2017-2018 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations
Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)
Rules and Regulations
Pages 51940-51962
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov
FR Doc No: 2017-24329
Page 51939
Vol. 82
Wednesday,
No. 215
November 8, 2017
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2017-2018 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations; Final Rule
Page 51940
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Docket No. FWS-HQ-NWRS-2017-0005; FXRS12650900000-178-FF09R26000
RIN 1018-BB75
2017-2018 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, increase the hunting activities available at nine refuges, open one refuge to sport fishing for the first time, and add pertinent refuge-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2017-2018 season.
DATES: This rule is effective November 8, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katherine Harrigan, (703) 358-2440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 closes NWRs 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 the use is compatible with the purposes of the refuge and National Wildlife Refuge System mission. The action also must be in accordance with provisions of all laws applicable to the areas, developed in coordination with the appropriate State fish and wildlife agency(ies), consistent with the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, and otherwise in the public interest. These requirements ensure that we maintain the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
We annually review refuge hunting and sport fishing programs to determine whether to include additional refuges or whether individual refuge regulations governing existing programs need modifications. 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 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, below. 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 may 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.
Statutory Authority
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 Improvement Act) (Administration Act), and the Refuge Recreation Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) (Recreation Act) govern the administration and public use of refuges.
Amendments enacted by the Improvement Act built upon the Administration Act in a manner that provides an ``organic act'' for the Refuge System, similar to organic acts 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 fishing in 50 CFR part 32. We ensure continued compliance by the development of comprehensive conservation plans and step-down management plans, and by annual review of hunting and sport fishing programs and regulations.
Page 51941
Summary of Comments and Responses
On August 10, 2017, we published a proposed rule (82 FR 37398) to increase the hunting activities available at nine refuges and open one refuge to fishing for the first time, and add pertinent refuge-specific regulations for other refuges that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2017-2018 season. We accepted public comments on the proposed rule for 30 days, ending September 11, 2017. By that date, we received 106 comments. Of those, two comments concerned only National Monuments, which are not the subject of our proposed rule. Therefore, we do not consider them below. We discuss the other 104 comments we received below by topic.
Comment (1): Many commenters expressed general opposition to any hunting or fishing in the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS). In many cases, commenters stated that hunting was antithetical to the purposes of a ``refuge,'' which, in their opinion, should serve as an inviolate sanctuary for all wildlife. Thirteen of these comments specifically opposed hunting at Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge, one commenter opposed hunting at Horicon National Wildlife Refuge, one commenter opposed hunting at Savannah River National Wildlife Refuge, one commenter opposed hunting at all refuges within the State of Alabama, and one commenter opposed sport fishing at Siletz Bay National Wildlife Refuge.
Our Response: The Administration Act, as amended, stipulates that hunting (along with fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and 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 Service has adopted policies and regulations implementing the requirements of the Administration Act that refuge managers comply with when considering hunting and fishing programs.
We allow hunting of resident wildlife on NWRs 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 NWRs 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 more restrictive in order to help meet specific refuge objectives. These objectives 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.
Each refuge manager makes a decision regarding hunting on that particular refuge only after rigorous examination of the available information. Developing or referencing 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 developing or referencing step-down plans, of which a hunting plan would be one. 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; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), such as conducting an environmental assessment accompanied by the appropriate decision documentation (record of decision, finding of no significant impact, or environmental action memorandum or statement). The rest of the elements in the opening package are an evaluation of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), copies of letters requesting State and/or tribal involvement, and draft refuge-specific regulatory language. We make available the CCP, hunt plan, and NEPA documents and request public comments on them, as well as on any proposed rule, before we allow hunting on a refuge.
In sum, this illustrates that the decision to allow hunting on an NWR 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.
The word ``refuge'' includes the idea of providing a haven of safety for wildlife, and as such, hunting might seem an inconsistent use of the NWRS. But again, the Administration Act stipulates that hunting, if found compatible, is a legitimate and priority general public use of a refuge. Furthermore, we manage refuges to support healthy wildlife populations that in many cases produce harvestable surpluses that are a renewable resource. As practiced on refuges, hunting and fishing do not pose a threat to wildlife populations. It is important to note that taking certain individuals through hunting does not necessarily reduce a population overall, as hunting can simply replace other types of mortality. In some cases, however, we use hunting as a management tool with the explicit goal of reducing a population; this is often the case with exotic and/or invasive species that threaten ecosystem stability. Therefore, facilitating hunting opportunities is an important aspect of the Service's roles and responsibilities as outlined in the legislation establishing the NWRS, and the Service will continue to facilitate these opportunities where compatible with the purpose of the specific refuge and the mission of the NWRS.
Note that not all refuges are inviolate sanctuaries. If we acquired a refuge as an inviolate sanctuary, we may open up to 40 percent of that refuge's area for hunting of migratory game birds (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d)(1)(A)). However, if we acquired a refuge without the stipulation that it be an inviolate sanctuary, we may open 100 percent of the refuge's area for hunting.
The Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-616, 92 Stat. 3114) amended section 6 of the Administration Act 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 refuge 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.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment (2): Many commenters expressed support for hunting and fishing expansions on NWRs. Thirty-nine of these commenters specifically supported youth waterfowl hunting at Baskett Slough National Wildlife Refuge. Two commenters supported the new opportunities for hunting and fishing, and stated that hunting and fishing should be open on all public lands. Two commenters expressed
Page 51942
support for the openings and expansions described in the proposed rule, but felt that the Service has not opened enough refuges to hunting or increased hunting at enough refuges. According to the commenters, more than 40 percent of the more than 566 NWRs still prohibit hunting; with the clear directives from the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal Government to increase hunting activities, the Service must open refuges to hunting at a faster pace. The commenters also strongly recommended that the Service engage in discussions with State wildlife managers and with representatives of the hunting community, to facilitate and expedite these openings and make certain that these and all NWRs become or remain open to hunting.
Our Response: As noted in our response to Comment (1), the Administration Act, as amended, establishes that the Refuge System was created to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats and that the Service should facilitate opportunities for Americans to participate in compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, including hunting and fishing, on Refuge System lands and waters. Therefore, the Service will continue to facilitate hunting and fishing opportunities where doing so is compatible with the purpose of the specific refuge and the mission of the NWRS.
The Service continues to open and expand hunting opportunities across the NWRS, as evidenced by this final rule; however, as detailed in our response to Comment (1), above, the decision to allow hunting on a refuge is not a quick or simple process. Once the Service determines that a hunt can be carried out in a manner compatible with individual refuge purposes and the mission of the NWRS, we work expeditiously to open it.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment (3): Many commenters stated that the majority of Americans do not hunt and were of the opinion that allowing hunting would impede ``non-consumptive'' uses of refuges, including photography and wildlife viewing.
Our Response: Congress, through the Administration Act, as amended, envisioned that hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation would all be treated as priority public uses of the NWRS. Therefore, the Service facilitates all of these uses on refuges, as long as they are found compatible with the purposes of the specific refuge and the mission of the NWRS. For this rulemaking, we analyzed impacts of the proposed changes to hunting programs at each refuge through the NEPA process, which included analyzing impacts to other wildlife-dependent uses. The 10 refuges in this rulemaking completed environmental assessments (EAs). We also provided opportunities for the public to comment on the proposed hunt opening and expansions when we developed the CCP, hunt plan, and compatibility determination, and through the NEPA process. When looking at the 10 EAs completed for this specific rulemaking, collectively with the refuges that already allow for hunting, the Service has determined that there are no significant impacts to other wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities.
The refuges in this rulemaking use a variety of techniques to reduce user conflict, such as specific hunt seasons, limited hunting hours, restricting which parts of the refuge are open to hunting, and restricting the number of hunters. Refuge managers also use public outreach tools, such as signs and brochures, to make users aware of hunting and their options for minimizing conflict. Most refuges have refuge-specific regulations to improve the quality of the hunting experience as well as provide for quality wildlife-dependent experiences for other users. The Service is aware of several studies showing a correlation between increased hunting and decreased wildlife sightings, which underscores the importance of using the aforementioned techniques, particularly time and space zoning of hunting, to ensure a quality experience for all refuge visitors. More information on how a specific refuge facilitates various wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities can be found in the refuge's CCP, hunt plan, and/or refuge-specific EA or environmental impact statement (EIS). The public may contact the specific refuge for any of these materials.
We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Comment (4): A few commenters were of the opinion that hunting can disrupt the natural balance of the ecosystem that people enjoy, can impact the safety of other refuge users, and can deter people from going to visit areas even at times when there are not people actively hunting wildlife.
Our Response: We do not allow hunting on a refuge if it is found incompatible with that individual refuge's purposes or with the mission of the NWRS. In addition, the Service's Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) policy (601 Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (FW) 3) guides decision-making with respect to management of activities on refuges, including hunting. Service biologists and wildlife professionals, in consultation with the State, determine the optimal number of each game animal that should reside in an ecosystem and then establish hunt parameters (e.g., bag limits, sex ratios) based on those analyses. We carefully consider how a proposed hunt fits with individual refuge goals, objectives, and strategies before allowing the hunt. None of the known, estimated, or projected harvests of migratory game birds, upland game, or big game species in this rulemaking is expected to have significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to hunted populations, non-hunted wildlife, endangered or threatened species, plant or habitat resources, wildlife-dependent recreation, prescribed fire, air, soil, water, cultural resources, refuge facilities, solitude, or socio-economics. Further, we address the relationship between hunting and wildlife sightings in our response to Comment (3). We did not make any changes to the rule as a result of this comment.
Comment (5): One commenter requested that we increase non-motorized access at Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah, and eliminate motorized boat access to some units of the refuge.
Our Response: Non-motorized access at Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge is a result of the CCP process. As part of the CCP process, we invited the public to comment during the scoping period, as well as on the final draft plan. We received no comments regarding an increase in non-motorized access during this process. We appreciate the feedback, but we cannot accommodate these requests in this final rule; adding additional non-motorized access would require us to update our plan, compatibility determination, and NEPA documentation and allow for additional public comment. Therefore, we made no changes to this rule as a result of these comments. However, we may consider making these changes in the future after conducting the required above described actions.
Comment (6): One commenter expressed interest in opening fishing at the Morgan Lake unit of Baskett Slough NWR.
Our Response: The hunt plan for Baskett Slough is a result of the CCP process. As part of the CCP process, we invited the public to comment during the scoping period, as well as on the final draft plan. We received no
Page 51943
comments regarding fishing at Morgan Lake during this process. We appreciate the feedback, but we cannot accommodate these requests in this final rule; adding fishing would require us to update our plan, compatibility determination, and NEPA documentation and allow for additional public comment. Therefore, we made no changes to this rule as a result of these comments. However, we may consider making these changes in the future after conducting the required above described actions.
Comment (7): Two commenters expressed interest in expanding waterfowl hunting to adults in addition to youth at Baskett Slough NWR. One of these commenters suggested wheelchair accessible hunting opportunities.
Our Response: The hunt plan limiting opportunities only for youths at Baskett Slough is a result of the CCP process. As part of the CCP process, we invited the public to comment during the scoping period, as well as on the final draft plan. The small size of the refuge and number of permits issued for the youth hunt allow the refuge to maintain a safe hunter density to provide an uncrowded, high-quality experience. Expanding adult waterfowl hunting opportunities would require us to update our hunt plan, compatibility determination, and NEPA documentation and allow for additional public comment. Wheelchair accessibility is outside the scope of this regulatory process, and would be considered within the refuge's facilities plan. Therefore, we made no changes to this rule as a result of these comments. However, we may consider making these changes in the future after conducting the required above described actions.
Comment (8): One commenter expressed concern regarding the regulatory change at Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge to close Swan Check Lake to non-motorized boating for 4 months of the year and stated that this regulatory change was proposed without public involvement. The commenter also stated that opening Willow Lake to non-motorized access must be examined through the NEPA process.
Our Response: We reverse our decision for now to close Swan Check Lake to non-motorized boating for 4 months to minimize the burden on the public, and we will revise the regulatory language to keep the unit open year-round in accordance with the CCP. The opening of Willow Lake to non-motorized access was previously analyzed in compliance with NEPA as part of the CCP process. Public comment was also sought during this process. We are updating the regulatory language for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge in this rule to reflect these changes.
Comment (9): Three commenters expressed concern over allowing lead ammunition to be used on refuges; some requested that the Service ban lead ammunition for all hunting.
Our Response: The Service is concerned about the impacts of spent lead ammunition on scavengers, especially bald eagles and ravens. Lead shot for waterfowl hunting has been illegal on refuges since 1998. We continue to look at options and ways to reduce the indirect impacts of toxic shot. Generally, we are and have been phasing out the use of lead shot by upland and big game hunters on refuge lands.
The Service continues to research this issue and engage with States and other partners to promote the use of non-lead ammunition. The Administration Act, as amended, directs the Service to make refuge regulations as consistent with State regulations as practicable. We share a strong partnership with the States in managing wildlife, and, therefore, we are proceeding with the phase-out of toxic ammunition in a coordinated manner with each respective State wildlife agency. We note for State of California, lead ammunition is already banned under State law and is therefore banned on all refuges in California.
We made no changes to the rule as a result of these comments.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
As discussed above, under Summary of Comments and Responses, based on comments we received on the proposed rule, we made changes to the regulatory text in this final rule from what we proposed for Stillwater NWR (in Nevada). Specifically, for Stillwater NWR, we revised the regulations to keep non-motorized access on Swan Check Lake open year-
round.
In addition, we are adding to this final rule changes not included in our proposed rule. Specifically, we are adding regulations for upland and big game hunting for Kankakee National Wildlife Refuge to 50 CFR 32.32 (Illinois). We are also making changes to refuge-specific regulations for, Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado, and Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Benton Lake Wetland Management District in Montana. Over all, these changes were deemed minor and not controversial.
Effective Date
We are making this rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register (see DATES, above). 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 August 10, 2017, proposed rule (82 FR 37398). 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 adopts in the Code of Federal Regulations all of the Service's hunting and/or sport fishing regulations that we are updating since the last time we published a rule amending these regulations (81 FR 68874; October 4, 2016) and that are applicable at Refuge System units previously opened to hunting and/or sport fishing. We are taking this action 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 may find them reiterated in literature distributed by each refuge or posted on signs.
Table 1--Changes for 2017-2018 Hunting/Fishing Season
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Migratory bird
Refuge/region (*) State hunting Upland game hunting Big game hunting Sport fishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baskett Slough (1)................ Oregon.................... C.................... Closed............... Closed.............. Closed.
Des Lacs (6)...................... North Dakota.............. Closed............... Already Open......... C/D................. Closed.
Fox River (3)..................... Wisconsin................. Closed............... Closed............... C................... Closed.
Page 51944
Horicon (3)....................... Wisconsin................. D.................... C/D.................. C................... Already Open.
Minnesota Valley (3).............. Minnesota................. C.................... C.................... C................... Already Open.
Patoka River (3).................. Indiana................... C.................... C.................... C................... C.
Savannah River (4)................ Georgia and South Carolina C/D.................. C/D.................. C/D................. Already Open.
Sequoyah (2)...................... Oklahoma.................. Already Open......... C.................... C................... Already Open.
Siletz Bay (1).................... Oregon.................... Already Open......... Closed............... Closed.............. B.
Upper Souris (6).................. North Dakota.............. Closed............... C/D.................. C/D................. Already Open.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Number in ( ) refers to the Region as defined in the preamble to this rule under Available Information for Specific Refuges.
Key:
A = New refuge opened.
B = New activity on a refuge previously open to other activities.
C = Refuge already open to activity, but added new lands/waters or modified areas open to hunting or fishing.
D = Refuge already open to activity but added new species to hunt.
The changes for the 2017-18 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: http://www.epa.gov/fish-tech.
Plain Language Mandate
In this rule, we revise some regulations for individual refuge units to comply with a Presidential mandate to use plain language in regulations; 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 (e.g., ``We restrict entry into the refuge'' vs. ``Entry into the refuge is restricted'').
Executive Order 13771--Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
This rule is not an Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because this rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rulemaking is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
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 will 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 will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule adds one NWR to the list of refuges open to sport fishing, and increases hunting or fishing activities on nine additional refuges. As a result, visitor use for wildlife-dependent recreation on these NWRs will change. If the refuges establishing new programs were a pure addition to the current supply of those activities, it would mean an estimated increase of 914 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.
Page 51945
Table 2--Estimated Change in Recreation Opportunities in 2017/2018
Dollars in thousands
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Additional
Refuge days expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baskett Slough.......................... 2 $0.1
Des Lacs................................ 50 2.0
Fox River............................... 5 0.2
Horicon................................. 187 7.4
Minnesota Valley........................ 0 0.0
Patoka River............................ 0 0.0
Savannah River.......................... 315 12.4
Sequoyah................................ 5 0.2
Siletz Bay.............................. 150 6.3
Upper Souris............................ 200 7.9
-------------------------------
Total............................... 914 36.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2011 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 the maximum expected additional participation of the Refuge System yields approximately $36,400 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 (2.27) derived from the report ``Hunting in America: An Economic Force for Conservation'' and for fishing activities (2.40) derived from the report ``Sportfishing in America'' yields a total economic impact of approximately $83,500 (2016 dollars) (Southwick Associates, Inc., 2012). 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 $83,500, 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 $16,700 annually.
Small businesses within the retail trade industry (such as hotels, gas stations, taxidermy shops, bait-and-tackle shops, and similar businesses) may be affected by some increased or decreased refuge visitation. A large percentage of these retail trade establishments in the local communities around NWRs 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 $36,400 to be spent in total in the refuges' local economies. The maximum increase at most would be less than one-
hundredth of 1 percent for local retail trade spending (Table 3).
Table 3--Comparative Expenditures for Retail Trade Associated With Additional Refuge Visitation for 2017/2018
Thousands, 2016 dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Retail trade maximum Addition as % Establishments Establ. with
Refuge/county(ies) in 2012 addition from of total in 2012
