2011-2012 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations, 56054-56090 [2011-22752]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56054-56090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22752]



[[Page 56053]]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 175

September 9, 2011

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 32





2011-2012 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations; Final 
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 56054]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 32

[Docket No. FWS-R9-NSR-2011-0038; 93270-1265-0000-4A]
RIN 1018-AX54


2011-2012 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 hunting and/or sport fishing and increases the 
activities available at nine other refuges, along with adopting 
pertinent refuge-specific regulations on other refuges that pertain to 
migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and 
sport fishing for the 2011-2012 season.

DATES: This rule is effective September 9, 2011.

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

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 also 
consider the role of facilitating hunting heritage in expanding hunting 
opportunities on national wildlife refuges consistent with the agency's 
mission.
    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 proposing to standardize and clarify 
the language of existing regulations.

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, are 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 purpose for which the refuge was 
established and the mission of the Refuge System. The Improvement Act 
established as the policy of the United States that wildlife-dependent 
recreation, when compatible, is a legitimate and appropriate public use 
of the Refuge System, through which the American public can develop an 
appreciation for fish and wildlife. The Improvement Act established six 
wildlife-dependent recreational uses as the priority general public 
uses of the Refuge System. These uses are: hunting, fishing, wildlife 
observation and photography, and environmental education and 
interpretation.
    The Recreation Act authorizes the Secretary to administer areas 
within the Refuge System 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 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

[[Page 56055]]

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 5, 2011, Federal Register (76 FR 39186), we published a 
proposed rulemaking identifying changes pertaining to migratory game 
bird hunting, upland game bird hunting, big game hunting, and sport 
fishing to existing refuge-specific language on certain refuges for the 
2011-2012 season. We received 251 comments on this proposed rule during 
a 30-day comment period; 226 of those comments were supportive of the 
rulemaking; 18 were opposed to the rulemaking; and the remainder 
expressed neither support nor opposition but had comments.
    Comment 1: A commenter asked when we would notify the public of the 
opening of the various areas, when the applications would become 
available, and what fees we would require.
    Response 1: With the publication of this final rule document, the 
changes become effective. We will be issuing press releases both 
locally in the affected areas and nationally from the Headquarters of 
the National Wildlife Refuge System and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service. Interested hunters should contact the particular refuge that 
they wish to visit for application and fee information. We maintain a 
list of all of the national wildlife refuges on our National Wildlife 
Refuge System homepage (link: https://www.fws.gov/refuges/). Look for 
the ``Find Your Refuge'' section on the first page and you can query 
the system by State, zip code, alphabetically by refuge or other means 
via the pull-down menu. Once you link to the refuge of interest, you 
will find their address, phone number, and a link to their individual 
Web sites.
    Comment 2: We received six comments (from 4 different individuals) 
expressing concern regarding the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife 
Refuge's proposed prohibition on falconry. They state we offered no 
explanation for this prohibition, and they contend that falconry is a 
legal means of hunting/take in the State of Minnesota as it is in 49 of 
the 50 States. They object strongly to what appears to be prejudicial 
and a ``denied equitable public opportunity'' on the refuge and request 
that we remove such a bias from the regulations by allowing falconry. 
One commenter goes on to say that ``clear regulatory or policy guidance 
to permit falconry on all refuge properties would assist refuge 
managers and personnel development refuge management plans.'' This 
requestor also, ``respectfully requests on all refuge properties where 
take is allowed by archery methods only, that falconry also be 
permitted.''
    Response 2: Upon further examination of this condition, the refuge 
has decided to reverse their decision regarding falconry hunting as a 
means of take for migratory birds on Minnesota Valley National Wildlife 
Refuge and allow this opportunity. Due to the small number of hunters 
that practice falconry, the method used with this hunting technique, 
and the average success rate of this hunting method, we believe that 
this change will be insignificant in its direct, indirect, and 
cumulative impact. The factors considered in our analysis include the 
impact of this activity on overall migratory bird harvest, habitat 
conditions, interactions with other user groups, falconry hunter 
numbers, and economic gain or loss associated with this type of 
hunting.
    As far as policy specific to falconry, Service policy 605 FW 2.7M 
Special Hunts stipulates, ``We will address special types of hunts, 
such as falconry, in the hunt section of the visitor service plan 
(VSP).'' In other words, each refuge manager when developing their 
step-down visitor service's plan (which would include a hunt plan, if 
appropriate) from their Comprehensive Conservation Plan, must first 
determine if hunting is compatible. Assuming it is found to be 
compatible, the refuge manager would next determine the conduct of the 
hunt which might include the use of falconry. A refuge manager has 
discretion to prohibit hunting, and specifically falconry, in certain 
cases such as if endangered or threatened species are present; thus it 
is decided individually on a refuge-by-refuge basis.
    Comment 3: A commenter supports the proposed rule to open Crane 
Meadows National Wildlife Refuge to deer and turkey hunting and to 
expand hunting at nine other refuges across the country and agrees that 
the rule meets the intent of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act to provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent 
activities, including hunting, when these activities are compatible 
with refuge purposes and with the mission and purposes of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System. The commenter wonders why in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of the proposed rule that Executive Order 13443 is 
not included along with other mentioned Executive Orders (E.O.) and 
urges us to add this E.O. to the list of others with which we must 
comply and make this E.O. a standard part of any future proposed rule 
that opens or expands wildlife-dependent activities on national 
wildlife refuges.
    Response 3: The very nature of this rule to open and expand hunting 
on national wildlife refuges is consistent with the purpose of 
Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife 
Conservation). However, we are not including reference to the E.O. in 
the Required Determinations section of the rule because all of the 
E.O.s and Acts that are contained in that section of the rule require 
that a substantive determination be made as part of the regulatory 
process, whereas E.O. 13443 states that agencies should consider 
certain things in developing their policies but does not require that a 
specific determination be made in analyzing the substance of the E.O. 
as it might be impacted by the proposed regulation (emphasis added). We 
do consider the broad precepts of E.O. 13443 in developing the hunting 
regulations, but there is no affirmative obligation to assert that an 
agency has complied with that specific E.O.
    As the commenter correctly observes, this proposed rule does meet 
the intent of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act to 
provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent activities, including 
hunting, when these activities are compatible with refuge purposes and 
with the mission and purposes of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
They also correctly note that in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
of the proposed rule we reference the Improvement Act and the fact that 
it established six wildlife-dependent recreation uses, including 
hunting, as priority general public uses.
    We have added a sentence to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 
of this final rulemaking to indicate that we consider the role of 
facilitating hunting heritage in expanding hunting opportunities on 
national wildlife refuges consistent with the agency's mission.
    Comment 4: Seventeen commenters expressed objection to the concept 
of allowing any more hunting on national wildlife refuges. Their 
statements ranged from `` * * * too many people, too few animals'' to 
``I think the fact that it is a National Wildlife `Refuge' should mean 
just that.''
    Response 4: The 1966 National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 
Act, which was amended by the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act, stipulates that hunting (along with fishing, wildlife 
observation and photography, and

[[Page 56056]]

environmental education and interpretation), if found to be compatible, 
is a legitimate and priority general public use of a refuge and should 
be facilitated. The Administration Act authorizes the Secretary to 
allow use of any refuge area for any purpose as long as those uses are 
compatible. In the case of each refuge opening/expansion in this rule, 
the refuge managers went through the compatibility process (which 
allows for public comment), in addition to complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) (which also 
allows for public comment) to make the determination before opening the 
refuge to hunting or expanding the hunting opportunities on the refuge. 
We made no change to the regulations as a result of these comments.
    Comment 5: A commenter expressed opposition to opening Arapaho 
National Wildlife Refuge in Colorado to elk hunting.
    Response 5: Elk are found throughout the refuge and are the most 
numerous big game species on the refuge. The wintering elk population 
has continued to grow, from 200 to 300 elk in 1988 to approximately 
1,500 to 1,800 elk on the refuge in recent years.
    The primary objective of the elk hunt is to increase the dispersal 
of elk onto adjacent lands where they will be available to more 
hunters, and to harvest a small percentage of the population on the 
refuge thereby lessening the impacts to all native species, including 
migratory birds. The elk hunt will also provide a new, quality hunting 
opportunity for hunters with a focus on youth hunters and hunters with 
disabilities. Refuge managers determined that it is advisable to take 
management action before the elk population reaches the point where it 
does long-term damage to the environment and adversely affects other 
native flora and fauna species.
    Without a reduction in elk numbers, sections of the Illinois River 
on the refuge will continue to be impacted by wintering elk. Elk can 
have a severe impact on establishment and long-term health of willow 
stands, making achievement of refuge habitat objectives unlikely. If 
the refuge elk population continues to grow, it will eventually exceed 
the carrying capacity of the available habitat. We will continue to 
monitor the population, coordinate with the Colorado Department of 
Wildlife, limit hunter participation, and establish bag limits to 
ensure the population will not be adversely affected by managed 
hunting.
    We made no change to the regulations as a result of this comment.
    Comment 6: A commenter from the State of Texas, although supportive 
of the rulemaking, felt it was important to require ``* * * those 
utilizing these great resources to take appropriate hunter and 
bowhunter education courses. This will make sure that all hunters have 
been exposed to safety and ethical issues that will insure a safer 
hunting environment.''
    Response 6: We concur with the commenter. As discussed in the 
introductory paragraph of each hunting and/or sport fishing category 
for nearly every refuge under each State in 50 CFR part 32, we 
stipulate that we allow hunting and/or sport fishing activities in 
accordance with State regulations subject, in many cases, to conditions 
that follow in the refuge-specific regulations. Regulations allowing 
hunting of wildlife within the Refuge System must be, to the extent 
practicable, consistent with State fish and wildlife laws, regulations, 
and management plans; therefore, we do not reiterate those regulations 
in our regulations (see Fish and Wildlife Service policy 605 FW 2.3B).
    In the case of Texas, State regulations require that big game 
hunters have a bowhunting/hunter education certificate in their 
possession when hunting. Although we do not specifically restate this 
in our Texas refuge-specific regulations, our refuges do comply with 
this State law, which would include requiring this certificate for big 
game hunters. Further, at each refuge, there are brochures available to 
the hunter that go into detail about this State and refuge requirement. 
We made no changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment 7: A commenter indicated they would like to see deer and 
hog hunting allowed by archery means only on Bayou Sauvage National 
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in the State of Louisiana.
    Response 7: This urban refuge (within the city limits) is closed to 
big game hunting (the category of hunting under which one would find 
large species such as deer and hog); therefore this comment is not 
germane to this rulemaking. We made no change to the regulation as a 
result of this comment.
    Comment 8: A commenter asked why we do not allow feral pig hunting 
at Merritt Island NWR in Florida as ``they have a terrible feral pig 
problem'' there. Also the same commenter questioned the need for a 
waterfowl hunt as wintering waterfowl numbers have dropped from 120,000 
to under 18,000 in the past 10 years.
    Response 8: Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge is an overlay 
of the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the Service manages NASA's lands 
through an agreement. Prior to NASA's purchase of the lands for KSC, 
much of the area was owned by several large hunt clubs and when the 
property was sold, the prominent hunt club members desired retaining 
hunting privileges. When NASA entered into the agreement with the 
Service to establish the refuge, it specified waterfowl hunting would 
continue. Since 1963, the year we established the refuge, we have 
allowed waterfowl hunting in selected locations outside the restricted 
area of KSC.
    The refuge hunt program has evolved over the years in response to 
changing waterfowl populations, waterfowl use patterns, habitat 
conditions, and changes in the public use program. The length of the 
season, days of the week open to hunting, number and size of hunt 
areas, and ways and means for issuing permits have changed frequently 
over the past 48 years. Presently 36,000 acres of the 140,000-acre 
Merritt Island NWR are open to waterfowl hunting and are subdivided 
into four hunt areas (Hunt Areas 1 through 4). The refuge has a 
concurrent season with the State of Florida, except the refuge is open 
to hunting 3 days per week (Wednesday, Saturday, and Sunday) from legal 
shooting time until 1 p.m. We require a refuge hunt permit (signed 
brochure), a State-approved hunter safety training certificate, and a 
quota permit (State permit) for Hunt Areas 1 and 4 for the months of 
November and December.
    Waterfowl populations have declined on the refuge for at least 10 
years. The refuge staff is concerned about the decline, but it is 
unclear if the cause is fewer birds migrating to Florida, a shift in 
the Florida wintering population to other parts of the State (the 
decline seems to coincide with new habitat being created for Everglades 
restoration), or excessive hunting pressure on the refuge. In March of 
this year, following the 2010-2011 Waterfowl Season, refuge personnel 
met with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and waterfowl hunter 
stakeholders (representatives from Ducks Unlimited and United 
Waterfowlers), to discuss solutions to improve waterfowl hunting and 
address the decline in the refuge waterfowl populations. As a result of 
this meeting, the consensus was to attempt to improve the quality of 
the habitat conditions on the refuge but not make any immediate changes 
to the hunt program. The refuge will continue to monitor the waterfowl 
population but, at least for now, does not propose any

[[Page 56057]]

additional changes to the waterfowl regulations.
    With respect to the issue of opening the refuge to feral hog 
hunting, the refuge has never been open to big game hunting. However in 
2006, when they completed the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the 
refuge, they made provisions to evaluate opening the northern quarter 
of the refuge to feral hog and deer hunting. The refuge currently uses 
hog trappers under permit to remove feral hogs, and those trappers 
remove between 2,500 to 3,000 animals annually through this program at 
no cost to the refuge. The feral hog removal program is fairly 
effective, and at this time we do not wish to introduce a public hunt 
into the mix. A public hunt may provide a short-term advantage of 
reducing the population quickly in the area of the hunt, but, in the 
long run, the constant pressure afforded by the hog trappers in all 
areas of the refuge may provide a more effective long-term control. 
However, the refuge plans to evaluate implementing a feral hog hunt 
when the feral hog permits expire. No changes were made to this final 
rule as a result of this comment.
    Comment 9: A commenter asked how we would pay for supervision of 
hunting activity in these proposed areas given the budgetary 
constraints that currently exist and that are likely to become more 
stringent. Also, do we believe we can properly supervise the hunts 
under the circumstances?
    Response 9: When developing the Comprehensive Conservation Plans 
and step-down hunting plans for each refuge, the refuge manager takes 
into account budgetary needs for increased hunting opportunities. 
Basically, the refuge would not be proposing the activity (or increased 
activity) if it did not anticipate that there was enough funding to 
ensure compatibility and to administer and to manage the hunts.
    Typically, you can find this discussion under the ``Staffing and 
Funds'' section of each refuge's hunt plans, which were made publicly 
available when first issued, and remain available at each station's Web 
site. In some cases, an existing hunt program is in place and the 
refuge does not anticipate a drastic change in staffing or funding 
requirements. As refuge law enforcement can be a collateral duty for 
refuge staff, they may occasionally ``borrow'' law enforcement as 
needed from other refuges. For other refuges, non-law enforcement staff 
time does not increase greatly since generally all hunting seasons and 
permitting will be handled according to State regulations. Some refuges 
also see some budgetary relief in user fees which they believe are 
sufficient to cover increased opportunities. Some refuges state that 
there would be some costs associated with a hunting program in the form 
of brochures, instructional sign needs, and law enforcement. These 
refuges expect that the costs should be minimal relative to total 
refuge operations and maintenance costs and would not diminish 
resources dedicated to other refuge management programs.
    However, the refuges do acknowledge there will be some additional 
staff workload in order to administer new hunting opportunities and 
this factors into the decision to allow those opportunities. Finally, 
as discussed earlier in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section, with 
the passage of the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997, 
Congress mandated that hunting was one of the six priority general 
public uses that refuge managers were to facilitate when compatible, so 
to the extent possible and practicable, we adhere to that directive.
    We made no change to the regulations as a result of this comment.
    Comment 10: A commenter, although supportive of the additional 
hunting opportunity in Iowa, wondered why we impose additional 
requirements such as ``steel shot only'' on all our public hunting 
areas. The commenter points out that steel is costly and does not 
believe that it has been proven that the steel shot requirement has had 
a positive effect on migratory birds.
    Response 10: Waterfowl and migratory birds can get lead poisoning 
by ingesting lead shot when they feed (see https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ec/lead%20shot.htm). In the November 21, 1986, Federal 
Register (51 FR 42103) we began the conversion to nontoxic shot 
nationwide for waterfowl hunting on refuges, which we implemented in 
the 1991-1992 hunting season. At that time, refuges were implementing 
the nontoxic shot requirement on a refuge-by-refuge basis, and multiple 
rules were published (an example would be the June 19, 1991, Federal 
Register (56 FR 28133)). The Service oversees the approval process for 
alternative shot types in the United States. We specifically identify 
the shot allowed in areas of the Refuge System by reference to the shot 
identified in 50 CFR 20.21(j). We sometimes grant new shot types 
conditional approvals until we complete all necessary studies. These 
conditional approvals may change yearly, and we add new shot types to 
our approved list as they meet our criteria. You can link to the 
following Web sites concerning lead shot that contain more background 
information on this issue:

https://www.lab.fws.gov/shotpellets_leadshot.php; https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ec/lead%20shot.htm;

https://www.fws.gov/contaminants/DisplayNews.cfm?NewsID=4DAA500C-3E21-4564-87AA714E9E301C9E.

    You can find many other Web sites concerning lead shot by 
conducting an Internet search.
    We made no change to the regulations as a result of this comment.
    Comment 11: We received a comment regarding the proposed youth hunt 
at Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana. The commenter 
notes that the proposed hunt would allow hunting within 500 feet of 
Venetian Isle, a dense population of waterfront homes within the New 
Orleans city limits, and believes that not only should we prohibit 
hunting within the city limits but that the hunting boundaries should 
be at least 1 mile from homes. Further, the commenter doesn't want to 
be awakened by gunfire on weekend mornings.
    Response 11: The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 
1997 identifies hunting as a priority public use, and providing 
opportunities for fish and wildlife public uses in an urban setting is 
an established purpose of the refuge. Given this supporting legislation 
and the significant public support for hunting on Bayou Sauvage NWR, it 
is important that these opportunities are available to the public.
    Our goal is to ensure that hunting is balanced with the other 
priority public uses of environmental education, wildlife observation, 
interpretation, fishing, and photography. Thus, we have designated the 
interior units (57 percent of the refuge) as closed to hunting to allow 
ample opportunities for the other five priority uses. Additionally, we 
allow hunting only 4 days per week until 12 (noon), and these units 
will be open to fishing and other activities during nonhunting times.
    The youth hunt we are proposing is for migratory bird hunting, 
unlike comment 7 whichi dealt with big game hunting. The ammunition 
used for these two types of hunting is different. Bird shot has a 
different trajectory and much less mass than a rifled slug or bullet 
and would not travel as far as those ammunitions used in big game 
hunting. Under these circumstances, we feel the prohibition of hunting 
within 500 feet (150 m) of residences adequately provides for public 
safety. On two other Louisiana refuges, Big Branch Marsh and Bogue 
Chitto, we allow hunting

[[Page 56058]]

within 150 feet (45 m) of roads, trails, residences, and public 
facilities. In order to reduce potential noise associated with hunting 
activities near Venetian Isles, the areas located outside the hurricane 
protection levee, immediately west and south of Venetian Isles, between 
the former Bayou Sauvage channel and the railroad tracks will be posted 
closed to hunting. We made no changes to this regulation as a result of 
the comment.
    Comment 12: A commenter questioned the ``rigorous scientific 
research into the status of refuge wildlife populations'' and whether 
we were using this information to guide refuge planning. The commenter 
went on to say that a determination must be made that ``wildlife are 
surplus to a balanced conservation program on any wildlife area,'' and 
that ``unless the species is damaging or destroying federal property 
within a refuge, the species cannot be subject to live removal or 
lethal control, including through official animal control operations.'' 
They believe that ``refuges often fail to have refuge specific 
monitoring of harvest levels,'' and discussed the concept of an 
``inviolate sanctuary.'' Finally, the commenter believes that since 
``21 million people visit refuges for wildlife observation'' and ``only 
1.4 million visit to hunt or trap'' that nonconsumptive users should 
enjoy a higher priority when it comes to use of refuge lands.
    Response 12: As discussed in the response to Comment 4, and as 
Comment 12 acknowledges, ``the Refuge Improvement Act upgrades hunting 
and fishing to a priority use * * *''. Each refuge manager gives the 
decision to allow hunting on a particular refuge rigorous examination. 
A Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), a 15-year plan for the refuge, 
is generally the first step a refuge manager takes. Our policy for 
managing units of the Refuge System is that we will manage all refuges 
in accordance with an approved CCP which, when implemented, will 
achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; 
maintain and, where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of 
each refuge and the Refuge System; help achieve the goals of the 
National Wilderness Preservation System; and meet other mandates. The 
CCP will guide management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, 
and strategies to accomplish these ends. The next step for refuge 
managers is step-down plans, of which hunting would be one step-down 
plan. Part of the process for opening a refuge to hunting after 
completing the step-down plan would be appropriate compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), typically an environmental 
assessment accompanied by the appropriate decision documentation 
(Record of Decision, Finding of No Significant Impact, or an 
Environmental Action Memorandum or Statement). The CCP, hunt plan, and 
NEPA all receive public comment as does the proposed rule, before the 
final rule is published in the Federal Register. After publication of 
the final rule, we allow hunting on a refuge.
    In sum, this illustrates that the decision to allow hunting on a 
national wildlife refuge is not a quick or simple process. It is full 
of deliberation and discussion, including review of all available data 
to determine the relative health of a population before we allow it to 
be hunted. In the case of migratory game bird hunting, the Service 
annually prescribes frameworks for dates and times when migratory bird 
hunting may occur in the United States, and the number of birds that 
hunters may take and possess. We write these regulations after giving 
due regard to the zones of temperature and to the distribution, 
abundance, economic value, breeding habits, and times and lines of 
migratory flight of such birds, and we update the information annually. 
Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712), Congress 
authorized the Secretary of the Interior to determine when ``hunting, 
taking, capture, killing, possession, sale, purchase, shipment, 
transportation, carriage, or export of any * * * bird, or any part, 
nest, or egg'' of migratory game birds can take place, and to adopt 
regulations for this purpose. The Secretary of the Interior delegated 
this responsibility to the Service as the lead Federal agency for 
managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States.
    Because the Service is required to take abundance of migratory 
birds and other factors into consideration, we undertake a number of 
surveys throughout the year in conjunction with the Canadian Wildlife 
Service, State and Provincial wildlife management agencies, and others. 
To determine the appropriate frameworks for each species, we consider 
factors such as population size and trend, geographical distribution, 
annual breeding effort, the condition of breeding and wintering 
habitat, the number of hunters, and the anticipated harvest. After we 
establish frameworks for season lengths, bag limits, and areas for 
migratory bird hunting, migratory game bird management becomes a 
cooperative effort of State and Federal Governments. After Service 
establishment of final frameworks for hunting seasons, the States may 
select season dates, bag limits, and other regulatory options for the 
hunting seasons.
    As discussed in the Cumulative Impacts Report that we posted on 
https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R9-NSR-2011-0038, along 
with the proposed rule on the day of publication (July 5, 2011), we 
took a look at the cumulative impact that the 2011-2012 proposed rule 
would have on migratory birds, resident wildlife, nonhunted migratory 
and resident wildlife, threatened and endangered species, habitats and 
plant resources, other wildlife-dependent recreational uses, physical 
resources (air, water, soils), cultural resources, refuge facilities, 
solitude, and cumulative socioeconomic impacts.
    This rule proposes to expand migratory bird hunting on five 
refuges. Collectively, we estimate that this proposed hunting action 
will result in the take of 2,450 ducks or .019 percent of the estimated 
national harvest and the take of 650 geese or .02 percent of the 
estimated national harvest. In short, we project that harvests of these 
species on the five refuges will constitute an extremely minor 
component of the national harvests.
    We allow hunting of resident wildlife on national wildlife refuges 
only if such activity has been determined compatible with the 
established purpose(s) of the refuge and the mission of the Refuge 
System as required by the Administration Act. Hunting of resident 
wildlife on national wildlife refuges generally occurs consistent with 
State regulations, including seasons and bag limits. Refuge-specific 
hunting regulations can be more restrictive (but not more liberal) than 
State regulations and often are in order to help meet specific refuge 
objectives. These include resident wildlife population and habitat 
objectives, minimizing disturbance impacts to wildlife, maintaining 
high-quality opportunities for hunting and other wildlife-dependent 
recreation, eliminating or minimizing conflicts with other public uses 
and/or refuge management activities, and protecting public safety.
    The proposed actions involving resident wildlife hunting include 
three refuges allowing this type of hunting for the first time and 
expanding this type of hunting on six refuges. Please consult the 
Cumulative Impacts Report at the site referenced above for more in-
depth discussion, but in sum, none of the known, estimated or projected 
harvests of big game, small or upland game species resulting from the 
proposed hunting activities on refuges were determined or expected to 
have

[[Page 56059]]

significant adverse direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to any big 
game, small, or upland wildlife population.
    The Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715 et seq.) 
authorizes acquisition of refuges as ``inviolate sanctuaries'' where 
the birds could rest and reproduce in total security. In 1949, this 
``inviolate sanctuary'' concept was modified by an amendment to the 
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act which permitted 
hunting on up to 25 percent of each inviolate refuge. Another amendment 
to the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act in 1958 
increased the total area of an inviolate refuge that could be opened 
for hunting to up to 40 percent.
    Whether an area is an inviolate sanctuary is a function of the 
mechanism of its creation. If a refuge was acquired as an inviolate 
sanctuary, only 40 percent of the refuge area may be opened at one time 
for hunting of migratory game birds. However, if the refuge was not 
acquired as an inviolate sanctuary, 100 percent of the refuge area may 
be opened for hunting.
    The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 amended section 6 of 
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 
U.S.C. 668dd) to provide for the opening of all or any portion of an 
inviolate sanctuary to the taking of migratory birds if taking is 
determined to be beneficial to the species. Such opening of more than 
40 percent of the inviolate sanctuary to hunting is determined by 
species. This amendment refers to inviolate sanctuaries created in the 
past or to be created in the future. It has no application to areas 
acquired for other management purposes.
    Most refuge hunt programs have established refuge-specific 
regulations to improve the quality of the hunting experience as well as 
provide for quality wildlife-dependent experiences for other users. 
Refuge visitor use programs are adjusted, as needed to eliminate or 
minimize conflicts between users. Virtually all of the refuges open to 
hunting and other wildlife-dependent recreational uses use time and 
space zoning as an effective method to reduce conflicts between hunting 
and other uses. Eliminating or restricting overlap between hunt areas 
and popular areas from other wildlife-dependent recreation allows 
opportunity for other users to safely enjoy the refuge in nonhunted 
areas during hunting seasons. Restrictions on the number of hunters and 
the time in which they could hunt are also frequently used to minimize 
conflicts between user groups. Public outreach accompanying the opening 
of hunting seasons is frequently used to make other wildlife-dependent 
recreational users aware of the seasons and minimize conflicts. We made 
no changes to the regulations as a result of this comment.

Effective Date

    This rule is effective upon publication in the Federal Register. We 
have determined that any further delay in implementing these refuge-
specific hunting and sport fishing regulations would not be in the 
public interest, in that a delay would hinder the effective planning 
and administration of the hunting and fishing programs. We provided a 
30-day public comment period for the July 5, 2011, proposed rule. An 
additional delay would jeopardize holding the hunting and/or fishing 
programs this year or shorten their duration and thereby lessen the 
management effectiveness of this regulation. This rule does not impact 
the public generally in terms of requiring lead time for compliance. 
Rather it relieves restrictions in that it allows activities on refuges 
that we would otherwise prohibit. Therefore, we find good cause under 5 
U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective upon publication.

Amendments to Existing Regulations

    This document codifies in the Code of Federal Regulations 
amendments to 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, 28, 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.

                                                  Table 1--Changes for 2011-2012 Hunting/Fishing Season
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     National Wildlife Refuge           State       Migratory bird hunting    Upland game hunting         Big game hunting               Fishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapaho...........................  CO...........  Already open...........  Already open...........  D (elk)...................  Already open.
Bayou Sauvage.....................  LA...........  B......................  Closed.................  Closed....................  Already open.
Coldwater River...................  MS...........  B......................  B......................  B.........................  Already open.
Crane Meadows.....................  MN...........  Closed.................  Closed.................  A (deer/turkey)...........  Closed.
Currituck.........................  NC...........  Already open...........  Closed.................  B.........................  Closed.
Minnesota Valley..................  MN...........  C......................  C......................  C.........................  Already open.
Northern Tallgrass Prairie........  MN/IA........  C/D....................  C/D....................  C.........................  Closed.
Ouray.............................  UT...........  Already open...........  D (turkey).............  D (elk)...................  Already open.
Sherburne.........................  MN...........  C......................  Already open...........  D (turkey)/C..............  Already open.
Trinity River.....................  TX...........  Already open...........  C......................  C.........................  Already open.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A = New refuge opened.
B = New activity on a refuge previously opened to other activities.
C = Refuge already open to activity but added new land/waters which increased activity.
D = Refuge already open to activity but added new species to hunt.

    We are making an administrative change that correctly reflects that 
Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Wisconsin is 
closed to Upland Game Hunting. The refuge has never been open to that 
activity, and we are correcting the record with this change.
    We are also adding Tishomingo Wildlife Management Unit in the State 
of Oklahoma to the list of refuges open to hunting and or fishing in 50 
CFR part

[[Page 56060]]

32. We now correctly reflect how Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge's 
(an overlay refuge where the land is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers) hunting opportunities differ from those of the Tishomingo 
Wildlife Management Unit. The Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge, 
managed by refuge staff, is open only to big game hunting and sport 
fishing. The Tishomingo Wildlife Management Unit, managed by the 
Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Department under a 1957 agreement 
entered into between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Secretary 
of the Interior, is open to all three hunting opportunities (migratory 
game bird, upland game, and big game) and sport fishing.
    The changes for the 2011-12 hunting/fishing season noted in the 
chart above are each based on a complete administrative record which, 
among other detailed documentation, also includes a hunt plan, a 
compatibility determination, and the appropriate National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) analysis, all of which were 
the subject of a public review and comment process. These documents are 
available upon request.

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/waterscience/fish/.

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'').

Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB 
bases its determination on the following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
use fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

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 adds one national wildlife refuge to the list of refuges 
open to hunting and increases hunting activities on nine national 
wildlife refuges. As a result, visitor use for wildlife-dependent 
recreation on these national wildlife refuges will change. If the 
refuges establishing new programs were a pure addition to the current 
supply of such activities, it would mean an estimated increase of 4,750 
user days (one person per day participating in a recreational 
opportunity) (Table 2). Because the participation trend is flat in 
these activities since 1991, this increase in supply will most likely 
be offset by other sites losing participants. Therefore, this is likely 
to be a substitute site for the activity and not necessarily an 
increase in participation rates for the activity.

   Table 2--Estimated Change in Recreation Opportunities in 2011/2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Additional      Additional
                 Refuge                      user days     expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapaho.................................              40          $4,337
Bayou Sauvage...........................             672          72,865
Coldwater River.........................             400          43,372
Crane Meadows...........................              55           5,964
Currituck...............................             400          43,372
Minnesota Valley........................           2,818         305,555
Northern Tallgrass Prairie..............              75           8,132
Ouray...................................             100          10,843
Sherburne...............................              50           5,421
Trinity River...........................             140          15,180
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................           4,750         515,041
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Due to the 
unavailability of site-specific expenditure data, we use the national 
estimates from the 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and 
Wildlife Associated Recreation to identify expenditures for food and 
lodging, transportation, and other

[[Page 56061]]

incidental expenses. Using the average expenditures for these 
categories with the maximum expected additional participation of the 
Refuge System yields approximately $515,000 in recreation-related 
expenditures (Table 2). By having ripple effects throughout the 
economy, these direct expenditures are only part of the economic impact 
of these recreational activities. Using a national impact multiplier 
for hunting activities (2.67) derived from the report ``Economic 
Importance of Hunting in America'' yields a total economic impact of 
approximately $1.4 million (2010 dollars) (Southwick Associates, Inc., 
2007). 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 $1.4 million, and most likely considerably less. Since 
80 percent of the participants travel less than 100 miles to engage in 
hunting and 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 about $275,000 annually.
    Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, 
gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait and tackle shops, etc.) may be 
impacted from some increased or decreased refuge visitation. A large 
percentage of these retail trade establishments in the local 
communities around national wildlife refuges qualify as small 
businesses (Table 3). We expect that the incremental recreational 
changes will be scattered, and so we do not expect that the rule will 
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities in any region or nationally. As noted previously, we expect 
approximately $515,000 to be spent in total in the refuges' local 
economies. The maximum increase ($1.4 million if all spending were new 
money) at most would be less than 1 percent for local retail trade 
spending.

  Table 3--Comparative Expenditures for Retail Trade Associated With Additional Refuge Visitation for 2011/2012
                                            [Thousands, 2010 dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Estimated
                                   Retail trade       maximum     Addition as  %  Establishments   Establ. with
       Refuge/county(ies)         in 2007  (2010   addition from     of total         in 2008       <10 emp in
                                        $ )       new activities                                       2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arapaho
    Jackson, CO.................         $23,099            $4.3           0.019              13              10
Bayou Sauvage
    Orleans Parish, LA..........       3,241,340            72.9           0.002           1,201             983
Coldwater River
    Tallahatchie, MS............          67,735            21.7           0.032              40              34
    Quitman, MS.................          29,478            21.7           0.074              21              18
Crane Meadows
    Morrison, MN................         430,771             6.0           0.001             135              94
Currituck
    Currituck, NC...............         314,767            43.4           0.014             142             118
Minnesota Valley
    Hennepin MN.................      26,568,279            76.4               0           4,295           2,670
    Carver MN...................         962,544            76.4           0.008             223             143
  Scott MN......................       1,394,907            76.4           0.005             349             234
    Dakota MN...................       6,158,226            76.4           0.001           1,169             717
Northern Tallgrass Prairie
    Jasper, IA..................         326,707             1.2               0             120              79
    Kossuth, IA.................         233,531             1.2               0              99              78
    Lincoln, MN.................          63,331             1.2           0.002              37              27
    Lyon, MN....................         451,824             1.2               0             134              96
    Otter Tail, MN..............         840,187             1.2               0             277             204
    Rock, MN....................         130,128             1.2           0.001              47              33
  Stevens, MN...................         202,798             1.2           0.001              53              34
Ouray
    Unitah, UT..................         550,293            10.8           0.002             137              85
Sherburne
    Sherburne, MN...............       1,006,876             5.4           0.001             207             134
Trinity River
    Liberty, TX.................         778,776            15.2           0.002             200             143
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the small change in overall spending anticipated from this 
rule, it is unlikely that a substantial number of small entities will 
have more than a small impact from the spending change near the 
affected 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

[[Page 56062]]

employment or small business effects. This rule:
    a. Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more. The minimal impact will be scattered across the country and will 
most likely not be significant in any local area.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government 
agencies; or geographic regions. This rule will have only a slight 
effect on the costs of hunting opportunities for Americans. If the 
substitute sites are farther from the participants' residences, then an 
increase in travel costs will occur. The Service does not have 
information to quantify this change in travel cost but assumes that, 
since most people travel less than 100 miles to hunt, the increased 
travel cost will be small. We do not expect this rule to affect the 
supply or demand for hunting opportunities in the United States and, 
therefore, it should not affect prices for hunting equipment and 
supplies, or the retailers that sell equipment.
    c. Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises. This rule represents only a small proportion of 
recreational spending at national wildlife refuges. Therefore, this 
rule will have no measurable economic effect on the wildlife-dependent 
industry, which has annual sales of equipment and travel expenditures 
of $72 billion nationwide.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Since this rule applies to public use of federally owned and 
managed refuges, it will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 
million per year. The rule will not have a significant or unique effect 
on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A 
statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with E.O. 12630, this rule does not have significant 
takings implications. This regulation affects only visitors at national 
wildlife refuges and describes 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 does not have sufficient 
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism 
summary impact statement under E.O. 13132. In preparing this rule, we 
worked with State governments.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    In accordance with E.O. 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has 
determined that the rule does 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 clarifies established regulations and will 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 increases activities at 
nine refuges and opens one new refuge, 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

    This regulation does not contain any information collection 
requirements other than those already approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.) (OMB Control Numbers are 1018-0102 and 1018-0140). 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.

Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation

    We comply with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), when developing Comprehensive 
Conservation Plans (CCPs) and step-down management plans (which would 
include hunting and/or fishing 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. We have completed section 7 
consultation on each of the affected refuges.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4332(C)), 
43 CFR part 46, and 516 Departmental Manual (DM) 8.
    A categorical exclusion from NEPA documentation applies to 
publication of proposed amendments to refuge-specific hunting and 
fishing regulations since they are technical and procedural in nature, 
and the environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or 
conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis (43 CFR 46.210 
and 516 DM 8). Concerning the actions that are the subject of this 
rulemaking, we have complied with NEPA at the project level when 
developing eac