2008-2009 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations, 33158-33200 [E8-12188]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 11, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33158-33200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12188]



[[Page 33157]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 32



2008-2009 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations; Final 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 113 / Wednesday, June 11, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 33158]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

RIN 1018-AU61


2008-2009 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service adds one refuge to the list of 
areas open for sport fishing. We also amend certain regulations on 
other refuges that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game 
hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2008-2009 season.

DATES: This rule is effective July 11, 2008.

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 or our/we) 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. 
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 fish and 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 
(container for carrying fish) limits, methods of hunting or sport 
fishing, descriptions of areas open to hunting or sport fishing, and 
other provisions as appropriate. You may find previously issued refuge-
specific regulations for hunting and sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32. 
In this rulemaking, we are also standardizing and clarifying the 
language of existing 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 Refuge 
System, using the word ``allow'' instead of ``permit'' when we do not 
require the use of a permit for an activity, and using active voice 
(i.e., ``We restrict entry into the refuge'' vs. ``Entry into the 
refuge is restricted''.)

Statutory Authority

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997 [Improvement Act]) (Administration Act) and the 
Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) 
govern the administration and public use of refuges.
    Amendments enacted by the Improvement Act built 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 our 
Refuge System mission on conservation of fish, wildlife, and plant 
resources and their habitats. The Improvement Act requires the 
Secretary, before allowing a new use of a refuge, or before expanding, 
renewing, or extending an existing use of a refuge, to determine that 
the use is compatible with the mission for which the refuge was 
established. The Improvement Act established as the policy of the 
United States that wildlife-dependent recreation, when compatible, is a 
legitimate and appropriate public use of the Refuge System, through 
which the American public can develop an appreciation for fish and 
wildlife. The Improvement Act established six wildlife-dependent 
recreational uses, 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

[[Page 33159]]

initial compliance with the Administration Act and the Recreation Act 
for hunting and sport fishing on 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 Public Comment

    In the July 24, 2006, Federal Register (71 FR 41864), 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 16, 2006, the end of a 30-
day comment period that opened on the date of public filing (July 17, 
2006). We received 24 comments on the proposed rule. We grouped the 
comments/responses by major issue area.
    Comment 1: A commenter asked why on Delta National Wildlife Refuge 
in Louisiana we are limiting ``recreational fishing'' to 1/2 hour 
before and after daylight hours as there is no such limitation for 
commercial trawlers and fishermen. The commenter feels it is arbitrary 
to exclude recreational fishermen who may wish to nightfish for red 
drum or speckle trout during the hot summer.
    Response 1: We close Delta NWR to all night activities, and we 
prohibit commercial activities on the refuge. There are several 
navigable waterways flowing through the interior of the refuge that are 
not under our jurisdiction. The State of Louisiana allows crabbing on 
those navigable waters but access to those areas would still be through 
the refuge, and thus we would prohibit access at night. All users of 
the refuge must abide by the same guidelines of access before and after 
legal sunset. We made no change to the rule as a result of this 
comment.
    Comment 2: Several commenters asked why DeSoto National Wildlife 
Refuge in Iowa had changed its policy regarding removal of tree stands 
for bowhunters at the end of each hunting day as opposed to at the end 
of each season. They enumerated the following concerns: Putting up and 
taking down tree stands in the dark is dangerous and unsafe; the rule 
will cause rifle hunters to shoot from the ground instead of using 
stands thus creating unsafe situations; carrying in and setting up tree 
stands each morning is noisy thus forecasting to the deer the arrival 
of hunters; it will limit the number of hunters physically able to 
transport their stands on a daily basis; and this change is unfair as 
the refuge was purchased with ``Pittman-Roberts'' money and would 
severely limit hunter access.
    Response 2: We have decided not to adopt this amendment and, for 
this season, we will retain the 2005-2006 regulations, which ask 
hunters to remove their personal property from the refuge at the end of 
the season. We would remind hunters to please keep in mind the impact 
their blind has on other hunters and ask that they leave blinds up only 
for the periods in which the blinds will receive that hunter's use.
    DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge, which consists of land the 
majority of which was purchased with Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 
dollars, does not require the use of tree stands by hunters for deer 
hunting. If the hunters believe it is unsafe to put up or take down a 
tree stand in the dark or in daylight, or if hunters perceive that 
issues such as noise or physical problems limit their success, they 
should use other methods to hunt deer such as ground blinds or hunting 
within easier walking distance to parking lots, etc. We do not regulate 
where hunters place themselves. The refuge management acknowledges 
there is inherent risk in any type of activity on a refuge. We strongly 
promote hunter safety in all of our hunts. Rifle and bow hunters are 
responsible for any shot they take. During the 2005 season rifle hunts, 
many hunters sat on the ground, used ground blinds, or simply sat on a 
bucket, and we had no reported accidents by hunters. Disabled hunters, 
conversely, use ground blinds. When hunters place a stand on Federal 
land, they are effectively claiming that section of ground as their 
own, whether that is their intention or not. Other hunters, coming 
through the area scouting for a spot to hunt, see the first hunter's 
stand and often leave the area because it has been ``claimed.'' Hunters 
on Federal land, while in the act of hunting, have the privilege to use 
an area for their hunt. However, when they are through hunting, they 
need to leave the area unclaimed so another hunter may have the same 
opportunity to hunt that spot and so that the nonhunting public may 
view an unlittered landscape. We removed the language requiring daily 
removal of tree stands from DeSoto NWR's regulation.
    Comment 3: Also at DeSoto NWR, in a related comment to the tree 
stand issue, the commenter felt that a better rule would be to require 
all deer hunters to shoot a doe before they are allowed a buck, and for 
the refuge to return some of the refuge land that is grass back to 
agriculture crops, thereby keeping the deer on the refuge for the 
hunters and leaving a larger protion of the crops for winter food for 
wildlife.
    Response 3: The technique of taking a doe before a buck is used to 
take more does on a specific area and has no bearing on the proposed 
rule (the same is true about habitat on the refuge). Enforcing an 
``earn a buck'' hunt is costly and generally used as a last resort when 
an area cannot sufficiently fill its allotted doe tags to effectively 
manage the deer population on the refuge. DeSoto NWR has had no trouble 
filling needed tags for the deer hunts. As far as management of 
habitat, DeSoto has conducted extensive public reviews, including 
Federal Register comment periods, during the creation of the station's 
comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) in 2001. A major portion of the 
CCP states the types of habitat that the refuge will support. We 
decided that the refuge would reduce the acres in agricultural crop 
ground to 475 acres by 2015. The refuge is converting cropland acreage 
to more natural and regionally scarce habitats such as native 
grasslands, riparian forests dominated by cottonwood, and moist soil/
wetland plant communities. We made no changes to the rule as a result 
of this comment.
    Comment 4: In another comment related to DeSoto NWR, a commenter 
asked how our wildlife refuges can have different sets of rules 
concerning the application of tree stands for deer hunters in the many 
refuges across the country.
    Response 4: For the most part, our refuge regulations are 
consistent with State regulations, which may reflect the variances in 
refuge decisions concerning changes in rules on the same issue from 
refuge to refuge. We also allow refuge managers the latitude to be more 
restrictive than the State when they deem it necessary and appropriate 
for their particular refuge. But differences between refuges occur even 
within the same State. In Montana, for example, Charles M. Russell NWR 
allows year-round stands, while Lee Metcalf NWR requires daily removal 
of stands. By this regulation, DeSoto NWR will continue to allow deer 
stands to remain in place for the entire season. We prefer that hunters 
leave them up only for the periods when they will receive regular use. 
We changed the regulation (see Response 2) to reflect this 
decision.

[[Page 33160]]

    Comment 5: In a comment also related to DeSoto Refuge, the 
commenter said that the State regulations say that any stand put up on 
public ground becomes public property for others to use, and that this 
rule has served DeSoto well and should be continued.
    Response 5: As discussed in 4 above, we adopt State 
regulations where we can, but we may also be more restrictive than the 
States. DeSoto NWR experienced many problems with this aspect of the 
State's policy concerning ``ownership'' of stands. Some hunters would 
erect six to eight stands to ``block'' an area, and very few hunters 
would use someone else's stand. On those rare occasions when hunters 
tried to use someone else's stand, we were informed that those hunters 
were threatened. For the reasons discussed in the comments above, we 
are changing the regulations to allow hunters to leave their blinds in 
for the season, however, we prefer that hunters limit their blind 
placement to those periods of regular use and only put up one blind per 
hunter.
    Comment 6: Several commenters requested an extension of the 30-day 
public comment period to gather and examine each refuge's ``opening 
package'' and to allow more thoughtful review of the proposed rule. In 
connection with this, one commenter felt that we were in conflict with 
Executive Order 12996, ``Management and General Public Use of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System,'' and the public involvement section 
therein and also felt that hunting programs are ``generally 
inconsistent with refuge-specific purposes and represent an 
incompatible use.''
    Response 6: 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 provided 
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. In 
2006, the proposed rule went on public file on July 17, published on 
July 24, and the public comment period ended August 16, 30 days after 
the date the document went on public file.
    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.
    Concerning the comment on Executive Order 12996 (March 25, 1996) 
(E.O. 12996) that hunting and/or fishing programs are inconsistent with 
refuge-specific purposes and represent an incompatible use, E.O. 12996 
helped refine the mission and guiding principles of the Refuge System. 
It provided directives to the Secretary of the Interior in carrying out 
his trustee and stewardship responsibility of the Refuge System. 
Regarding public involvement, E.O. 12996 stated, ``The public should be 
given a full and open opportunity to participate in decisions regarding 
acquisition and management of our National Wildlife Refuges.'' We 
believe we provide the public that opportunity, as discussed above. 
E.O. 12996 goes on to establish Public Use as one of the four guiding 
principles of the Refuge System. The President affirmed as one of these 
principles that ``The Refuge System provides important opportunities 
for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving 
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
environmental education and interpretation.'' Further in E.O. 12996, 
the President directs the Secretary of the Interior ``to recognize 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities involving 
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 
environmental education and interpretation as priority general public 
uses of the Refuge System through which the American public can develop 
an appreciation for fish and wildlife; to provide expanded 
opportunities for these priority public uses within the Refuge System 
when they are compatible and consistent with sound principles of fish 
and wildlife management, and are otherwise in the public interest; [to] 
ensure that such priority public uses receive enhanced attention in 
planning and management within the Refuge System; [and to] provide 
increased opportunities for families to experience wildlife-dependent 
recreation, particularly opportunities for parents and their children 
to safely engage in traditional outdoor activities, such as fishing and 
hunting...'' As discussed in this Response to Public Comment section 
and elsewhere in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, those refuges 
that have made decisions regarding hunting and/or fishing opportunities 
have complied with E.O. 12996 and the responsibilities and requirements 
mandated under the Administration Act and the Improvement Act 
addressing compatibility and consistency with refuge purposes. We made 
no changes to this rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment 7: Several commenters expressed opposition to opening 
refuges to hunting and fishing and believe refuges should offer safe 
haven for wildlife.
    Response 7: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act 
of 1966 authorizes the Secretary to allow uses of any refuge area as 
long as those uses are compatible; and, in fact, the Administration Act 
specifically references hunting and fishing. Amendments to the 
Administration Act made by the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act establish wildlife-dependent recreational uses as 
priority uses and include hunting and fishing in the definition of 
those uses.
    The principal focus of the Improvement Act was to clearly establish 
a wildlife conservation mission for the Refuge System and provide 
managers clear direction to make determinations regarding wildlife 
conservation and public uses within the units of the Refuge System. The 
Service manages national wildlife refuges primarily for wildlife 
conservation, habitat protection, and biological integrity, and allows 
uses only when compatible with the refuge purpose(s). In passing the 
Improvement Act, Congress reaffirmed the System was created to conserve 
fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats and would facilitate 
opportunities for Americans to participate in compatible wildlife-
dependent recreation, including hunting and/or fishing on Refuge system 
lands. The Service has adopted policies and regulations implementing 
the requirements of the Improvement Act that refuge managers comply 
with when considering hunting and fishing programs. We made no changes 
to the rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment 8: A commenter felt the Service erred in categorically 
excluding the proposed rule from National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) review and believes that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 
should have been prepared. They

[[Page 33161]]

further believe that we did not follow Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
mandates.
    Response 8: We disagree. As discussed in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, 
we detail the steps that follow NEPA and ESA mandates. This final rule 
represents a compilation of a new sport fishing opening and corrects 
existing language for refuges listed in 50 CFR part 32. Cape May NWR 
has included the appropriate NEPA and ESA Section 7 compliance for the 
sport fishing opening package. The reference to a categorical exclusion 
in the proposed rule is no longer applicable to this final rule. Our 
NEPA compliance is the relevant environmental assessment for the sport 
fishing opening and the previously opened programs to which minor 
modifications are being made.
    Comment 9: A commenter felt that members of the nonhunting public 
would be ``cumulatively impacted by the Service's vast expansion of 
hunting on refuges, because these nonhunters are foreclosed from 
enjoying refuges during hunting seasons due to the possibility of being 
shot at or viewing wounded birds or animals, thus limiting the 
recreational opportunities the refuges afford nonconsumptive 
recreationalists.''
    Response 9: When we decide to open a refuge to any activity, we 
consider the impacts on and interrelationships of all users. The time 
that refuges are open to hunting as opposed to activities for 
nonconsumptive recreationalists is very limited, and we would restrict 
those areas where we allow hunting during those limited hunting seasons 
to hunters only, to avoid any possibility of visitors ``being shot 
at.'' Also, we stress the importance of game retrieval with hunters so 
the likelihood of ``viewing wounded birds or animals'' would be 
extremely slim. Many refuges even allow dogs to accompany the hunter 
for just that purpose. We made no changes to the rule as a result of 
this comment.

Modifications From the Proposed Rule

    In light of a U.S. District Court decision issued August 31, 2006, 
we made some changes to the rule as proposed on July 24, 2006, in the 
Federal Register (71 FR 41864). Pending completion of additional 
analysis, we are withdrawing from this rule the following: the opening 
of the hunting program at the new national wildlife refuge, Hamden 
Slough in Minnesota; and the expansion of activities at the following 
national wildlife refuges: Agassiz in Minnesota; Blackwater in 
Maryland; Whittlesey Creek in Wisconsin; and Upper Ouachita, Bayou 
Cocodrie, and Tensas River in Louisiana and the associated regulations 
dealing with those activities. Finally, we are removing the proposed 
modifications for Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 
Refuge in the State of Minnesota published in the Federal Register on 
July 24, 2006 (71 FR 41864). On June 28, 2007, we published a proposed 
rule (72 FR 35380) in the Federal Register identifying amendments to 
the refuge-specific regulations for Upper Mississippi River National 
Wildlife and Fish Refuge and invited comments for 30 days. On September 
7, 2007, we published a final rule (72 FR 51534) in the Federal 
Register amending the regulations for this refuge.

Unchanged Elements From the Proposed Rule

    The new sport fishing program at Cape May NWR in New Jersey remains 
in the rule as does a new listing for Holt Collier NWR (offering upland 
and big game hunting) in Mississippi, as it was created from the 
existing Yazoo NWR where the hunts had been opened previously. We are 
modifying the list of refuges in part 32 to reflect the four wetland 
management districts that are open to all four activities in Montana: 
Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau. 
Finally, we are correcting the administrative errors in 50 CFR part 32. 
We discuss all of these actions later in this preamble under ``Changes 
to 2008-2009 Hunting and Sport Fishing Season.''

Curtailment of Fishing at Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge

    On June 15, 2006, Presidential Proclamation 8031 established the 
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument, which also 
encompasses the Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge and the 
Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge/Battle of Midway National 
Memorial. In the context of this Proclamation only, we hereby prohibit 
sport fishing within the Midway Atoll Special Management Area. This 
proclamation and its implementation does not set a precedent or 
otherwise establish policy for other refuges within the National 
Wildlife Refuge System.

Changes to the 2008-2009 Hunting and Sport Fishing Season

    In preparation for new openings, we prepare and approve, at the 
appropriate Regional Office and in Washington, documentation of 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species 
Act; and we consult with the State and, where appropriate, Tribal 
wildlife management agency. The Regional Director certifies that the 
opening of Cape May National Wildlife Refuge (State of New Jersey) to 
sport fishing has been found to be compatible with the purpose(s) for 
which the refuge was established and the Refuge System mission. Copies 
of the compatibility determinations for this refuge are available by 
request to the Regional office noted under the heading ``Available 
Information for Specific Refuges.''
    Table 1 summarizes our changes for the 2008-2009 season.

                             Table 1.--Changes for 2008-2009 Hunting/Fishing Season
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Migratory bird
   National wildlife refuge        State         hunting         Upland hunting    Big game hunting    Fishing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cape May......................  NJ........  Previously         .................  Previously         B.
                                             published.                            published.
Holt Collier..................  MS........  .................  A................  A................
Black Coulee..................  MT........  Previously         Previously         C................
                                             published.         published.
Creedman Coulee...............  MT........  Previously         C................  C................
                                             published.
Hewitt Lake...................  MT........  Previously         C................  C................
                                             published.
Lake Thibadeau................  MT........  Previously         C................  C ...............
                                             published.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A = Refuge was created from existing land that was part of Yazoo NWR Complex, which was already open to all 3
  hunting opportunities in 50 CFR.
B = Refuge already listed, added fishing.
C = Refuge opened to activity in past but omitted from 50 CFR due to administrative oversight.

    Some refuges that are already open to hunting activities will be 
modifying recreational opportunities, which will result in new hunting 
days (discussed in the economic analysis section in following pages). A 
summary of these

[[Page 33162]]

modified opportunities on refuges follow: Washita NWR (OK) will 
increase its hunting season by 9 additional days; Trinity River NWR 
(TX) will be open to archery hunting; Agassiz NWR (MN) has initiated a 
youth hunt, opened to archery hunting, and has extended the 
muzzleloader deer hunting season; Tensas River NWR (LA) will increase 
the time period for the youth deer hunt and will add a deer hunt for 
the physically challenged; and Lake Alice NWR (ND) will be allowing the 
use of motorized boats while hunting waterfowl.
    Lands acquired as ``waterfowl production areas'' under the 
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718d(c)), 
which we generally manage as part of wetland management 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 this year: Benton Lake WMD, Bowdoin WMD, 
Charles M. Russell WMD, Northeast Montana WMD, and Northwest Montana 
WMD, all in the State of Montana.
    We are correcting administrative errors in 50 CFR part 32. We are 
correctly reflecting hunting opportunities for four refuges in the 
State of Montana (Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, Hewitt Lake, and Lake 
Thibadeau). These refuges were open to all three hunting activities in 
the 1983 CFR. The publication of a final rule (49 FR 36737, September 
19, 1984), which codified the 1984 CFR with administrative technical 
amendments, resulted in these four refuges being mistakenly dropped 
from the upland and/or big game hunting lists. We are now correcting 
those errors for these refuges.
    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 regulations at each refuge, to increase understanding and 
compliance with these regulations, and to make enforcement of these 
regulations more efficient. In addition to now finding these 
regulations in 50 CFR part 32, visitors to our refuges will usually 
find them 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.
    We incorporate these regulations into 50 CFR part 32. Part 32 
contains general provisions and refuge-specific regulations for hunting 
and sport fishing on refuges.

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/.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order (E.O.) 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 E.O. 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 this rule.
    The purpose of this rule is to add one refuge to the list of areas 
open for sport fishing, to correct 50 CFR part 32 reflecting 
administrative changes, and to make minor changes to the existing 
regulations in part 32. In many instances, updates to part 32 are 
clarifying current practices on individual refuges. As such, many of 
the updates will not impact the status quo of recreational 
opportunities on refuges. Only those updates that may impact the status 
quo are addressed in this section.
    Sport 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(s) of each refuge. Many of the 547 
existing national wildlife refuges already have programs which allow 
sport fishing and hunting. Not all refuges have the necessary resources 
and landscape that would make sport fishing and hunting opportunities 
available to the public.
    Cape May NWR (State of New Jersey) will be added to the list of 
areas open for sport fishing. Cape May NWR is the only refuge that will 
be newly added to the list of areas opened. This addition will result 
in an increase in the number of fishing days.
    We are correcting the following administrative errors in 50 CFR 
part 32. The publication of a 1984 final rule (49 FR 36737, September 
19, 1984), which codified the 1984 CFR with administrative technical 
amendments, resulted in four refuges (Black Coulee, Creedman Coulee, 
Hewitt Lake, and Lake Thibadeau NWRs all in the State of Montana) being 
mistakenly dropped from the upland and/or big game hunting lists. This 
rule corrects this error reflecting those hunting opportunities. There 
are no new economic impacts resulting from this correction because 
recreational activities never ceased at those refuges.
    We will establish Holt Collier NWR (State of Mississippi) as a 
separate refuge. Because it was formerly part of the Yazoo NWR complex 
and recreational activities will not increase, we expect no new 
economic impacts to result.
    We generally manage lands acquired as ``waterfowl production 
areas'' under the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act (16 
U.S.C. 718d(c) as part of wetland management districts (WMDs). These 
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, all in the State of Montana, to the list of refuges open for all 
four activities in part 32 this year: Benton Lake WMD, Bowdoin WMD, 
Charles M. Russell WMD, Northeast Montana WMD, and Northwest Montana 
WMD. 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.
    Some refuges that are already open to hunting activities will be 
modifying recreational opportunities, which will result in new hunting 
days. A summary of these modified opportunities follow: Washita NWR 
(OK) will increase its hunting season by 9 additional days; Trinity 
River NWR (TX) will be open to archery hunting; Agassiz NWR (MN) has 
initiated a youth hunt, opened to archery hunting, and has extended the 
muzzleloader deer hunting season;

[[Page 33163]]

Tensas River NWR (LA) will increase the time period for the youth deer 
hunt and will add a deer hunt for the physically challenged; and Lake 
Alice NWR (ND) will be allowing the use of motorized boats while 
hunting waterfowl. The potential impacts of these recreational 
opportunities are discussed below in the Benefits Accrued section.
    In some cases, the changes to part 32 will not impact the 
opportunity to hunt or fish. Instead, these changes will impact the 
quality of the hunting or sport fishing experience. These impacts are 
discussed qualitatively below.

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.
    A number of refuges will be requiring the use of nontoxic shot for 
turkey hunting. Hunters that use toxic shot will be negatively impacted 
by this requirement because nontoxic shot is more expensive and does 
not travel the same distance or with the same trajectory as toxic shot. 
The number of hunters currently using toxic shot is unknown. Therefore, 
the impact of this requirement is unknown. While this change may 
negatively impact some hunters, it will not affect the opportunity to 
hunt on the refuges.
    A number of refuges will be requiring personal property (i.e., 
decoys, blinds, boats, etc.) to be removed from the refuge property at 
the end of each day. In addition, a few refuges will be prohibiting 
hunters from entering the refuge until a specified time of day. The 
inconveniences caused by these changes may have a negative impact on 
the hunter's or angler's experience. However, these changes will not 
affect the opportunity to hunt or fish on the refuges.

Benefits Accrued

    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 or modifying new fishing and hunting programs were 
a pure addition to the current supply of such activities, there would 
be an estimated increase of 840 user days of hunting and 500 user days 
of fishing (Table 2). These new fishing and hunting days would 
generate: (1) Consumer surplus \1\, and (2) expenditures associated 
with fishing and hunting on the refuges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The difference between the total value people receive from 
the consumption of a particular good and the total amount they pay 
for the good.

                   Table 2.--Estimated Change in Fishing and Hunting Opportunities in 2008/09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Current hunting                                      Total additional
                 Refuge                    and/or fishing      Additional        Additional        fishing and
                                             days (FY04)      fishing days      hunting days      hunting days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agassiz (MN)............................               740  ................               110               110
Cape May (NJ)...........................             8,550               500  ................               500
Lake Alice (ND).........................             1,380  ................               600               600
Tensas River (LA).......................            28,850  ................                25                25
Trinity River (TX)......................             3,320  ................                30                30
Washita (OK)............................            28,818  ................                75                75
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Days Per Year.............            71,658               500               840             1,340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming the new days are a pure addition to the current supply, 
the additional days would create consumer surplus of $65,342 annually 
([500 days x $48.92 CS per day] + [840 days x $48.67 CS per day]) 
(Table 3). 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 likely to be smaller.

Table 3.--Estimated Change in Annual Consumer Surplus From Additional Fishing and Hunting Opportunities in 2008/
                                                   09 (2005 $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Total fishing
                                                                      Fishing         Hunting       and hunting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Additional Days...........................................             500             840           1,340
 
Avg. Consumer Surplus per Day \2\...............................          $48.92          $48.67  ..............
Change in Total Consumer Surplus................................         $24,460         $40,882        $65,342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Due to the unavailability of consistent consumer surplus estimates for these various site-specific
  activities, we use benefit transfer. We use national average consumer surplus estimates for fishing and for
  hunting for this analysis. The estimates are from: Pam Kaval and John Loomis, ``Updated Outdoor Recreation Use
  Values with Emphasis on National Park Recreation,'' October 2003.

    In addition to benefits derived from consumer surplus, this rule 
would also have benefits from the recreation-related expenditures. 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. Using the 
average expenditures for these categories with

[[Page 33164]]

the maximum expected additional participation on the Refuge System 
yields $35,248 in fishing-related expenditures and $83,604 in hunting-
related expenditures (Table 4).

 Table 4.--Estimation of the Additional Expenditures With Modification of Activities on Refuges and the Opening
                                    of 1 Refuge to Sport Fishing for 2008/09
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Current refuge       Possible
                                           U.S. total            Average      expenditures w/o     additional
                                      expenditures in 2001  expenditures per     duplication         refuge
                                                                   day            (FY2004)        expenditures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fishing:
    Total Days Spent...............  557 Mil..............  ................         7,045,382               500
    Total Expenditures.............  39.3 Bil.............               $70      $496,671,534           $35,248
    Trip Related...................  16.2 Bil.............               $29      $204,287,312           $14,498
    Food and Lodging...............  6.5 Bil..............               $12       $81,974,145            $5,818
    Transportation.................  3.9 Bil..............                $7       $49,005,482            $3,478
    Other..........................  5.8 Bil..............               $10       $73,307,685            $5,203
Hunting:
    Total Days Spent...............  228 Mil..............  ................         2,378,813               840
    Total Expenditures.............  22.7 Bil.............              $100      $236,759,998           $83,604
    Trip Related...................  5.8 Bil..............               $25       $60,334,509           $21,305
    Food and Lodging...............  2.7 Bil..............               $12       $28,142,621            $9,938
    Transportation.................  2.0 Bil..............                $9       $20,554,019            $7,258
    Other..........................  1.1 Bil..............                $5       $11,637,870            $4,110
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By having ripple effects throughout the economy, these direct 
expenditures are only part of the economic impact of waterfowl hunting. 
Using a national impact multiplier for hunting activities (2.73) 
derived from the report ``Economic Importance of Hunting in America'' 
and a national impact multiplier for sportfishing activities (2.79) 
from the report ``Sportfishing in America'' for the estimated increase 
in direct expenditures yields a total economic impact of approximately 
$327,000 (2005 dollars) (Southwick Associates, Inc., 2003). (Using a 
local impact multiplier would yield more accurate and smaller results. 
However, we employed the national impact multiplier due to the 
difficulty in developing local multipliers for each specific region.)
    Since we know that most of the fishing and hunting occurs within 
100 miles of a participant's residence, then it is unlikely that most 
of this spending would be ``new'' money coming into a local economy. 
Therefore, this spending would be offset with a decrease in some other 
sector of the local economy. The net gain to the local economies would 
be no more than $327,000, and most likely considerably less. Since 80 
percent of the participants travel less than 100 miles to engage in 
hunting and sport fishing activities, their spending patterns would not 
add new money into the local economy and, therefore, the real impact 
would be on the order of $65,000 annually.
    In summary, we estimate that the additional fishing and hunting 
opportunities would yield approximately $65,000 in consumer surplus and 
$65,000 in recreation-related expenditures annually. The 10-year 
quantitative benefit for this rule would be $653,000 ($574,000 
discounted at 3 percent or $491,000 discounted at 7 percent).
    b. This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. This action pertains solely to the management of the Refuge 
System. The sport fishing and hunting activities located on national 
wildlife refuges account for approximately 1 percent of the available 
supply in the United States. Any small, incremental change in the 
supply of sport fishing and hunting opportunities will not measurably 
impact any other agency's existing programs.
    c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. 
This rule does not affect entitlement programs. There are no grants or 
other Federal assistance programs associated with public use of 
national wildlife refuges.
    d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. This rule 
makes minor changes to existing regulations in 50 CFR part 32 and 
corrects some administrative errors. This rule continues the practice 
of allowing recreational public use of national wildlife refuges. Many 
refuges in the Refuge System currently have opportunities for the 
public to hunt and fish on refuge lands.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act [SBREFA] of 1996) (5 
U.S.C. 601, et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish 
a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare 
and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis 
that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies that the rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a 
regulatory flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a 
threshold for ``significant impact'' and a threshold for a 
``substantial number of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA 
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to 
provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities.
    This rule establishes a fishing program on one refuge and modifies 
recreational opportunities at several other refuges. As a result, 
opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation on national wildlife 
refuges will increase. The changes in the amount of allowed use(s) are 
likely to increase visitor activity on these national wildlife refuges. 
However, as stated in the Regulatory Planning and Review section, this 
is likely to be a substitute site for the activity and not necessarily 
an increase in participation rates for the

[[Page 33165]]

activity. To the extent visitors spend time and money in the area of 
the refuge that they would not have spent there anyway, they contribute 
new income to the regional economy and benefit local businesses.
    Many small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as 
hotels, gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait and tackle shops, etc.) may 
benefit from some increased refuge visitation. A large percentage of 
these retail trade establishments in the majority of affected counties 
qualify as small businesses (Table 5).
    We expect that the incremental recreational opportunities will be 
scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will have a 
significant economic effect (benefit) on a substantial number of small 
entities in any region or nationally. Using the estimate derived in the 
Regulatory Planning and Review section, we expect approximately $65,000 
to be spent in total in the refuges' local economies. The maximum 
increase ($327,000 if all spending were new money) at most would be 
less than 1 percent for local retail trade spending (Table 5).

        Table 5.--Comparative Expenditures for Retail Trade Associated With Additional Refuge Visitation for 2008/2009 (Thousands, 2005 Dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Estimated
                                                                 Retail trade in  maximum addition    Addition as a     Total number     Establish. with
                      Refuge/county(ies)                              2002            from new      percent of total       retail            10 emp.
                                                                                     activities                          establish.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agassiz:
    Marshall, MN..............................................           $77,841                $5             0.007                43                35
Cape May:
    Cape May, NJ..............................................         1,501,452                25             0.002               776               633
Lake Alice:
    Ramsey, ND................................................           211,203                15             0.007                98                69
    Towner, ND................................................            10,819                15             0.135                15                14
Tensas River:
    Franklin, LA..............................................           199,210                 0            0.0002                83                63
    Madison, LA...............................................            75,763                 0             0.001                42                31
    Tensas, LA................................................            23,183                 0             0.002                26                22
Trinity River:
    Liberty, TX...............................................           686,415                 2            0.0002               204               155
Washita:
    Custer, OK................................................           324,161                 4             0.001               161               120
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the small increase in overall spending anticipated from this 
rule, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will 
have more than a small benefit from the increased spending near the 
affected refuges. Therefore, we certify that this rule will not have a 
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities 
as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
An initial/final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. 
Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. We anticipate no 
significant employment or small business effects. This rule:
    a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more. The additional fishing and hunting opportunities at these refuges 
would generate angler and hunter expenditures with an economic impact 
estimated at $327,000 per year (2005 dollars). Consequently, the 
maximum benefit of this rule for businesses both small and large would 
not be sufficient to make this a major rule. The impact would be 
scattered across the country and would most likely not be significant 
in any local area.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions. This rule would have only a slight 
effect on the costs of hunting and sport fishing opportunities for 
Americans. Under the assumption that any additional hunting and sport 
fishing opportunities would be of high quality, participants would be 
attracted to the refuge. If the refuge were closer to the participants' 
residences, then a reduction in travel costs would occur and benefit 
the participants. The Service does not have information to quantify 
this reduction in travel cost but assumes that, since most people 
travel less than 100 miles to hunt and fish, the reduced travel cost 
would be small for the additional days of hunting and sport fishing 
generated by this rule. We do not expect this rule to affect the supply 
or demand for sport fishing and hunting opportunities in the United 
States and, therefore, it should not affect prices for sport fishing 
and hunting equipment and supplies, or the retailers that sell 
equipment. Additional refuge hunting and sport fishing opportunities 
would account for less than 0.001 percent of the available 
opportunities in the United States.
    c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises. This rule represents only a small proportion of 
recreational spending of a small number of affected anglers and 
hunters, approximately a maximum of $327,000 annually in impact. 
Therefore, this rule would have no measurable economic effect on the 
wildlife-dependent industry, which has annual sales of equipment and 
travel expenditures of $72 billion nationally. Refuges that establish 
hunting and sport fishing programs may hire additional staff from the 
local community to assist with the programs, but this would not be a 
significant increase because we are opening only one refuge to sport 
fishing and modifying opportunities at several other refuges.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Since this rule would apply to public use of federally owned and 
managed refuges, it would not impose an unfunded mandate on State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 
million per year. The

[[Page 33166]]

rule would not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or 
Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the 
information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.) is not required.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule would not have significant 
takings implications. This regulation would affect only visitors at 
national wildlife refuges and describe what they can do while they are 
on a refuge.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    As discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review and Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act sections above, this rule would not have sufficient 
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment under E.O. 13132. In preparing this rule, we worked with 
State governments.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that the rule would not unduly burden the judicial system 
and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the 
Order. The regulation would clarify established regulations and result 
in better understanding of the regulations 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. E.O. 
13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when 
undertaking certain actions. Because this rule would add one refuge to 
the list of areas open for sport fishing and modify activities at 
several other refuges, it is not a significant regulatory action under 
E.O. 12866 and is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, and use. Therefore, this action is a not a significant 
energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 
13175)

    In accordance with E.O. 13175, we have evaluated possible effects 
on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there 
are no effects. We coordinate recreational use on national wildlife 
refuges with Tribal governments having adjoining or overlapping 
jurisdiction before we propose the regulations.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Office of Management and Budget has approved our collection of 
information associated with special use permits used by refuges outside 
of Alaska and assigned OMB Control Number is 1018-0102. See 50 CFR 
25.23 for information concerning that approval. 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. We will seek further OMB approval for other necessary 
information collection.

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

    In preparation for new openings, we comply with Section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act. Copies of the Section 7 evaluations may be 
obtained by contacting the regions listed under Available Information 
for Specific Refuges. For the proposal to open Cape May National 
Wildlife Refuge, we have determined the actions will have no effect on 
any listed species or critical habitat.
    We also comply with Section 7 of the ESA when developing 
Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) and step-down management plans 
for public use of refuges, and prior to implementing any new or revised 
public recreation program on a refuge as identified in 50 CFR 26.32.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)) 
and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 6, Appendix 1. This rule does not 
constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment. An environmental impact statement/assessment 
is not required.
    Concerning the action that is the subject of this rulemaking 
(opening Cape May National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey to fishing), 
NEPA was complied with at the project level where this proposal was 
developed.
    Prior to the addition of a refuge to the list of areas open to 
sport fishing in 50 CFR part 32, we developed a fishing plan for the 
affected refuge. We incorporate this proposed refuge fishing activity 
in the refuge CCPs and/or other step-down management plans, pursuant to 
our refuge planning guidance in 602 Fish and Wildlife Service Manual 
(FW) 1, 3, and 4. We prepared CCPs and step-down plans in compliance 
with section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, and the Council on Environmental 
Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA in 40 CFR parts 1500-1508. 
We invite the affected public to participate in the review, 
development, and implementation of these plans. Copies of all plans and 
NEPA compliance are available from the refuge at the addresses provided 
below. The modifications of existing public use hunting and fishing 
programs are all minor in nature and fall within the relevant NEPA 
compliance prepared for the programs initially and also would fall 
within the category of minor modifications excluded from further NEPA 
consideration described in 516 DM 6, Appendix 1, 1.4A (1, 7, and 9).

Available Information for Specific Refuges

    Individual refuge headquarters retain information regarding public 
use programs and conditions that apply to their specific programs and 
maps of their respective areas. If the specific refuge you are 
interested in is not mentioned below, then contact the appropriate 
Regional offices listed