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 refugespecific 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. 668dd668ee, 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. 460k460k4) (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 wildlifedependent 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 wildlifedependent 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 refugespecific 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 ``PittmanRoberts'' 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 20052006 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 yearround 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 30day 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 refugespecific 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 30day 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 30day 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 wildlifedependent 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 refugespecific 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 wildlifedependent 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 wildlifedependent 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 wildlifedependent 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 wildlifedependent 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 refugespecific 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 20082009 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 20082009 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 20082009 season. Table 1.Changes for 20082009 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 crossreferenced 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 refugespecific regulations for hunting and sport fishing on refuges.

Fish Advisory

For health reasons, anglers should review and follow Stateissued consumption advisories before enjoying recreational sport fishing opportunities on Servicemanaged waters. You can find information about current fish consumption advisories on the Internet at: http:// 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 costbenefit 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 wildlifedependent 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 sitespecific 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 recreationrelated expenditures. Due to the unavailability of sitespecific 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 fishingrelated 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 recreationrelated expenditures annually. The 10year 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 wildlifedependent 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 Statesbased enterprises to compete with foreignbased 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 wildlifedependent 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 10180102. 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 stepdown 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 stepdown management plans, pursuant to our refuge planning guidance in 602 Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FW) 1, 3, and 4. We prepared CCPs and stepdown 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 15001508. 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 below:

Region 1California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal Complex, Suite 1692, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, Portland, OR 972324181; Telephone (503) 2316214.

Region 2Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Box 1306, 500 Gold Avenue, Albuquerque, NM 87103; Telephone (505) 2487419.

Region 3Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 Federal Drive, Federal Building, Fort Snelling, Twin Cities, MN 55111; Telephone (612) 7135401.

Region 4Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, GA 30345; Telephone (404) 6797166. Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuge, 728 Yazoo Refuge Road, Hollandale, MI 38748; Telephone (662) 8392638.

Region 5Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center
[[Page 33167]]
Drive, Hadley, MA 010359589; Telephone (413) 2538306. Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, 24 Kimbles Beach Road, Cape May Court House, NJ 08210; Telephone (609) 4630994.

Region 6Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 80228; Telephone (303) 2368145.

Region 7Alaska. Regional Chief, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503; Telephone (907) 7863545.

Primary Author

Leslie A. Marler, Management Analyst, Division of Conservation Planning and Policy, National Wildlife Refuge System, is the primary author of this rulemaking document.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 32

Fishing, Hunting, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife, Wildlife refuges.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we amend title 50, Chapter I, subchapter C of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 32[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 16 U.S.C. 460k, 664, 668dd668ee, and 715i.
2. Amend Sec. 32.7, ``What refuge units are open to hunting and/or sport fishing?'', by:
a. Adding Holt Collier National Wildlife Refuge in alphabetical order in the State of Mississippi;
b. Adding Benton Lake Wetland Management District, Bowdoin Wetland Management District, Charles M. Russell Wetland Management District, Northeast Montana Wetland Management District, and Northwest Montana Wetland Management District in alphabetical order in the State of Montana; and
c. Removing ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge and adding Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge in the State of South Carolina in alphabetical order.
3. Amend Sec. 32.20 Alabama by:
a. Revising paragraph C.2. of Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge; b. Revising paragraph B.7. of Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge; and c. Revising paragraphs B.5. and C.4. of Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge to read as follows:
Sec. 32.20 Alabama.
* * * * *
Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge
* * * * *

C. Big Game Hunting. * * *
* * *

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Leslie A. Marler, (703) 358-2397; Fax (703) 3582248.