2005-2006 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations, 54146-54197 [05-17792]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54146-54197]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17792]



[[Page 54145]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 32



2005-2006 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations; Final 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 13, 2005 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 54146]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

RIN 1018-AU14


2005-2006 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service adds six refuges to the list of 
areas open for hunting and/or sport fishing programs and increases the 
activities available at seven other refuges. We also implement 
pertinent refuge-specific regulations for those activities and amend 
certain regulations on other refuges that pertain to migratory game 
bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing 
for the 2005-2006 season.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie A. Marler, (703) 358-2397; Fax 
(703) 358-2248.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Wildlife Refuge System 
Administration Act of 1966 closes national wildlife refuges in all 
States except Alaska to all uses until opened. The Secretary of the 
Interior (Secretary) may open refuge areas to any use, including 
hunting and/or sport fishing, upon a determination that such uses are 
compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge 
System (Refuge System) mission. The action also must be in accordance 
with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in 
coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), 
consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management 
and administration, and otherwise in the public interest. These 
requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, 
diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the 
benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
    We annually review refuge hunting and sport fishing programs to 
determine whether to include additional refuges or whether individual 
refuge regulations governing existing programs need modifications, 
deletions, or additions. Changing environmental conditions, State and 
Federal regulations, and other factors affecting fish and wildlife 
populations and habitat may warrant modifications to refuge-specific 
regulations to ensure the continued compatibility of hunting and sport 
fishing programs and to ensure that these programs will not materially 
interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of refuge purposes or 
the Refuge System's mission.
    Provisions governing hunting and sport fishing on refuges are in 
Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 32 (50 CFR part 
32). We regulate hunting and sport fishing on refuges to:
     Ensure compatibility with refuge purpose(s);
     Properly manage the fish and wildlife resource(s);
     Protect other refuge values;
     Ensure refuge visitor safety; and
     Provide opportunities for quality wildlife-dependent 
recreation.
    On many refuges where we decide to allow hunting and sport fishing, 
our general policy of adopting regulations identical to State hunting 
and sport fishing regulations is adequate in meeting these objectives. 
On other refuges, we must supplement State regulations with more-
restrictive Federal regulations to ensure that we meet our management 
responsibilities, as outlined in the ``Statutory Authority'' section. 
We issue refuge-specific hunting and sport fishing regulations when we 
open wildlife refuges to migratory game bird hunting, upland game 
hunting, big game hunting, or sport fishing. These regulations list the 
wildlife species that you may hunt or fish, seasons, bag or creel 
limits, methods of hunting or sport fishing, descriptions of areas open 
to hunting or sport fishing, and other provisions as appropriate. You 
may find previously issued refuge-specific regulations for hunting and 
sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32. With this rulemaking, we are also 
standardizing and clarifing the existing language of these regulations.

Plain Language Mandate

    In this rule, we made some of the revisions to the individual 
refuge units to comply with a Presidential mandate to use plain 
language in regulations; as such, these particular revisions do not 
modify the substance of the previous regulations. These types of 
changes include using ``you'' to refer to the reader and ``we'' to 
refer to the Service, using the word ``allow'' instead of ``permit'' 
when we do not require the use of a permit for an activity, and using 
active voice.

Statutory Authority

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
(Administration Act) of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended) and 
the Refuge Recreation Act (Recreation Act) of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-
460k-4) govern the administration and public use of refuges.
    Amendments enacted by the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) build upon the Administration 
Act in a manner that provides an ``organic act'' for the Refuge System 
similar to those that exist for other public Federal lands. The 
Improvement Act serves to ensure that we effectively manage the Refuge 
System as a national network of lands, waters, and interests for the 
protection and conservation of our Nation's wildlife resources. The 
Administration Act states first and foremost that we focus Refuge 
System mission on conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant resources 
and their habitats. The Improvement Act requires the Secretary, before 
allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding, renewing, or 
extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that the use is 
compatible. The Improvement Act established as the policy of the United 
States that wildlife-dependent recreation, when compatible, is a 
legitimate and appropriate public use of the Refuge System, through 
which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and 
wildlife. The Act established six wildlife-dependent recreational uses, 
when compatible, as the priority general public uses of the Refuge 
System. These uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and 
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
    The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas 
within the Refuge System for public recreation as an appropriate 
incidental or secondary use only to the extent that doing so is 
practicable and not inconsistent with the primary purpose(s) for which 
Congress and the Service established the areas. The Recreation Act 
requires that any recreational use of refuge lands be compatible with 
the primary purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and not 
inconsistent with other previously authorized operations.
    The Administration Act and Recreation Act also authorize the 
Secretary to issue regulations to carry out the purposes of the Acts 
and regulate uses.
    We develop specific management plans for each refuge prior to 
opening it to hunting or sport fishing. In many cases, we develop 
refuge-specific regulations to ensure the compatibility of the programs 
with the purpose(s) for which we established the refuge and the Refuge 
System mission. We ensure initial compliance with the Administration 
Act and the Recreation Act for hunting and sport fishing on

[[Page 54147]]

newly acquired refuges through an interim determination of 
compatibility made at or near the time of acquisition. These 
regulations ensure that we make the determinations required by these 
acts prior to adding refuges to the lists of areas open to hunting and 
sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32. We ensure continued compliance by the 
development of comprehensive conservation plans, specific plans, and by 
annual review of hunting and sport fishing programs and regulations.

Response to Comments Received

    In the July 12, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 40108), we published 
a proposed rulemaking identifying refuges and their proposed hunting 
and/or fishing programs and invited public comments. We reviewed and 
considered all comments received by August 5, 2005, the end of a 30-day 
comment period that opened on the date of public filing (July 6, 2005). 
We received 859 comments on the proposed rule. The comments/responses 
are grouped by major issue area.
    Comment 1: Many commenters expressed opposition to opening refuges 
to hunting and fishing and believe refuges should offer protection and 
safe haven for wildlife. They feel this rule violates the Service's own 
policy that ``wildlife comes first in the National Wildlife Refuge 
System.'' Also, commenters were concerned about endangered species 
being accidentally killed.
    Response 1: The Administration Act authorizes the Secretary to 
allow use of any refuge area for any purpose as long as those uses are 
compatible; and the Act specifically references hunting and fishing. 
Amendments to the Administration Act made by the National Wildlife 
Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act) establish 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses as priority uses, when compatible. 
It specifically includes hunting and fishing as wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses.
    Additionally, we comply with ESA Section 7 before opening or 
expanding hunting on refuges in order to insure the programs will not 
jeopardize listed species.
    Comment 2: A commenter questioned the use of the 2001 figures from 
the ``national source of hunting and fishing and wildlife'' as being 
very old and inaccurate.
    Response 2: Due to the unavailability of site-specific expenditure 
data, we use the national estimates from the 2001 National Survey of 
Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation to identify 
expenditures for food and lodging, transportation, and other incidental 
expenses. These are the best available data that are consistent 
nationwide.
    The number of hunting and fishing days are collected by each 
individual refuge annually. The hunting and fishing numbers presented 
represent the year 2004.
    Comment 3: A commenter questioned the use of lead shot by hunters.
    Response 3: 50 CFR 32.2(k) specifically prohibits the possession of 
toxic shotgun pellets by hunters on waterfowl production areas and 
certain other areas (refuges or areas within refuges) of the System. 
This regulation does not apply to turkey and deer hunters using 
buckshot or slugs, except as specifically authorized by refuge-specific 
regulations or State laws. The only shot types allowed on the Refuge 
System are specifically identified in 50 CFR 20.21(j).
    Comment 4: Several commenters questioned the practice of allowing 
ATV use on refuges. They felt that refuges should prohibit ATV use 
unless they were found to be compatible and that our regulations did 
not address these issues of compatibility and other procedural issues 
relating to this subject.
    Response 4: We allow limited ATV use on some refuges. For example, 
in the State of Arkansas on Felsenthal, Overflow, and Pond Creek 
Refuges and in the State of Louisiana on Catahoula National Wildlife 
Refuge, we allow ATVs for wildlife-dependent activities only but 
restrict their use to designated times, dates, and specific trails. The 
refuges further limit the size of the engines, tires, etc. so as to 
minimize their impact. The refuges provide ATV use specifics to the 
public in their brochures. On Black Bayou Lake, D'Arbonne, and Upper 
Ouachita National Wildlife Refuges in the State of Louisiana, we 
prohibit hunting from or across ATV trails. And similar to the refuges 
mentioned at the beginning of this response, these refuges limit ATV 
use to designated times, dates, and specific trails, in addition to 
limiting their engine and tire size.
    On Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Texas, 
we allow ATV use for hunters with mobility impairments and other 
disabilities through the issuance of a Special Use Permit.
    On Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Missouri, 
the refuge manager has decided to prohibit all ATV use on the refuge, 
and we have revised condition A9 accordingly.
    As required by the Administration Act, we determined these uses are 
compatible. In addition, we have complied with NEPA with regard to the 
hunting programs and associated ATV use. However, because these 
comments have raised the issue, we are commencing a System-wide review 
of our ATV approvals to ensure that we are meeting the requirements of 
E.O. 11644 and 11989.
    Comment 5: A commenter felt we should not allow hunting of greater 
prairie chicken and/or rail at Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge 
in the State of Minnesota as most hunters cannot differentiate between 
a ``flushed grouse and a greater prairie chicken or a snipe and yellow 
rail prior to discharging their weapon.''
    Response 5: The proposal to allow hunting of the greater prairie 
chicken on the Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) will be 
cooperatively managed with the State of Minnesota (State). While it is 
possible for hunters to misidentify birds and take protected species, 
it is anticipated that through the Minnesota Firearm Safety Program, 
which is mandatory and covers wildlife identification, as well as 
providing the public other educational materials, this would be rare. 
In addition, sharp-tailed grouse, and the sora and Virginia rails, are 
species for which the State allows hunting. Ruffed grouse will not be 
affected, as it occupies different habitat.
    Currently, the Service owns only 2,300 acres of the proposed 35,000 
acre refuge. While it will be many years before we reach this goal, we 
are also developing plans for providing opportunities for the 
nonhunting public. While the main purpose of the Refuge is the 
restoration and management of tallgrass prairie habitat, we anticipate 
that the refuge will accommodate both consumptive and nonconsumptive 
compatible public use.
    Comment 6: A commenter was concerned about negligence in the 
hunting community and wondered about the lack of funding spent for law 
enforcement. Other commenters expressed concern about safety in general 
on refuges.
    Response 6: While there is inherent risk in any type of activity on 
a refuge, we promote hunter safety as much as possible. We require a 
State hunting license of hunters on national wildlife refuges. Most 
State regulations require hunter safety courses and certification prior 
to issuance of hunting licenses, and safety on refuges has increased as 
a result. We routinely review their needs, and changes in the 2006 
budget will make it much easier to track law enforcement expenditures 
and plan accordingly.

[[Page 54148]]

    Comment 7: A commenter felt that without sufficiently detailed, 
annotated maps accompanying each refuge in the regulations, a brief 
physical description of the areas open to hunting is unclear, and we 
are in violation of Executive Order 12866.
    Response 7: We disagree and believe we are in full compliance with 
the Executive Order. Balancing a number of factors, including efficient 
ease of understanding and feasibility, we ask refuges to describe the 
boundary of the hunting areas for inclusion in regulations when they 
can do so simply. For many reasons, we do not publish maps for each 
refuge where public activities take place. For example, refuge 
boundaries are subject to change depending on land acquisition, and the 
refuge maps would be of such a small size to fit into the Federal 
Register, and subsequently codified in the CFR as to be useless for 
detailed boundaries of areas in question. However, detailed information 
is available at each refuge. We advise the public to consult with the 
refuge staff for further details and information, pick up a brochure 
(which in most cases include maps) available at each refuge, and/or 
view large-scale refuge maps posted at each refuge.
    Comment 8: Concerning Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in Maine, 
two commenters questioned allowing deer hunting, alleging it made the 
refuge unavailable for safe access for other users (including visits by 
school groups in October). Further, a commenter said that because of 
many years of deer hunting only, other species are less wary and more 
likely to be seen and easily killed. A commenter also felt that for 
years part of Washington County had been unsuccessfully trying to 
recover from overhunting, illegal hunting, and clear cutting. A 
commenter also felt woodcock numbers hadn't been growing and questioned 
allowing hunting for that species. A commenter also asked about adding 
coot and rail to the list of hunted species. A commenter also believes 
that since there are more wildlife watchers than hunters in Maine, this 
should be the focus of departmental policy.
    Response 8: Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge has modified the 
regular Maine hunting season and provided 2,077 acres of ``No Hunt 
Zones'' to provide for hiking, photography, wildlife viewing, and other 
activities during the hunting season. Deer hunting will take place in 
areas of the Edmunds Division and in the section of Baring Division to 
the west of Route 191. We do not have a school nature trail in these 
areas. The school nature trail, which is 1.8 miles (2.9 km) long, is in 
the center of the No Hunt Zone and circles around the refuge office. It 
is on the core Baring Division and the only expansion of hunting in 
this zone is incidental take of coyote and bear during the deer hunt 
season that has been in existence on the refuge since 1957. The refuge 
has experienced no incidences in this area, and many school groups have 
visited without complaint or incident. Twenty years ago there was a \1/
4\ mile (.4 km) No Hunt Zone, which the refuge expanded to over \1/2\ 
mile (.8 km) from trails and structures. This not only complies with 
State regulations but exceeds the standards. The refuge's Friends Group 
and Youth Conservation Corps are, in fact, working on this school trail 
this summer to insure that there are good directional signs.
    It is the refuge's opinion that the wildlife population of eastern 
Washington County is diverse and healthy and that the clear-cut areas 
from 15-20 years ago have developed into excellent wildlife habitat. 
This habitat will provide excellent cover for wildlife, and an expanded 
hunting program will have little effect on migratory species and 
mammals that move on and off the refuge lands. The white-tailed deer 
population in Washington County has been below State optimal objective 
levels, but the reasons for this are not well understood. The average 
number of deer taken on the 28,800 acres of the refuge during the 
hunting season over the last 8 years is eight deer per year. The refuge 
has a vigorous biological program that monitors its wildlife resources, 
and along with our law enforcement program, ensures that we protect our 
resources.
    The refuge's hunt plan does not call for any migratory bird hunting 
(which includes woodcock) on the core Baring Division. The refuge is 
trying to preserve this nonhunted woodcock population for further 
study. There was a study conducted (McAuley et al. 2005) that indicated 
that hunting did not appear to reduce the overall survival of woodcock 
on the Moosehorn Breeding Grounds. Woodcock numbers have, in fact, 
increased substantially on the refuge since intense habitat management 
began in the late 1970s.
    The refuge gave consideration to adding coot and rail to the list 
of species for hunting; however, for this season they decided not to 
add them to the list.
    The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 
encourages hunting, when compatible, on national wildlife refuges along 
with other activities as long as the biological compatibility process 
has been met. It is the refuge's finding that, based on State data, the 
species hunted have sustainable populations.
    We are considering adding coot, sora, and Virginia rail to the list 
of species hunted and will review and make that determination for the 
next hunting season (2006-2007).
    Regardless of the number of participants in wildlife watching or 
hunting activities, we believe both of these uses are important to the 
economy, and we provide for both groups as best we can within our 
budgets.
    Comment 9: A commenter questioned the use of ``natural material'' 
for hunters constructing blinds and wondered if that might be a source 
of introduced nonnative/invasive species on a refuge.
    Response 9: We are adding language to all of the wetland management 
districts in North and South Dakota that will read as follows: ``We 
prohibit bringing any type of live or dead vegetation onto the refuge 
for any purpose at any time.'' We are also amending the language for 
Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge in Illinois to 
expressly prohibit nonnative materials. On Don Edwards San Francisco 
Bay National Wildlife Refuge, the refuge has allowed the public to 
bring in materials for temporary blind construction in the Ravenswood 
ponds for decades. It has not resulted in invasive species being 
introduced to the area.
    Comment 10: A commenter recommended that we make all attempts to 
minimize the amount of additional regulation, restriction, permits, 
fees, etc., associated with implementing this proposed rule and felt 
there were redundancies with State regulations. This comment was 
specific to Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts 
(Great Meadows).
    Response 10: It is not our intent to burden a hunter with 
additional regulations and restrictions. Rather, our intent is to 
provide hunters with quality wildlife-dependent recreational 
experience, as stated in Refuge System policy (8 RM 5.2A of the Refuge 
Manual, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1985). The Refuge Manual (8 RM 
5.5) states: ``Refuge hunting programs should be planned, supervised, 
conducted, and evaluated to promote positive hunting values and hunter 
ethics such as fair chase and sportsmanship. In general, hunting on 
refuges should be superior to that available on other public or private 
lands and should provide participants with reasonable harvest 
opportunities, uncrowded conditions, limited interference from or 
dependence on mechanized aspects of the sport. This may require zoning 
the hunt unit and

[[Page 54149]]

limiting the number of participants. Good planning will minimize the 
controls and regimentation needed to achieve hunting objectives.'' The 
additional measures implemented by refuge staff will help facilitate 
such an experience. In addition, we review the hunting program annually 
to ensure compatibility with the Service mission and refuge purposes as 
well as its compliance with Federal and State hunting regulations.
    Comment 11: The same commenter questioned our repeating the State 
requirement of required hunter orange clothing for hunters on Great 
Meadows.
    Response 11: Safety is a priority on all of our refuges, and we 
feel this is a condition that bears inclusion in our regulations, even 
if it repeats the State regulations. The statement of this requirement 
may seem redundant because it is listed under three separate refuges 
(Assabet River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges) on 
the same page of the Federal Register.
    Comment 12: The same commenter questioned whether condition A12 
should apply to big game hunting as well as to migratory bird hunting 
on Great Meadows.
    Response 12: The commenter points up an error on our part. In fact, 
condition A12 states that we allow no more than two dogs per hunting 
party and is only applicable to Migratory Game Bird Hunting, not for 
Big Game Hunting. The correct condition we should have referenced for 
Big Game Hunting under C4 is A10, which actually prohibits use of dogs 
during scouting. We corrected that error in the final rule.
    Comment 13: The same commenter questioned our statement that costs 
should be minimal for the proposed rule, which flowed down to the 
individual refuge hunt plans, for Great Meadows. Therefore, the 
commenter feels that no additional fees or charges should be 
implemented or associated with the proposed rule.
    Response 13: There are sufficient funds within the annual operating 
budget of the Eastern Massachusetts National Wildlife Refuge Complex 
(of which Great Meadows is a part) to conduct the refuge hunt program. 
There will be little difference in the amount of law enforcement needed 
whether or not the refuge is open to hunting. We focus current law 
enforcement efforts on prohibiting poaching on the refuge. By opening 
Great Meadows to hunting, the refuge will incur additional 
administrative costs due to the issuance of hunt permits and outreach, 
particularly in the first few years of the hunt program.
    Comment 14: The same commenter questioned where the ``Additional 
Hunting Day'' figures came from on Table 1, Additional Hunting Days, 
and felt that the numbers were too low for Great Meadows. The commenter 
felt that the refuge can accommodate a much larger number of hunting 
days over the course of the hunting season. The commenter recommended 
eliminating the permit restrictions after the initial opening days.
    Response 14: The number of hunters anticipated represent good-faith 
estimates from the refuges when they were asked to estimate annual 
hunter participation for the new activities for purposes of economic 
analysis on the overall impact of the rule on the local economy, and 
this is a conservative estimate. At this time the Service plans to 
institute a two-tiered permit process (first tier is that each hunter 
must possess a general permit, second tier is a lottery for big game 
and waterfowl hunting) that will be in effect at the three refuges 
located in the northern part of the complex (Great Meadows, Assabet 
River, and Oxbow). We will charge a fee for the permit and limit the 
number of permits issued through a lottery to ensure a quality hunt and 
help us achieve refuge management objectives. We are implementing this 
permit process because the anticipated level of interest in hunting 
deer, waterfowl, and turkey (where allowed) at these refuges is 
unknown, but could be initially high due to interest in hunting areas 
that have not been open for hunting for many years. Limiting the number 
of hunters on the refuge should ensure a quality hunt, increase safety, 
and reduce potential conflicts with other refuge users. The need to 
maintain the two-tiered permit process will be reevaluated after a few 
hunt seasons, and modified or eliminated if determined to no longer be 
necessary.
    Comment 15: The same commenter opposes the imposition of fees or 
user charges for hunters that would exceed any current fees/charges for 
other users of these refuge properties for Great Meadows. The commenter 
feels the permits should be free of charge.
    Response 15: Costs of administering the hunt will be partially 
offset by revenues received from the issuance of hunt permits. The only 
way the Service will be able to achieve, maintain, and provide a 
quality hunting program in the future is with additional funds to cover 
the administrative costs. Failure to receive additional revenues will 
have a significant impact on our ability to provide quality hunting 
opportunities on refuges and provide participants with reasonable 
harvest opportunities.
    Comment 16: The same commenter feels that the refuge should not 
attempt to regulate/limit scouting for waterfowl hunting areas, nor 
should they require a permit for this purpose for Great Meadows.
    Response 16: Once a hunter obtains a permit, we would then allow 
scouting in areas that are normally off limits or closed to the public. 
Allowing unlimited scouting in these areas could lead to adverse 
impacts on refuge habitat.
    Comment 17: A commenter expressed concerns about the section of 
Great Meadows around Heard Pond as being quite small. The commenter 
feels allowing hunting creates a safety issue as the area is in the 
midst of suburban neighborhoods.
    Response 17: The refuge weighs a number of factors in opening an 
area to hunting, including visitor safety considerations. The refuge 
manager may, upon annual review of the hunting program, impose further 
restrictions on hunting, recommend that the refuge be closed to 
hunting, or further liberalize hunting within the limits of State law. 
Restrictions will occur if hunting becomes inconsistent with other 
higher priority refuge programs or endangers refuge resources or public 
safety. There will be areas on the refuge where we prohibit hunting. We 
strive to achieve a balance between consumptive and nonconsumptive uses 
on the refuges. Because Massachusetts prohibits hunting on Sunday, at a 
minimum nonhunters will be free to enjoy the refuge with no concern 
about possible hunting conflicts on those days during the hunting 
seasons.
    In others, we have restricted hunting because of the mandated 
safety zones, such as in the Heard Pond area. Further, State regulation 
requires a 500 foot (150 m) zone around any inhabited structure. As we 
state in the draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP), ``Hunting, 
whether by gun or bow, is prohibited in this area unless the hunter 
received permission from the owner of the building. It is the hunter's 
responsibility to ensure that he/she is more than 500 feet (150 m) from 
any such buildings.'' There are times in which the safety zone extends 
into the refuge. We will prohibit hunting within these areas.
    Based upon concerns expressed in response to the draft CCP, we 
reviewed the most up-to-date aerial photographs available, which 
include the Heard Pond area. We analyzed locations of the 500-foot 
safety zones around existing homes to determine whether or not a

[[Page 54150]]

reasonable hunting area could be provided given the constraints 
associated with safety zones. In addition to the aerial photo analysis, 
we went to the refuges to determine how visible the homes near the 
refuge are from inside the refuge. The Service will assist hunters and 
nonhunters in delineating any areas where there may be confusion as to 
the actual location of the safety zone.
    Comment 18: Many commenters also felt that the procedure by which 
we open refuges circumvents the review process mandated by both the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). In a related comment, a commenter felt the Service erred in 
categorically excluding the proposed rule from NEPA review and feels we 
should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
    Response 18: As discussed in the section SUPPLEMENTARY of this 
rule, ``New Hunting and Sport Fishing Programs,'' we detail the steps 
which follow NEPA and ESA mandates. This final rule represents a 
compilation of the new refuges opening for this season and makes 
corrections to existing refuges listed in 50 CFR part 32. Each 
individual refuge, when making a determination as to whether or not to 
allow hunting and/or fishing, includes the appropriate NEPA and ESA 
Section 7 compliance when preparing an ``opening package.'' For each of 
the refuges included in the rulemaking, we prepared Environmental 
Assessments and determined that EISs were unnecessary. No changes were 
made to the regulation as a result of this comment.
    The Service applies a categorical exclusion regarding the action of 
publishing the proposed and final rules. It does not assert a 
categorical exclusion regarding the opening or alteration of existing 
hunting or fishing programs. On the contrary, the Service complied with 
NEPA in each and every case in arriving at the decision to open or 
alter these programs. As we noted in the preamble to the proposed rule, 
we conduct all of the legally required compliance steps at each of the 
involved refuges before coordinating publication at the Headquarters 
level. It is the act of publishing the proposed rule, not the decisions 
regarding openings or alterations, which we categorically exclude. We 
also disagree with the commenter's opinion that the openings and 
alterations require an EIS.
    Comment 19: Several commenters objected to the 30-day public 
comment period as being insufficient time for adequate public comment.
    Response 19: We disagree that the comment period is insufficient. 
The process of opening refuges is done in stages, with the fundamental 
work being done on the ground at the refuge and in the community where 
the program is administered. In these stages, the public is given other 
opportunities to comment, for example, on the comprehensive 
conservation plans and the compatibility determinations. The second 
stage is when we publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register each 
summer for additional comment, commonly a 30-day comment period. There 
is nothing contained in this annual regulation outside the scope of the 
annual review process where we add refuges or determine whether 
individual refuges need modifications, deletions, or additions made to 
them. We make every attempt to collect all of the proposals from the 
refuges nationwide and process them expeditiously to maximize the time 
available for public review. We believe that a 30-day comment period, 
through the broader publication following the earlier public 
involvement, gives the public sufficient time to comment and allows us 
to establish hunting and fishing programs in time for the upcoming 
seasons. Many of these rules also relieve restrictions and allow the 
public to participate in wildlife-dependent recreational activities on 
a number of refuges. Even after issuance of a final rule, we accept 
comments, suggestions, and concerns for consideration for any 
appropriate subsequent rulemaking.
    Comment 20: A commenter felt we believe that the Improvement Act 
provides carte blanche approval to us to open refuges to hunting and 
fishing and feels we have not ensured the availability of sufficient 
funds as the law requires.
    Response 20: We do not agree with commenter's characterization that 
the Improvement Act provides carte blanche approval for hunting and 
fishing on refuges. That Act, amending the National Wildlife Refuge 
System Administration Act, maintained the requirement that all uses be 
found compatible before allowing them, and the Service adheres to that. 
Each of these uses has been found compatible. We do note, however, that 
the Improvement Act establishes a policy that compatible wildlife-
dependent recreational uses (two of the six specifically named being 
hunting and fishing) are to be facilitated. Moreover, the Improvement 
Act requires the Secretary to recognize the wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses as the priority general public uses, ensure that 
opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent uses are provided 
within the Refuge System, and provides increased opportunities for 
families to experience wildlife-dependent uses such as hunting and 
fishing.
    The reference to the Refuge Recreation Act (16 U.S.C. 460k) 
regarding a finding on availability of funds is incorrect. The 
Improvement Act specifically exempts wildlife-dependent recreational 
uses from that requirement.
    Comment 21: A commenter expressed concern that elk are being 
targeted as a threat to the Columbian white-tailed deer instead of 
cattle grazing at Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian White-
tailed Deer in Washington.
    Response 21: Elk traditionally used the mainland unit of the refuge 
as a wintering area. Before 1978, their numbers were relatively small 
(20 to 30), and they stayed on the refuge for only 2 to 4 months. After 
1978, both the numbers of elk and the length of time they spent on the 
refuge began increasing for unknown reasons. By 1983 there were an 
estimated 110 elk living year-round on the refuge.
    The Service recognized the need to control elk numbers to minimize 
competition between the deer and the elk. The Columbian White-tailed 
Deer Recovery Team stated that the presence of elk on the refuge was 
not compatible with the recovery of the deer and recommended that elk 
be significantly reduced or eliminated (letter from Recovery Team to 
Division of Endangered Species, dated February 13, 1984). In 1984, we 
prepared an Environmental Assessment (USFWS 1984) for elk control, and 
a public meeting was held in Cathlamet, Washington. We evaluated 
several alternatives, and it was decided to proceed, with the support 
of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), with 
transplanting the elk to other areas of Wahkiakum County, construction 
of a barrier fence along the northeast side of the refuge, and off-
refuge hunting (the issuance of additional anterless permits in the 
management unit adjacent to the refuge). In the Proposed Alternative of 
the 1984 Environmental Assessment, the Service proposed that we allow a 
maximum of 20-30 elk on the refuge. The transplanting program began in 
1984 and 38 elk were moved off the refuge. Since then, an additional 
283 elk have been captured and relocated. Currently transplanting elk 
is no longer feasible because the WDFW has withdrawn their support for 
this option.
    The primary refuge objective is to maintain the refuge in optimum

[[Page 54151]]

condition for the Columbian White-Tailed Deer (CWTD). High elk numbers 
have the potential of causing significant damage to CWTD habitat 
through feeding and movement activities. Although a small herd of 20-30 
animals may cause a level of damage that is tolerable to the deer, 
larger numbers can cause serious problems for the deer recovery effort. 
Despite the refuge's best efforts to exclude new elk from entering the 
refuge, each year some succeed. The herd also continues to grow due to 
the fact that calves are generally born every year.
    Because the refuge's main purpose is to provide high-quality 
habitat for the CWTD, and because high numbers of elk in a relatively 
restricted environment can degrade deer browsing and resting areas, we 
must control elk population numbers on the refuge. Options for 
controlling the size of the elk herd are somewhat limited due to State 
concerns regarding relocation of animals and because of limited funds 
for moving elk.
    Cattle grazing on the refuge, an important management tool for 
providing high-quality forage for the deer, control reed canary grass 
that the deer find unpalatable and allow more desirable grasses and 
clover to grow. We allow cattle grazing only in the spring and summer 
months and restrict them to small, fenced pastures. These pastures 
occupy less than 10 percent of the refuge land base. The deer prefer 
the pastures for feeding areas during the winter months. Cattle numbers 
on the refuge have been reduced over the past 10 years and are 
presently now at an all-time low. Elk, on the other hand, are free to 
roam throughout the refuge feeding on and trampling sensitive riparian 
areas.
    Cattle grazing do not limit the growth of brush and trees on the 
refuge. Old fields that are not grazed become dominated by reed canary 
grass that outcompetes woody seedlings. The refuge is presently 
establishing brush and trees in old fields by plowing and planting 
saplings.
    Columbian white-tailed deer numbers continue to hover at around 100 
animals on the mainland unit. The refuge's stated goal for the mainland 
unit of the refuge is 200 animals. Control of elk numbers has been and 
continues to be an important component in recovery of the mainland 
population of CWTD.
    Comment 22: With regard to Eastern Massachusetts refuges generally, 
several commenters expressed concern about sufficient use of local 
population estimates in setting take limits for the proposed list of 
hunted species. They feel the local populations of woodcock, ruffed 
grouse, and common snipe appear to be low and should not be hunted. The 
commenter also felt that use of archery should be promoted over firearm 
hunting due to the refuges' location in a suburban area.
    Response 22: Woodcock and waterfowl (ducks and geese) populations 
are managed at a national level. The Service Migratory Bird Regulations 
Committee, comprised of flyway and State representatives, and Service 
personnel, annually prescribes frameworks, or outer limits, for dates 
and times when hunting may occur and the maximum number of birds that 
may be taken and possessed in early and late seasons. The length of 
hunting seasons, the number of permits issued, and bag limits are 
annually changed to reflect population status. Numerous and varied 
monitoring efforts are undertaken by a wide variety of organizations. 
The Service's Office of Migratory Bird Management conducts a number of 
surveys in conjunction with the Service's Regional Offices, the 
Canadian Wildlife Service, and State and Provincial wildlife-management 
agencies. For more information about migratory bird management, please 
consult their Web site at: https://migratorybirds.fws.gov/mgmt/
mgmttbl.html.
    The refuges have found both archery and shotgun hunting to be 
compatible. Refer to Comment/Response 6 for a further 
discussion of safety issues. The Eastern Massachusetts refuges exercise 
strict limitations on both the numbers of permits issued and where we 
allow hunting to minimize conflicts.
    Comment 23: A commenter also felt that deer (and another commenter 
mentioned turkey) hunting at the Eastern Massachusetts refuges should 
be determined by wildlife and habitat inventories and management step-
down plans. They felt that hunting permits and check stations would be 
crucial to the success of such a program.
    Response 23: The hunting of resident species, such as deer, 
rabbits, and squirrels, falls within the responsibility of State fish 
and wildlife agencies, which also monitor and manage populations to 
ensure healthy ecosystems, sustainable populations, and a certain level 
of hunter success. We work in partnership with the Massachusetts 
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and rely on their knowledge and 
expertise to determine the appropriateness of hunting seasons. We base 
any decisions we make to limit or prevent the harvest of resident 
species on any refuge on other refuge management concerns and not on a 
concern about the population of a given species. State fish and 
wildlife agencies have an excellent record of sound, professional 
wildlife management, and this is true in Massachusetts as well.
    Refuge law enforcement staff will work independently, and in 
conjunction with State Environmental Police, to enforce State and 
Federal hunting regulations on the refuge.
    The refuge will not provide check stations. Hunters will be 
required to tag and report harvested game according to State 
regulations.
    Comment 24: Several commenters wondered about the archery-only 
``buffer'' at Assabet River National Wildlife Refuge in Massachusetts 
and why that buffer was not extended to the eastern portion (Marlboro 
Road) of the refuge. A commenter also asked why specific areas of 
Assabet River were designated archery only.
    Response 24: During the CCP process, based upon comments that the 
refuge received regarding Hudson Road and Stearns Lane, they made a 
revision to the hunting areas on the north section of the refuge. The 
area outside of the entire Patrol Road has been designated ``Archery 
Only.'' (The map currently published in the CCP and on the website does 
not reflect this change and will be updated).
    Pertaining to the request for extension of the archery-only area 
east of Marlboro Road, the refuge weighs a number of factors before 
opening an area to hunting, including visitor safety considerations. 
The refuge manager may, upon annual review of the hunting program, 
impose further restrictions on hunting, recommend closure of the refuge 
to hunting, or further liberalize hunting within the limits of the 
State law. Restrictions will occur if hunting becomes inconsistent with 
other higher priority refuge programs or endangers refuge resources or 
public safety.
    To mitigate some of the concerns about safety at Assabet River, the 
refuge manager wanted to keep all shotgun hunting within the confines 
of Patrol Road and Craven Lane, thus creating a clear landmark for 
hunters to orient themselves when participating in this priority use 
north of Hudson/Sudbury Road.
    During the CCP process, some individuals expressed concerns about 
safety while using the refuge during hunting season and the assertion 
that the nonhunting public will not participate in other wildlife-
dependent activities during the hunting seasons. Some people will be 
too uncomfortable to walk on the refuge during any hunt season. Others 
are or will become comfortable walking on the refuge during archery-
only seasons. The refuge manager has a responsibility to facilitate

[[Page 54152]]

all forms of wildlife-dependent public use on the refuges, when 
possible, and there may be days when people engaged in hunting will 
have preferential access to parts of the refuges.
    Comment 25: A commenter asked that Assabet River Refuge specify how 
many hunting permits they will issue for each category of hunting and 
describe how they will advise hunters in the field of the boundaries of 
the hunting areas to avoid trespass on private property.
    Response 25: Additional information about the application process 
and permits will be available on the respective refuge websites for 
Assabet River, Oxbow, and Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuges. We 
will encourage hunters to scout potential hunting areas in advance of 
their hunt in order to become familiar with refuge lands, boundaries, 
and hunting areas. We will provide refuge hunting regulations and maps 
with each permit to assist hunters in this effort to safely and legally 
participate in a hunt and minimize conflicts with refuge neighbors and 
refuge users. Ultimately, it is the hunters' responsibility to know 
where they are located on the refuge in order to comply with State laws 
and refuge specific regulations.
    Comment 26: A commenter believes the Service has engaged in a 
pattern of compromising the biological and ecological integrity of our 
national wildlife refuges by providing hunters the opportunity to kill 
for fun and sport the deer, ducks, and a variety of other wildlife 
species that inhabit these refuges.
    Response 26: We strongly disagree with and object to the 
allegations that we have compromised the biological and ecological 
integrity of the Refuge System and that we have not provided sufficient 
opportunities for nonconsumptive users of the System. The commenter has 
failed to take note of the repeated enactment of laws governing refuges 
whereby Congress has authorized and encouraged hunting and fishing on 
refuge lands. Those enactments recognize that all types of uses, 
consumptive as well as nonconsumptive, have their place on Refuge 
System lands, and we have taken steps that ensure those needs are 
balanced within the delegation given to the Secretary by them.

New Hunting and Sport Fishing Programs

    In preparation for new openings, we include the following documents 
in each refuge's ``opening package'' (which the Region and/or 
California/Nevada Operations Office completes, the Regional Director 
and/or California/Nevada Operations Manager reviews, and the refuge 
copies and sends to the Headquarters Office for review of compliance 
with the various opening requirements): (1) Step-down management plan; 
(2) appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation 
(e.g., Categorical Exclusion, Environmental Assessment, or 
Environmental Impact Statement); (3) appropriate NEPA decision 
documentation (e.g., Finding of No Significant Impact, Record of 
Decision); (4) Endangered Species Act Section 7 evaluation; (5) copies 
of letters requesting State and, where appropriate, Tribal involvement 
and the results of the request(s); (6) draft news release; (7) outreach 
plan; and (8) draft refuge-specific regulation. Upon approval of these 
documents, the Regional Director(s) is certifying that the opening of 
these refuges to hunting and/or sport fishing has been found to be 
compatible with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management 
and administration and otherwise will be in the public interest.
    In accordance with the Administration Act and Recreation Act, we 
have determined that these openings are compatible and consistent with 
the purpose(s) for which we established the respective refuges and the 
Refuge System mission. A copy of the compatibility determinations for 
these respective refuges is available by request to the Regional office 
noted under the heading ``Available Information for Specific Refuges.''
    The annotated chart below reflects the following changes for the 
2005-2006 season. The key below the chart explains the symbols used:

                                                         Changes for 2005-2006 Hunt/Fish Season
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Unit                State      Migratory bird hunting        Upland game hunting          Big game hunting              Sport fishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assabet River NWR............  MA.......  A.........................  A.........................  A.........................  A
Great Meadows NWR............  MA.......  B.........................  ..........................  B.........................  E
Moosehorn NWR................  ME.......  B.........................  B.........................  C
Oxbow NWR....................  MA.......  C.........................  C.........................  B
Silvio O. Conte NWR..........  NH.......  A.........................  A.........................  A
Wertheim NWR.................  NY.......  ..........................  ..........................  B.........................  Previously published.
Cahaba River NWR.............  AL.......  ..........................  A.........................  A.........................  A
Julia Butler Hansen NWR......  WA.......  Previously published......  ..........................  B
Stone Lakes NWR..............  CA.......  A
Glacial Ridge NWR............  MN.......  A.........................  A.........................  A
Squaw Creek NWR..............  MO.......  B.........................  ..........................  Previously published......  Previously published.
Sacramento River NWR.........  CA.......  B.........................  B.........................  B.........................  D
                                                                                                                              Previously published.
San Bernardino NWR...........  AZ.......  E.........................  Previously published......
Stewart B. McKinney NWR......  CT.......  A
Pocasse NWR..................  SD.......  ..........................  F
Rock Lake NWR................  ND.......  ..........................  ..........................  F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Refuge added to part 32 and activity(ies) opened.
B. Refuge already listed in part 32; added hunt category.
C. Refuge already listed in part 32; species added to hunt category.
D. Refuge already listed in part 32; land added.
E. Refuge opened to that activity for many years but never listed in part 32; correcting administrative oversight.
F. Refuge removed from part 32 (explanation below).

    We are adding 6 refuges to the list of open refuges in part 32 and 
increasing hunt categories at 7 refuges already listed in part 32.
    Lands acquired as ``waterfowl production areas,'' which we 
generally manage as part of wetland management

[[Page 54153]]

districts, are open to the hunting of migratory game birds, upland 
game, big game, and sport fishing subject to the provisions of State 
law and regulations (see 50 CFR 32.1 and 32.4). We are adding these 
existing wetland management districts (WMDs) to the list of refuges 
open for all four activities in 50 CFR part 32: Big Stone WMD and 
Minnesota Valley WMD (both in the State of Minnesota;) and Arrowwood 
WMD, Audubon WMD, Chase Lake WMD, Crosby WMD, J. Clark Salyer WMD, Kulm 
WMD, Lostwood WMD, Long Lake WMD, Tewaukon WMD, and Valley City WMD all 
in the State of North Dakota.
    We are correcting the following administrative errors in 50 CFR 
part 32: we are removing Pocasse National Wildlife Refuge in the State 
of South Dakota because it was an easement refuge, and it is no longer 
a part of the Refuge System; we are removing Rock Lake National 
Wildlife Refuge in the State of North Dakota because it closed to 
hunting in 1996; we are adding Great Meadows in the State of 
Massachusetts as open to fishing as it has been open to that 
opportunity for years but this status has never been reflected in 50 
CFR part 32; and we are adding migratory bird hunting to San Bernardino 
National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Arizona, because it has been 
open to that opportunity since 1986, but this status has not been 
reflected in 50 CFR part 32.
    This document codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations, all of 
the Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that are 
applicable at Refuge System units previously opened to hunting and/or 
sport fishing. We are doing this to better inform the general public of 
the requirements at each refuge, to increase understanding and 
compliance with these requirements, and to make enforcement of these 
regulations more efficient. In addition to now finding these conditions 
in 50 CFR part 32, visitors to our refuges will usually find these 
terms and conditions reiterated in literature distributed by each 
refuge or posted on signs.
    We have cross-referenced a number of existing regulations in 50 CFR 
parts 26, 27, and 32 to assist hunting and sport fishing visitors with 
understanding safety and other legal requirements on refuges. This 
redundancy is deliberate, with the intention of improving safety and 
compliance in our hunting and sport fishing programs.

Fish Advisory

    For health reasons, anglers should review and follow State-issued 
consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing 
opportunities on Service-managed waters. You can find information about 
current fish consumption advisories on the Internet at: https://
www.epa.gov/ost/fish/.
    We incorporate this regulation into 50 CFR part 32. Part 32 
contains general provisions and refuge-specific regulations for hunting 
and sport fishing on refuges.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, the 
Service asserts that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. 
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) makes the final determination 
under Executive Order 12866.
    a. This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 
environment, or other units of the government. A cost-benefit and full 
economic analysis is not required. However, a brief assessment follows 
to clarify the costs and benefits associated with the rule.
    The purpose of this rule is to add six refuges to the list of areas 
open for hunting and/or sport fishing programs and increase the 
activities available at seven other refuges. The refuges are located in 
the States of Alabama, California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington. Fishing 
and hunting are two of the wildlife-dependent uses of national wildlife 
refuges that Congress recognizes as legitimate and appropriate, and we 
should facilitate their pursuit, subject to such restrictions or 
regulations as may be necessary to ensure their compatibility with the 
purpose of each refuge. Many of the 545 existing national wildlife 
refuges already have programs where we allow fishing and hunting. Not 
all refuges have the necessary resources and landscape that would make 
fishing and hunting opportunities available to the public. By opening 
these refuges to new activities, we have determined that we can make 
quality experiences available to the public. This rule establishes 
hunting and/or fishing programs and expands existing activities at the 
following refuges: Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge in Alabama, 
Sacramento River and Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuges in 
California, Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge in 
Connecticut, Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in Maine, Assabet 
River, Great Meadows, and Oxbow National Wildlife Refuges in 
Massachusetts, Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, 
Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge in Missouri, Silvio O. Conte 
National Wildlife Refuge in New Hampshire, Wertheim National Wildlife 
Refuge in New York, and Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for the Columbian 
White-Tailed Deer in Washington.
    We are correcting the following administrative errors in 50 CFR 
part 32: We are removing Pocasse National Wildlife Refuge in the State 
of South Dakota as it was an easement refuge and is no longer a part of 
the Refuge System, and we are removing Rock Lake National Wildlife 
Refuge in the State of North Dakota, because it closed to hunting back 
in 1996. Since both of these closures happened years ago, and we are 
just correcting 50 CFR part 32 to reflect this, there is no appreciable 
economic impact.
    Lands acquired as ``waterfowl production areas,'' which we 
generally manage as part of wetland management districts (WMDs), are 
open to the hunting of migratory game birds, upland game, big game, and 
sport fishing subject to the provisions of State law and regulations 
(see 50 CFR 32.1 and 32.4). We are adding these existing WMDs to the 
list of refuges open for all four activities in part 32 this year: Big 
Stone WMD and Minnesota Valley WMD, both in the State of Minnesota, and 
Arrowwood WMD, Audubon WMD, Chase Lake WMD, Crosby WMD, J. Clark Salyer 
WMD, Kulm WMD, Lostwood WMD, Long Lake WMD, Tewaukon WMD, and Valley 
City WMD, all in the State of North Dakota. We do not expect any change 
in visitation rates at these wetland management districts because 
recreationists currently have the option to participate in these 
activities. Therefore, there are no new economic impacts from the 
addition of these wetland management districts to the list in 50 CFR 
part 32.

Costs Incurred

    Costs incurred by this regulation would be minimal, if any. We 
expect any law enforcement or other refuge actions related to 
recreational activities to be included in any usual monitoring of the 
refuge. Therefore, we expect any costs to be negligible.

Benefits Accrued

    A correction has been made from the proposed rule concerning Squaw 
Creek National Wildlife Refuge (MO). The refuge expects an increase of 
30 days during the Spring Conservation Order Season for migratory game 
birds, not an increase of 300 days. This corrected number impacts 
additional hunting days, total additional fishing and hunting days, and 
total days per year

[[Page 54154]]

(Table 1); change in estimated customer surplus for hunters and change 
in total consumer surplus (Table 2); change of possible additional 
refuge expenditures for hunters (Table 3); and estimated maximum 
addition from new refuge and addition as a percentage of total for 
Squaw Creek (Table 4).
    Benefits from this regulation would be derived from the new fishing 
and hunting days from opening the refuges to these activities. If the 
refuges establishing new fishing and hunting programs were a pure 
addition to the current supply of such activities, it would mean an 
estimated increase of 12,000 user days of fishing and 7,185 user days 
of hunting (Table 1). These new fishing and hunting days would 
generate: (1) Consumer surplus (the net benefit received by 
recreationists); and (2) expenditures associated with fishing and 
hunting on the refuges.

                   Table 1.--Estimated Change in Fishing and Hunting Opportunities in 2005/06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Current hunting                                          Total additional
               Refuge                   and/or fishing       Additional         Additional        fishing and
                                         days (FY04)        fishing days       hunting days       hunting days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assabet River.......................  .................              3,000                130              3,130
Great Meadows.......................             49,050  .................                125                125
Moosehorn...........................             43,500  .................                985                985
Oxbow...............................             18,886  .................                128                128
Silvio O. Conte.....................  .................  .................                 65                 65
Wertheim............................             14,750  .................              1,406              1,406
Cahaba River........................  .................              8,000              2,200             10,200
Julia Butler Hansen.................              2,660  .................                 20                 20
Stone Lakes.........................  .................  .................                 14                 14
Glacial Ridge.......................  .................  .................                 87                 87
Squaw Creek.........................                353  .................                 30                 30
Sacramento River....................  .................              1,000              1,005              2,005
San Bernardino......................                 45  .................  .................                  0
Stewart B. McKinney.................  .................  .................                990                990
                                     --------------------
    Total Days per Year.............            129,244             12,000              7,185             19,185
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming the new days are a pure addition to the current supply, 
the additional days would create consumer surplus (CS) of approximately 
$906,000 annually ([7,185 days x $47.32 CS per day] + [12,000 days x 
$47.07 CS per day]) (Table 2). However, the participation trend is flat 
in fishing and hunting activities because the number of Americans 
participating in these activities has been stagnant since 1991. Any 
increase in the supply of these activities introduced by adding refuges 
where the activity is available will most likely be offset by other 
sites losing participants, especially if the new sites have higher 
quality fishing and/or hunting opportunities. Therefore, the additional 
consumer surplus is more likely to be smaller.

   Table 2.--Estimated Change in Consumer Surplus From Additional Fishing and Hunting Opportunities in 2005/06
                                                    [2004 $]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Total fishing and
                                                              Fishing            Hunting            hunting
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------