encourage refuge managers to provide the 
public quality compatible fishing opportunities. We work cooperatively 
with the State fish and wildlife agencies to plan and implement fishing 
programs, and we conduct them, to the extent practicable, consistent 
with applicable State laws, regulations, and management plans. 
Additionally, we plan fishing programs in consultation and cooperation 
with appropriate tribal agencies, and we conduct them, to the extent 
practicable, consistent with applicable tribal regulations. We base 
fishing seasons on refuges on applicable State regulations, local 
conditions, and biological objectives. The Service's Division of Fish 
and Wildlife Management and Habitat Restoration has many field offices 
with a broad range of expertise that are available to the refuge 
manager when planning and managing fishing programs. We encourage 
refuge managers to take advantage of this important resource. We also 
encourage refuge staff to develop and take full advantage of 
opportunities to work with other partners who have an interest in 
helping us promote quality wildlife-dependent recreational programs on 
refuges.
    Chapter 4, Wildlife Observation, provides Service policy governing 
the management of recreational wildlife observation within the Refuge 
System. The Improvement Act identifies wildlife observation as a 
wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System. Wildlife 
observation programs help promote understanding and appreciation of 
natural resources and their management on all lands in the Refuge 
System. We strongly encourage refuge managers to provide the public 
quality compatible wildlife observation opportunities. We also 
encourage refuge managers to coordinate refuge wildlife observation 
programs with applicable Federal, State, and tribal programs. We 
encourage refuge staff to develop and take full advantage of 
opportunities to work with other partners who have an interest in 
helping us promote quality wildlife-dependent recreational programs on 
refuges.
    Chapter 5, Wildlife Photography, provides Service policy governing 
the management of recreational wildlife photography within the Refuge 
System. The Improvement Act identifies wildlife photography as a 
wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System. Wildlife 
photography programs help promote understanding and appreciation of 
natural resources and their management on all lands in the Refuge 
System. We strongly encourage refuge managers to provide the public 
with quality compatible wildlife photography opportunities. We also 
encourage refuge managers to coordinate wildlife photography programs 
with applicable State programs. We encourage refuge staff to develop 
and take full advantage of opportunities to work with other partners 
who have an interest in helping us promote quality wildlife-dependent 
recreational programs on refuges.
    Chapter 6, Environmental Education, provides Service policy 
governing the management of environmental education within the Refuge 
System. The Improvement Act identifies environmental education as a 
wildlife-dependent recreational use of the Refuge System. Environmental 
education programs help promote understanding and appreciation of 
natural and cultural resources and their management on all lands in the 
Refuge System. We strongly encourage refuge managers to provide the 
public quality compatible environmental education opportunities. Refuge 
managers should work with local schools and other organizations to 
provide these programs. We also encourage refuge managers to coordinate 
refuge environmental education programs with applicable Federal, State, 
and local programs. We encourage refuge staff to develop and take full 
advantage of opportunities to work with other partners who have an 
interest in helping us promote quality wildlife-dependent recreational 
programs on refuges.
    Chapter 7, Interpretation, provides Service policy governing the 
management of interpretation within the Refuge System. The Improvement 
Act identifies interpretation as a wildlife-dependent recreational use 
of the Refuge System. Interpretation programs help promote 
understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources and 
their management on all lands in the Refuge System. We strongly 
encourage refuge managers to provide to the public quality compatible 
interpretation opportunities. We encourage refuge staff to coordinate 
refuge interpretive programs and materials with applicable Federal, 
State, and local programs. We also encourage refuge staff to develop 
and take full advantage of opportunities to work with other partners 
who have an interest in helping us promote quality wildlife-dependent 
recreational programs on refuges.

Summary of Comments Received

    During public comment periods, we received a total of 647 comment 
letters by mail, fax, or e-mail on our draft policy from Federal, 
State, and local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, 
and private citizens. Of these, 439 were form letters generally 
supporting the policies in their draft form and commending the Service 
for its proactive approach. We categorized the remaining responses into 
50 issue categories, broken down by the chapter to which they most 
applied: General guidance--11; hunting--15; fishing--10, wildlife 
observation--5; wildlife photography--3, environmental education--3; 
and interpretation--3. These categories represent our analysis of the 
comments and our effort to ensure that all were addressed. Several 
comments were not relevant to this policy, and we do not address them.
    As a result of the comments received and our own review of the 
various chapters, we made editorial changes to improve the clarity and 
readability of the policy. We streamlined information in chapters 2-7, 
placed information applicable to all chapters in chapter 1, and revised 
language in the chapters to improve consistency and readability. 
Although the chapters have been restructured and streamlined, the 
revisions do not significantly change the scope, context, or focus of 
the chapters.

Issue Categories

General Guidance

1-1. General partnerships/public involvement.
1-2. State coordination.
1-3. Insufficient funds should not be enough to prohibit wildlife-
dependent recreational uses.
1-4. Clarify the use of the term ``high quality.''
1-5. Resolution of conflicts among wildlife-dependent recreational 
uses.
1-6. Provide documentation to partners when a compatibility 
determination results in the prohibition of a wildlife-dependent 
recreational use.
1-7. Add category of nonpriority wildlife-dependent recreational 
uses.
1-8. Clarification of terms or wording used in policy.
1-9. Existing uses should be grandfathered into wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses.
1-10. Add/clarify provision to close refuges to a particular use if 
a situation merits.
1-11. Too much refuge manager autonomy.

[[Page 36421]]

Hunting

2-1. Hunting with dogs.
2-2. Trapping.
2-3. Ethical standards.
2-4. Migratory birds.
2-5. Proficiency testing.
2-6. Nontoxic shot restrictions.
2-7. Night use of refuges.
2-8. ``Inviolate'' sanctuary.
2-9. Revise section 2.13 of the draft hunting chapter to demonstrate 
the desire for a balanced hunting program.
2-10. Revise Exhibit 1, section III, to remove the term ``impact'' 
and use a less intrusive word.
2-11. Population goals and objectives in hunting plan.
2-12. Crippling loss.
2-13. Reliance on technology.
2-14. Use of the word ``weapon.''
2-15. Tournament hunting.

Fishing

3-1. Tournament fishing.
3-2. Use of nonnative bait.
3-3. Commercial fishing.
3-4. Population goals and objectives in fishing plan.
3-5. Native fish.
3-6. Night use of refuges.
3-7. Use of barbless hooks.
3-8. Authority of the Service to control navigable waters.
3-9. Use of nontoxic tackle.
3-10. Ice fishing.

Wildlife Observation

4-1. No requirement mentioned for wildlife observation plan and not 
mentioned under requirements for CCPs.
4-2. Move concepts to appendix or another plan.
4-3. Emphasize hiking as a wildlife observation opportunity.
4-4. Wildlife observation chapter does not have the same level of 
thoroughness as hunting and fishing chapters.
4-5. Conflicting relationships in draft sections of the draft 
wildlife observation chapter.

Wildlife Photography

5-1. No requirement mentioned for wildlife photography plan and not 
mentioned under requirements for CCPs.
5-2. Emphasize hiking as a wildlife photography opportunity.
5-3. Wildlife photography chapter does not have the same level of 
thoroughness as hunting and fishing chapters.

Environmental Education

6-1. Tribal consultation and coordination.
6-2. Educate the public on the importance of hunting as a wildlife 
management tool.
6-3. Environmental Education chapter does not have the same level of 
thoroughness as the hunting and fishing policies.

Interpretation

7-1. Tribal consultation and coordination.
7-2. Increase public understanding and support for wildlife 
management practices.
7-3. Interpretation chapter does not have the same level of 
thoroughness as the hunting and fishing policies.

General Guidance

Issue 1-1: General Partnerships/Public Involvement

    Comment: We received six comments suggesting that we include 
specific requirements for public/partnership involvement and 
stakeholder consultation in the development of our policy and/or 
management plans. One commenter suggested that we develop interim 
approval processes to expedite hunting on refuges until public 
consultation/coordination is completed. Another commenter suggested it 
was inappropriate to propose policy without giving the public an 
opportunity to comment.
    Response: The hunting and fishing policies specifically require the 
refuge manager to seek public involvement for any new or significant 
changes to these programs. The policies require the refuge manager to 
plan ahead and to obtain as much involvement from groups and 
individuals as possible. These policies suggest methods of obtaining 
input, including the use of public meetings, news releases, and 
mailings.
    Our hunting and fishing policies state that refuge managers must 
provide interested stakeholders an opportunity to provide input into 
significant programs. This opportunity most commonly occurs during the 
comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) planning process. Additional 
opportunities to provide input may occur during the development of a 
visitor services plan (VSP), a step-down management plan of the CCP. 
The VSP is the overarching document for providing visitor services in 
the Refuge System. This plan is an analysis of all aspects of visitor 
service programs on a refuge, including, but not limited to, programs 
associated with wildlife-dependent recreation.
    An additional interim approval process to expedite hunting on 
refuges would not shorten the required process. Opening a refuge to 
hunting or fishing is different than opening a refuge to other 
wildlife-dependent recreation in that refuge-specific regulations must 
be printed in the Federal Register. These refuge-specific regulations 
must be published prior to opening a refuge.
    By releasing draft policies in the Federal Register, distributing 
news releases, using the worldwide web, and opening the policy comment 
period for over 120 days to interested individuals and groups for 
comment, we feel that we adequately informed the public of the 
existence of this draft policy and gave ample time and opportunity for 
the public to comment.

Issue 1-2: State Coordination

    Comment: We received numerous comments from State fish and wildlife 
agencies and nongovernmental organizations that requested we revise the 
policies to emphasize language from the Improvement Act that directs 
the Secretary of the Interior to variously interact, coordinate, 
cooperate, and collaborate with the States in a timely and effective 
manner on the acquisition and management of refuges. The law further 
directs the Secretary to ensure that Refuge System regulations and 
management plans are, to the extent practicable, consistent with State 
laws, regulations, and management plans.
    Response: Effective conservation of fish, wildlife, and plants and 
their habitat depends on the partnership and cooperation among many 
individuals and organizations. Especially important is the professional 
relationship between fish and wildlife managers at the State and 
Federal levels. The importance of that relationship is reflected in the 
Improvement Act. The final policies include language directing refuge 
managers to coordinate with State fish and wildlife agencies whenever 
changes are made to refuge hunting or fishing programs. The draft 
wildlife-dependent recreational use policy chapters contained direction 
to refuge managers to work cooperatively with State fish and wildlife 
agencies. We strengthened this guidance in this final version of the 
policy in section 1.13C.
    The language we added follows the mandate of the Improvement Act 
and reflects our intent to work cooperatively with State fish and 
wildlife agencies in the management of the Refuge System. However, when 
differences occur, the Service retains the authority to make final 
decisions consistent with refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System 
mission. State representatives continue to have the ability to discuss 
these decisions with the decisionmaker and their organizational 
superiors.

Issue 1-3: Insufficient Funds Should Not Be Enough To Prohibit 
Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Uses

    Comment: We received comments suggesting that the wording ``refuge 
managers will offer wildlife-dependent recreational use programs only 
to the extent that staff and funds are sufficient to develop, operate, 
and maintain the program to safe, high quality standards'' 
unnecessarily allows refuge managers an ambiguous ``out'' if they do 
not want to provide for any one of the six

[[Page 36422]]

wildlife-dependent recreational uses, specifically hunting.
    Response: With respect to the comments mentioned above, our answer 
addresses all six wildlife-dependent recreational uses even though the 
commenters specifically related their comments to hunting. The 
statement is meant to ensure that refuge managers use available funding 
and staff resources wisely when offering wildlife-dependent 
recreational opportunities on refuges. The statement does not serve as 
a mechanism for justifying or favoring one use over another or 
prohibiting a use such as hunting because the refuge manager is opposed 
to hunting. The six wildlife-dependent recreational uses are equal. We 
revised section 1.10 in the final policy to encourage refuge managers 
to use partnerships, user fee programs, and cooperative efforts, where 
appropriate, to increase opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent 
uses.

Issue 1-4: Clarify the Use of the Term ``High Quality''

    Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of the term 
``high quality,'' and one commenter believed that we were mandating 
that all wildlife-dependent uses had to meet these standards or they 
could not occur on refuges.
    Response: In the individual chapters, we clarified most terms that 
commenters stated were ambiguous. We developed 11 criteria to evaluate 
the quality of our wildlife-dependent recreation programs (section 
1.6). The ``quality'' criteria are factors to consider when developing 
wildlife-dependent recreational use programs, and not immutable 
standards. They are guidelines for refuge managers to use when 
starting, analyzing, or evaluating a wildlife-dependent recreational 
use. Nothing in the policy requires that any of the wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses meet all of the goals listed under the ``quality'' 
definition. The term ``quality'' is used as a standard we strive to 
achieve in our wildlife-dependent recreational use programs. However, 
we have removed the modifiers ``high'' and ``highest'' from quality 
throughout these chapters. In addition, we moved the discussions of 
quality from the chapters on specific wildlife-dependent recreational 
uses to the general guidance chapter. We apply the concept of quality 
to all of our wildlife-dependent recreational use programs equally.

Issue 1-5: Resolution of Conflicts Among Wildlife-Dependent 
Recreational Uses

    Comment: Several States commented that there is no protocol for 
resolving conflicts among priority general public uses with the final 
decision left to the refuge manager. In addition, several of the States 
requested an appeals process.
    Response: The Improvement Act and accompanying House Report 105-106 
strongly encourage refuge managers to provide wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses that are compatible and urged them to use ``sound 
professional judgment'' when making determinations on proposed uses. 
There is no implicit priority described in the Improvement Act that 
elevates one of the wildlife-dependent recreational uses over another. 
The Improvement Act and accompanying House Report 105-106 were silent 
on the issue of an appeals process, and we do not propose to include 
such an appeals process in these chapters. Director's Order No. 148 
addresses coordination and cooperation with State fish and wildlife 
agencies. In addition, there is a mechanism for State fish and wildlife 
agencies to participate in the CCP process (602 FW 1.7B). We also 
provide other opportunities for State fish and wildlife agencies to 
participate in the development and implementation of program changes 
that would be made outside of the CCP process. We will continue to 
provide State fish and wildlife agencies opportunities to discuss and, 
if necessary, elevate decisions within the hierarchy of the Service. 
The final policy clarifies this.

Issue 1-6: Provide Documentation to Partners When a Compatibility 
Determination Results in a Prohibited Wildlife-Dependent Recreational 
Use

    Comment: Several commenters requested that we provide rigorous 
documentation when negative compatibility determinations are made 
resulting in the prohibition of a wildlife-dependent recreational use.
    Response: We agree and believe this requirement is adequately 
addressed in the compatibility policy (603 FW 2). These wildlife-
dependent recreational use chapters only reference the need to adhere 
to the compatibility standards, and as such, are not the appropriate 
location to provide additional assurances that certain responsibilities 
are met.

Issue 1-7: Add Category of Nonpriority Wildlife-Dependent Recreational 
Uses

    Comment: We received two comments suggesting there are certain 
activities that fall under the category ``non-priority wildlife-
dependent recreational uses.'' Examples given were frog gigging, live 
collection of nonprotected vertebrates and insects, and set lines.
    Response: The Improvement Act defined wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses as hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We are 
unable to deviate from this legal definition. The Refuge Manual (8 RM 
9) covers other refuge uses.

Issue 1-8: Clarification of Terms or Wording Used in Policy

    Comment: One commenter requested that we change the term 
``targeted'' species in the draft chapter to ``specified'' species. We 
also received numerous comments suggesting editorial changes or 
clarification of terms or wording used in the policy.
    Response: We left the term ``target'' because it seemed to more 
clearly articulate our thought process in this section. We did a 
thorough review of the policy and, where necessary, changed the wording 
of sections to improve clarity and understanding. In addition to 
comments received from our public review process, we reviewed the 
chapters to ensure they met the mandates of the Improvement Act, Refuge 
System mission, and other appropriate guidelines. One example of such 
an internal editorial change was reference and relationship of 
recreational uses to visitor services. We moved information from the 
interpretation chapter related to a visitor services plan (VSP) and 
added additional clarification language into the general guidance 
chapter.

Issue 1-9: Existing Uses Should Be Grandfathered Into Wildlife-
Dependent Recreational Uses

    Comment: Two commenters suggested that preexisting wildlife-
dependent recreational uses should be ``grandfathered'' into a refuge's 
visitor services program and that, in effect, this policy would only 
apply to a new use or an extension of an existing use.
    Response: We disagree; the Improvement Act clearly states: ``the 
Secretary shall not initiate or permit a new use of a refuge or expand, 
renew, or extend an existing use of a refuge, unless the Secretary has 
determined that the use is a compatible use and that the use is not 
inconsistent with public safety.'' This language clearly directs us to 
conduct compatibility determinations on all public uses, whether 
preexisting or not. Therefore, we did not make any

[[Page 36423]]

changes to the policies in response to these comments.

Issue 1-10: Add/Clarify Provision to Close a Refuge to a Particular Use 
if a Situation Merits

    Comment: One commenter requested that we add a provision that would 
allow the closure of a refuge in case of disease outbreak. Two 
commenters questioned our authority to close refuges on waters where we 
have no jurisdiction. One commenter was concerned that this section 
allows a refuge manager to close a refuge to hunting without cause.
    Response: We already have regulations covering the closure of 
refuges and do not think it is necessary to elaborate on them in this 
policy. They state that a refuge manager may close all or any part of a 
refuge that is open whenever necessary to protect the resources of the 
area or in the event of an emergency endangering life, property, or any 
population of wildlife, fish, or plants. The sections, as written, 
allow for closure in case of disease outbreak. Refuge policy only 
affects lands and waters under our jurisdiction.
    We base nonemergency closures on impacts to wildlife populations, 
ecosystems, and priority recreation uses. We follow the public 
participation process identified in the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA). If the impacts are likely to be major or controversial, we 
require the preparation of an environmental assessment. This 
requirement deters the arbitrary closure of a refuge to a compatible 
wildlife-dependent recreational use unless the situation merits.

Issue 1-11: Too Much Refuge Manager Autonomy

    Comment: Several State fish and wildlife agencies expressed concern 
that refuge managers have too much authority or discretion when 
approving or disapproving public use activities.
    Response: The refuge manager at the site is best positioned and 
equipped to make these decisions. These policies as well as training 
will guide the refuge mangers in making decisions. To ensure 
consistency, the refuge managers submit certain decisions, such as 
compatibility determinations, to the Regional office for review before 
they are finalized.
    This creates a check and balance system that ensures consistency 
and provides a vehicle for States to use in the case of disagreement.

Hunting

Issue 2-1: Hunting With Dogs

    Comment: Several commenters suggested the language under which 
pursuit hounds would be permitted is so restrictive that we essentially 
prohibit the use of pursuit hounds in the policy. Several commenters 
pointed out that an untrained dog, no matter the type, could adversely 
affect wildlife habitat and resources, so the need to differentiate 
between breeds is unnecessary.
    Response: The intent of the draft policy was not to prohibit the 
use of pursuit hounds, but to encourage the use of well-trained dogs in 
the Refuge System. Since pursuit hounds are more likely to range out of 
the control of the hunter, more stringent guidelines were placed on 
these dogs. We agree with the concerns of the commenters, and we 
rewrote the section on use of dogs to create an equally stringent 
evaluation for the use of all dogs on refuges.

Issue 2-2: Trapping

    Comment: We received numerous comments expressing concern that 
trapping was not addressed in the hunting chapter. Several commenters 
suggested that trapping is a legitimate wildlife-dependent recreational 
use and an appropriate and compatible use on most refuges in the Refuge 
System. Other commenters requested that we clarify and/or identify 
trapping, because it has important management implications for some 
refuges in the Refuge System. One commenter assumed that since 
recreational trapping was not mentioned, it was considered a form of 
hunting and recommended that we clarify our position in the final 
policy.
    Response: The Improvement Act clearly defines wildlife-dependent 
recreation as ``a use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 
observation and photography, or environmental education and 
interpretation.'' This definition does not include trapping. The 
Improvement Act, as well as accompanying House Report 105-106, 
specifically identifies ``regulated take'' as a management activity. We 
consider trapping an important management tool, as well as a method of 
take regulated by States. As such, we have not addressed trapping in 
this chapter. However, if determined compatible, recreational trapping 
can be allowed under State regulations. For more information regarding 
the compatibility of trapping, see 603 FW 2.

Issue 2-3: Ethical Standards

    Comment: One commenter stated that ethics are a matter of 
individual conscience and that law enforcement is the proper province 
of the Service. Another commenter stated that hunters operating within 
the limits of game laws are by default ethical, therefore the Service 
should be concentrating on hunting as a management tool and not the 
ethics of hunters.
    Response: We agree that it would be difficult for the Service to 
enforce an ambiguous concept of ethics for hunters. We also agree that 
hunters operating within the guidelines of State and refuge-specific 
hunting regulations are usually ethical. Therefore, we removed the 
references to ethics and ethical behavior.

Issue 2-4: Migratory Birds

    Comment: One commenter requested that a reference to State 
involvement in the determination of migratory bird regulations be added 
to the hunting policy, and another requested that migratory bird 
management be articulated in the chapter.
    Response: We agree that the draft policy (section 2.3) did not 
clearly articulate the States' role in developing and setting migratory 
bird hunting regulations. As such, we revised the policy in several 
places to include the importance of the role of State fish and wildlife 
agencies in determining hunting regulations.

Issue 2-5: Proficiency Testing

    Comment: One commenter stated that allowing refuge managers to 
impose proficiency testing more restrictive than that of the State 
gives a refuge manager license to advance a personal philosophy which 
may be anti-hunting.
    Response: Our hunting policy does not require mandatory testing or 
qualifications above State requirements. In fact, proficiency testing 
is and will continue to be rare in the Refuge System. Our hunting 
policy does allow a refuge manager to implement a proficiency test more 
restrictive than that required by the State under special 
circumstances. Before we implement a proficiency test, we carefully put 
it through several levels of review and require the Regional Refuge 
System chief's approval. This review process, and the subsequent 
requirement for Regional approval, makes it difficult for an individual 
refuge manager's bias to drive the management of a hunting program.

Issue 2-6: Nontoxic Shot Restrictions

    Comment: One commenter requested we clarify section 2.13Q of the 
draft

[[Page 36424]]

hunting chapter to reflect that nontoxic shot restrictions do not 
necessarily apply to deer or turkey hunters.
    Response: We agree, and we revised this section accordingly.

Issue 2-7: Night Use of Refuges

    Comment: One commenter agreed that nighttime hunting and fishing 
may not be appropriate on all refuges, but the use should be 
independently evaluated.
    Response: We believe our hunting policy, as written, gives refuge 
managers the ability to independently evaluate the night use of a 
refuge. Our policy states that we allow night hunting when it is 
compatible with refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It 
also states that if a refuge is generally not open after sunset, refuge 
managers may make an exception and allow night hunting. No change to 
the wording of the chapter was necessary.

Issue 2-8: ``Inviolate'' Sanctuary

    Comment: Several commenters questioned the use of the term 
``inviolate'' sanctuary. These commenters stated that many people 
associate the word inviolate with closed to entry and therefore closed 
to hunting. One commenter stated that the wording in the draft hunting 
policy would attach inviolate sanctuary status to refuges other than 
waterfowl production areas, easement refuges, etc., that were purchased 
to fulfill the purpose of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. One commenter 
stated that there is no longer a need for inviolate sanctuaries with 
all the habitat restoration accomplished by States, other government 
agencies, and private landowners.
    Response: The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, as amended 
(MBCA), defines the term ``inviolate sanctuaries'' where take of birds 
was prohibited. Subsequent amendments to the Duck Stamp Act and the 
Administration Act authorized the Secretary to allow hunting in these 
areas up to certain limits. The hunting policy chapter cannot change 
the statutory definition of this term. We therefore use the term 
``inviolate'' as it is defined in the MBCA and as modified by law. In 
our draft policy, we attempted to simplify the long and complex 
explanation of inviolate sanctuaries outlined in the 1982 Refuge Manual 
hunting policy. After careful review, we agree with the commenter that 
the draft policy erroneously applies inviolate sanctuary status to 
refuges not purchased under the MBCA. The draft policy did not 
adequately clarify the language; therefore, we replaced the language of 
the draft policy with language used in the 1982 hunting policy. The 
final hunting chapter explains various scenarios when we may restrict 
hunting by law.
    When we use funds from the MBCA to purchase bird habitat, these 
lands are subject to the regulations, restrictions, and purposes of the 
MBCA and the Administration Act. We agree that much progress has been 
made in habitat restoration since the MBCA was signed into law, but the 
40 percent restriction for any refuge that is designated ``for use as 
an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for 
migratory birds' remains.

Issue 2-9: Revise Section 2.13 of the Draft Hunting Chapter to 
Demonstrate the Desire for a Balanced Hunting Program

    Comment: We received several comments requesting that we add a 
stipulation that all methods of take permitted by State law be allowed, 
to the extent feasible, on refuges.
    Response: The Administration Act states that when we open a refuge 
to hunting or fishing, the Refuge System regulations should be, to the 
extent practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, 
regulations, and management plans. We revised the text to clarify this. 
When Refuge System regulations differ from State regulations, we 
publish those differences in the Federal Register. We also consult with 
State fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and other appropriate 
authorities during the development of hunting programs and whenever we 
plan significant changes to our existing hunting programs.

Issue 2-10: Revise Exhibit 1, Section III, to Remove the Term 
``Impact'' and Use a Less Intrusive Word

    Comment: Three commenters were concerned that by using the word 
``impact'' in the statement of objectives section in exhibit 1, we 
automatically presumed that hunting will impact refuge objectives.
    Response: It was not our intent to imply that hunting, by default, 
created an impact on refuge objectives. We revised this exhibit and 
removed the term ``impact.''

Issue 2-11: Population Goals and Objectives in Hunting Plan

    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the policy 
encourages population objectives that may differ from State population 
objectives and recommended that State wildlife agencies be involved 
closely during this process. Some commenters suggested replacing the 
phrase ``to the extent practicable'' with the phrase ``to the greatest 
extent possible.''
    Response: We coordinate closely with the State fish and wildlife 
agencies concerning wildlife population objectives, and in many cases 
State plans may provide the wildlife population objective levels for a 
refuge. We stress coordination and cooperation with State fish and 
wildlife agencies throughout the policy. There will be circumstances 
where refuge objectives may differ from State objectives because our 
missions differ. We revised some text to clarify the relationship 
between the State fish and wildlife agencies and the Refuge System. The 
phrase ``to the extent practicable'' is a direct quote from the 
Administration Act, and we kept the statutory language in the policy.

Issue 2-12: Crippling Loss

    Comment: Two commenters commented on the ambiguity of the term 
``crippling loss.'' One suggested the number of dogs used has an 
insignificant impact on crippling loss.
    Response: We agree, and we removed the term from the final policy.

Issue 2-13: Reliance on Technology

    Comment: A number of commenters requested clarification of what was 
meant by the ``use of technology designed to increase the advantage of 
the hunter.''
    Response: The intent of the draft policies was to reflect that 
refuge hunts should minimize the use of vehicles and adopt State 
restrictions on a number of technological advances that increase hunter 
efficiency (for example, inline muzzleloaders, night scopes, and let-
off of compound bows). The result was confusing, and technology was 
undefined. We revised and moved the entire ``quality hunting 
experience'' section and other sections dealing with quality to section 
1.6 of the final policy. This section now covers the term ``quality'' 
for all compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, which includes 
hunting.

Issue 2-14: Use of the Word ``Weapon''

    Comment: Two commenters requested that we remove the word 
``weapon'' from sections 2.6C and the 2.13O in the draft policy. One 
commenter suggested the word ``weapon'' denotes a relationship with war 
and the other stated that hunter education programs discourage the use 
of the word ``weapons.''
    Response: We no longer use the word ``weapon.'' We refer to 
``special season hunts'' in the final policy.

[[Page 36425]]

Issue 2-15: Tournament Hunting

    Comment: We received several comments concerned about our 
definition of tournament hunting and its prohibition on the Refuge 
System.
    Response: We eliminated tournament hunting from the definitions 
section and from the policy.

Fishing

Issue 3-1: Tournament Fishing

    Comment: There were many comments on our proposed tournament 
fishing policy. Most commenters questioned the restriction on awards 
and the implication that tournament fishing had negative effects on 
fish populations. Commenters argued that we should remove the 
restrictions on tournament fishing because of the economic effects on 
local communities, the lack of science supporting the need to limit 
tournaments on refuge waters, the fact that fishermen and hunters are 
natural resources' strongest contributors, and that tournaments employ 
a ``catch and release'' ethic. A few States questioned the authority of 
the Federal Government to regulate fish populations. Some States 
requested that we not set national policy governing fishing 
tournaments, but assess this activity on a case-by-case basis. One 
commenter stated we should not just focus on monetary awards received 
for fishing, but instead we should limit organizational activities and 
prize awards on refuge property as a whole.
    The majority of comments we received on tournament fishing 
disagreed with the draft tournament fishing policy. We also received a 
number of letters and e-mails from individuals who wrote supporting the 
draft tournament fishing language and described their mostly negative 
fishing experience around an active fishing tournament.
    Response: It is not our intent to ban tournament fishing on Refuge 
System waters, but instead to ensure that tournaments do not displace 
other anglers. We have attempted to develop policy that ensures the 
refuge is open to all anglers, even during a tournament. The fishing 
policy is designed so it does not favor tournaments over the individual 
angler. We understand the benefits tournament fishing provides to the 
sport of fishing and realize that many communities with quality fishing 
opportunities derive much-needed income from hosting events. Our intent 
is not to eliminate tournament fishing, but instead to ensure an event 
meets specific criteria before it can be held on waters under our 
control.
    We agree that limiting awards is not the best way to achieve our 
objectives. Other regulatory methods, such as designating parking 
spaces for nontournament or tournament participants, regulating 
tournament permits, increasing monitoring of fish populations, 
increasing coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies, and 
limiting the number of tournaments on a particular body of water each 
year may be better methods of achieving our objectives. We changed the 
wording relating to tournament fishing and replaced it with wording 
that encourages refuge managers to monitor the effects of the 
tournament on fish populations and evaluate the experience of 
participating and nonparticipating anglers. We also added wording that 
requires refuge managers to consider other regulatory methods before 
denying a fishing tournament permit. In addition, we added wording that 
strongly encourages refuge managers to consult State fish and wildlife 
agencies when considering and/or developing restrictions on tournament 
fishing.

Issue 3-2: Use of Nonnative Bait

    Comment: We received four comments about the use of nonnative bait. 
One commenter applauded our restrictions on the use of live nonnative 
bait, one wanted us to differentiate between the use of resident and 
nonresident nonnative bait items, one wanted this restriction to only 
apply to aquatic nonnative bait, and one commented on both resident and 
aquatic limitations.
    Response: It was our intent to only prohibit the use of nonnative 
aquatic bait and not live bait like the European nightcrawler or 
naturalized aquatic bait. We revised the definition of nonnative to 
clarify this.

Issue 3-3: Commercial Fishing

    Comment: One commenter requested the addition of commercial fishing 
to this policy.
    Response: This policy applies to recreational fishing only, and 
commercial fishing discussions are not appropriate in this policy. We 
did not make any changes based on this comment.

Issue 3-4: Population Goals and Objectives in Fishing Plan

    Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the policy 
encourages population objectives that may differ from State fish 
population objectives. It was recommended that State fish and wildlife 
agencies be involved closely during this process. Some commenters 
suggested replacing the phrase ``to the extent practicable'' with the 
phrase ``to the greatest extent possible.''
    Response: We stress cooperation with State fish and wildlife 
agencies throughout the policy. The intent of the policy is that we 
will coordinate closely with the States concerning fish population 
objectives. In many cases, State plans may provide the population 
objective levels for a refuge. There will be circumstances where refuge 
objectives may differ from State objectives because our missions 
differ. We did not make revisions based on these comments. The phrase 
``to the extent practicable'' is a direct quote from the Improvement 
Act, and we kept the statutory language in the policy.

Issue 3-5: Native Fish

    Comment: We received several comments concerning our definition of 
native fisheries (section 3.6C in the draft policy). One commenter 
questioned what criteria we used in defining a watershed with respect 
to native fish and the inherent lack of knowledge to presettlement 
times. Another commenter thought it was ``unrealistic'' to attempt to 
reestablish native species.
    Response: The definition of native fish was designed to aid the 
understanding of our fishing programs and their relationship to the 
biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge 
System. However, we do not use the term ``native fish'' in the policy. 
Therefore, we deleted the term.

Issue 3-6: Night Use of Refuges

    Comment: We received two comments on night use of refuges for 
fishing. One commenter agreed that nighttime hunting and fishing may 
not be appropriate on all refuges, but the use should be independently 
evaluated. One commenter questioned the authority of the Service to 
regulate night use of the refuge. This commenter felt it was a State 
function.
    Response: We revised this section to clarify that refuge managers 
have the ability to independently evaluate the night use of a refuge. 
Our policy states that we may allow night fishing when it is compatible 
with refuge purpose(s) and the Refuge System mission. It also states 
that if a refuge generally is not open after sunset, refuge managers 
may make an exception and permit night fishing as long as the decision 
is based on specific refuge objectives and not historic use. We 
disagree with the commenter who believes the States regulate night use 
of a refuge. The law expressly states the Service has the

[[Page 36426]]

authority to regulate use in the Refuge System.

Issue 3-7: Use of Barbless Hooks

    Comment: We received several comments on the use of barbless hooks. 
One commenter suggested the barbless hook policy is laudable, but needs 
clarification to account for the difference between warm and cold water 
fish populations. Another commenter recommended we remove the slot size 
reference in this section.
    Response: We agree. Research is not conclusive on the benefits of 
using barbless hooks in all situations. The use of barbless hooks can 
reduce fish handling time for certain species of fish intended for 
release. We encourage refuge managers who manage specific programs that 
benefit from ``catch and release'' fishing to take the lead in 
introducing barbless hook methods to anglers in brochures, on signs, 
and in other information sheets in those areas where fisheries will 
benefit.

Issue 3-8: Authority of Service To Control Navigable Waters

    Comment: Several commenters questioned the authority of the Service 
to close public waters to fishing, especially when navigable waters 
exist. Some questioned our authority to regulate navigable waters.
    Response: This policy applies only to fishing on waters where the 
Service has jurisdiction. We believe the policy states this, therefore 
we did not revise the policy based on this comment.

Issue 3-9: Use of Nontoxic Tackle

    Comment: We received two comments on nontoxic tackle. One commenter 
was concerned about restrictions on fishing tackle, primarily lead 
weights, and the perceived conflicts with State regulations. One 
commenter questioned the authority of the Service to regulate tackle on 
the refuge. This commenter felt it was a State function.
    Response: This section was included because we recognize lead 
poisoning of some bird species, particularly loons, is an issue on a 
number of refuges. Law allows us to develop regulations more 
restrictive than State requirements in order to protect wildlife as 
necessary. We have imposed a number of restrictions in coordination 
with States. We deleted the section on nontoxic tackle.

Issue 3-10: Ice Fishing

    Comment: A commenter recommended that we strengthen this section by 
including guidelines for ice fishing structures.
    Response: This policy is not designed to address ice fishing 
structures. If ice fishing is a compatible recreational use on a 
refuge, then the use and construction of ice fishing structures would 
be evaluated under the compatibility policy (603 FW 2).

Wildlife Observation

Issue 4-1: No Requirement Mentioned for Wildlife Observation Plan and 
Not Mentioned Under Requirements for CCPs

    Comment: One commenter noted that the hunting, fishing, and 
interpretive chapters all mentioned the need for detailed planning 
documents. There was no mention of the need for such a document in the 
wildlife observation chapter.
    Response: By not mentioning the need of a planning document for 
wildlife observation programs, we failed to highlight the importance of 
our visitor services planning process. The lack of a detailed 
explanation of the visitor services plan (VSP) in all of our wildlife-
dependent recreation chapters created what appeared to be a disjointed 
planning approach to visitor services. A VSP is a step-down management 
plan of the CCP and is the overarching document for providing visitor 
services in the Refuge System. This plan is an analysis of all aspects 
of visitor service programs on a refuge, including, but not limited to 
programs associated with wildlife observation. The VSP can be completed 
before, during, or after the CCP is completed. We deleted the reference 
to an interpretive plan in the interpretation chapter and clarified the 
link between the VSP and all recreational use programs in the Refuge 
System. We provide an example outline of a VSP in exhibit 1 of 605 FW 
1.

Issue 4-2: Move Concepts to Appendix or Another Plan

    Comment: One commenter supported the concept that ``high quality'' 
viewing opportunities be tied to interpretive and educational messages, 
but suggested that the messages involve interested organizations and, 
when approved, be placed as an appendix in the wildlife observation 
policy.
    Response: Although we are pleased that this commenter supports the 
idea of the educational and interpretive link to our wildlife 
observation programs, we disagree with including messages sponsored by 
interested organizations as an appendix. Opportunities to include more 
specific guidance will occur in our environmental education and 
interpretation handbooks. Our environmental education specialists and 
our interpretive professionals are charged with developing programs 
that are both accurate and sensitive to the needs of a diverse 
community. They do not hesitate to seek advice from scientists, tribes, 
local communities, State agencies, and others when appropriate and 
necessary. Because interpretive and educational messages are tied to 
the goals and objectives of an individual refuge, we do not consider it 
appropriate to include them in an appendix to this policy.

Issue 4-3: Emphasize Hiking as a Wildlife Observation Opportunity

    Comment: One commenter wanted us to emphasize the role of hiking 
and hiking trails in this policy. The commenter stated that hiking 
trails afford the public low-impact access to back-country areas where 
they can easily observe wildlife.
    Response: Refuges provide visitors an opportunity to view wildlife 
using a variety of facilities, including trails. Our wildlife 
observation programs focus on viewing opportunities and how to improve 
the viewing experience. We provide general guidelines under the section 
outlining a quality experience and encourage experiences that take 
place in natural settings. We neither promote nor discourage the use of 
trails. Instead, we encourage our managers to use facilities that 
maximize opportunities to view a wide spectrum of wildlife species and 
habitats on the refuge while protecting refuge resources.

Issue 4-4: Wildlife Observation Chapter Does Not Have the Same Level of 
Thoroughness as Hunting and Fishing Chapters

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the wildlife observation 
policy does not include the same level of thoroughness as the hunting 
and fishing chapters.
    Response: Although it is true that the hunting and fishing chapters 
contain more detailed information and guidance than the wildlife 
observation chapter, we are not indicating that wildlife observation is 
less important than hunting and fishing. The Improvement Act defined 
wildlife-dependent recreation as a use of a refuge involving hunting, 
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 
education and interpretation. When these activities are compatible, 
they are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System. The 
Improvement Act did not develop a hierarchy between the wildlife-
dependent recreational uses, and we are not attempting to create one 
through the level of detail contained in each policy. Hunting and 
fishing are

[[Page 36427]]

inherently regulatory in nature and, therefore, require more guidance 
than wildlife observation on refuges.

Issue 4-5: Conflicting Relationships in Draft Sections of the Draft 
Wildlife Observation Chapter

    Comment: One commenter stated that there was a disconnect between 
one of our goals identified in a quality wildlife observation 
opportunity and the example we used in the section identified as tools 
we can use to support wildlife observation.
    Response: We agreed with the commenter and removed the example that 
appeared to be in conflict with one of our quality goals.

Wildlife Photography

Issue 5-1: No Requirement Mentioned for Wildlife Photography Plan and 
Not Mentioned Under Requirements for CCPs

    Comment: One commenter noted that the hunting, fishing, and 
interpretive chapters all mentioned the need for detailed planning 
documents and that there was no mention of such a document in the 
wildlife photography chapter.
    Response: By not mentioning the need of a planning document for our 
wildlife photography programs, we failed to highlight the importance of 
our visitor services planning process. The lack of a detailed 
explanation of the visitor services plan (VSP) in all of our wildlife-
dependent recreation chapters created what appeared to be a disjointed 
planning approach to visitor services. A VSP is a step-down management 
plan of the CCP and is the overarching document for providing visitor 
services in the Refuge System. This plan is an analysis of all aspects 
of visitor service programs on a refuge, including, but not limited, to 
programs associated with wildlife photography. The VSP can be completed 
before, during, or after the CCP is completed. We deleted the reference 
to an interpretive plan in the interpretation chapter and clarified the 
link between the VSP and all recreational use programs in the Refuge 
System. We provide an example outline of a VSP in exhibit 1 of 605 FW 
1.

Issue 5-2: Emphasize Hiking as a Wildlife Photography Opportunity

    Comment: One commenter wanted us to emphasize the role of hiking 
and hiking trails in this policy. The commenter stated that hiking 
trails afford the public low-impact access to back-country areas where 
they can easily observe and photograph wildlife.
    Response: Refuges provide visitors with an opportunity to view 
wildlife using a variety of facilities, including trails. Our wildlife 
photography programs focus on opportunities and how to improve the 
photography experience. We provide general guidelines under the section 
outlining a quality experience and encourage experiences that cause the 
least amount of disturbance to wildlife, are available to a broad 
spectrum of the photographing public, blend with the natural setting, 
and cause minimal conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses. We neither promote nor discourage the use of trails. 
Instead, we encourage our managers to use facilities that maximize 
opportunities while meeting other refuge objectives. We did not make 
revisions based on this comment.

Issue 5-3: Wildlife Photography Chapter Does Not Have the Same Level of 
Thoroughness as Hunting and Fishing Chapters

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the photography policy does 
not include the same level of thoroughness as the hunting and fishing 
policy.
    Response: Although it is true that the hunting and fishing chapters 
contain more detailed information and guidance than the wildlife 
photography chapter, we are not indicating that wildlife photography is 
less important than hunting and fishing. The Improvement Act defined 
wildlife-dependent recreation as a use of a refuge involving hunting, 
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 
education and interpretation. When these activities are compatible, 
they are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System. The 
Improvement Act did not develop a hierarchy between the wildlife-
dependent recreational uses, and we are not attempting to create one 
through the level of detail contained in each policy. Hunting and 
fishing are inherently regulatory in nature and, therefore, require 
more guidance than wildlife photography on refuges.

Environmental Education

Issue 6-1: Tribal Consultation and Coordination

    Comment: We received two comments recommending that we expand the 
teaching focus identified to include the trust responsibilities of 
States and tribes rather than just those of the Service and that 
educational materials include the historic customs and culture of the 
people who live in the surrounding area.
    Response: We address the issue of tribal consultation and 
coordination in section 1.9. In addition, we manage visitor services in 
accordance with applicable Federal, State, and tribal laws (see 50 CFR 
subchapter C).

Issue 6-2: Educate the Public on the Importance of Hunting as a 
Wildlife Management Tool

    Comment: Two commenters suggested the Service's environmental 
education program promote the role and importance of hunting as a 
wildlife management tool in the Refuge System.
    Response: In section 6.3 of the draft environmental education 
chapter, we state: ``Environmental education programs will promote 
understanding and appreciation of natural and cultural resources and 
their management on all lands and waters included in the System.'' 
While not specific to hunting, education is general to all recreational 
uses, including the wildlife-dependent recreational uses (hunting, 
fishing, wildlife photography and observation, and environmental 
education and interpretation). This sentence adequately addresses this 
issue and was retained in the final chapter. Therefore, we did not make 
any revisions based on this comment.

Issue 6-3: Environmental Education Chapter Does Not Have the Same Level 
of Thoroughness as the Hunting and Fishing Policies

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the environmental education 
policy does not include the same level of thoroughness as the hunting 
and fishing policy.
    Response: Although it is true that the hunting and fishing chapters 
contain more detailed information and guidance than the environmental 
education chapter, we are not indicating that environmental education 
is less important than hunting and fishing. The Improvement Act defined 
wildlife-dependent recreation as a use of a refuge involving hunting, 
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 
education and interpretation. When these activities are compatible, 
they are the priority general public uses of the Refuge System. The 
Improvement Act did not develop a hierarchy between the wildlife-
dependent recreational uses, and we are not attempting to create one 
through the level of detail contained in each policy. Hunting and 
fishing are inherently regulatory in nature and, therefore, require 
more guidance than environmental education on refuges.

[[Page 36428]]

Interpretation

Issue 7-1: Tribal Consultation and Coordination

    Comment: We received two comments recommending that we expand the 
teaching focus identified to include the trust responsibilities of the 
States and tribes rather than just those of the Service and that 
educational materials include the historic customs and culture of the 
people who live in the surrounding area.
    Response: We address the issue of tribal consultation and 
coordination in section 1.9. In addition, we manage visitor services in 
accordance with applicable Federal, State, and tribal laws (see 50 CFR 
subchapter C).

Issue 7-2: Increase Public Understanding and Support for Wildlife 
Management Practices

    Comment: In order to increase public awareness as to various 
wildlife management practices performed by State and Federal agencies, 
one commenter suggested adding: ``Increase public understanding and 
support for wildlife management practices performed on System lands.''
    Response: In section 7.4 of the draft interpretation chapter, we 
stated that we will develop and maintain interpretive programs to 
increase public understanding and support, develop a sense of 
stewardship leading to actions and attitudes that reflect concern and 
respect for our natural resources, and provide an understanding of the 
management of our natural and cultural resources. We retained this 
language in the final chapter.

Issue 7-3: Interpretation Chapter Does Not Have the Same Level of 
Thoroughness as the Hunting and Fishing Policies

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the interpretation policy 
does not include the same level of thoroughness as the hunting and 
fishing policy.
    Response: Although it is true that the hunting and fishing chapters 
contain more detailed information and guidance than the interpretation 
chapter, we are not indicating that interpretation is less important 
than hunting and fishing. The Improvement Act defined wildlife-
dependent recreation as a use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, 
wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 
interpretation. When these activities are compatible, they are the 
priority general public uses of the Refuge System. The Improvement Act 
did not develop a hierarchy between the wildlife-dependent recreational 
uses, and we are not attempting to create one through the level of 
detail contained in each policy. Hunting and fishing are inherently 
regulatory in nature and, therefore, require more guidance than 
interpretation on refuges.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
policy is not a significant regulatory action.
    (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 developing opportunities for wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses of refuges. This policy will have the effect of 
providing priority consideration for compatible 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 encourages the phase-out of 
nonwildlife-oriented recreation on refuges. The Improvement Act does 
not greatly change this direction in public use, but provides legal 
recognition of the priority we afford to compatible wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses. We expect these new procedures to cause only minor 
modifications to existing refuge public use programs. While we may 
curtail some general public uses, we may provide new and expanded 
opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses. We 
expect an overall small increase, at most a 5 percent annual increase, 
in the amount of recreational uses 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 recreation 
opportunity. We estimated total annual willingness to pay for all 
recreation at refuges to be $792 million in fiscal year 2002 (Banking 
on Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National 
Wildlife Refuge Visitation, DOI/FWS/Refuges, 1997 and 2003). We expect 
the visitor services programs implemented in this policy to cause at 
most a 5 percent annual increase in recreational use Refuge Systemwide. 
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 uses are 
compatible. Across the entire Refuge System, we expect an increase in 
wildlife-dependent recreational use to amount to no more than a 5 
percent overall increase. If the full 5 percent increase in 
recreational use were to occur at 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 recreational 
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.
    (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 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 recreational use of refuges.
    (4) OMB has determined that this policy does not raise novel legal 
or policy issues. It adds the Improvement Act provisions that ensure 
that compatible wildlife-dependent recreational uses are the priority 
general public uses of the Refuge System and adds consistency in 
application of public use guidelines across the entire Refuge System.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We certify that this document will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
    Congress created the Refuge System to conserve fish, wildlife, and 
plants and their habitats, and this conservation mission has been 
facilitated by providing Americans opportunities to visit and 
participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation (hunting, 
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental 
education and interpretation) on refuges and to better appreciate the 
value of and need for wildlife conservation.
    This policy is administrative, legal, technical, and procedural in 
nature and

[[Page 36429]]

provides more detailed instructions for the development of visitor 
services programs than have existed in the past. This policy may result 
in more opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation on refuges and 
may result in the reduction of some nonwildlife-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 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.
    Refuge visitation is a small component of the wildlife recreation 
industry as a whole. In 2001, 82 million U.S. residents over 15 years 
of age spent 1.2 billion activity-days in wildlife-associated 
recreation activities. They spent about $108 billion on fishing, 
hunting, and wildlife watching trips (tables 1, 50, 52, and 68, 2001 
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated 
Recreation, DOI/FWS/FA, 2002). Refuges recorded about 39 million 
visitor-days in FY 2003 (RMIS, FY 2003 Public Use Summary). A 2003 
study of refuge visitors found their travel spending generated over 
$800 million in sales and 19,000 jobs for local economies (Banking on 
Nature: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of National Wildlife 
Refuge Visitation, DOI/FWS/Refuges, 1997 and 2003). These spending 
figures include spending that 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 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 impact 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 refuges. It may 
result in increased visitation at refuges and provide for minor changes 
to the methods of public use permitted within the Refuge System. See 
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 
``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 ``Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.''

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with E.O. 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 Refuge System. See ``Regulatory Flexibility Act.''

Federalism Assessment (E.O. 13132)

    In accordance with E.O. 13132, this policy does not have 
significant federalism effects. This policy applies only to areas where 
we have jurisdiction. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
the States, on the 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 E.O. 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 E.O. 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.

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, and use. This 
E.O. requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when 
undertaking certain actions. This policy is administrative, legal, 
technical, and procedural in nature. Because this policy establishes 
the process for developing visitor services programs on refuge, it is 
not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 and is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and 
use. This notice does not designate any areas that have been identified 
as having oil or gas reserves, whether in production or otherwise 
identified for future 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 evaluated possible effects on 
federally recognized Indian tribes and determined that there are no 
effects. We coordinate recreational use on refuges with tribal 
governments having adjoining or overlapping jurisdiction before we 
propose the activities. This policy is consistent with and not less 
restrictive than tribal reservation rules.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document does not include any new information collection that 
would require Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may 
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number.

Section 7 Consultation

    We have determined that the policy established by this notice will 
not affect listed species or designated critical habitat. Therefore, 
consultation under

[[Page 36430]]

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required. The basis for 
this conclusion is that this final policy explains how we will provide 
visitors with quality hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) when developing refuge CCPs and VSPs, 
and we make the determinations required by NEPA before the addition of 
refuges to the lists of areas open to 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 Refuges

    Individual refuge administrative offices retain information 
regarding visitor services 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 NE. 
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.

Availability of the Policy

    The Final Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Uses Policy is available 
at this Web site: http://policy.fws.gov/ser600.html.
    Persons without Internet access may request a hard copy by 
contacting the office listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

    Dated: January 20, 2006.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    Note: This document was received at the Office of the Federal 
Register on June 21, 2006.
[FR Doc. 06-5644 Filed 6-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P